Neighbourhood Watch in a Digital Age: Between Crime Control and Culture of Control [1 ed.] 9783319677460, 9783319677477

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xiii
Front Matter ....Pages 1-1
The Rise of Community Crime Prevention (Vasco Lub)....Pages 3-12
Previous Research into Neighbourhood Watch (Vasco Lub)....Pages 13-18
Quantitative Data on Neighbourhood Watch in the Netherlands (Vasco Lub)....Pages 19-34
Front Matter ....Pages 35-35
Watch Group 1: More than Just a Watch Group (Vasco Lub)....Pages 37-55
Watch Group 2: Countering Burglars (Vasco Lub)....Pages 57-72
Watch Group 3: A Team in Need (Vasco Lub)....Pages 73-98
Watch Group 4: Suburban Diligence (Vasco Lub)....Pages 99-121
Front Matter ....Pages 123-123
Conclusions (Vasco Lub)....Pages 125-138
Discussion (Vasco Lub)....Pages 139-144
Back Matter ....Pages 145-150

Citation preview

CRIME PREVENTION AND SECURITY MANAGEMENT Series Editor: Martin Gill

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH IN A DIGITAL AGE Between Crime Control and Culture of Control

Vasco Lub

Crime Prevention and Security Management

Series Editor Martin Gill Perpetuity Research Tunbridge Wells, Kent, United Kingdom

It is widely recognized that we live in an increasingly unsafe society, but the study of security and crime prevention has lagged behind in its importance on the political agenda and has not matched the level of public concern. This exciting new series aims to address these issues looking at topics such as crime control, policing, security, theft, workplace violence and crime, fear of crime, civil disorder, white collar crime and anti-social behaviour. International in perspective, providing critically and theoretically-informed work, and edited by a leading scholar in the field, this series will advance new understandings of crime prevention and security management.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14928

Vasco Lub

Neighbourhood Watch in a Digital Age Between Crime Control and Culture of Control

Vasco Lub Erasmus University Sociology Bureau for social argumentation Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Crime Prevention and Security Management ISBN 978-3-319-67746-0 ISBN 978-3-319-67747-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67747-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017955039 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Détail de la Tour Eiffel © nemesis2207/Fotolia.co.uk Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

PREFACE

This book presents new and original research on the topic of neighbourhood watch as a form of community crime prevention, using Dutch data. Following the English-speaking world, neighbourhood watch schemes have become increasingly popular not only in the Netherlands, but also in other European countries. Yet the literature has been silent about this topic for a number of years, and shows several theoretical gaps. Moreover, securitization sentiments and technological innovations like social media have changed the landscape of coproduction in public safety, widening citizen’s opportunities for situational control and their public involvement in safety issues. These developments make contemporary research on watch groups all the more timely. Drawing from newly obtained data from 340 municipalities in the Netherlands and ethnographic fieldwork in four districts, the book will present original quantitative and qualitative data on how neighbourhood watch groups have developed in the Netherlands and illustrates how their actions contribute to lower crime levels and collective efficacy, advancing theoretical notions from the literature. However, this form of coproduction of public safety is not without its moral problems. Although innovations such as social media and smartphones have made the organisation, surveillance and deployment of neighbourhood watch groups more effective, they have simultaneously increased the risk of vigilantism. From the Dutch data, it becomes clear that stigmatisation, ethnic profiling and excessive social control are real issues, especially in suburban middle-class neighbourhoods. These findings––which are illustrated in the book through the ethnographic

v

vi

PREFACE

fieldwork using ‘thick description’––nuance some of the traditional criminological and urban sociological notions about formal/informal social control that often locate risks of vigilantism solely in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Contrasting effects raise questions about how both the phenomenon of neighbourhood watch and the increasing popularity of community crime prevention in the digital age should be framed: as a welcome civic instrument of crime control, or as a social phenomenon adding to an undesirable culture of control. This topic will be discussed at the end of the book––in conjunction with some policy recommendations. The primary audiences for this book are criminologists, students in the social sciences, researchers on surveillance practices and social media, senior city officials, policy makers and anyone who studies multiple aspects of (digital) vigilantism or neighbourhood activism. This research was accomplished thanks to the Kenniswerkplaats Leefbare Wijken with joint funding from Erasmus University Rotterdam, Stadsbeheer Rotterdam and the Rotterdam Security Council. A big word of thanks to these institutes. In addition, I thank my trainee Daisy Gr€ onefeld, who tirelessly collected data about neighbourhood watch groups with municipalities and on the Internet. I also owe gratitude to my trainee Mathilda von Burg who assisted me in part of the fieldwork. Finally, thanks to Erik Snel and Godfried Engbersen of Erasmus University Rotterdam, and Steven Wierckx and Wendy van der Krift. Of course, the biggest word of thanks goes to the participants of this research. This includes all the municipalities who freely shared their information with me, but especially the neighbourhood watch teams who provided me with a look behind the scenes. Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Vasco Lub

SERIES EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

Neighbourhood watch has been widely discussed, although the evidence on its effectiveness is mixed; there are reports of successes and failures on varying criteria. What is less in evidence is work focusing on how it operates. This is among the factors that make this book distinct, but it is not the only thing. You will also read about the influence of social media and the implications of this new type of surveillance; you will also learn more about how neighbourhood watch is practised in the Netherlands; about the roles of different actors, voluntary and professional in communities and the ways they work together or sometimes don’t do so; and this text provides a much needed critique of neighbourhood watch. The book is based on extensive qualitative research; Vasco Lub’s style renders it an interesting read. Indeed, his work helpfully highlights the value of ethnographic work in criminological research. Although government policy has been supportive it will be encouraging to many that it is residents themselves that start most schemes. He finds that neighbourhood watch is alive and well albeit it that it is practised in diverse ways. Lub provides revealing insights into the ways in which proactive patrolling of the streets takes place. Volunteers help tackle a range of community issues, not just crime and nuisance––including some serious offences like burglary––but also broader community issues such as reporting street lights that are not functioning and responding to illegal littering. In their work volunteers deal directly with the community of course, and in so doing engage with conflict situations, sometimes aware that official backup is not

vii

viii

SERIES EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

guaranteed. The author discusses the implications providing a different take on how we should look at neighbourhood watch initiatives. It has long been recognised in scholarly studies of voluntarism that to be effective unpaid personnel need to be effectively managed. This book ably supports that; voluntary activity is not an opt-out for the state sector albeit it appears it is sometimes treated that way. In one case the management of volunteers was undertaken by a consultancy firm throwing up more variations and possibilities for practice. As you will read the work of volunteers was only sometimes supported; some incidents were not responded to serving to undermine their work. Yet it was not just the lack of support that emerges as a problem, sometimes volunteer leaders were ineffective and this led to fall out including, in one case, mass resignations. Lub spends time evaluating the various factors that are deemed to contribute to the effectiveness of neighbourhood watch. While he finds many benefits––including reducing the risk of vigilantism for communities and creating personal opportunities and benefits for volunteers––he also highlights the various ways in which this type of initiative is far from an unqualified good. All those interested in this measure, from either a scholarly or policy and practice perspective will find this book an essential read. Tunbridge Wells August 2017

Martin Gill

CONTENTS

Part I

Neighbourhood Watch in the Netherlands: Introduction and Figures

1

1

The Rise of Community Crime Prevention

2

Previous Research into Neighbourhood Watch

13

3

Quantitative Data on Neighbourhood Watch in the Netherlands

19

Part II

To the Streets: Four Ethnographic Case Studies

3

35

4

Watch Group 1: More than Just a Watch Group

37

5

Watch Group 2: Countering Burglars

57

6

Watch Group 3: A Team in Need

73

7

Watch Group 4: Suburban Diligence

99

ix

x

CONTENTS

Part III

Conclusions and Discussion

123

8

Conclusions

125

9

Discussion

139

References

145

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5

Fig. 3.6

Fig. 8.1

Focus of neighbourhood prevention in the Netherlands, frequency of answer categories (N ¼ 135) Frequency of patrolling teams in percentages of the total number of patrolling neighbourhood watch teams Development of neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands at the municipal level Initiative towards neighbourhood watch per municipalities in percentages of the total (N ¼ 124) Development of neighbourhood watch (founding year first neighbourhood watch in municipality) and property crime in the Netherlands (Data on property crime from CBS/WODC 2015) Development of neighbourhood watch (founding year first neighbourhood watch in municipality) and feelings of insecurity in the Netherlands (Data on feelings of insecurity from CBS/WODC 2015) The plausibility of neighbourhood watch theories according to neighbourhood status

22 24 25 25

26

27 132

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 9.1 Table 9.2

Distribution of municipalities and presence of neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands Results logistic regression analysis presence neighbourhood watch, patrols and resident initiative Contrasting effects of neighbourhood watch Moral principles, rules of thumb and guiding questions for neighbourhood watch

20 29 140 142

xiii

PART I

Neighbourhood Watch in the Netherlands: Introduction and Figures

CHAPTER 1

The Rise of Community Crime Prevention

Abstract This chapter outlines the social circumstances that set the stage for the increasing popularity of neighbourhood watch schemes in the Netherlands. The emergence of neighbourhood watch is part of a general trend in which the government and the police promote the participation of citizens when it comes to quality of life issues and crime. Security is increasingly seen as a civic responsibility. The chapter presents the analytical framework of the study, which splits into three sub-themes: (1) the causal mechanisms of neighbourhood watch; (2) the capacity of neighbourhood watch teams as a form of co-production of public safety; and (3) the moral implications of neighbourhood watch in light of digilantism and securitisation. Keywords Neighbourhood watch • Securitisation • Community crime prevention • Digilantism

1.1

THE SECURITISATION OF SOCIETY: SECURITY AS A CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY

It's a brisk spring evening at the opening meeting of a neighbourhood watch team in a small town in the Dutch province of North Brabant. For years there have been regular break-ins in the area. In response, a group of residents decided to set up a neighbourhood watch. Tonight the team © The Author(s) 2018 V. Lub, Neighbourhood Watch in a Digital Age, Crime Prevention and Security Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67747-7_1

3

4

1

THE RISE OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION

presents itself to its fellow residents. At the start of the ceremony at a local park, attendants chat with one another while enjoying coffee and cake. The initiator of the team is engaged in a conversation with the mayor, recognizable by his chain of office. The mayor appears to be a big fan of the initiative: ‘We encourage neighbourhood watch throughout our municipality. When residents want to establish a team, we immediately support them!’ Scepticism of some of the attendants that watch teams suit a retreating government and cost-cutting police force is waved off by the mayor: Of course, the police are faced with a diminished capacity and cannot do everything by themselves. Citizens will therefore have to do their part. But then isn’t this a wonderful way to contribute?

Following suit with the English-speaking world, the phenomenon of ‘neighbourhood watch’ has boomed in the Netherlands in recent years (Lub 2016). Neighbourhood watch is a form of community crime prevention which aims to contribute to the safety and quality of life in residential areas (Schneider 2007; Sagar 2005). A neighbourhood watch team on patrol will perform duties that include identifying and reporting suspicious acts and unsafe situations to the police, educating residents about security issues, and reporting physical or social signs of disorder to local authorities, such as wrongly presented house garbage, broken streetlights or troublesome youth. Many teams actively patrol the streets several times a week. During patrols, volunteers are recognizable by their uniform fluorescent clothing. The first neighbourhood watch schemes actively carried out in the Netherlands date back to the 1980s (Van Noije and Wittebrood 2008). Yet the phenomenon recently received a second wind. Local news media regularly report about new teams that are ceremoniously inaugurated by mayors and aldermen. The emergence of neighbourhood watch is part of a general trend in which the Dutch government and the police promote the participation of citizens when it comes to quality of life and safety issues. As in other Western nations, the neoliberal discourse of Big Society has become dominant in the Netherlands, stressing greater self-responsibility of citizens and promoting voluntarism in a variety of public spheres (Lub and Uyterlinde 2012; Crowe 2011). The realm of security is no exception and is increasingly seen as a civic responsibility. Growing numbers of Dutch citizens are taking this responsibility by engaging in co-productions of public safety, such as

