article==Overview== In many low-income areas of the United States, especially those where illegal organizations other than the state have taken control, there exists a disconnect between ordinary citizens and the institutions that are supposed to protect them from such organizations. When it became clear that without this line of communication between citizens and law enforcement being open the public could not be properly protected, a new system of crime fighting was created. In this project I seek to show how these new programs have helped create new lines of communication between the state and citizens. My page will explore how the specific aspects of neighborhood watch programs and programs that protect witness anonymity are especially designed to help poorer, urban neighborhoods, regain control in their neighborhoods.
Introduction
In areas of high crime it is common for a lack of trust to occur between ordinary citizens and the law enforcement agents who are charged with keeping the peace [1] Residents can feel as if they are targeted and discriminated against by police who often see these neighborhoods as sites of trouble and danger. At the same time, residents may have the desire to work with police, but fear possible retribution by criminal organizations that are deeply entrenched in their area. This fear to work with the police can be incorrectly viewed by law enforcement who see it as an unwillingness to support them, creating further frustration on both sides. There are also situations in which residents interpret the lack of police protection in their neighborhoods as a symbol of ambivalence by officials of the state with respect to their areas. To bridge this gap, law enforcement officials and communities have increasingly looked to devise a system that both gave citizens the ability to take control and prevent crime in their area--thus taking pressure off of the police [2])--while also providing them with a way to safely give information about crimes that have already occurred. In this paper I seek to analyze the different aspects of the City of Baltimore’s Neighborhood Watch program. I will determine the specific purpose for these aspects and attempt to discern how these objectives strengthen community ties. I will show how the inclusion of citizens in the policing effort can lead to less work for police in the end because it focuses on prevention. Community policing efforts not only provide a basis for communities to unite and take back their streets from criminal organizations, but also ease the pressure on police by creating less opportunity for crime which will decrease their work load. The City of Baltimore’s neighborhood watch program works to include the citizen from the time “before” a crime is committed with prevention programs, all the way until the “after” when a crime has been committed to insure the safety of the citizen will still allowing the justice system to work the way it is supposed to. Although the system is not perfect by any means, the hope is that this effort will lead to a decrease in crime in a city with a shocking reputation for violence and crime.
Why Baltimore?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltDiKy5dLsQ Baltimore has long had a poor reputation when it comes to crime and violence. The presence of illegal organizations that run drugs and traffic humans as well as the outright fighting in the streets have given not only the city itself but the police department a bad name. In part, this can be attributed to Post WWII economic history of the city. After the war Baltimore was a thriving port city in part due to the fact that it was able to accommodate some of the largest vessels of the day. In part because of its popularity with cargo ships, Baltimore was an ideal city for steel production. Similarly, Baltimore’s close proximity to the coal mines and iron ore needed for manufacturing steel contributed to its success. However, in the 1980’s foreign steel industries had developed better, cheaper ways to manufacture coal which heavily damaged the US steel industry [3] Thousands of workers were laid off and many plants were closed because the demand was no longer there. The crisis also hurt the shipping industry by decreasing the number of ships that came to port. At the same time many people were moving out of Baltimore into the suburbs leaving a smaller, poorer tax base that decreased the city’s coffers. As shown in The Wire, when people lose their jobs and lose faith in the institutions that used to support them, they may take solace in drugs, making it less likely that they will find a new job. Simultaneously, the lack of economic opportunity can result in a lack of funding for police departments which further aggravates the citizens because they feel as though they do not have state protection. The combination of the two can make it extremely easy for drug organizations to take control of these impoverished neighborhoods and set up a different type of state where they control the economy and even provide jobs. Neighborhood Watch Programs were set up in Baltimore to help the police and ordinary citizens take back control of their neighborhoods from these criminal organizations in order to stop the perpetual cycle of poverty and violence.
