PROTOCOL: Broken Windows Policing to Reduce Crime: A Systematic Review

The School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University will be an intramural source of support for this project. Resources of the Gottfredson Criminal Justice Library will be used to conduct the search for eligible studies and information retrieval. We will seek support for the research from external sources such as private foundations and government grant-making agencies. Crime policy scholars, primarily James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, and practitioners, such as Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton, have argued for years that when police pay attention to minor offenses—such as aggressive panhandling, prostitution, and graffiti—they can reduce fear, strengthen communities, and prevent serious crime (Bratton & Kelling, 2006; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Spurred by claims of large declines in serious crime after the approach was adopted in New York City in the early 1990s, dealing with physical and social disorder, or “fixing broken windows,” has become a central element of crime prevention strategies adopted by many American police departments (Kelling & Coles, 1996; Sousa & Kelling, 2006). In their seminal “broken windows” article, Wilson and Kelling (1982) argue that social incivilities (e.g., loitering, public drinking, and prostitution) and physical incivilities (e.g., vacant lots, trash, and abandoned buildings) cause residents and workers in a neighborhood to be fearful. Fear causes many stable families to move out of the neighborhood and the remaining residents isolate themselves and avoid others. Anonymity increases and the level of informal social control decreases. The lack of control and escalating disorder attracts more potential offenders to the area and this increases serious criminal behavior. Wilson and Kelling (1982) argued that serious crime developed because the police and citizens did not work together to prevent urban decay and social disorder. The available research evidence on the connections between disorder and more serious crime is mixed. In the Netherlands, Keitzer et al. (2008) conducted six field experiments examining the links between disorder and more serious crime and concluded that dealing with disorderly conditions was an important intervention to halt the spread of further crime and disorder. Skogan's (1990) survey research found disorder to be significantly correlated with perceived crime problems in a neighborhood even after controlling for the population's poverty, stability, and racial composition. Further, Skogan's (1990) analysis of robbery victimization data from thirty neighborhoods found that economic and social factors' links to crime were indirect and mediated through disorder. In his reanalysis of the Skogan data, Harcourt (1998, 2001) removed several neighborhoods with very strong disorder-crime connections from Newark, New Jersey, and reported no significant relationship between disorder and more serious crime in the remaining neighborhoods. Eck and Maguire (2006) suggest that Harcourt's analyses do not disprove Skogan's results; rather his analyses simply document that the data are sensitive to outliers. Indeed, the removal of different neighborhoods from Harcourt's analysis may have strengthened the disorder-crime connection (Eck & Maguire, 2006). In his longitudinal analysis of Baltimore neighborhoods, Taylor (2001) finds some support that disorderly conditions lead to more serious crime. However, these results varied according to types of disorder and types of crime. Taylor (2001) suggests that other indicators, such as initial neighborhood status, are more consistent predictors of later serious crimes. Using systematic social observation data to capture social and physical incivilities on the streets of Chicago, Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) found that, with the exception of robbery, public disorder was not significantly related to most forms of serious crime when neighborhood characteristics such as poverty, stability, race, and collective efficacy were considered. Sampson and Raudenbush's findings have been criticized because their social observation data on disorder were collected during the day rather than at night (Sousa & Kelling, 2006) and based on their decision to test a model in which disorder mediates the effects of neighborhoods characteristics on crime rather than neighborhood characteristics mediating the effects of disorder on crime (Jang & Johnson, 2001). In another analysis, Xu et al. (2005) point out that Sampson and Raudenbush (1999)'s results actually are supportive of broken windows theory. The scientific research evidence on the crime control effectiveness of broad-based broken windows policing strategies, such as quality-of-life programs and order maintenance enforcement practices, is also mixed. However, there seems to be more research evidence supporting the crime prevention value of broken windows policing strategies than refuting it. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) provides the best known example of a macro policy of order maintenance, as it is well documented that officers were more aggressive in making arrests for minor offenses (Sousa & Kelling, 2006). Using misdemeanor arrests as a proxy for order maintenance activities, Kelling and Sousa (2001) found that the NYPD strategy was associated with a significant reduction in violent crime in the 1990s, after controlling for economic, demographic, and drug use variables. A similar analysis by Corman and Mocan (2002) found that increased misdemeanor arrests in New York City during the 1990s had a significant impact on robbery and motor vehicle theft controlling for economic and criminal justice factors. Two more recent studies of the impact of order-maintenance policing in New York City support the idea that policing disorder prevents more serious crime. Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Renfigo (2007) analyzed the effects of order-maintenance arrests on precinct-level robbery and homicide trends in New York City between 1988 and 2001, and concluded that the approach generated small but significant crime reduction gains. Using a different analytic approach, Messner and his colleagues (2007) analyzed homicide trends in 74 New York City police precincts between 1990 and 1999, and found that misdemeanor arrests generated significant reductions in total homicide rates with the largest impacts on gun homicide rates. This is consistent with Fagan, Zimring, and Kim's (1998) observation that the kinds of changes in policing associated with broken windows policing might be effective, in part, by taking more guns off the streets through increased police-citizen contacts. More recently, Zimring (2012) suggests that the police action in reducing crime in New York City during the 1990s was not the broken windows policing described by Kelling and Coles (1996) rather it more closely resembled a tight police focus on crime hot spots. There are also policy evaluations implemented in other jurisdictions that support the perspective that dealing with disorderly conditions generates crime control gains. Two separate randomized controlled trials of disorder policing strategies implemented within a problem-oriented policing framework found the strategy resulted in significant reductions in calls for service to the police in Jersey City, New Jersey (Braga et al., 1999) and Lowell, Massachusetts (Braga & Bond, 2008). The Safer City Initiative, an intervention launched by the Los Angeles Police Department to reduce homeless-related crimes by addressing disorderly conditions associated with homeless encampments, generated modest reductions in violent, property, and nuisance street crimes (Berk & MacDonald, 2010). Other macro-level analyses have generated results supportive of broad-based policing disorder strategies. In California, controlling for demographic, economic, and deterrence variables, a county-level analysis revealed that increases in misdemeanor arrests was associated with significant decreases in felony property offenses (Worrall, 2002). Finally, an analysis of robbery rates in 156 American cities revealed that aggressive policing of disorderly conduct and driving under the influence reduces robbery (Sampson & Cohen, 1988). Many observers, however, argue that it is very difficult to credit a generalized order maintenance strategy with the crime drop in New York in the 1990s. The NYPD implemented the broken windows strategy within a larger set of organizational changes framed by the Compstat management accountability structure for allocating police resources (Silverman, 1999). As such, it is difficult to establish the independent effects of broken windows policing relative to other strategies implemented as part of the Compstat process (Weisburd et al., 2003). Other scholars suggest that a number of rival causal factors, such as the decline in the city's crack epidemic, played a more important role in the crime drop (Blumstein, 1995; Bowling, 1999). Some academics have argued that the crime rate was already declining in New York before the implementation of any of the post-1993 police reforms, and that New York's decline in homicide rates were not significantly different from declines experienced in surrounding states and in other large cities that did not implement aggressive enforcement policies during that time period (Karmen, 2000; Eck & Maguire, 2006). Other evaluations have not found significant crime prevention gains associated with broad-based policing disorder strategies. A recent reanalysis of the Kelling and Sousa (2001) data did not find that a generalized broken windows strategy, as measured by increased misdemeanor arrests, yielded significant reductions in serious crimes in New York City between 1989 and 1998 (Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006). A quasi-experimental evaluation of a quality-of-life policing initiative focused on social and physical disorder in four target zones in Chandler, Arizona did not find any significant reductions in serious crime associated with the strategy (Katz et al., 2001). An evaluation of a one-month police enforcement effort to reduce alcohol and traffic-related offenses in a community in a Midwestern city did not find any significant reductions in robbery or burglary in the targeted area (Novak et al., 1999). Similarly, a randomized controlled experiment of broken windows policing in three towns in California (Redlands, Colton, and Ontario) found no significant effects on fear of crime, police legitimacy, collective efficacy, or perceptions of crime and social disorder (Weisburd et al., 2011). Given the mixed policy