1.1 THE SECURITISATION OF SOCIETY: SECURITY AS A CIVIC. . .

5

neighbourhood watch schemes. According to Van der Land (2014), the popularity of neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands can also be seen as a feature of the ‘securitization’ of society, since it does not exclusively occur in ‘unsafe’ neighbourhoods. Securitisation refers to the process whereby problems in society are increasingly viewed through the lens of security, manifested in an increase of consumption of commercial security services by both the government and the public, situational crime prevention, risk assessment, civil preventive measures and the transition from punishment to precaution in criminal justice (Zedner 2009; Ericson 2007). In a relatively short time, watch groups have become an important social institution in the Netherlands. Local authorities support volunteers and facilitate their efforts, while police often give them access to judicial information otherwise inaccessible to non-active citizens. Compared to other security arrangements such as policing and private security, little empirical research has been done on neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands. Internationally too, the literature about the subject has been silent for a number of years, and shows several (theoretical) gaps. A decade ago, Bennett et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of neighbourhood watch evaluations in English-speaking countries, and found that it is overall associated with a significant reduction in crime. But effects vary and their analysis could not shed light on the mechanisms by which watch teams contribute to local safety. Bennett et al. (2006: 453) conclude: ‘It is not immediately clear why neighbourhood watch is associated with a reduction in crime’. There are also risks involved. Recently, the Dutch media highlighted several cases of incidents with neighbourhood watch groups, ranging from ethnic profiling by volunteers (e.g. reporting every observed Polish licence plate to the police) to collisions between watch groups and immigrant youth.1 Moreover, digital surveillance techniques and social media have changed the landscape of co-production in public safety, widening citizen’s opportunities for situational control and their public involvement in safety issues (Niculescu-Dinca 2016; Nhan et al. 2015; Huey et al. 2013). The digital revolution of recent years makes contemporary research on watch groups all the more paramount. Now that the monitoring of citizens by citizens increases through the use of community crime prevention programmes like neighbourhood watch aided by digital surveillance and social media, it is especially relevant to examine how such social control takes shape. What standards and norms do watch members apply when they observe and patrol the public space? When is certain conduct labelled as ‘suspicious’ or a situation as ‘unsafe’? And how is this perception influenced by digital surveillance techniques?

6

1

THE RISE OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION

Drawing from national data and ethnographic research of four different watch teams in the Netherlands, this book provides a more contemporary picture of the rise of the phenomenon of neighbourhood watch and how it functions in practice. In doing so, it opens some black boxes, advancing theoretical notions from the criminological literature and sheds light on this form of community crime control, in terms of securitisation and debates about ‘digilantism’ (Huey et al. 2013).

1.2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES

The central research questions of the present study read: 1. How has the phenomenon of neighbourhood watch developed in the Netherlands? 2. How do watch teams function in practice? 3. What causal mechanisms contribute to their efficacy? 4. What are wider social effects and moral implications of their deployment in terms of securitisation and digilantism? The analytical framework of the research splits into three perspectives: (1) the causal mechanisms of neighbourhood watch; (2) the capacity of neighbourhood watch teams as a form of co-production of public safety; and (3) the moral implications of neighbourhood watch in light of securitisation and digilantism. When it comes to the impact of neighbourhood watch, the core analytical perspective of this study is what causal mechanisms contribute to neighbourhood safety. In theory, a neighbourhood watch group can reduce crime and disorder in at least four different ways (see also Bennett et al. 2006). First, it can serve as a visible deterrent (Newburn 2007; Rosenbaum 1987). Burglars or residents that cause trouble might think twice before they commit an offense when the public space is actively controlled by residents. Second, neighbourhood watch can limit the opportunity for crime, for example, by informing other residents about security in and around the house or general safety issues (Cirel et al. 1977). A third possibility is that neighbourhood watch decreases crime and disorder indirectly by providing the police with information about suspicious activities or disorderly behaviour (Clarke and Hough 1984). Finally, direct intervention constitutes a potential success factor, whereby neighbourhood watch members enforce standards of desired behaviour through active social control, for example, by apprehending criminals or addressing disorderly youth

1.3

RESEARCH METHODS

7

(Greenberg et al. 1985). The current international research does not clarify which of the four mechanisms of crime control is dominant in neighbourhood watch schemes, whether a combination of mechanisms is at play or whether any specific theories about neighbourhood watch depend on specific local conditions, such as neighbourhood status, the level of crime in the area, or types of crime and disorder. A second relevant research topic concerns the communication between watch teams and professionals of neighbourhood supervision. Most watch teams function as a co-production of public safety, working together with local authorities, in particular the police. Yet residential areas are characterised by many different forms of supervision. There are neighbourhoods where police officers, street wardens and concierges from housing associations all actively monitor the public space. Little is known about their mutual dynamics, and how various forms of formal and informal supervision engage with one another. What constitutes their coordination? And how are voluntary watch members supported by professionals? A final analytical perspective of this book covers the moral implications of neighbourhood watch groups in light of securitisation and digilantism debates. The international research on neighbourhood watch has become somewhat dated, obscuring the influence and possible adverse effects of digital surveillance techniques and social media prevalent in the current era of ‘digilantism’ (Huey et al. 2013). In particular developed Western nations have seen widespread enthusiasm for citizen co-production of policing services, typified by such institutions as neighbourhood watch (Zedner 2009; Garland 2001). Chang et al. (2016) argue that, while much of this civic activity is actively encouraged by law enforcement agencies, circumstances have arisen in which citizen co-production can result in adverse and unintended consequences. One such circumstance is that citizens can now contribute to security issues via easily accessible forms of social media applications and other digital surveillance techniques, such as WhatsApp. However, because citizens are private actors, it is plausible that they first and foremost protect their own interest, may become overzealous to protect these interests, want to advance their own ideology or viewpoints or even may exact vengeance (Chang et al. 2016; see also Johnston 1996).

