Program Profile: Broken Windows/Public Order Policing in High Crime Areas (CA)

This program was implemented in three midsized cities near the Los Angeles, California area, with the goal of examining effects on residents’ fear of crime, perceptions of collective efficacy and police legitimacy, and actual and perceived levels of crime and disorder. The program is rated Ineffective. Findings revealed no statistically significant impacts on any of the dependent variables, suggesting no indication of either beneficial effects or “backfire” effects in targeted areas.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Sites

A “broken windows” based hot spots policing approach is a disorder reduction tactic used by some law enforcement agencies in high crime neighborhoods. The strategy is based on the “broken windows” theory of crime, which suggests that crime is likely to flourish in areas with high levels of physical and social disorder. It entails the use of broken windows policing, also known as disorder policing or order maintenance policing, which focuses resources on small areas with high crime rates (hot spots) to produce a crime-reduction effect throughout the larger area. In California, this policing strategy was implemented in three midsized cities near Los Angeles. The intervention was based on the idea that, by reducing social and physical disorder, conditions will improve and crime and disorder will be reduced.

Program Activities

The approach was implemented in three midsized cities near the Los Angeles, California area.  The strategy included using a broken windows policing approach across 55 street blocks identified as high crime areas (hot spots) in each city. These areas received an extra 3 hours of attention from police per week, in addition to the normal level of police presence.

Participating officers attended 1 day of training that encouraged them not to ignore any incidents of physical or social disorder within targeted areas. For first offenses, officers were told to use discretion in resolving problems, and give preference to police warnings and explanations about why some behaviors (such as public drinking or loitering) were not permissible. Specifically, officers were instructed to deal with social disorder via warnings, negotiations, and counseling as the first option. Common intervention activities included talking to a citizen, field interrogation, “stop and frisk,” advising/warning a citizen, issuing a citation, making an arrest, making a referral to another agency, and writing an incident report (Weisburd et al. 2012). Arrests or citations were to be used with recidivists or cases with aggravated circumstances.

To deal with physical disorder, officers were trained to report every instance of disorderly condition, such as graffiti or litter, to the appropriate city clean-up agencies, and follow up with those agencies if the problem was not dealt with in a timely manner.  

Program Theory

The intervention in California was based on the broken windows theory, which argues that police can prevent crime by addressing disorderly neighborhood conditions, including both physical and social disorder (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Left untreated, such conditions can cause fear and withdrawal among community members. This, in turn, can lead to a decrease in informal social controls (or a perceived decrease by those inclined toward crime). According to the theory, disorder creates the conditions under which crime is allowed to thrive.

The intervention in California also included hot spots policing, which focuses on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated (Braga et al. 2012). Hot spots policing is based on three related theoretical perspectives on spatial concentrations of crime: rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke 1987), routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson 1979), and environmental criminology (Brantingham and Brantingham 1991). Hot spots policing allows law enforcement agencies to focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. Concentrating limited resources on a small number of high-crime areas that generate a disproportionate share of crime is thought to represent a more efficient way to allocate resources than other less focused approaches.

Other Information

Critics of hot spots policing contend that it may generate backfire effects by negatively affecting residents’ fear of crime, collective efficacy, and police legitimacy, due to increased police presence and activity in targeted areas. Some critics argue that increased police presence may alter residents’ perceptions of crime in their neighborhood, ultimately increasing fear of crime and eroding police–community relations, which may threaten police legitimacy (Rosenbaum 2006; Weisburd and Braga 2003). Specifically, Rosenbaum (2006) notes that simply being labeled a “hot spot” may increase residents’ fear of crime, and that increased police presence may have residents feeling more like targets than partners with the police. Thus, the nature and style of policing within hot spots is thought to play an important role in how the community responds to having a heavier than usual police presence.

Study

Weisburd and colleagues (2011) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of the broken windows hot spots policing approach on residents’ fear of crime, neighborhood collective efficacy, public perceptions of police legitimacy, and perceived crime and disorder in three midsized cities near Los Angeles, California. More than 60 percent of the residents in two of the target cities (Colton and Ontario) were Hispanic; the other city (Redlands) was about 74 percent white. The intervention began in mid-June 2008 and ended around mid-January 2009 (approximately 6 months in duration). The treatment areas received an additional 3 hours per week of police presence in addition to regular patrol, whereas the control areas received police patrol as usual.

The experiment was conducted at the street-segment level, which was defined as the two block faces on both sides of a street, which included both of the intersections connected to the street block. A total of 110 street segments were randomized into treatment and control areas, with 55 target blocks in each group. The number of blocks chosen in each city was limited to a number that police leaders felt would be feasible to deliver the intervention in a sufficient dosage, and were carefully selected on the basis of having a sufficient number of crime and disorder problems that required police attention (i.e., treatment areas should have had 10 or more disorder calls for service or 3 or more Uniform Crime Report Part I crime calls for service within the year preceding the study). Additionally, treatment areas were separated from each other by at least one full street segment in every direction. The cities of Colton and Ontario had 60 and 20 segments included in the study, respectively, while Redlands had 30 street segments.

Outcomes were assessed using a series of telephone surveys delivered to residents and business owners/managers. Surveys were administered by research assistants at California State University in two waves, before and after the police intervention. The first wave of data was collected between March and June 2008; the second was collected between January and April 2009. The final sample size included 371 individual responses from the 110 street segments: 192 from the experimental area and 179 from the control area. Of these, 205 surveys were completed by residential respondents and 166 were completed by business owners/managers. ANOVA models were used to examine within-subject changes in both target and control communities, controlling for city and the interaction between intervention and city.

Participating officers received a 1- day training session that covered the broken windows theory of crime control, broken windows policing in practice, and information related to the study and intervention design. The training explained the selection process of treatment and control sites and an action plan for administering the appropriate dosage in target areas. Each officer received an intervention protocol booklet that showed examples of how to address specific types of social and physical disorder consistent with broken windows policing. The training encouraged police officers to address all instances of physical or social disorder encountered within the target area. One police department conducted follow-up trainings during weeks 12 and 17 to ensure that new participants were implementing the program as designed. Trainings emphasized that the preferred method of handling disorders was the use of warnings and counseling. Officers were also trained to report any physical disorder to the appropriate clean-up agency, and follow-ups were conducted to ensure consistency (Weisburd et al. 2012).

To ensure program fidelity, participating officers were required to use log sheets that recorded all instances of physical and social disorder that occurred in target areas. Officers were to complete log sheets for each visit to a target area regardless of how much time they spent there and whether there were any incidents. Common intervention activities were listed and officers were asked to indicate frequency of each activity. There was also room at the bottom of the form for open-ended comments regarding disorder and the officer’s response to the disorder. The log sheets were used to monitor dosage in target areas during the intervention and to collect data on specific activities conducted. Log forms were collected on a biweekly basis and information was recorded in a database (Weisburd et al. 2012).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile: