This study tests the broken windows theory of crime by examining the relationship between 311 calls for service and crime at the street segment and intersection level in Washington, D.C. Controlling for a set of micro-level covariates as well as unobserved neighborhood-level effects using negative binomial regression models, it is found that detritus- and infrastructure-related calls for service have a positive, but small effect on crime. The results suggest that 311 calls for service are a valid indicator of physical disorder where available, and the findings partially confirm the broken windows theory. Given the small effects though, reducing physical disorder is unlikely to result in appreciable declines in crime.
AnselinL. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27, 93-115.
3.
ArmstrongT.KatzC. (2009). Further evidence on the discriminant validity of perceptual incivilities measures. Justice Quarterly, 27, 280-304.
4.
BittnerE. (1967). The police on skid-row: A study of peace keeping. American Sociological Review, 32, 699-715.
5.
BlockR.BlockC. (1995). Space, place, and crime: Hot spot areas and hot places of liquor-related crime. Crime Prevention Studies, 4, 145-184.
6.
BoggessL.MaskalyJ. (2014). The spatial context of the disorder-crime relationship in a study of Reno neighborhoods. Social Science Research, 43, 168-183.
7.
BootsB. N. (1986). Voronoi (Thiessen) polygons. Norwich, UK: Geo Books.
8.
BrameR.BushwayS.PaternosterR. (1999). On the use of panel research designs and random effects models to investigate static and dynamic theories of criminal offending. Criminology, 37, 599-642.
9.
BranasC.CheneyR.MacDonaldJ.TamV.JacksonT.Ten HaveT. (2011). A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology, 174, 1296-1306.
10.
ChappellA.Monk-TurnerE.PayneB. (2010). Broken windows or window breakers: The influence of physical and social disorder on quality of life. Justice Quarterly, 28, 522-540.
11.
Community Oriented Policing Services. (2007). 311 for non-emergencies: Helping communities one call at a time (COPS Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/inaction1/pubs/311NonEmergencies.pdf
12.
DonovanG.PrestemonJ. (2012). The effect of trees on crime in Portland, Oregon. Environment & Behavior, 44, 3-30.
13.
EckJ.ClarkeR.GueretteR. (2007). Risky facilities: Crime concentration in homogenous sets of establishments and facilities. Crime Prevention Studies, 21, 225-264.
FaganJ.DaviesG. (2000). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28, 457-504.
17.
FarringtonD.WelshB. (2004). Measuring the effects of improved street lighting on crime: A reply to Dr. Marchant. The British Journal of Criminology, 44, 448-467.
18.
GauJ.PrattT. (2008). Broken windows or window dressing? Citizens’ (in)ability to tell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 163-194.
19.
GroffE.McCordE. (2012). The role of neighborhood parks as crime generators. Security Journal, 25, 1-24.
20.
HarcourtB.LudwigJ. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. The University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 271-320.
21.
HarrellF. (2001). Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
22.
HinkleJ. (2013). The relationship between disorder, perceived risk, and collective efficacy: A look into the indirect pathways of the broken windows thesis. Criminal Justice Studies, 26, 408-432.
23.
HippJ. (2010). Resident perceptions of crime and disorder: How much is “bias,” and how much is social environment differences?Criminology, 48, 475-508.
24.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.
25.
KlingerD.BridgesG. (1997). Measurement error in calls-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology, 35, 705-726.
26.
LevineN.WachsM.ShiraziE. (1986). Crime at bus stops: A study of environmental factors. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 3, 339-361.
27.
LinkN.KellyJ.PittsJ.Waltman-SprehaK.TaylorR. (2014). Reversing broken windows: Evidence of lagged, multilevel impacts of risk perceptions on perceptions of incivility. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 659-682. doi:10.1177/0011128714555606
28.
LongJ.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
29.
McCordE.RatcliffeJ.GarciaM.TaylorR. (2007). Nonresidential crime attractors and generators elevate perceived neighborhood crime and incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 295-320.
30.