1.3

RESEARCH METHODS

The study is based on mixed methods research. It charts how many neighbourhood watch teams are active in the Netherlands at the municipal level, in what year teams were first established in municipalities and at whose

8

1

THE RISE OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION

initiative (government and/or residents themselves), if they actively patrol the streets and what issues they address in terms of control of crime and disorder. The data were acquired via a survey among municipalities, and data collection was completed in spring 2015. The questionnaires were filled out by municipal officials responsible for public order and security issues, or officials who coordinate and support local citizens’ initiatives on neighbourhood safety. Missing data on the existence or characteristics of neighbourhood watch teams in specific municipalities were disclosed as much as possible through desk research and internet and media analysis (e.g. by consulting websites of the teams themselves). The survey yielded information on the presence of neighbourhood watch in 340 Dutch municipalities, equivalent to a national coverage of 85%. The data were incorporated in a statistical data file. With the purpose of secondary analysis, the analysis also included (recoded) variables from the Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) such as the degree of urbanisation, size of the municipality, average education and income level per municipality, and data on property crime and perceptions of safety. The qualitative strand of the study comprises ethnographic research of four different watch teams in the cities of Rotterdam and Tilburg. The selection of areas was conducted in such a way that it illustrates the workings of neighbourhood watch in both poorer, disadvantaged low-status areas as well as more affluent middle-class neighbourhoods (high-status areas). The neighbourhoods in which the teams operate thus differ in status in terms of average income, educational level and crime. Watch groups 1 and 2 represent neighbourhood watches in disadvantaged areas in Rotterdam with relatively high levels of crime and disorder, whereas watch group 3 (also in Rotterdam) and group 4 (Tilburg) represent watch teams in suburban middle-class neighbourhoods with relatively low levels of crime and disorder, but with occasional peaks in burglary rates. The difference in social status and crime contexts between the respective locations forms an important aspect of the research design. It can be assumed that neighbourhood watch performs differently depending on the environment in which it operates. The focus, ‘habitus’, and impact of watch teams will partly depend on population characteristics, the level of crime and disorder in the area and the level of trust that residents have in local institutions and government agencies (Verwer and Walberg 2012; Hope 1995; Liddle and Gelsthorpe 1994; McConville and Shepherd 1992). Due to practical reasons and scholarly ties, the fieldwork’s focal point was on Rotterdam. For more comparative depth, Tilburg was included in the fieldwork. The city of

1.4

READER’S GUIDE

9

Tilburg has recently seen a growing popularity of neighbourhood watch schemes especially in its suburban areas, a development directly initiated and supported by the local government. The fieldwork lasted for about 12 months. Methods included observations of street patrols and team briefings, formal individual and group interviews, interviews via casual conversation, ‘go-along’ interviews during patrols (Kusenbach 2003; Lub 2015), and desk research such as analysis of local documents or correspondence. Via the observations, data were collected about how the teams operate, their actions and decision-making at street level, their interaction with other residents and communication with local institutes, such as the police. The street patrols formed the core of the ethnographic data. For each team, several patrols were joined over the course of the research. Each team also varies in size, with the smallest watch group (Team 3) consisting of about 15 volunteers and the biggest watch group (Team 4) numbering about 25 volunteers. Each fieldwork session was processed into a detailed account via thick description (Geertz 1973). In addition to the participatory patrols and go-along interviews, with each team, formal in-depth interviews were conducted with three watch members. The in-depth interviews, among other topics, discussed how watch members see their contribution to safety in the neighbourhood, what their capacity is as a watch member and how they motivate their actions. To prevent socially desirable answers, and to stimulate respondents to give accounts of their actions, the ‘everyday practices’ of the teams provided the main input for the interview topics (Wood 2012). All in-depth interviews were thus conducted during the fieldwork phase. Taking into account all the formal interviews, go-along interviews and other forms of communication with watch members, the total number of participants engaged in the fieldwork comprised approximately 40 individuals.

1.4

READER’S GUIDE

This book should be read as a first step towards advancing knowledge about neighbourhood watch in a modern Western-European context. The ethnographic research, however, is based on specific areas in the Netherlands. Therefore, caution must be taken in generalising to other countries or contexts of community crime prevention. Still, the ethnographic data presented here provide one of the first explicit investigations into the mechanisms by which watch teams contribute to neighbourhood safety, and their moral implications in terms of securitisation and digilantism.

10

1

THE RISE OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION

The first part of this book continues with a chapter about previous research into neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands and beyond. Chapter 3 presents Dutch quantitative data on neighbourhood watch that were gathered specifically for this study. Part 2 presents four local case studies of neighbourhood watch, in both low- and high-status areas. For privacy and safety reasons, the names of all those involved in the case studies are fictitious. The book ends with a conclusion and discussion part. How can the development and popularity of neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands be characterised? What is the influence and impact of the teams? The chapters in this part will also critically assess the moral implications of neighbourhood watch in a digital age. Should it be seen as a feature of an undesirable and self-expanding culture of control? Or is neighbourhood watch a useful extension of the Western surveillance and investigative apparatus, contributing to crime control? Balancing these two opposites with the results of the study, recommendations are formulated for Western governments and active citizens.

NOTE 1. Kritiek op ‘racistische’ app-groepen in Aalburg, Algemeen Dagblad, 11–9– 2015; Buurtwacht Ede vergeleken met NSB, De Gelderlander, 12–01–2014; Buurtpreventie Groenenhagen Tuinenhoven is geweld zat, IJsselmonde Nieuws, 10–10–2012.

REFERENCES Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Does neighborhood watch reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 437–458. Chang, L. Y. C., Zhong, L. Y., & Grabosky, P. (2016). Citizen co-production of cyber security: Self-help, vigilantes, and cybercrime. Regulation and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12125. Cirel, P., Evans, P., McGillis, D., & Whitcomb, D. (1977). Community crime prevention program, Seattle: An exemplary project. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Clarke, R., & Hough, M. (1984). Crime and police effectiveness, Home office research study no. 79. London: Home Office. Crowe, J. (2011). The government’s plans for decentralisation and localism: A progress report. The Political Quarterly, 82(4), 651–657.