Origins of Community Policing and Neighoborhood Watch
What is community policing? Traditionally, society has maintained the idea of the police as a reactive force [4] This means that the job of the police is to investigate crimes after they have happened, and then apprehend the accused. While this is an absolutely necessary part of the state’s protection of the average citizen. Problems arise when criminal activity is occurring at increasing rates. When other factors such as lack of funding and manpower is added to this mess, it means that police increasingly have to focus their efforts on catching criminals. The problem with reactive policing is that it tends to ignore the idea of utilizing the community members themselves as a tool to help the police [5] Reactive policing can also ignore the specific needs of each community because it is focused on catching criminals in any way necessary. Although the importance of community cooperation in reducing crime was studied as early as the 1900’s, there was no significant change in the way communities where dealt with. Unfortunately, in some urban areas it was not until community members expressed outrage at the increasing levels of crime that the programs where actually put in place. To police, the community must be seen as a tool and not merely just a population that needs protected. Although society looks to the state to provide the force that is necessary to protect the citizens, in times of economic hardship everyone suffers. When the citizens’ taxes are not enough to provide the state or government with all of the money it needs to function and provide for them, then the line between the two can become blurred, but not necessarily in a bad way. To relieve the burden on the state to eradicate crime and uphold the justice system citizens must contribute to the effort. Even though citizens cannot assume the role of the state and police by incarcerating criminals, they can use their own power to create an atmosphere in which crime is not tolerated. This type of community policing is implemented through neighborhood watch programs. The main focus of these programs is to prevent crime through the education of citizens and the emphasis on acting with common sense [6] In order to maintain the balance between the state and working classes while still utilizing the labor power of the citizenry to prevent crime, the police must rely on the citizens to live in such a way where they prevent crime without giving them the ability to use force, a power solely reserved for the state. Neighborhood watch programs focus on the time before a crime occurs and leaves the work after a crime is committed to the police. These programs can be initiated by either the police or the public. The police may come to a particular community and ask that they form a neighborhood watch program to help decrease the number of burglaries or vandalism that occurs. Similarly, a dis-satisfied community may decide that they wish to do more to help combat the crime that occurs in their neighborhood. Either way, the programs urge community members to be aware of their surroundings to look for suspicious activity before a crime is committed, to safely observe their neighborhood so they can easily identify when a problem is about to occur and most importantly to use common sense to protect their person and their area. Although much of the work of neighborhood watch programs and similar programs is to prevent crime, crime does still occur. Community policing also helps law enforcers solve crimes by utilizing the new skills of the community to gain information about the situations that lead up to a crime being committed. These programs help increase the flow of information to the police by treating information as a commodity that flows between the community members themselves as well as between the community and the police, or in other words working class and the state. The information has a value to both parties and therefore can be exchanged to benefit both groups. The information is in a way manufactured by the working class because they are doing the ones who are observing the crime being committed. The citizens then bring this information to the attention of the police and exchange it. There is value for both groups since the citizens will receive peace of mind and safety when the person is apprehended, while the police will be able to solve the crime faster and foster good relations with the community. This commodification helps to promote the exchange of information because without the exchange the information is potentially useless. Only with the exchange and treatment as a commodity can both sides insure that they are receiving the full benefits and use-value of information. Unfortunately, citizens are not always so forthcoming with this information for several reasons. Chiefly, that they fear retribution by criminals for assisting in their capture and prosecution. The treatment of information as a commodity in this case also helps foster cooperation between police and the community albeit in a more blunt way. The commodification of information has also helped counteract the threat of violence against witnesses. The police can treat information as a commodity by literally paying witnesses when their information leads to the arrest of a wanted criminal. This tactic can be especially useful in low-income areas where people could use the extra money, and are therefore more likely to give police information despite the witness’s fear. The main idea of community policing and neighborhood watch programs is to make community safety in part a thing of social reproduction. In this world police prosecution of criminals alone cannot keep neighborhoods safe, especially when those police departments are underfunded; instead it must be a joint effort to reduce the opportunity for crime and a joint opportunity to solve those crimes if they have been committed.