evaluation findings, a systematic review of the existing empirical evidence is warranted. This review will synthesize the existing published and non-published empirical evidence on the effects of broken windows policing interventions and will provide a systematic assessment of the crime reduction value of broken windows policing in neighborhoods. It is anticipated that this review will help inform policy makers and police department decision makers regarding the continued use of broken windows policing interventions to reduce crime in neighborhoods. Many police agencies in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations currently use broken windows policing as a core crime control strategy and a critical examination of the existing evidence is warranted. The general idea of dealing with disorderly conditions to prevent crime is present in myriad police strategies, ranging from “order maintenance” and “zero-tolerance,” where the police attempt to impose order through strict enforcement, to “community” and “problem-oriented policing” strategies where police attempt to produce order and reduce crime through cooperation with community members and by addressing specific recurring problems (Cordner, 1998; Eck & Maguire, 2006; Skogan, 2006; Skogan et al., 1999). While its application can vary within and across police departments, broken windows policing to prevent crime is now a common crime control strategy. We will consider all policing programs that attempt to reduce crime through addressing physical disorder (vacant lots, abandoned buildings, graffiti, etc.) and social disorder (public drinking, prostitution, loitering, etc.) in neighborhood areas. These interventions will be compared to other police crime reduction efforts that do not attempt to reduce crime through reducing disorderly conditions such as traditional policing (i.e., regular levels of patrol, ad-hoc investigations, etc.) or problem-oriented policing programs focused on other types of local dynamics and situations. Based on the selected literature review above, we expect that our research strategy will yield a diverse set of targeted areas across the identified policing disorder studies. For example, evaluations of broken windows policing strategies in New York City analyzed the citywide effects of the strategy at different units of analysis such as police precincts and police boroughs (Kelling & Sousa, 2001; Corman & Mocan, 2002; Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006; Rosenfeld et al., 2007; Messner et al., 2007). In Los Angeles, evaluators compared crime trends in one policing disorder treatment police division area relative to crime trends in four adjacent police division areas (Berk & MacDonald, 2010). In the Jersey City and Lowell randomized controlled trials, the units of analysis were crime “hot spots” comprised of street block faces and street intersections (Braga et al., 1999; Braga & Bond, 2008). All area-level studies will be included in our systematic review. Eligible areas can range from small places (such as hot spots comprised of clusters of street segments or addresses) to police defined areas (such as districts, precincts, sectors, or beats) to larger neighborhood units (such as census tracts or a researcher-defined area). It is important to note that this heterogeneity in the units of analysis across studies could have varying and policy-relevant effects on crime prevention outcomes associated with the policing disorder strategies. As such, we will also classify the types of areas to ensure that the review is measuring similar findings across the potentially diverse set of locations subjected to treatment. Studies that use comparison group designs, such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002), will be eligible for the main analyses of this review. Only the most rigorous quasi-experimental designs will be included, with the minimum design involving before and after measures of crime in experimental and comparable control areas. In many controlled policing disorder evaluations (e.g. Berk & MacDonald, 2010; Katz et al., 2001), the control group experiences routine modern police responses to crime. Control areas usually experience a blend of traditional police responses (e.g., random patrol, rapid response, and ad-hoc investigations) and opportunistic community problem-solving responses. While disorder interventions developed from community policing initiatives may be present in certain control areas, none of the control areas can engage disorder policing strategies as their main approach to address crime problems. Eligible studies will have to measure the effects of the broken windows policing intervention on officially recorded levels of crime in areas such as crime incident reports, citizen emergency calls for service, and arrest data. Other outcomes measures such as survey, interview, systematic observations of social disorder (such as loitering, public drinking, and the solicitation of prostitution), systematic observations of physical disorder (such as trash, broken windows, graffiti, abandoned homes, and vacant lots), and victimization measures used by eligible studies to measure program effectiveness will also be coded and analyzed. Since area-level studies will be included in this review, particular attention will be paid to studies that measured crime displacement effects and diffusion