Title registration for a review proposal: Broken Windows Policing to Reduce Crime in Neighborhoods
Submitted to the Coordinating Group of: _X Crime and Justice __ Education __ Social Welfare __ Other Plans to co-register: _X No __ Yes __ Cochrane __ Other __ Maybe TITLE OF THE REVIEW Broken Windows Policing to Reduce Crime in Neighborhoods BACKGROUND Briefly describe and define the problem 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, 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 theoretical connections between disorder and more serious crime is mixed (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Taylor, 2001). For instance, Skogan’s (1990) survey research found disorder to be
1 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

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) 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. The removal of different neighborhoods from Harcourt’s analysis may have strengthened the disorder-crime connection. Evaluations of the crime control effectiveness of broken windows policing strategies also yield conflicting results. In New York City, for example, it is unclear whether broken windows policing can claim any credit for the 1990s crime drop (Eck & Maguire, 2006; Karmen, 2000) with evaluations reporting significant reductions in violent crime (Corman & Mocan, 2002; Kelling & Sousa, 2001), modest reductions in violent crime (Messner et al., 2007; Rosenfeld, Fornango, & Rengifo, 2007), and no evidence of reductions in violent crime (Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006). These conflicting results have generated questions on the crime prevention value of dealing with physical and social disorder. Given the mixed theoretical and policy evaluation findings, a systematic review of the existing empirical evidence is warranted. Briefly describe and define the intervention The general idea of dealing with disorderly conditions to prevent crime is present in myriad police strategies, ranging from “order maintenance” and “zerotolerance,” 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. As part of our examination of the impacts of broken windows policing on crime, we are also proposing to review the existing theoretical research evidence on the relationship between disorderly conditions and serious crime in neighborhoods. Similar to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of suspect race on police arrest decisions (Rinehart Kochel, Wilson, & Mastrofski, 2011), we will assess whether disorderly conditions generate crime problems. This review will help determine whether the idea of broken windows policing is indeed supported by robust theoretical empirical evidence. Briefly describe and define the population We are interested in determining the impact of broken windows policing on crime in neighborhood areas. Since there is not a consensus within criminology and sociology about how to best define a “neighborhood” (see, e.g. Bursik & Grasmick, 1993), we will follow the authors’ area definitions in eligible studies. These areas
2 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

may include policing districts and beats, neighborhood units (such as census tracts and block groups), and specific places (such as clusters of street blocks, street segments, intersections, and addresses). Outcomes: What are the intended effects of the intervention? 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.

OBJECTIVES 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. The review will also examine the available theoretical evidence on broken windows and seek to determine whether disorderly conditions in neighborhoods give rise to more serious crime problems.

METHODOLOGY Inclusion criteria: 1. Eligible policing interventions must be primarily focused on reducing crime by dealing with physical and social disorder conditions. This could include a wide range of activities such as making improvements to the physical environment (e.g., razing abandoned buildings and cleaning trash-filled vacant lots) and using misdemeanour arrests to address public drinking and other disorderly behaviors. For our assessment of the theoretical links between disorder and more serious crime, we will include all studies that examine the elements of broken windows theory as articulated by Wilson and Kelling (1982). 2. The units of analysis must be areas. 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). 3. Outcome measures in eligible studies must include officially recorded levels of crime in areas such as crime incident reports, citizen emergency calls for service, and arrest data. 4. Areas that received the broken windows policing intervention must be compared to places that experience routine levels of traditional police service or some other policing strategy that is not focused on dealing with disorderly conditions. The comparison group study needs to be either experimental or quasi-experimental (nonrandomized) (Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979). We will also document the findings of non-experimental evaluations in our review, as further descriptive evidence on the possible crime
3 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

reduction value of broken windows policing strategies. For our assessment of the theoretical links between disorder and more serious crime, we will consider non-experimental, quasi-experimental, and randomized experimental research designs. Exclusion criteria: We will not include qualitative studies of broken windows policing or the relationship between disorder and crime. We will not exclude studies on the basis of language or geographical location. Resources will be pursued to allow us to search in languages other than English. Your method of synthesis: Meta-analyses will be used to determine the size, direction, and statistical significance of the overall impact of broken windows policing strategies on crime by weighting program effect sizes based on the variance of the effect size and the study sample size (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Meta-analytic techniques will also be used to examine the theoretical links between disorder and serious crime. We will include a narrative review of eligible studies.