O’BrienD. (2015). Custodians and custodianship in urban neighborhoods: A methodology using reports of public issues received by a city’s 311 hotline. Environment & Behavior, 47, 304-327.
31.
O’BrienD.SampsonR. (2015). Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: Assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 486-510.
32.
O’BrienD.SampsonR.WinshipC. (2015). Ecometrics in the age of big data: Measuring and assessing “Broken windows” using large-scale administrative records. Sociological Methodology, 45, 101-147.
33.
O’BrienD.WinshipC. (2017). The gains of greater granularity: The presence and persistence of problem properties in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Advance online publication, 33, 649-674.
34.
PapachristosA.SmithC.SchererM.FugieroM. (2011). More coffee, less crime? The relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005. City & Community, 10, 215-240.
35.
RaudenbushS.SampsonR. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology, 29, 1-41.
36.
RogersD. (1999). 311 non-emergency. Law Enforcement Technology, 26, 68-70.
37.
RoncekD.BellR.FrancikJ. (1981). Housing projects and crime: Testing a proximity hypothesis. Social Problems, 29, 151-166.
38.
RoncekD.LoboscoA. (1983). Effect of high schools on crime in their neighborhoods. Social Science Quarterly, 64, 598-613.
39.
RosenfeldR.FornangoR.RengifoA. (2007). The impact of order-maintenance policing on New York City homicide and robbery rates: 1988-2001. Criminology, 45, 355-384.
40.
St. JeanP. (2008). Pockets of crime: Broken windows, collective efficacy, and the criminal point of view. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
41.
SampsonR.RaudenbushS. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603-651.
42.
SampsonR.RaudenbushS. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “Broken windows.”Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 319-342.
43.
SampsonR.RaudenbushS.EarlsF. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
44.
SteenbeekW.VölkerB.FlapH.OortF. (2012). Local businesses as attractors or preventers of neighborhood disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 213-248.
45.
StuckyT.OttensmanJ. (2009). Land use and violent crime. Criminology, 47, 1223-1264.
46.
SwattM.VaranoS.UchidaC.SolomonS. (2013). Fear of crime, incivilities, and collective efficacy in four Miami neighborhoods. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 1-11.
47.
TaylorR. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
TaylorR.KoonsB.KurtzE.GreeneJ.PerkinsD. (1995). Street blocks with more nonresidential land use have more physical deterioration. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 120-136.
49.
WallaceD. (2015). A test of the routine activities and neighborhood attachment explanations for bias in disorder perceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 587-609.
50.
WallaceD.HedbergC.KatzC. (2012). The impact of foreclosures on neighborhood disorder before and during the housing crisis: Testing the spiral of decay. Social Science Quarterly, 93, 625-647.
51.
WallaceD.LoutonB.FornangoR. (2015). Do you see what I see? Perceptual variation in reporting the presence of disorder cues. Social Science Research, 51, 247-261.
52.
WeisburdD.GroffE.YangS. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
WeisburdD.GroffE.YangS. (2014). Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: The importance of formal and informal social controls. Prevention Science, 15, 31-43.
54.
WilcoxP.EckJ. (2011). Criminology of the unpopular. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 473-482.
55.
WilcoxP.QuisenberryN.CabreraD.JonesS. (2004). Busy places and broken windows? Toward defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 185-207.
56.
WilsonJ.KellingG. (1982). The police and neighborhood safety: Broken windows. The Atlantic, 127, 29-38.
57.
WilsonJ.KellingG. (1989). Making neighborhoods safe. The Atlantic, 263, 46-52.
58.
WorrallJ. (2006). The discriminant validity of perceptual incivility measures. Justice Quarterly, 23, 360-383.
59.
YangS. (2010). Assessing the spatial-temporal relationship between disorder and violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 139-163.
60.
YangS.PaoC. (2015). Do we “see” the same thing? An experimental look into the black box of disorder perception. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 534-566.
61.
ZimbardoP. (1973). A field experiment in auto shaping. In WardC. (Ed.), Vandalism (pp. 85-90). London, England: The Architectural Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