Aspects of the City of Baltimore Neighborhood Watch Program
http://crime.baltimorecity.gov/PreventCrime/BlockWatchProgram.aspx The goal in Baltimore specifically is that, “Citizens and police officers will support each other in preventing and reducing crime through more effective communication and by creating problem-solving relationships appropriate to each community” [7] The program specifically focuses on communication as a way to improve crime statistics within the city. The program has a three-part plan that includes the means to help citizens learn how to observe effectively, how to stay safe while doing so, and also how to work together as a neighborhood to make the programs worthwhile. The system provides tools that teach citizens to actively patrol their neighborhood and also how to report crime without causing harm to their person. There is also a legal aspect to the program that allows citizens to be heard once the suspect has been apprehended and is going through court.
-Part I: More Eyes and Ears The first part of the program eases citizens into their new role in protecting the community. Citizens are taught to become more aware of their area. Not only does this mean that they look out for crimes that are happening, but also that they may be on the lookout for suspicious looking people or situations. By being aware citizens are much more likely to be able to notice a situation gone wrong and be able to provide police with information after the fact. The teaching of good observation skills also gives citizens the opportunity to give the police more accurate information. The idea is that once the citizens observe something that is questionable, they can then call either 9-1-1 or one of the other non-emergency hotline numbers to report what they are seeing whether they suspect drug dealing or are actually witnessing a crime being committed. The final portion of this part of the program is one of the most important parts. At monthly community council meetings citizens are allowed to report directly to police on what specific troubles their neighborhood is having. For instance, people may be dealing with increased cases of vandalism or muggings. This exchange not only helps police provide more specialized protection in certain neighborhoods, but allows citizens to be part of their own protection and feel as though they are getting the support they need.
Part II: Citizen Safety The next part of the program aims to teach citizens how to remain involved in helping prevent and report crime without putting themselves in imminent danger. The members are each given a crime watch number which allows them to report to the police without giving their identity if they have witnessed a violent crime. The number is confidential and ensures that if the information leads to the apprehension of a criminal, that the criminal will not immediately have access to that person’s personal information. This anonymity will also make citizens feel more at ease because it allows them to feel helpful while not having to risk retribution of any sort. The second part of the safety program deals with the citizen patrols. The patrols must be conducted in a way that while citizens are having an effect on crime, they are not acting as the police. The program instructs that patrols should be done in groups that aim to disperse and diffuse problematic situations without entering into dangerous situations or assuming too much authority.
-Part III: Neighborhood Networks This aspect of the program encourages neighbors to make the block watch a community activity, rather than an individual one. The more people who are involved in the block watch, the more likely it is to make an effect on preventing crime in the area. This goes along with the idea that if one person looks out for their neighbor, then that neighbor will in turn look out for them and their property. The program also encourages people to make regular everyday activities like taking out the trash or walking the dog an opportunity to be observing what goes on in the neighborhood and looking out for trouble. -Victim Impact Statements The City of Baltimore also encourages victims of these crimes to write a statement for the judge, to be read during the criminals sentencing. While available for any type of crime, the statements are useful to neighborhood watch programs because they allow the victims to express to the judge how the offense has negatively affected their life and their community in the hopes of getting the perpetrator a tougher sentence. These statements can show to a greater degree how crime affects neighborhoods and citizens even if it is something as simple as vandalism or theft. The statements are another way that neighborhoods can feel as though they are allowed a greater say in the justice system.
Problems and Successes
Problems Although the neighborhood watch program has great intentions, there are also issues that arise from the particular aspects of the program. The first of these being the blurred lines between the powers granted to the citizens on patrol versus the powers of the police. At times there have been issues where citizens on patrol have been accused of wrongfully attacking and using excessive force against someone they suspected of being a danger. Even though the City of Baltimore’s program preaches that citizens are not to put themselves in dangerous positions and leave the work of arresting and capturing people to the police, incidents have happened. Particularly, there was a case in 2010 where two brothers on a neighborhood watch patrol confronted and beat a lone teenager who they felt was suspicious [8] A part from the obvious lack of evidence that the teen was going to commit a crime, there was an outcry over the fact that people on the neighborhood watch would feel that they had such power. Although patrol members are supposed to call police in such an event there are fears that in “the heat of the moment” such an attack could happen again. Also, there are occasionally concerns with evidence from anonymous witnesses. Although it is necessary to protect witnesses against violent criminal organizations, prosecutors need to be certain that they have gotten legitimate evidence [9] However, whether the evidence is valid or not is usually decided at the discretion of a judge so this problem is not a major one. In order to make sure citizens are safe it is necessary for people to be able to report crimes anonymously and without fear.
