Broken Windows Policing comes to Cole Neighborhood, Denver

Well, with no shortage of controversy, with the endorsement of the Metro Organization for People the Denver Police Department District 2 are set to begin "Broken Windows" Policing in Cole Neigborhood.

While many residents (like my wife and me) are thrilled to hear of this new focus on improving the climate in our neighborhood of Cole, the announcement of this initiative has brought as much if not more outcry as relief among many residents, in particular, minorities. (It still surprises me that individuals won't speak out or become involved to address the crime problems in our neighborhood, including the recent murder of a college student home visiting his folks, but are so quick to criticize the police department for this initiative, before it has even begun. Whatever the cause, it is certainly a shame that there isn't a better relationship between many residents and the Denver police force, as a partnership between both is essential for the continued progress of the neighborhood. While again many will be quick to point the finger at the police department, I think any reasonable individual will admit the likely true responsibility for this animosity is in reality shared between police and community).

Regardless, residents of Cole owe it to themselves, to the police department they are criticizing, and more importantly, to the rest of the neighborhood to do their homework to truly understand the issue at hand--Not just swallow the party line the police department and MOP are presenting. Similarly, residents should do their homework before jumping on the bandwagon of the critics and borderline activists on the other side of the argument.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post--However, I feel it is a crucial issue for residents to understand, and as such I tried to present the issue in as much entirety as possible. What is my goal? While I have come to my own conclusion on whether Broken Windows is a welcome addition to our neighborhood, I want to provide as much information as possible to individuals seeking it out, so that they may make their own educated assessment. And by educated, I mean seeing both sides of the issue, not just the one that I think gains the most "press", which is the side of the critics.

It's not hard in today's information age to do your homework, and glean enough different points of view from the articles and publications available online to form an educated opinion, yet is it just me, or are people becoming less informed with time, and instead just buying into the most convenient explanation or position on a topic?

While I'm no expert (I'm just a pseudo-intellectual according to one blogger that believes they have this issue all figured out) but I've done enough reading, and attended enough meetings on the issue that I think I can at least present an opinion that is formed through a thorough understanding of both sides of the issue, unlike many.

First off, what is "Broken Windows"?

To initially answer this question, I'll simply point readers to the original article that spawned the "Broken Windows" theory of policing.

Long story short, the theory basically holds that a solution to crime epidemics in many neigborhoods is to fix the problems when they are small. For example, in dealing with vandalism, repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the sidewalk every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighborhood.

Thus, the theory makes two claims: 1) future petty crime and "nuisance" anti-social behavior will be deterred, and as a result 2) major crime will be prevented.

From what I can tell, most critics of the theory focus their criticism on the second point, as well as a potential increase in police profiling and loss of civil liberties at the hands of the police department.

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert Cisneros explained the Broken Windows theory in a 1995 essay as purporting "that a certain sequence of events can be expected in deteriorating neighborhoods":

Evidence of decay (accumulated trash, broken windows, deteriorated building exteriors) remains in the neighborhood for a reasonably long period of time. People who live and work in the area feel more vulnerable and begin to withdraw. They become less willing to intervene to maintain public order (for example, to attempt to break up groups of rowdy teens loitering on street corners) or to address physical signs of deterioration. Sensing this, teens and other possible offenders become bolder and intensify their harassment and vandalism. Residents become yet more fearful and withdraw further from community involvement and upkeep. This atmosphere then attracts offenders from outside the area, who sense that it has become a vulnerable and less risky site for crime.

The "broken windows" theory suggests neighborhood strategies such as those listed below help to deter and reduce crime:

• Quick replacement of broken windows
• Prompt removal of abandoned vehicles
• Fast clean up of illegally dumped items, litter and spilled garbage
• Quick paint out of graffiti
• Finding (or building) better places for teens to gather than street corners
• Fresh paint on buildings
  Clean sidewalks and street gutters"

Seems to make sense, right? I can say that I see a lot of parallels between Mr. Cisneros' "sequence of events" in a deteriorating neighborhood and what I have seen in my six years spent in Denver's redeveloping neighborhoods. There is no doubt in my mind that crime in a neighborhood creates its own momentum if left unchecked. Whether it's littering, public drug use, or worse yet, drug dealing and violence, once the bad guys realize that no one in the neighborhood cares or is going to speak up, and that the police aren't actively enforcing the law in an area, they become increasingly bold.

