Murder rate in Chicago is bad: "correct" applications of broken window policing

 

I can't remember where I came across a mention of the new book by Peter Moskos, a professor at CUNY's John Jay College, Back from the Brink, which is an oral history interviewing various police and other people involved in developing in the early 1990s, "the system" of focused policing on improving place and suppressing crime in New York City, which became a national best practice for reduction in crime and policing, and a shining light leading to the resurgence in interest in urban living--most major cities began adding population in the 2000s because city living was perceived to be cool, but also safe.

I was so intrigued I bought a copy right away, forgetting I could probably get a review copy for free.

It's a slow read only because there are so many lessons to be drawn from the examples of what people did to bring down crime, and how they improved quality of life in New York City, leading to the city's "revival" in rising population, commerce, new construction, and tourism.

I used to say, after reading William Bratton's second autobiography, The Profession: A Memoir of Policing in America, that the New York City subway system was the only place that true "broken windows" policing ("Broken Windows," Atlantic) was implemented, to great success.

Many academics and advocates deride the theory, saying it didn't improve places, that it led to over-incarceration, etc.  

The reality is that what most people call "broken windows" is effectuated by police departments as "zero tolerance policing" where they arrest people for the most minor crimes.  By contrast, BW arrests when the effect can be multiplicative, in that turnstile jumpers tend to commit other crimes, when people not wearing their seatbelts tends to not be associated with criminal activity.

More and more research finds the "broken windows" approach to be successful.

So I'm reading the book, slowly, preparing to write a blog entry about lessons, but it's spurring me to buy more "old books" on the topic such as Crime Fighter about Jack Maple, Disorder and Deviance--after the BW theory was devised this book looks to better define what disorder looks like, and Bleeding Out. by a University of Maryland professor, about community organization ground up initiatives aimed at reducing violence.

Maybe I'll include them all in one big entry, maybe not.

Once the NYC subway was "cleaned up," police and stakeholders wanted to bring the concept of place-based improvement policing "up to the surface."  Bryant Park was first.  Then the Port Authority Bus Terminal.  Then Times Square.  These were the anchors that helped to create a critical mass of improvement, developing critical mass, leading to even more widespread improvements.

When I was in the process of buying other books, I noticed that the author of the book on disorder, who is based at Northwestern, has a lot of books about the "success" of community policing in Chicago.  I'd say that the number of police-involved killings, the hundred millions of dollars of judgements the city pays out each year, and the persistent level of crime indicates that community policing hasn't worked.

National Guard federal law enforcement accosting a guy on a bench in a park, Washington, DC.  Reddit photo.

Bloomberg reports, "Eight Dead, 58 Shot in Chicago Fuel Trump’s Troop Threats," on an especially high rate of violence in Chicago over Labor Day weekend, and how it gives Trump justification for his threats to put "federal law enforcement" in the city, the way he has in DC ("What a great headline (about Trump's takeover of the city police department in Washington DC) | and more on disorder").  

(Note that federal court ruled that the entry of federal law enforcement in Los Angeles, was illegal, "Trump deployment of military troops to Los Angeles was illegal, judge rules in blistering opinion, Los Angeles Times).

The fact is that DC and Chicago are great examples of not applying broken windows principles to policing and/or public safety, and having persistent crime as a result.  

In DC, it's a failure to focus on youth, their participation in crime including murder, car jacking, armed robberies, assaults, and what precipitates it ("Empty desks: How the District’s failure to curb truancy in middle schools fueled the biggest youth crime surge in a generation.," Washington Post).  FWIW, Washington Post columnist Colbert King has been writing about this problem since the 1990s.

Another book in my queue to read, Unforgiving Places The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence. I learned about it from the Atlantic article, "Are We Thinking About Gun Violence All Wrong?."  Also see, "What We Get Wrong About Violent Crime," New Yorker.

Decades ago in the 1990s I was thinking about moving to Chicago, so I subscribed to Chicago Magazine for a bit.  

