Cleaning up crimes can only go on so long. Eventually, part of the cities’ crime enforcement operations need to lead to crime prevention methods. According to a report “Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising” by the NCJRS, Crime prevention needs to be implemented in three areas: community environments, families, and schools.

Because of the strictness of laws and constitutional rights in the US, city prevention in these three areas seem to have become more passive in nature. Cities create programs and ways to educate people to prevent crime in the future. These methods are good, but they do not have immediate effects in stopping crime.

On the scene, arrests and extra patrol officers seem to be effective in cases of high level crime that results in immediate effects. However, crimes of a less extreme nature, such as: property crimes, theft,  burglary, trespass, and criminal mischief, seem to go unnoticed. Police departments use curfews, street lighting, neighborhood watches, vandalism cameras, and remote surveillance systems in order to stop crimes of such nature. Are these methods effective?

According to California Bureau Research, California State Library, titled “Public Video Surveillance: Is It An Effective Crime Prevention Tool” By Marcus Nieto, there is not enough evidence. However, according to Tony Pearsall, the Executive Director of Fighting Back Partnership, “It’s preventative — it’s an obvious visible prevention that’s having more of an impact than I ever thought it would have.”  Therefore, due to the high amount of crime and low amount of human resources, tools like remote surveillance systems and vandalism cameras seem to be an alternate option that needs to be explored as an effective preventative method to stop crime.