The recent spate of reports of a high incidence of burglaries and thefts in Sliema and St Julian’s – and now reportedly in Attard as well – has naturally raised concern and some panic. The Acting Police Commissioner, with the Minister for Home Affairs, has sought to allay fears with a promise of increased police presence in vulnerable areas.

Although no mention has been made of it, it may be timely to contemplate the possibility of communities setting up their own neighbourhood watch schemes in these areas. These could lend themselves well to the Sliema and St Julian’s areas, and Attard, where most people know each other and where strangers behaving suspiciously stand out.

But there are pros and cons to be considered before pressing ahead with neighbourhood watch schemes. Neighbourhood watch participation, especially in the UK and the US, where the concept originated, has gone from strength to strength. Neighbourhood watch is about empowering local people to take personal pride in where they live and to take responsibility for what happens in their community.

The objective is to make them safer and more pleasant places by improving security and, through vigilance, cutting crime. It is essentially a scheme where people come together to make their communities safer.

But it is not a scheme which involves only the householders in a community. To be successful, it must also involve police and local councils, as well as possibly other voluntary organisations. It aims to help people protect themselves and their properties as well as reducing the fear and incidence of crime by means of improved home security, greater vigilance, reporting of suspicious incidents to the police and fostering a close community spirit.

When formed, neighbourhood watch schemes are run by their members through a volunteer ‘coordinator’. The neighbourhood watch for an area would have to be supported by the Sliema, Attard or St Julian’s police divisions. The coordinator would supervise the scheme and liaise with the police.

It is crucial to bear in mind, however, that the neighbourhood watch scheme is supported by police, not run by them. Success therefore depends on what both the community and the local police make of it.

In the Malta context, this may give rise to the first doubt about its potential for being transplanted to Sliema, St Julian’s or elsewhere. Is there the community will for neighbours to come together and to organise themselves – with a proper 24-hour roster, basic communications and a willingness to provide mutual support – and is there the police capacity to organise themselves to respond to a voluntary group of citizens in this way? Community cooperation of this kind is not always present.

There may be individuals in the community who will find the whole concept of the scheme too intrusive or, more likely, too much of a commitment for them. There may be others, on the other hand, who may interpret the scheme as an excuse to act as “vigilantes” – a concept which is alien to such a scheme, as well as counterproductive.

The neighbourhood watch scheme is an intrinsically good thing. But to succeed it requires a willingness by the community, in cooperation with the police, to make it work over the long term.

On balance, the neighbourhood watch scheme has many attributes and, done properly, could reduce undue fear of crime, improve liaison with the police and most importantly, prevent crime by increasing vigilance and security.