Program Profile: Doors and Windows Ordinance (Philadelphia, Pa.)

This environmental crime-prevention measure was enacted as a city ordinance and required property owners of abandoned buildings (that often serve as havens for illicit drugs and related crime) to install working doors and windows in all structural openings or be subject to significant fines. This program is rated Promising. The results show that the program was associated with statistically significant citywide reductions in overall crimes and all nuisance crimes, but not in violent gun crimes.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Components

In 2011, the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania began enforcing an environmental crime-prevention measure, the Doors and Windows Ordinance, to remediate deteriorating city properties. Section 306 of the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code states that “where such doors or windows or entrance to openings are readily accessible to trespassers, they shall be kept securely locked, fastened, or otherwise secured…to prevent unauthorized entry to the premises by closing all openings with materials approved by the Department” (City of Philadelphia Department of Licensing and Inspection 2011). This ordinance is intended to reduce the negative crime and health outcomes often associated with vacant and abandoned buildings.

The ordinance allows the city to fine owners for a property opening that is not covered with a functional door or window on blocks that are more than 80 percent inhabited. Under this ordinance, plywood is considered an unacceptable covering due to its tendency to deteriorate quickly, look unkempt, and is often penetrated to allow unlawful access into abandoned buildings. The city issues out-of-compliance citations, which involve posting a notice on the abandoned structures and sending a notice of the citation to the owners indicating that they will be taken to court if they fail to comply with the ordinance.

To make building remediation easier for owners to comply in a reasonable amount of time, the city does not require them to obtain renovation permits to meet the ordinance requirements. However, owners planning to renovate their properties beyond the mandatory door and windows replacements are required to apply for a renovation permit. The city notes the number of openings out of compliance and imposes $300 fines per day per opening. Inspectors visit the property every 35 days to evaluate compliance.

Program Theory

The Doors and Windows Ordinance is in line with broken windows theory, which suggests that observable neighborhood disorder, such as abandoned and vacant buildings and lots, indicate that a property and sometimes an entire neighborhood is neglected, has little informal surveillance by those who live there, and that various disruptive acts and misconduct are tolerated (Wilson and Kelling 1982). This environmental decay when left unrepaired serves to invite and allow for the growth of more serious crime and further community plight.

This ordinance also draws on a situational crime prevention theory, which is a strategy intended to reduce the occurrence of crime through environmental changes which reduce the opportunities for offending. In this approach, establishing secure doors and windows serves to control access to the buildings and deflect those who may otherwise try to break in. Additionally, reducing the appearance of disorder impacts the likelihood of crime, in that these changes are thought to signal that committing a crime is unacceptable, is likely to be recognized and questioned, and is ultimately an unrewarding decision (Clarke 1997).

Study

To evaluate the impact of Philadelphia’s Doors and Windows Ordinance on crime levels surrounding abandoned buildings, Kondo and colleagues (2015) used difference-in-differences analysis and regression models to estimate the impact of violation compliance and renovation permits on crime outcomes, while controlling for demographic variables. Statistical analyses also included a time series analysis and a test for displacement of crime.

Data was drawn from the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Philadelphia Police Department, and included sociodemographic information such as age, percent below the poverty level, and household income from the 2010 to 2013 American Community Survey (Kondo et al. 2015). Of the 25,100 vacant or abandoned buildings identified across Philadelphia, 2,536 buildings had been cited as of May 2014 and assessed at least $1.5 million in fines. Between January 2011 and April 2014, 29 percent (676 out of 2,356 cited buildings) complied with the Doors and Windows Ordinance and about 10 percent (241) requested a renovation permit. The city issued up to 100 violations a month; up to 50 properties complied with the ordinance per month. The monthly frequency of renovation permits issued was in general lower than violation compliances.

The study included only those Neighborhood Enforcement Clusters (NECs) or census block groups that 1) had at least five citations and 2) had at least 50 percent of its identified vacant properties cited. In these NECs, the effects of both violation compliances and renovation permits on crime counts surrounding abandoned buildings were examined. For the violation compliance outcome, the study authors used a 1:1 treatment–control ratio; for the renovation permit outcome, they used a 1:4 treatment-site to control-site ratio. They compared differences in pre- and post-treatment measures of crime for treatment sites (buildings that were remediated as a result of the ordinance (n = 676) or permitted for renovation (n = 241) and randomly matched control buildings (similar residential characteristics) that were not remediated (n = 676) or permitted for renovation (n = 964). Any control lot within one quarter of a mile of its matched treatment lot was manually removed and replaced to avoid treatment spillover and contamination, as well as artificial dilution of effect due to immediate proximity. This random-matching process was conducted within each of the four sections of the city (north, northwest, south, and west) to control for confounding variables relating to geography and location. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the differences between the treatment and control sites at the citywide level.

Treatment effects were examined for 1) all crimes, 2) violent gun crimes, and 3) all nuisance crimes, and included measures of the occurrence of crime surrounding each building location by month. While controlling for time, outcomes were assessed from July 2010 to July 2013 to allow for at least 10 months pre-treatment and 3 months post-treatment at all sites. The mean treatment period for violation compliance was 25 months and 12 months for post-treatment. For renovation permits, the mean pre-treatment period was 26 months and 11 months for post-treatment. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the differences between treatment and control sites in specific sections of Philadelphia (i.e., Northwest, North, South, and West).

Subgroup Analysis

Kondo and colleagues (2011) conducted subgroup analyses to determine the differences between treatment and control sites in specific sections of Philadelphia (i.e., Northwest, North, South, and West). The outcomes included narcotics sales and possession, property crimes, robberies, vandalism and illegal dumping, gun assaults, all assaults, all nuisance crimes, violent gun crimes, and all crimes.

There was a statistically significant reduction in narcotics sales and possession, property crimes, and vandalism and illegal dumping at treatment sites in the Northwest, compared with control sites in the Northwest. There was a statistically significant reduction in narcotic sales and possession at treatment sites in the North, compared with control sites in the North. There was also a statistically significant reduction in gun assaults at treatment sites in the South, compared with control sites in the South. Finally, there were statistically significant reductions in all crimes and all nuisance crimes at treatment sites in the West, compared with control sites in the West. All other findings (by section of the city) were not statistically significant.

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

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

City of Philadelphia Department of Licensing and Inspection. 2011. Doors and Windows Ordinance: Property Maintenance Code Section 306.

Clarke, Ronald V.G. 1997. Situational Crime Prevention. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

The Reinvestment Fund. 2014. Strategic Property Code Enforcement and Its Impacts on Surrounding Markets. Philadelphia, PA: The Reinvestment Fund, Policy Solutions.

Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling.1982. "Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety." Atlantic Monthly 127(2):249.