I remember a couple articles focusing on crime in that city, on the areas where it was worst, and how a relatively small number of perpetrators were responsible for a preponderance of crime.  (These articles are more recent: "The Truth About Chicago’s Crime Rates," "The Truth About Chicago's Crime Rates: Part 2," "New Tricks," Chicago Magazine).

I can't find that article without going to a place with a microfilm copy, but the New Yorker review of the book discusses that concept:

... research—from criminologists like David Weisburd and Lawrence W. Sherman—showed that, in city after city, crime was hyperconcentrated. A handful of blocks accounted for a disproportionate share of violence, and those blocks stayed violent, year after year. In other words, the problem wasn’t people. It was place.

Recognition that there were high crime areas, and the need to focus on those areas, while developing effective strategies for reducing crime, not just reacting to it, is the basis of broken windows policing.

I'm not sure what's happening in Chicago.  When I was on grand jury duty a decade ago, one of the people on the jury was from Chicago and she opined that the closure of various housing projects redistributed criminal activity into different areas, leading to turf wars.

Clearly Chicago isn't doing it, and their community policing strategy wasn't focused on the most important elements ("Civic heavyweights push CPD to rethink community policing strategy," Crain's Chicago Business)., Operationalizing Community Policing Within The Chicago Police Department, CP Solutions, "Homicide, Social Efficacy, and Poverty in Chicago," Chicago Magazine).

Also see:

-- "Chicago's Poor Neighborhoods: Everything Deserts," Chicago Magazine
-- "Is Chicago an Outlier? Organizational Density in Poor Urban Neighborhoods," University of Chicago

======

Also see, included within many links to past entries, "Redefining what public safety means: Community Safety Partnership, Los Angeles."

======

-- Restore the Core: A citizen's guide to building a livable Washington, DC

I lived in DC for almost 15 years before I started getting involved in civic affairs.  I did so believing if I didn't, nothing would change.  

I did have good timing.  Around then a desire to live in cities began to build.  And crime was dropping.  Neighborhood specifics was one of my foci.  

The other, "smart growth," and the report from the local Sierra Club chapter that I picked up at the Adams Morgan Festival definitely spurred me into involvement.  Before that I had been interested in urban issues, bought and read books, read the Washington Post and the New York Times, etc.  But I was an observer.

One of my first involvements was a local community group that was focused on the community sure, but especially on crime.  

The group was called Near Northeast Citizens Against Crime and Drugs and it was spearheaded by a firebrand "old lady," Loree Murray ("A Woman who won't sit still for it" and "Fought D.C. Cocaine Epidemic" Washington Post).  This area was right in the center of Rayful Edmond's crack distribution operation ("Rayful Edmond was no victim," Washington Post).  She lived around the corner from it, while I lived about 5 blocks away, in an area still affected by it.

This was the kind of community organization that Patrick Sharkey says in Uneasy Peace: The Great Crime Decline, the Renewal of City Life, and the Next War on Violence, that helped to bring crime down.

In 2003, I ended up getting featured in the Post, "on a slow news day," on the overconcentration of liquor stores in my neighborhood ("Neighbors fight single beer sales").  The photo in my blog profile is from that story.

This kind of overconcentration elsewhere had been associated with significant crime increases ("Alcoholic beverage sales restrictions moving forward in Seattle," 2006).

Ironically, later I opposed a reflexive opposition to taverns and restaurants with liquor licenses, believing it would help revitalize the lagging commercial district, stating there was a big difference between liquor stores and restaurants ("Restaurants and liquor licenses--How much is too much on H Street?," 2005).  Of course, my position was the correct position.

Like a lot of issues, policing gets all mucked up in politics.  The way forward has been shown.  It's just that in most jurisdictions, that's not what police want to do, especially in Chicago ("The federal help Chicago really needs," "A tough truth about police management in Chicago," Crain's Chicago Business).