REFERENCES

11

Ericson, R. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Greenberg, S. W., Rohe, W. M., & Williams, J. R. (1985). Informal citizen action and crime prevention at the neighborhood level. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Hope, T. (1995). Community crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society, Crime and justice (Vol. 19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Huey, L., Nhan, J., & Broll, R. (2013). ‘Uppity civilians’ and ‘cyber-vigilantes’: The role of the general public in policing cyber-crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 13, 81–97. Johnston, L. (1996). What is vigilantism? The British Journal of Criminology, 36, 220–236. Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology. The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455–485. Liddle, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (1994). Inter-agency crime prevention: Organising local delivery, Crime prevention unit paper 52. London: Home Office. Lub, V. (2015). Validity in qualitative evaluation: Linking purposes, paradigms and perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–8. Lub, V. (2016). De burger op wacht. Het fenomeen ‘buurtpreventie’ onderzocht. Rotterdam: Kenniswerkplaats Leefbare Wijken. Lub, V., & Uyterlinde, M. (2012). Evaluating state-promoted civic engagement and participation of vulnerable groups. The paradoxical policies of the social support act in the Netherlands. Journal of Social Policy, 41(2), 373–390. McConville, M., & Shepherd, D. (1992). Watching police, watching communities. London: Routledge. Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology. Devon: Willian Publishing. Nhan, J., Huey, L., & Broll, R. (2015). Digilantism: An analysis of crowdsourcing and the Boston marathon bombings. British Journal of Criminology, 57, 341–361. Niculescu-Dinca, V. (2016). Policing matter(s). Towards a sedimentology of suspicion in technologically mediated surveillance. Doctoral dissertation, Maastricht University. Rosenbaum, D. P. (1987). The theory and research behind neighborhood watch: Is it a sound fear and crime reduction strategy? Crime and Delinquency, 33, 103–134. Sagar, T. (2005). Street watch: Concept and practice. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 98–112. Schneider, S. (2007). Refocusing crime prevention: Collective action and the quest for the community. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

12

1

THE RISE OF COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION

van der Land, M. (2014). De buurtwacht. Naar een balans tussen instrumentalisering en autonomie van burgers in veiligheid. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. van Noije, L., & Wittebrood, K. (2008). Sociale veiligheid ontsleuteld. Veronderstelde en werkelijke effecten van veiligheidsbeleid. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Verwer, R., & Walberg, A. (2012). Een kwestie van vertrouwen. Werking en versterking van collectieve weerbaarheid in achterstandsbuurten. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Wood, B. E. (2012). Researching the everyday: Young people’s experiences and expressions of citizenship. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(2), 214–232. Zedner, L. (2009). Security. London: Routledge.

CHAPTER 2

Previous Research into Neighbourhood Watch

Abstract This chapter covers studies on neighbourhood watch from the English-speaking world as well as all available studies from the Netherlands, where research on the topic is still in its infancy. In the English-speaking world, the phenomenon of neighbourhood watch has been investigated since at least the 1980s, primarily in terms of its effective contribution to lower crime levels. The literature overview starts in the 1990s by discussing findings from meta-analyses and some single studies. One of the main conclusions is that the international literature on neighbourhood watch is too much focussed on efficacy (does it work?) and not enough on social effects and mechanisms (how does it work?). Keywords Neighbourhood watch research • Neighbourhood watch literature • Community crime prevention

2.1

RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

Research on neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands is still in its infancy. A qualitative exploration of Van der Land (2014) identifies both positive and negative potentials of neighbourhood watch. Based on interviews with volunteers, Van der Land noted that other residents may become more alert to safety risks due to the presence of a watch team in their neighbourhood. He also found some indications that neighbourhood watch can strengthen © The Author(s) 2018 V. Lub, Neighbourhood Watch in a Digital Age, Crime Prevention and Security Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67747-7_2

13

14

2

PREVIOUS RESEARCH INTO NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

collective efficacy of a neighbourhood (social cohesion among neighbours combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good, Sampson et al. 1997, p. 918). At the same time, a watch scheme may yield perverse consequences such as the increase of insecurity and stigmatisation from other residents, Van der Land concluded, though these findings remained conjectures, as he could not confirm them through fieldwork. A compendious field study of Boutasmit (2012) in a neighbourhood in The Hague suggests that watch teams must be sensitive to local social relations. Street youth of Moroccan descent that Boutasmit interviewed maintained problematic relations with the predominantly native Dutch watch members. From the interviews Boutasmit conducted with the Moroccan youngsters, an image emerges of a nit-picking neighbourhood watch, insensitive to local circumstances and contexts, sometimes singling out migrant youngsters even when there is no immediate reason. A graduate study by Van Essen (2015) about neighbourhood watch in rural areas shows that in communities where the quality of life is already above average (i.e. relatively low crime rate, high standard of living) neighbourhood watch may have a slight positive effect on the relationship with the police, but contributes little to the concrete level of security. However, in a large suburban area of Tilburg et al. (2015) recorded a significant and prolonged decline in the number of burglaries after introduction of so-called WhatsApp groups. The WhatsApp project in the municipality of Tilburg includes an initiative in which citizens, municipality and police work together to exchange information through a WhatsApp communication device in order to prevent burglaries. Though a WhatsApp group does not constitute a neighbourhood watch team as such (members do not necessarily form an active team of volunteers), on average burglaries decreased by 40% after the introduction of the WhatsApp groups.

2.2

RESEARCH IN THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD

In the United States and the United Kingdom, the phenomenon of neighbourhood watch has been investigated since at least the 1970s. One of the first American reviews by Titus (1984) sums up the results of 40 watch programmes. The majority of evaluations were conducted by police departments and also analysed local police data. Virtually all the evaluations showed that areas with neighbourhood watch showed a lower level of crime after deployment of the neighbourhood watch. However, Titus describes most evaluations as ‘weak’ in terms of their internal validity

2.2

RESEARCH IN THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD

15

and control for alternative explanations for this positive effect. A literature review of Husain (1990) of neighbourhood watch projects in the United Kingdom examines the results of 90 evaluations. Husain concludes that there is little evidence that it can actually prevent crime. The evaluations were of varying quality and it often appeared uncertain whether positive effects could be attributed to the neighbourhood watch. A widely quoted review comes from Sherman (1997) in the United States (see also Sherman and Eck 2002). In order to verify the effectiveness of neighbourhood watch, Sherman exclusively selected evaluations that made use of experiment and control areas. Because of this strict criterion, the analysis only provided four usable studies. The results of those studies were generally negative: they signified no demonstrable effect in reductions of crime and sometimes even appeared counterproductive in regard to social safety of residents. In other words, residents felt more unsafe after the formation of neighbourhood watch. Perhaps the visible presence of a neighbourhood watch provided other residents with a sense of vulnerability or confirmed the image of the ‘problem area’ pressuring feelings of social safety (see Laycock and Tilley 1995). Moreover, Sherman found that especially in the areas where the need for a neighbourhood watch is greatest, that is, the high-crime areas, residents are hardly willing to organize one. The most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis in this area comes the aforementioned Bennett et al. (2006, 2008). Bennett et al. gathered all available English-language research about neighbourhood watch. The aim of the study was to quantify its impact more accurately. The meta-analysis focused on indicators of objective safety: crimes against people (e.g. mugging, violence), crime against property (burglary) and street crime (e.g. drug trafficking). Subjective indicators such as feelings of social safety of residents or trust in the police were left out of the analysis. The analysis resulted in 43 usable evaluations. Bennett’s et al. meta-analysis indicates an overall positive effect in experiment areas, that is, less crime and a greater reduction in crime than in the control areas (36% significant effect size). Only three evaluations had an odds ratio of less than 1, indicating a negative effect of the neighbourhood watch. The meta-analysis by Bennett et al. shows that neighbourhood watch can contribute to significant reductions in crime. The somewhat pessimistic picture painted by Sherman (1997), must therefore be adjusted. Nevertheless, quantitative meta-analysis—which only looks whether the measure works in most cases—does not explain variations in outcomes. It remains unclear under which conditions