of crime control benefit effects. Policing strategies focused on specific locations have been criticized as resulting in displacement (see Reppetto, 1976). More recently, academics have observed that crime prevention programs may result in the complete opposite of displacement—that crime control benefits were greater than expected and “spill over” into places beyond the target areas (Clarke & Weisburd, 1994). The quality of the methodologies used to measure displacement and diffusion effects, as well as the types of displacement (spatial, temporal, target, modus operandi) examined, will be assessed. While all eligible studies must include a crime outcome measure, we will specifically collect data on community satisfaction measures such as citizen attitudes towards police, fear of crime, and other outcomes. Questions have been raised about the legitimacy of specific tactics used by the police to control disorder (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Inappropriate policing disorder strategies, such as the indiscriminate aggressive tactics used in zero-tolerance approaches, could have negative impacts on police-community relationships. For instance, the heightened use of arrests for minor crimes, such as public drinking and smoking marijuana in plain view, in the NYPD's order maintenance policing strategies have been criticized as exacerbating already poor relationships between the police and minority communities and increasing citizen complaints about police misconduct and abuse of force (Golub et al., 2007; Greene, 1999; Harcourt & Ludwig, 2007). The 1982 article by Wilson and Kelling will mark the beginning of the timeframe for the inclusion of studies in this review. There are no restrictions on the geographical origin of studies for inclusion in this review. The search strategy is international in scope and is not limited to studies in the English language. Finally, an information specialist will be engaged at the outset of our review and at points along the way in order to ensure that appropriate search strategies were used to identify the studies meeting the criteria of this review.3 For instance, we will work with the information specialist to conduct an extensive Google search for eligible studies that will seek to identify eligible studies by using the search terms below as well as including words such as “research,” “evaluation,” and “program analysis.” The information specialist will be consulted on the use of Google Scholar to identify studies that cite seminal broken windows studies (e.g. Wilson & Kelling, 1982; Kelling & Coles, 1996) and on the use of publisher databases and indexes (e.g. Wiley, Sage, and Springer) to identify potentially eligible studies. In addition, two existing registers of randomized controlled trials will be consulted. These include (1) the “Registry of Experiments in Criminal Sanctions, 1950-1983 (Weisburd et al., 1990) and (2) the ”Social, Psychological, Educational, and Criminological Trials Register“ or C2 SPECTR being developed by the United Kingdom Cochrane Centre and the University of Pennsylvania (Turner et al., 2003). Two additional online databases of rigorous studies in policing will be reviewed: the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix (http://www.policingmatrix.org) and the US Office of Justice Program's CrimeSolutions.gov website. The reviewers will screen abstracts and leads to potentially eligible studies and decide which full-text reports should be acquired. Only the full-text papers of titles and abstracts indicating, or potentially indicating, an evaluation of a broken windows policing or an empirical analysis of the theoretical connections between disorder and crime will be obtained. In cases of ambiguity, the full text of the study will be obtained in order to properly an eligible study design was Studies that use randomized controlled or rigorous quasi-experimental designs will be for inclusion in the main review. and studies control will be and analyzed These studies will not be included in the analysis the findings of the review. Studies meeting the set will be coded for a range of characteristics related to quality including the criteria used to identify the units of analysis, the used to crime prevention the of the of from the and the of the experiment by criteria to the quality of evaluation studies. These criteria include external and As appropriate and the role of the on the observed empirical results will be assessed. The quality information will be reported in and along with the a is will be compared on the to for potential However, it is important to that eligible studies may not or even implementation Indeed, all field experiments implementation and will be not to the value of certain studies simply because one an of potential process problems. a strong to any review of evaluation studies 2008). such as a number of to reduce extensive search the use of an information specialist and the of an extensive of police scholars it that from this review. we will use the & to the of potential data such as on the outcome of the The with the help of a research will information from the full text on the characteristics of the study using a data (see included in A analysis will be conducted on the full text of the and the data will capture data on the of this review. These a complete of the used to and identify targeted