Practice Profile: Disorder Policing

This is a policing strategy to reduce crime and delinquency by focusing efforts on disorderly neighborhood conditions and minor crime offenses. This practice is rated Effective for reducing multiple types of crime and delinquency, and rated Promising for reducing specific types of crimes, including property, violent, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Practice Goals

Disorder policing is a crime-control strategy that represents a shift away from the standard model of policing to a focus on signs of physical and social disorder in neighborhoods. Concentrating on disorderly conditions, such as graffiti or loitering, is thought to send a signal to those who may consider committing a crime that illicit behavior will not be tolerated. Disorder policing does not rely on a single set of tactics, but a diversity of approaches and levels of focus (Weisburd and Eck 2004). Some approaches involve the use of community-based or problem-oriented policing strategies. Others involve the use of more aggressive order-maintenance or zero-tolerance policing strategies. However, the characteristic that unites these approaches is their focus on reducing neighborhood disorder as a mechanism for preventing or reducing crime. Thus, disorder policing can involve a wide variety of tactics, including arrests for misdemeanors (e.g., disorderly conduct, loitering) and citations or other code-enforcement measures for signs of physical disorder such as dilapidated buildings, abandoned cars, and graffiti (Worrall 2002). More community-oriented approaches may include neighborhood cleanup activities such as trash removal or graffiti abatement. There is no set standard for implementing disorder policing, as the application of this method can vary within and across police departments.

Target Areas/Populations

The unit of analysis can include small places (e.g., crime hot spots, problem buildings), smaller police-defined areas (e.g., beats), neighborhoods and selected stretches of roads or highways, and larger police-defined areas (e.g., precincts). Strategies may include engaging residents, local business owners, and other public or private agencies to help identify local problems or develop and implement appropriate responses. Some strategies may focus on specific local problems and thus target specific types of populations. However, the disorder policing approach focuses less on target populations and more on the areas or locations within which disorder policing is implemented.

Practice Theory

Broken-windows theory posits that minor forms of physical and social disorder, if left unattended, lead to a downward spiral of neighborhood decline and serious crime (Wilson and Kelling 1982). It suggests that visual signs of disorder (such as graffiti, aggressive panhandling, prostitution, public urination, public intoxication, garbage, and abandoned cars) signal to residents that social control in the community has broken down, which starts a chain of events that eventually leads to increased levels of crime (Hinkle and Weisburd 2008). The assumption is that the law-abiding citizen and the criminal are aware of visual cues of disorder. Such signs cause law-abiding citizens to fear crime and withdraw from public spaces into the safety of their homes. Criminals perceive decreased levels of informal social control, in that such cues signal that residents do not care about what goes on in the neighborhood; this then opens the streets to increases in the frequency and severity of criminal activity (Gau and Pratt 2008). This theory identifies a relationship between fear and disorder and suggests that police officers can play a substantial role in reducing crime and neighborhood decline, if they focus on controlling disorder and minor crime. However, scholars debate the validity of broken-windows theory vigorously.

Two related, theoretical perspectives that influence the study of disorder policing include deterrence theory and opportunity theories. Deterrence theory posits that crime can be prevented if individuals believe the costs of committing a crime outweigh the benefits (Zimring and Hawkins 1973). Opportunity theories, such as rational choice theory, suggest that individuals weigh the costs and benefits of crime and choose targets that offer maximum reward with minimal effort (Cornish and Clarke, 1987). Such theories are often used to guide some of the approaches to disorder policing, such as problem-oriented policing (Braga and Weisburd 2010).

Practice Activities

Although there is no single specific strategy for implementing disorder policing, a series of methods have been identified that focus on reducing neighborhood disorder. Many of these fall into the following two categories:

• More aggressive, enforcement-based measures such as order-maintenance policing or zero-tolerance policing. Using these approaches, police attempt to impose order though strict enforcement of all laws or ordinance violations (Cordner 1998; Eck and Maguire 2000).
• Less aggressive, community or problem-oriented policing measures. Using these approaches, police attempt to reduce disorder and crime through partnerships with the community and by addressing specific recurring neighborhood problems (Eck and Maguire 2006; Skogan 2006).

Thus, disorder-policing strategies measure success based on the effectiveness of these practices in reducing crime, disorder, or fear and its overall impact on public safety rather than on rapid responses to calls for service or on how police services are allocated (Goldstein 1979; Weisburd and Eck 2004).

Braga, Welsh, and Schnell (2015) conducted additional tests in the meta-analysis (called moderator analyses) to see whether the program type and research design of studies included in the analysis impacted the mean effect sizes and thereby improved the outcomes. 

Using a random-effects model, they examined the mean effect sizes for two different types of programs: community- and problem-oriented programs and order-maintenance programs. Analysis suggested a statistically significant difference between program types. The community- and problem-oriented programs produced a mean effect size that was much larger than the mean effect size of more aggressive, enforcement-oriented, order-maintenance programs. This finding indicates that community- and problem-oriented approaches to disorder policing are more effective for reducing crime than order-maintenance approaches that rely primarily on aggressive enforcement of minor offenses. 

The authors also examined research design as a moderator variable and found that the research design had an impact on effect sizes. Analysis revealed that studies with stronger designs (randomized controlled experiments) found that disorder policing had less robust effects than studies with weaker designs (quasi-experiments). It is important to note that this meta-analysis was not designed to test the key theoretical propositions of disorder policing or broken-windows theory, but rather to assess the impact of police action on public safety.

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

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

Braga, Anthony A., and David Weisburd. 2010. Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cordner, Gary. 1998. “Problem-Oriented Policing vs. Zero Tolerance.”  In Tara O’Connor Shelley and Anne E. Grant (eds.). Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 303–314.

Cornish, D., and R. V. Clarke. 1987. “Understanding Crime Displacement: An Application of Rational Choice Theory.” Criminology 25: 933–47.

Eck, John E., and Edward R. Maguire. 2006. “Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An Assessment of the Evidence.” In Alfred Blumstein and Joel Wallman (eds.). The Crime Drop in America, Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 207–65. 

Gau, Jacinta M., and Travis C. Pratt. 2008. “Broken Windows or Window Dressing? Citizens’(In) Ability to Tell the Difference between Disorder and Crime.” Criminology & Public Policy 7(2):163–94.

Goldstein, Herman. 1979. “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach.” National Probation and Parole Association Journal 25(2): 236–58.

Hinkle, Joshua C., and David Weisburd. 2008. “The Irony of Broken Windows Policing: A Micro-Place Study of the Relationship between Disorder, Focused Police Crackdowns and Fear of Crime.” Journal of Criminal Justice 36(6): 503–12.

Kelling, George L., and William H. Sousa. 2001. Do Police Matter? An Analysis of the Impact of New York City's Police Reforms. New York: Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.

Skogan, Wesley G. 2006. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weisburd, David, and John E. Eck. 2004. “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593: 42–65.

Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. 1982. "Broken Windows." Atlantic Monthly 249(3): 29–38.

Worrall, John L. 2002. Does "Broken Windows" Law Enforcement Reduce Serious Crime? Sacramento, Calif.: California Institute for County Government.

Zimring, Frank, and Gordon Hawkins. 1973. Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Specialized Multi Agency Response Team (SMART)

Hot Spots Policing (Jacksonville, FL)

Hot Spots Policing (Lowell, Mass.)

Drug Market Analysis Program (Jersey City, NJ)

Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places (Jersey City, NJ)

Safe Street Teams (Boston, MA)

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

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?