Successes Despite issues with the program, there have also been significant successes. The most recent FBI crime statistics report that violent crime in Baltimore has dropped [10] Although the rate is still fairly high compared to the national average any drop should be considered a positive note. Additionally, it has been noted that school test scores have gone up which is often used as an indicator of neighborhood quality [11] An increase in scores suggests that the neighborhoods have been improving which could be in part thanks to the unity and safety fostered by the neighborhood watch programs.
Conclusion
There is little data that can specifically attribute the drop in violent crime in Baltimore solely to the city’s neighborhood watch programs. However, that does not mean that the program has not been successful since there was not an increase of crime in Baltimore. Research actually shows that cities that have neighborhood watch programs have experienced a decrease in crime [12] The lack of data can definitely be attributed in part to the goals of the project. The purpose of neighborhood watch programs is to prevent opportunities for crime as well as creating social norms that crime is not to be tolerated. It is virtually impossible to collect hard data on the number of crimes that have not been committed thanks to increased vigilance in communities. Similarly, it is hard to collect data on abstract ideas like social norms. However, drawing connections from evidence like school test scores can help researchers prove the importance of these programs. Although correlation does not imply causation it is safe to say that the benefits of the neighborhood watch programs are outweighing the negative aspects as long as the violent crime rate continues to fall.
References
"Baltimore Crime Rate: Making the City Safe, Not Just Safer." Baltimore Sun. N.p., 29 May 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2012. < http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-05-29/news/bs-ed-crime-rate-20110528_1_crime-rate-violent-crime-latest-fbi-crime-statistics/2>. Bennett, Trevor, Katy Holloway, and David P. Farrington. "Does Neighborhood Watch Prevent Crime?" Usdoj.gov. United States Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2012. < http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e040825133-res-review3.pdf>. Cheij, Dany A., Richard J. Fruehan, and David M. Vislosky. "Factors Influencing Innovation and Competativness in the Steel Industry." Industrystudies.pitt.edu. University of Pittsburgh, 9 Feb. 1997. Web. 02 Dec. 2012. < http://www.industrystudies.pitt.edu/_files/papers/influencingfactors.pdf>. "Encyclopedia of Marxism." Encyclopedia of Marxism. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2012. Freedman, Matthew and Owens, Emily G., “Low-income Housing Development and Crime” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/S0094119011000301 Friedmann, Robert R., “Policing and Society” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/B9780123739858001367 Gaines, Larry K. and Kappeler, Victor E., “Community Policing and Special Populations” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/B9781593455118500151 Gaines, Larry K. and Kappeler, Victor E., “Policing the Drug Problem” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/B9781437734881000035
Godfrey, Stephen “Assessing the Success of Community Policing” http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Community%20Policing/Assessing%20the%20Success%20of%20Community%20Policing.pdf Goldstein, Herman. “Police Response to Urban Crisis” http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/stable/973757?origin=crossref&
Mass, Stuart. “The Dilemma of the Intimidated Witness in Federal Organized Crime Prosecutions: Choosing Among the Fear of Reprisals, the Contempt Powers of the Court, and the Witness Protection Program http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4556&context=flr Rawlings-Blake, Stephanie. "Operation Crime Watch." Baltimore City Crime Portal. City of Baltimore, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2012. < http://crime.baltimorecity.gov/PreventCrime/OperationCrimeWatch.aspx>. Stegenga, Priscilla. "NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service." NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service. N.p., 2000. Web. 03 Dec. 2012.
article==Overview== In many low-income areas of the United States, especially those where illegal organizations other than the state have taken control, there exists a disconnect between ordinary citizens and the institutions that are supposed to protect them from such organizations. When it became clear that without this line of communication between citizens and law enforcement being open the public could not be properly protected, a new system of crime fighting was created. In this project I seek to show how these new programs have helped create new lines of communication between the state and citizens. My page will explore how the specific aspects of neighborhood watch programs and programs that protect witness anonymity are especially designed to help poorer, urban neighborhoods, regain control in their neighborhoods.
Introduction
In areas of high crime it is common for a lack of trust to occur between ordinary citizens and the law enforcement agents who are charged with keeping the peace [1] Residents can feel as if they are targeted and discriminated against by police who often see these neighborhoods as sites of trouble and danger. At the same time, residents may have the desire to work with police, but fear possible retribution by criminal organizations that are deeply entrenched in their area. This fear to work with the police can be incorrectly viewed by law enforcement who see it as an unwillingness to support them, creating further frustration on both sides. There are also situations in which residents interpret the lack of police protection in their neighborhoods as a symbol of ambivalence by officials of the state with respect to their areas. To bridge this gap, law enforcement officials and communities have increasingly looked to devise a system that both gave citizens the ability to take control and prevent crime in their area--thus taking pressure off of the police [2])--while also providing them with a way to safely give information about crimes that have already occurred. In this paper I seek to analyze the different aspects of the City of Baltimore’s Neighborhood Watch program. I will determine the specific purpose for these aspects and attempt to discern how these objectives strengthen community ties. I will show how the inclusion of citizens in the policing effort can lead to less work for police in the end because it focuses on prevention. Community policing efforts not only provide a basis for communities to unite and take back their streets from criminal organizations, but also ease the pressure on police by creating less opportunity for crime which will decrease their work load. The City of Baltimore’s neighborhood watch program works to include the citizen from the time “before” a crime is committed with prevention programs, all the way until the “after” when a crime has been committed to insure the safety of the citizen will still allowing the justice system to work the way it is supposed to. Although the system is not perfect by any means, the hope is that this effort will lead to a decrease in crime in a city with a shocking reputation for violence and crime.
Why Baltimore?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltDiKy5dLsQ Baltimore has long had a poor reputation when it comes to crime and violence. The presence of illegal organizations that run drugs and traffic humans as well as the outright fighting in the streets have given not only the city itself but the police department a bad name. In part, this can be attributed to Post WWII economic history of the city. After the war Baltimore was a thriving port city in part due to the fact that it was able to accommodate some of the largest vessels of the day. In part because of its popularity with cargo ships, Baltimore was an ideal city for steel production. Similarly, Baltimore’s close proximity to the coal mines and iron ore needed for manufacturing steel contributed to its success. However, in the 1980’s foreign steel industries had developed better, cheaper ways to manufacture coal which heavily damaged the US steel industry [3] Thousands of workers were laid off and many plants were closed because the demand was no longer there. The crisis also hurt the shipping industry by decreasing the number of ships that came to port. At the same time many people were moving out of Baltimore into the suburbs leaving a smaller, poorer tax base that decreased the city’s coffers. As shown in The Wire, when people lose their jobs and lose faith in the institutions that used to support them, they may take solace in drugs, making it less likely that they will find a new job. Simultaneously, the lack of economic opportunity can result in a lack of funding for police departments which further aggravates the citizens because they feel as though they do not have state protection. The combination of the two can make it extremely easy for drug organizations to take control of these impoverished neighborhoods and set up a different type of state where they control the economy and even provide jobs. Neighborhood Watch Programs were set up in Baltimore to help the police and ordinary citizens take back control of their neighborhoods from these criminal organizations in order to stop the perpetual cycle of poverty and violence.
Origins of Community Policing and Neighoborhood Watch
What is community policing? Traditionally, society has maintained the idea of the police as a reactive force [4] This means that the job of the police is to investigate crimes after they have happened, and then apprehend the accused. While this is an absolutely necessary part of the state’s protection of the average citizen. Problems arise when criminal activity is occurring at increasing rates. When other factors such as lack of funding and manpower is added to this mess, it means that police increasingly have to focus their efforts on catching criminals. The problem with reactive policing is that it tends to ignore the idea of utilizing the community members themselves as a tool to help the police [5] Reactive policing can also ignore the specific needs of each community because it is focused on catching criminals in any way necessary. Although the importance of community cooperation in reducing crime was studied as early as the 1900’s, there was no significant change in the way communities where dealt with. Unfortunately, in some urban areas it was not until community members expressed outrage at the increasing levels of crime that the programs where actually put in place. To police, the community must be seen as a tool and not merely just a population that needs protected. Although society looks to the state to provide the force that is necessary to protect the citizens, in times of economic hardship everyone suffers. When the citizens’ taxes are not enough to provide the state or government with all of the money it needs to function and provide for them, then the line between the two can become blurred, but not necessarily in a bad way. To relieve the burden on the state to eradicate crime and uphold the justice system citizens must contribute to the effort. Even though citizens cannot assume the role of the state and police by incarcerating criminals, they can use their own power to create an atmosphere in which crime is not tolerated. This type of community policing is implemented through neighborhood watch programs. The main focus of these programs is to prevent crime through the education of citizens and the emphasis on acting with common sense [6] In order to maintain the balance between the state and working classes while still utilizing the labor power of the citizenry to prevent crime, the police must rely on the citizens to live in such a way where they prevent crime without giving them the ability to use force, a power solely reserved for the state. Neighborhood watch programs focus on the time before a crime occurs and leaves the work after a crime is committed to the police. These programs can be initiated by either the police or the public. The police may come to a particular community and ask that they form a neighborhood watch program to help decrease the number of burglaries or vandalism that occurs. Similarly, a dis-satisfied community may decide that they wish to do more to help combat the crime that occurs in their neighborhood. Either way, the programs urge community members to be aware of their surroundings to look for suspicious activity before a crime is committed, to safely observe their neighborhood so they can easily identify when a problem is about to occur and most importantly to use common sense to protect their person and their area. Although much of the work of neighborhood watch programs and similar programs is to prevent crime, crime does still occur. Community policing also helps law enforcers solve crimes by utilizing the new skills of the community to gain information about the situations that lead up to a crime being committed. These programs help increase the flow of information to the police by treating information as a commodity that flows between the community members themselves as well as between the community and the police, or in other words working class and the state. The information has a value to both parties and therefore can be exchanged to benefit both groups. The information is in a way manufactured by the working class because they are doing the ones who are observing the crime being committed. The citizens then bring this information to the attention of the police and exchange it. There is value for both groups since the citizens will receive peace of mind and safety when the person is apprehended, while the police will be able to solve the crime faster and foster good relations with the community. This commodification helps to promote the exchange of information because without the exchange the information is potentially useless. Only with the exchange and treatment as a commodity can both sides insure that they are receiving the full benefits and use-value of information. Unfortunately, citizens are not always so forthcoming with this information for several reasons. Chiefly, that they fear retribution by criminals for assisting in their capture and prosecution. The treatment of information as a commodity in this case also helps foster cooperation between police and the community albeit in a more blunt way. The commodification of information has also helped counteract the threat of violence against witnesses. The police can treat information as a commodity by literally paying witnesses when their information leads to the arrest of a wanted criminal. This tactic can be especially useful in low-income areas where people could use the extra money, and are therefore more likely to give police information despite the witness’s fear. The main idea of community policing and neighborhood watch programs is to make community safety in part a thing of social reproduction. In this world police prosecution of criminals alone cannot keep neighborhoods safe, especially when those police departments are underfunded; instead it must be a joint effort to reduce the opportunity for crime and a joint opportunity to solve those crimes if they have been committed.
Aspects of the City of Baltimore Neighborhood Watch Program
http://crime.baltimorecity.gov/PreventCrime/BlockWatchProgram.aspx The goal in Baltimore specifically is that, “Citizens and police officers will support each other in preventing and reducing crime through more effective communication and by creating problem-solving relationships appropriate to each community” [7] The program specifically focuses on communication as a way to improve crime statistics within the city. The program has a three-part plan that includes the means to help citizens learn how to observe effectively, how to stay safe while doing so, and also how to work together as a neighborhood to make the programs worthwhile. The system provides tools that teach citizens to actively patrol their neighborhood and also how to report crime without causing harm to their person. There is also a legal aspect to the program that allows citizens to be heard once the suspect has been apprehended and is going through court.
-Part I: More Eyes and Ears The first part of the program eases citizens into their new role in protecting the community. Citizens are taught to become more aware of their area. Not only does this mean that they look out for crimes that are happening, but also that they may be on the lookout for suspicious looking people or situations. By being aware citizens are much more likely to be able to notice a situation gone wrong and be able to provide police with information after the fact. The teaching of good observation skills also gives citizens the opportunity to give the police more accurate information. The idea is that once the citizens observe something that is questionable, they can then call either 9-1-1 or one of the other non-emergency hotline numbers to report what they are seeing whether they suspect drug dealing or are actually witnessing a crime being committed. The final portion of this part of the program is one of the most important parts. At monthly community council meetings citizens are allowed to report directly to police on what specific troubles their neighborhood is having. For instance, people may be dealing with increased cases of vandalism or muggings. This exchange not only helps police provide more specialized protection in certain neighborhoods, but allows citizens to be part of their own protection and feel as though they are getting the support they need.
Part II: Citizen Safety The next part of the program aims to teach citizens how to remain involved in helping prevent and report crime without putting themselves in imminent danger. The members are each given a crime watch number which allows them to report to the police without giving their identity if they have witnessed a violent crime. The number is confidential and ensures that if the information leads to the apprehension of a criminal, that the criminal will not immediately have access to that person’s personal information. This anonymity will also make citizens feel more at ease because it allows them to feel helpful while not having to risk retribution of any sort. The second part of the safety program deals with the citizen patrols. The patrols must be conducted in a way that while citizens are having an effect on crime, they are not acting as the police. The program instructs that patrols should be done in groups that aim to disperse and diffuse problematic situations without entering into dangerous situations or assuming too much authority.
-Part III: Neighborhood Networks This aspect of the program encourages neighbors to make the block watch a community activity, rather than an individual one. The more people who are involved in the block watch, the more likely it is to make an effect on preventing crime in the area. This goes along with the idea that if one person looks out for their neighbor, then that neighbor will in turn look out for them and their property. The program also encourages people to make regular everyday activities like taking out the trash or walking the dog an opportunity to be observing what goes on in the neighborhood and looking out for trouble. -Victim Impact Statements The City of Baltimore also encourages victims of these crimes to write a statement for the judge, to be read during the criminals sentencing. While available for any type of crime, the statements are useful to neighborhood watch programs because they allow the victims to express to the judge how the offense has negatively affected their life and their community in the hopes of getting the perpetrator a tougher sentence. These statements can show to a greater degree how crime affects neighborhoods and citizens even if it is something as simple as vandalism or theft. The statements are another way that neighborhoods can feel as though they are allowed a greater say in the justice system.
Problems and Successes
Problems Although the neighborhood watch program has great intentions, there are also issues that arise from the particular aspects of the program. The first of these being the blurred lines between the powers granted to the citizens on patrol versus the powers of the police. At times there have been issues where citizens on patrol have been accused of wrongfully attacking and using excessive force against someone they suspected of being a danger. Even though the City of Baltimore’s program preaches that citizens are not to put themselves in dangerous positions and leave the work of arresting and capturing people to the police, incidents have happened. Particularly, there was a case in 2010 where two brothers on a neighborhood watch patrol confronted and beat a lone teenager who they felt was suspicious [8] A part from the obvious lack of evidence that the teen was going to commit a crime, there was an outcry over the fact that people on the neighborhood watch would feel that they had such power. Although patrol members are supposed to call police in such an event there are fears that in “the heat of the moment” such an attack could happen again. Also, there are occasionally concerns with evidence from anonymous witnesses. Although it is necessary to protect witnesses against violent criminal organizations, prosecutors need to be certain that they have gotten legitimate evidence [9] However, whether the evidence is valid or not is usually decided at the discretion of a judge so this problem is not a major one. In order to make sure citizens are safe it is necessary for people to be able to report crimes anonymously and without fear.