SOURCES OF SUPPORT Internal funding: The School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University will be an intramural source of support for this project. The School of Criminal Justice will support the research through the provision of office space, computer, phone, fax, and paper supplies. Resources of the Gottfredson Criminal Justice Library will be used to conduct the search for eligible studies and information retrieval. External funding: We will seek support for the research from external sources such as private foundations and government grant-making agencies.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST With colleagues, Braga has conducted two randomized controlled trials that found problem-oriented policing interventions focused on disorderly conditions in hot spots reduced crime (see Braga et al. 1999; Braga & Bond, 2008). Although Braga doesn’t have an ideological bias towards the effectiveness of broken windows policing interventions, it may be uncomfortable for him to report findings in this review that contradict the findings of his evaluation or related evaluations conducted by his colleagues. Welsh has not conducted previous studies involving broken windows policing.

4

The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

REQU EST SUPPORT The review team has both substantive knowledge of broken windows policing and extensive experience in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Under the auspices of the Campbell Collaboration, Braga has conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of hot spots policing programs and pulling levers focused deterrence strategies. Welsh has also conducted numerous systematic reviews for the Campbell Collaboration.

AUTHOR(S) REVIEW TEAM Lead reviewer: Anthony A. Braga, Ph.D. Professor / Senior Research Fellow Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice / Harvard University Kennedy School of Government 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 USA Phone: 617.495.5188 Email: Anthony_Braga@harvard.edu Co-author: Brandon C. Welsh, Ph.D. Associate Professor / Senior Research Fellow Northeastern University / Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Churchill Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02115 USA Phone: 617.373.8078 Email: b.welsh@neu.edu

ROLES AND RESP ONSIBLIITIES • • • • Content: Braga and Welsh Systematic review methods: Braga and Welsh Statistical analysis: Braga and Welsh (consultation with David B. Wilson) Information retrieval: Braga (consultation with Phyllis Schultze)

5

The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

PRELIMINARY TIMEFRAME The estimated timeline for a completed report includes the following benchmarks and anticipated dates: Search for published and unpublished studies Relevance assessments Extraction of data from research reports Statistical analysis Preparation of report Submission of completed report November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February - April 2012 May – July 2012 August 2012

REFERENC ES Braga, A., & Bond, B. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology 46: 577 – 608. Braga, A., Weisburd, D., Waring, E., Green Mazerolle, L., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37: 541 – 580. Bratton, W., & Kelling, G. (2006). There are no cracks in the broken windows. National Review, February 28. Bursik, R., & Grasmick, H. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cook, T., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Cordner, G. (1998). Problem-oriented policing vs. zero tolerance. In T. O’Connor Shelly & A. Grant (Eds.), Problem-oriented policing: Crime-specific problems, critical issues, and making POP work (pp. 303-314).Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Corman, H., & Mocan, N. (2005). Carrots, sticks, and broken windows. Journal of Law and Economics 48: 235 – 262. Eck, J., & Maguire, E. (2006). Have changes in policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence. In A. Blumstein & J. Wallman (Eds.), The crime drop in America, rev. ed. (pp. 207-265). New York: Cambridge University Press. Harcourt, B. (1998). Reflecting on the subject: A critique of the social influence conception of deterrence, the broken windows theory, and order-maintenance policing New York style. Michigan Law Review 97: 291 – 389. Harcourt, B., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city experiment. University of Chicago Law Review 73: 271 – 320. Karmen, A. (2000). New York murder mystery: The true story behind the crime
6 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

crash of the 1990s. New York: New York University Press. Kelling, G., & Coles, C. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York: Free Press. Kelling, G., & Sousa, W. (2001). Do police matter? An analysis of the impact of New York City’s police reforms. Civic Report No. 22. New York: Manhattan Institute. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Messner, S., Galea, S., Tardiff, K., Tracy, M., Bucciarelli, A., Markhan Piper, T., Frye, V., & Vlahov, D. (2007). Policing, drugs, and the homicide decline in New York City in the 1990s. Criminology 45: 385 – 414. Rinehart Kochel, T., Wilson, D.B., & Mastrofski, S. 2011. Effect of suspect race on officers’ arrest decisions. Criminology 49: 473 – 512. Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., & Rengifo, A. (2007). The impact of ordermaintenance policing on New York City homicide and robbery rates: 1988 – 2001. Criminology 45: 355 – 384. Sampson, R., & Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology 105: 603 – 651. Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. New York, NY: Free Press. Skogan, W. (2006). Police and community in Chicago. New York: Oxford University Press. Skogan, W., Hartnett, S., DuBois, J., Comey, J., Kaiser, M., & Lovig, J. (1999). On the beat: Police and community problem solving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sousa, W., & Kelling, G. (2006). Of “broken windows,” criminology, and criminal justice. In D. Weisburd & A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 77 – 97). New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, R. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wilson, J.Q., & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly March: 29-38.

7

The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org