16

2

PREVIOUS RESEARCH INTO NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

neighbourhood watch is (in)effective, or why its effect sometimes varies, or even turns into a negative result. Perhaps the success of the neighbourhood watch depends on the level of crime in the neighbourhood (low, medium or high) and trust of residents in local institutions. A comparative study of McConville and Shepherd (1992) among residents of three different police districts in the United Kingdom suggests that support for a neighbourhood watch is greater in middle-class neighbourhoods with relatively low levels of objective crime and high levels of subjective safety. In those areas, however, there is little to gain in terms of improving the quality of life. As Sherman, Hope (1995) found that in highcrime areas of American cities, residents are hardly willing to organize a watch team. According to Hope, this is partly due to the relatively low confidence that residents in such districts usually have in each other and in local institutions. Liddle and Gelsthorpe (1994) stress that it cannot be a priori expected that residents in vulnerable areas sign up for a neighbourhood watch. They especially note the high level of trust in local authorities that this requires, in particular confidence in the police. According to Liddle and Gelsthorpe, the success of a neighbourhood watch does not only depend on the commitment of residents, but requires dedication from all concerned district authorities at different levels. This is partly because watch groups are not always equipped to address neighbourhood problems themselves.

2.3

CONCLUSIONS

Research into neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands is still in its infancy. The scarce research that is available focuses even more than Anglo-Saxon studies on societal themes such as the influence of neighbourhood watch on feelings of safety, interactions of neighbourhood watches with other institutions and the potentially adverse consequences of citizen surveillance. The 2012 investigation of Van der Land draws attention to positive as well as negative effects of neighbourhood watch schemes. Other residents may become more alert to safety risks thanks to the presence of neighbourhood watches, and there are indications that neighbourhood watch efforts strengthen the collective self-efficacy of local communities. At the same time, this may bring along a number of adverse consequences, such as increased feelings of insecurity and stigmatisation of other residents. The fieldwork of Boutasmit suggests that neighbourhood watch in problematic low-status districts has to take social relations and local population dynamics into account. Moroccan neighbourhood youths appear to be able to muster

REFERENCES

17

little sympathy for the predominantly native Dutch neighbourhood watch teams. From the interviews that Boutasmit conducted with these youths a picture emerges of understanding buurtvaders (immigrant men—fathers— who are involved in the safety-increasing efforts by surveying the streets and calling young men on their behaviour) and bickering neighbourhood watches. The study of Van Essen into neighbourhood prevention in rural areas shows that in municipalities where the level of quality of life is already above average (i.e. relatively low crime rates, high standard of living), neighbourhood prevention can have a mildly positive effect on residents’ willingness to report and on their relationship with the police, but that otherwise it contributes little to the concrete safety level. In Tilburg, however, Akkermans and Vollaart registered a significant and prolonged drop in the number of home burglaries after introducing WhatsApp groups. Still, as is often the case with social policy research, the available research into neighbourhood prevention in the Netherlands faces a shortage of detailed ethnographic information. Nearly all we presently know about neighbourhood prevention comes from reports of those involved themselves (volunteers, coordinators, town officers, police officers). This makes it difficult to trace the degree to which certain information about the working and social effects of neighbourhood watch rely on facts or imagination. This methodological handicap is evident, for example, from the fact that Van der Land writes in his report about ‘suspected’ effects because he could not confirm impressions about neighbourhood watch through empirical observation. In terms of international (Anglo-Saxon) research into neighbourhood watches, we can conclude that such research focuses nearly exclusively on the question of whether neighbourhood watches contribute to lower levels of crime (does it work?) without paying attention to the deeper mechanisms or its societal consequences (how does it work?). In this context, the metaanalysis of Bennett et al. exposes that—in line with the research of Akkermans and Vollaart—neighbourhood watches contribute on average positively to reductions in crime. This effect can, however, vary locally, and it remains unclear under which conditions a neighbourhood watch yields optimal results.

REFERENCES Akkermans, M., & Vollaard, B. (2015). Effect van het WhatsApp-project in Tilburg op het aantal woninginbraken – een evaluatie. Tilburg: Tilburg University.

18

2

PREVIOUS RESEARCH INTO NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Does neighborhood watch reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 437–458. Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Pontypridd: The Campbell Collaboration. Boutasmit, M. (2012). De perceptie van buurtsurveillance. Een sociologisch onderzoek naar de sociale mechanismen van buurtsurveillance die leiden tot aanpassing of voortzetting van normoverschrijdend gedrag door jongeren. Masterscriptie, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Hope, T. (1995). Community crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society, Crime and justice (Vol. 19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Husain, S. (1990). Neighborhood watch and crime: An assessment of impact. London: Police Foundation. Laycock, G., & Tilley, N. (1995). Policing and neighbourhood watch: Strategic issues. London: Home Office Police Department. Liddle, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (1994). Inter-agency crime prevention: Organising local delivery, Crime prevention unit paper 52. London: Home Office. McConville, M., & Shepherd, D. (1992). Watching police, watching communities. London: Routledge. Sampson, R., Raudenbusch, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Sherman, L. W. (1997). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. C. Gottfredson, D. L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (pp. 8-1–8-58). Washington, DC: US Office of Justice Programs. Sherman, L. W., & Eck, J. E. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidencebased crime prevention (pp. 295–329). London/New York: Routledge. Titus, R. (1984). Residential burglary and the community response. In R. V. G. Clarke & T. Hope (Eds.), Coping with burglary (pp. 97–130). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. van der Land, M. (2014). De buurtwacht. Naar een balans tussen instrumentalisering en autonomie van burgers in veiligheid. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. van Essen, J. (2015). Tussentijdse evaluatie buurtpreventiebeleid Samenwerkende Gemeenten Aalburg, Werkendam en Woudrichem. Bachelorscriptie, Avans Hogeschool Breda.

CHAPTER 3

Quantitative Data on Neighbourhood Watch in the Netherlands

Abstract This chapter presents original data on neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands of 340 Dutch municipalities (85%). The analysis includes demographic and geographical variables and data on property crime and perceptions of safety. The data confirm that neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands has become a popular phenomenon. Almost 700 watch teams are active in half of Dutch municipalities. Most neighbourhood watch groups were founded in the last five years and focus on preventing home burglaries. As the income level of a municipality increases, both the probability of neighbourhood watch and the chances of this happening at the initiative of residents increase. The analysis further suggests that neighbourhood watch is not so much an answer to a factual lack of security but mostly a product of securitisation. Keywords Neighbourhood watch • Community crime prevention • Securitisation

This study charts how many neighbourhood watch teams are active in the Netherlands at the municipal level, in what year teams were first established in municipalities and at whose initiative (government and/or residents themselves), if they actively patrol the streets and what issues they address in terms of control of crime and disorder. The data were acquired via a survey © The Author(s) 2018 V. Lub, Neighbourhood Watch in a Digital Age, Crime Prevention and Security Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67747-7_3

19

20

3

QUANTITATIVE DATA ON NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

Table 3.1 Distribution of municipalities and presence of neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands

Neighbourhood watch present Neighbourhood watch not present Total Missing data Total

Number of municipalities

Percentage

150 190 340 62 402

37.3 47.3 84.6 15.4 100

among municipalities, and data collection was completed in spring 2015. The questionnaires were filled out by municipal officials responsible for public order and security issues, or officials who coordinate and support local citizens’ initiatives on neighbourhood safety. Missing data on the existence or characteristics of neighbourhood watch teams in specific municipalities were disclosed as much as possible through desk research and internet and media analysis (e.g. by consulting websites of the teams themselves). The survey yielded information on the presence of neighbourhood watch in 340 Dutch municipalities, equivalent to a national coverage of 85% (see Table 3.1). The data were incorporated in a statistical data file. With the purpose of secondary analysis, the analysis also included (recoded) variables from the Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) such as the degree of urbanisation, size of the municipality, average education and income level per municipality, and data on property crime and perceptions of safety. The survey focused on formal neighbourhood watch teams—usually ranging from 10 to 25 volunteers—who often actively patrol the public space. This means that the broader, less formal crimereporting WhatsApp messaging groups of residents are excluded from the inventory, although watch teams are often imbedded in these app groups.

3.1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 661 Active Teams

In 150 Dutch municipalities, which is nearly 40% of the total, the presence of neighbourhood watch is confirmed. For each municipality it was mapped out how many separate teams are active in the region. A total of

3.2

FOCUS OF THE WATCH GROUPS

21

124 municipalities were able to provide information on this topic. It appears that in the 124 municipalities with neighbourhood watch teams, there are a total of 661 active teams. The average number of teams per municipality is about five. The municipality with the highest number of verified teams is The Hague, with 32 separate neighbourhood watches. The actual number of neighbourhood watch teams in the Netherlands is probably higher, considering that we lack information from 88 municipalities on this topic. Neighbourhood Watch Most Prominent in North Brabant Neighbourhood watch is most prominently represented in the province of North Brabant, followed closely by South Holland. In North Brabant, 43 municipalities report having neighbourhood watch, in South Holland 38. In the other provinces the number of municipalities with neighbourhood watch schemes is significantly lower. Still, one cannot automatically deduce from this that neighbourhood watch is more popular in North Brabant and South Holland than in other provinces—after all, these provinces are the ones with the highest number of municipalities. Nonetheless, there seems to be an independent, regional factor at play. North Holland, for example, has nearly as many municipalities as North Brabant, but in only 17 of these neighbourhood watch groups are active. The cause for this regional difference probably lies in the fact that in North Brabant the number of home burglaries is significantly higher than in North Holland. As will become clear, home burglaries constitute the most important focus of neighbourhood prevention (see Sect. 3.2), and this probably explains the quantitative difference in neighbourhood watch prevalence between the two provinces.1

3.2

FOCUS OF THE WATCH GROUPS Distribution of Tasks

What do these hundreds of neighbourhood watch schemes focus on? Of the 150 municipalities with neighbourhood watch, 135 provided information on this topic. Because the focus of neighbourhood watch can be quite varied and activities often overlap, this question was presented in the survey as an open-answer category. In this way, we also avoided excessively limiting answers. The responses were categorised and numerically processed in order to expose patterns. The response provided on the focus of the teams

22

3

QUANTITATIVE DATA ON NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

100 88

90 80 70 61

60 50 40 30

30

25

20 10

14 2

4

6

6

7

8

9

0

Fig. 3.1 Focus of neighbourhood prevention in the Netherlands, frequency of answer categories (N ¼ 135)

ranges from very general descriptions such as ‘suspicious acts’ and ‘quality of life and safety’ to more specific descriptions such as ‘home burglaries’ and ‘youth misbehaviour’, or very concrete descriptions such as ‘parking violations’, ‘safe playgrounds’ and ‘preventive checking of alleyways’. Figure 3.1 presents the most prominent responses categories. By far the most frequent subcategory as a focus of neighbourhood watch is home burglaries (88), followed by fighting general disturbances (61) and dilapidation (30). Youth delinquency (25) appears to be a less frequent activity for a neighbourhood watch. Confronting youths on delinquency was only mentioned in two cases, and control of open spaces (6) and fighting crime (9) cannot be categorised as dominant tasks of neighbourhood watch. Based on these outcomes, the intervening character of neighbourhood

3.3 ESTABLISHMENT: WHEN AND ON WHOSE INITIATIVE?

23

watch teams can be somewhat relativised: neighbourhood watches are not actively trying to apprehend criminals or confront misbehaving residents. Frequency of Patrols Not all neighbourhood watch teams hit the streets with the same frequency. We have some information about how often these teams go out on patrol. The majority (60%) goes out on the street several times a week or daily (see Fig. 3.2.). From these data, one cannot deduce whether this used to be different or to what extent the number of frequently patrolling teams is increasing. But given that most teams in the Netherlands were established recently (as we will see presently), increasing numbers of Dutch districts and neighbourhoods will be dealing with regular patrols of neighbourhood watch groups.

