Broken Windows Policing to Reduce Crime in Neighborhoods

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
offensessuch as aggressive panhandling, prostitution, and graffitithey 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, Skogans (1990) survey research found disorder to be 2 The Campbell Collaboration |
www.campbellcollaboration.org significantly correlated with perceived crime problems in a neighborhood
even after controlling for the populations poverty, stability, and racial composition. Further, Skogans (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 Harcourts analyses do not disprove Skogans
results; rather his analyses simply document that the data are sensitive to outliers. The removal of different
neighborhoods from Harcourts 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 problemoriented 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 3 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 4 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, quasiexperimental, 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.