Successes Despite issues with the program, there have also been significant successes. The most recent FBI crime statistics report that violent crime in Baltimore has dropped [10] Although the rate is still fairly high compared to the national average any drop should be considered a positive note. Additionally, it has been noted that school test scores have gone up which is often used as an indicator of neighborhood quality [11] An increase in scores suggests that the neighborhoods have been improving which could be in part thanks to the unity and safety fostered by the neighborhood watch programs.
Conclusion
There is little data that can specifically attribute the drop in violent crime in Baltimore solely to the city’s neighborhood watch programs. However, that does not mean that the program has not been successful since there was not an increase of crime in Baltimore. Research actually shows that cities that have neighborhood watch programs have experienced a decrease in crime [12] The lack of data can definitely be attributed in part to the goals of the project. The purpose of neighborhood watch programs is to prevent opportunities for crime as well as creating social norms that crime is not to be tolerated. It is virtually impossible to collect hard data on the number of crimes that have not been committed thanks to increased vigilance in communities. Similarly, it is hard to collect data on abstract ideas like social norms. However, drawing connections from evidence like school test scores can help researchers prove the importance of these programs. Although correlation does not imply causation it is safe to say that the benefits of the neighborhood watch programs are outweighing the negative aspects as long as the violent crime rate continues to fall.
References
"Baltimore Crime Rate: Making the City Safe, Not Just Safer." Baltimore Sun. N.p., 29 May 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2012. < http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-05-29/news/bs-ed-crime-rate-20110528_1_crime-rate-violent-crime-latest-fbi-crime-statistics/2>. Bennett, Trevor, Katy Holloway, and David P. Farrington. "Does Neighborhood Watch Prevent Crime?" Usdoj.gov. United States Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2012. < http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e040825133-res-review3.pdf>. Cheij, Dany A., Richard J. Fruehan, and David M. Vislosky. "Factors Influencing Innovation and Competativness in the Steel Industry." Industrystudies.pitt.edu. University of Pittsburgh, 9 Feb. 1997. Web. 02 Dec. 2012. < http://www.industrystudies.pitt.edu/_files/papers/influencingfactors.pdf>. "Encyclopedia of Marxism." Encyclopedia of Marxism. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2012. Freedman, Matthew and Owens, Emily G., “Low-income Housing Development and Crime” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/S0094119011000301 Friedmann, Robert R., “Policing and Society” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/B9780123739858001367 Gaines, Larry K. and Kappeler, Victor E., “Community Policing and Special Populations” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/B9781593455118500151 Gaines, Larry K. and Kappeler, Victor E., “Policing the Drug Problem” http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/B9781437734881000035
Godfrey, Stephen “Assessing the Success of Community Policing” http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Community%20Policing/Assessing%20the%20Success%20of%20Community%20Policing.pdf Goldstein, Herman. “Police Response to Urban Crisis” http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/stable/973757?origin=crossref&
Mass, Stuart. “The Dilemma of the Intimidated Witness in Federal Organized Crime Prosecutions: Choosing Among the Fear of Reprisals, the Contempt Powers of the Court, and the Witness Protection Program http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4556&context=flr Rawlings-Blake, Stephanie. "Operation Crime Watch." Baltimore City Crime Portal. City of Baltimore, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2012. < http://crime.baltimorecity.gov/PreventCrime/OperationCrimeWatch.aspx>. Stegenga, Priscilla. "NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service." NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service. N.p., 2000. Web. 03 Dec. 2012.