areas, research design and to the research crime outcome and outcome important information is from available study reports, the will be to can that The two review Braga and will eligible The will the two for eligible study to identify any of study there are the will review the study and a This process will identify and any Finally, information will be coded for eligible quasi-experimental studies when This will the of for inclusion in the described A evaluation of broken windows policing intervention may provide data on outcome For example, the randomized controlled of the Lowell policing disorder intervention an of outcome measures including robbery, burglary and disorder and total citizen calls for service data (Braga & Bond, 2008). A separate study reported on the community perceptions of the value of the policing disorder intervention in addressing neighborhood crime and conditions (Braga & Bond, Policing disorder interventions are targeted at conditions that may be for a of offenses such as violent crimes, property crimes, and drug crimes. The treatment could have varying effects on trends and in different crime For cases such as this with findings from the will be to decide to the findings or to the one that best the Some policing disorder interventions may be to with a specific but other programs may also target some problems and outcomes for these as In these cases the for the will be For instance, outcomes are the Lowell evaluation the and of total citizen calls for service in the treatment hot spots relative to the control hot spots as the outcome measure (Braga & Bond, 2008). However, some studies might have outcomes. these lead to problems regarding of outcomes. As such, we will a of three with the criteria of the and minimum to in an for such studies. The strategy will be used for any studies the outcome with different types of data a study the impact of a policing disorder on may use robbery and robbery calls for service as outcome Finally, some studies may policing disorder program by one police to specific problems in areas within a cases will be as one study with and independent for outcomes will be in the as of outcome measures across studies will be out in a where appropriate and will be used to data from studies. We will be our analyses to studies that the impacts of broken windows policing on crime outcomes at the area As described by and Wilson it is to from studies with very different units of analysis (such as studies focused on with studies focused on For eligible with data will be using the measures of as in the literature (e.g. & 2001). will be across studies and we will use a such as the for the associated The will be the of for all outcomes of a or For eligible studies that two that have a the known as will be used in our to synthesize This measure be appropriate for eligible evaluations that an outcome measure, such as incident for treatment and control areas and observation The developed by Wilson and available on the will be used to and for reported outcomes in will be used to conduct the of In our we will use a We will four or of broken windows policing these or we will use the to the of analysis (see & 2001) for and analysis for or analyses involving consistent with other systematic of policing interventions (e.g. Braga & Weisburd, we will research design as a of program to quasi-experimental designs, randomized controlled trials have been revealed to more (Weisburd et al., 2001; et al., 2011). we will policing disorder program as a of program As our literature review there seems to be varying that police departments to controlling disorder that could produce different effects on crime (e.g., zero-tolerance misdemeanor arrest strategies community problem-solving to recurring disorder we will conduct a analysis of the impacts of policing disorder programs on different types of crime outcomes (e.g. violent crimes property It is that a police focus on disorder could produce impacts on particular types of crimes. and we will the of analysis as a of program It is that the types of areas (e.g. small crime places larger subjected to policing disorder strategies will in program with the literature on hot spots policing broken windows interventions in small areas may crime reduction impacts relative to across larger we will conduct separate analyses based on the geographical (e.g. or defined hot such as street and block research on crime and disorder outcomes will not be included in this systematic review. on the crime prevention value of broken windows policing will be included as information in the review the search strategies a number of the will engage a to in to this review with a of evaluation The for a the and anticipated In with we will this review three Braga has conducted two randomized controlled trials that found disorder implemented within a problem-oriented policing to be in reducing citizen calls for service to the police in crime hot spots (see Braga et al., 1999; Braga & Bond, 2008). Braga have an towards the effectiveness of broken windows policing it may be for to findings in this review that the findings of his evaluations or related evaluations conducted by his not have any of in this review. the study identify the treatment as a broken windows policing the any the quality of the a in the analysis for this the independent

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.