3.3

ESTABLISHMENT: WHEN AND ON WHOSE INITIATIVE?

The first Dutch neighbourhood watches actively implemented by residents arose in the late 1980s (Van Noije and Wittebrood 2008). Yet judging by media reports, the phenomenon seems to have gotten a second wind. The survey data confirm this image (see Fig. 3.3). In most municipalities neighbourhood watch has been established in the last five years, peaking strongly in 2013 (with newly established neighbourhood watch schemes in 26 municipalities). The recent increase in neighbourhood watches may be caused by the strong emphasis on safety issues in the public debate (the securitisation of society as identified by Van der Land), in which residents more frequently tend to become organised and involved in the safety of their neighbourhood. Another explanation is that the recent growth in neighbourhood watch is caused by deliberate government policies. Local authorities may stimulate the establishment of neighbourhood watch groups in their municipality. To shed light on this matter, we surveyed at whose initiative the neighbourhood watches were established: is it mainly residents who take the lead? Or is it rather the city and professional agencies which stimulate neighbourhood watch top-down? Of the 150 municipalities with neighbourhood watch, 124 provided information about who took the initiative in its establishment (83%). It appears that in the vast majority of municipalities (nearly 70%), neighbourhood watch was established at the initiative of residents (see Fig. 3.4.). In a much smaller portion of the municipalities, watch groups

Fig. 3.2

Several mes per week to daily

Weekly

Every two weeks

Monthly

Frequency of patrolling teams in percentages of the total number of patrolling neighbourhood watch teams

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3

Frequency of patrols

24 QUANTITATIVE DATA ON NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

3.3 ESTABLISHMENT: WHEN AND ON WHOSE INITIATIVE?

25

30 25 20 Number of 15 municipalities 10 5 0 1995

2000 2005 2010 Founding year first neighbourhood watch in municipality

2015

Fig. 3.3 Development of neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands at the municipal level

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Neighbourhood watch established at the initiative of ...

Fig. 3.4 Initiative towards neighbourhood watch per municipalities in percentages of the total (N ¼ 124)

came about at the initiative of the city or professionals, or through a combination of resident and government initiatives.2 It is of course not inconceivable that many active resident groups that decide to establish a

26

3

QUANTITATIVE DATA ON NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

30

120

25

100

20

80

15

60

10

40

5

20

0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Development neighbourhood watch

2012

2013

2014

Poperty crime

Number of municipalities

neighbourhood watch team are influenced to some degree by their municipality. In practice, many citizen initiatives have been encouraged by civil servants. There is often a grey area between citizen and government initiatives. Nonetheless, the large quantifiable difference between citizen and government initiatives points to neighbourhood watch as a relatively autonomous, bottom-up phenomenon, which—as Van der Land (2014) already theorised—is primarily the result of society’s continued orientation on security. The numbers also have a fair correspondence with Van der Land’s own inventory among neighbourhood watches, although in his research the police appear to be a more frequent initiator of neighbourhood watch (see Van der Land 2014: 25). Finally, it is worth comparing the development of neighbourhood prevention with the development of crimes against property and feelings of safety. Does the development of neighbourhood watch have any connection with crime levels or citizens’ feelings of safety? Figures 3.53 and 3.64 show opposite trends. Whereas neighbourhood prevention is increasing in scope, the number of crimes against property in the Netherlands is decreasing and citizens are feeling ever safer.5 This development can be alluded to in two ways. An optimistic explanation is that neighbourhood watch contributes in some way to lower crimes against property and feelings of unsafety. It is also possible that thanks to improved general safety, less pressing matters remain for neighbourhood watches to tackle, thus filling

0

Property crime

Fig. 3.5 Development of neighbourhood watch (founding year first neighbourhood watch in municipality) and property crime in the Netherlands (Data on property crime from CBS/WODC 2015)

30

90

25

85

20

80

15 75

10

70

5 0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Development neighbourhood watch

2012 2013 2014 Feelings of insecurity

27

Feelings of insecurity

Number of municipalities

3.4 INFLUENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHICAL VARIABLES

65

Fig. 3.6 Development of neighbourhood watch (founding year first neighbourhood watch in municipality) and feelings of insecurity in the Netherlands (Data on feelings of insecurity from CBS/WODC 2015)

this gap. But correlation does not equal causation. A more cautious interpretation of the graphics is that despite improved security in the Netherlands, citizens feel an increasing need to organise themselves via a neighbourhood watch. This last interpretation comes closer to Van der Land’s proposition that neighbourhood prevention is not so much an answer to an increasing, actual lack of safety, but mainly a product of our security-oriented societal zeitgeist.

3.4

INFLUENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHICAL VARIABLES

So far, some descriptive statistics about neighbourhood watch in the Netherlands were presented. For a demographic and geographical perspective, the data file also includes background variables such as the degree of urbanisation and size of the municipality, as well as average educational and income level per municipality. Is there, for example, a statistical association between the degree of urbanisation of a city and the presence and/or activities of neighbourhood watch teams? And if we view neighbourhood watch as a manifestation of the capacity for self-organisation in districts, to what extent is this influenced by income and educational levels?

28

3

QUANTITATIVE DATA ON NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

Explanation of CBS Variables Four background variables of Statistics Netherlands (CBS) were included in the data file: degree of urbanisation, size of the municipality, educational level per municipality and income level per municipality. The variables were selected because of their spatial and demographic connection with the theme of neighbourhood watch, and their suitability as independent variables: when they are correlated with dependent variables such as the presence of neighbourhood watch, patrolling teams and so on, the direction of the relation can only point in one direction. The probability of the presence of neighbourhood watch teams, for example, can be influenced by a municipality’s population size, but it is improbable that, vice versa, the presence of neighbourhood watch teams will influence a municipality’s population size. Concerning the variable ‘degree of urbanisation’, CBS has created the following urbanisation classification for every neighbourhood, district and city in the Netherlands based on residential density in the area: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

very strongly urbanised 2500 addresses per km2 very urban 1500–2500 addresses per km2 moderately urban 1000–1500 addresses per km2 not very urban 500–1000 addresses per km2 not urban