Want proof? Come into my neighborhood and see individuals urinating in public, walking their un-spayed or neutered, unvaccinated dogs in populated areas without leashes, drinking in public, littering, ignoring traffic laws, even publicly using or dealing drugs, etc. And then acting flabbergasted when someone (like me) complains or calls the cops about their lawlessness. When do people stop caring about obeying the law? Stop caring about reckless or dangerous behavior? Where do you think that apathy starts? It starts with one person doing one of these acts, and not experiencing any consequences (no one complains or corrects them). That's how individuals develop habits, and I'd agree, it's also how neighborhoods do.

So why, you ask, doesn't everyone embrace this form of policing, as it seems to sense, at least on a basic level? It seems like most critics of the theory come up with the following criticisms:

1. There is no empirical proof, they say that Broken Windows actually works in reducing crime.

And at first glance, there does seem to be a lack of statistical evidence that Broken Windows policing creates a quantifiable decrease in serious crime (at least until you realize that one of the most-referenced critics, Bernard Harcourt, apparently and possibly intentionally omitted the data from two neighborhoods that potentially would have changed the statistics upon which he bases his entire attack). While the Giuliani administration in New York City, the first adopters of the theory back in the 80's proudly tout a sudden decrease in petty and serious crime after implementation of the theory that continued for 10 years (though even Giuliani suggests Broken Windows was just one prong of a multi-pronged initiative that led to the reduction in crime), critics are quick to point out that many cities in the same period of time, regardless of their policing, saw similar decreases in crime. They also point out that several other factors during the period could have contributed to the drop in crime, like tougher gun laws, a decrease in crack cocaine use, increased employment, and longer prison terms. Additionally, and this makes sense to me, critics point out that correlation doesn't necessarily infer causation. For example, one study I found showed that there was also a correlation between the New York Yankees high winning percentage during the Broken Windows period in NYC and the decrease in crime (The "Broken Yankees" Theory, page 28), but does that mean that the New York Yankees reduced crime in NYC? Even I must admit this makes for interesting thought on the topic.

I suggest you do your own homework: Read some of the criticisms here, here and here.

But unlike the bandwagon critics of Broken Windows, don't miss the articles out there showing that empirical support for broken windows' effectiveness might actually exist, like here, here and better yet, specifically referring to Broken Windows in Denver here. Or Bratton and Kelling's own rebuttal to many of their critics.

And no matter what the critics say, while the issue may be too convoluted to allow us to extract a direct causational relationship between Broken Windows' previous usage and crime reduction in those areas, they can't deny that at minimum a correlation did exist--And even without this data, why is it so hard for anyone to believe that increased enforcement of crime leads to a reduction in crime, or catching more bad guys? Or that actually enforcing the law (it is the law, correct?) is being too totalitarian? Doesn't anyone else feel that littering, public urination, vandalism and in general, reckless behavior takes away from one's quality of life? And I don't buy into the attitude that this type of crap is just what you get living in the city.

2. The second major criticism is that Broken Windows policing increases the potential for racial profiling by police; and that civil liberties are lost in the process. There is a resident in our neighborhood that is convinced this is the case--so much so that she authored a dissertation referring to Broken Windows as The new slave codes. She so believes that Broken Windows is an excuse for the white-dominated Denver Police Department to increase profiling and harassment that she leafletted our last Cole Neighborhood Meeting with her dissertation, and forcefully interrupted the meeting with a vitriolic indictment of Broken Windows, the Denver Police Department, and even MOP. And, in my opinion, alienated many potential supporters of her point of view that might have been in attendance. Interestingly, after her theatrics at the neighborhood meeting, the issue apparently wasn't important enough for her to attend the following open public meetings--Where residents met with police and were encouraged to share their point of view and recommendations for the program. While I passionately disagree with the author's point of view, her dissertation certainly sums up the civil liberties and racial objections to the Broken Windows theory, and thus is worth reading at least for reference. For additional reference, many of the other articles (and critics in general) I find claiming a loss of civil liberties and an increase in profiling with Broken Windows refer to the Los Angeles Police Department's use of the program.

Am I concerned about racial profiling? Of course, as a caucasian male, likely not as much as a person of color. But I'm more concerned about the current trends in our neighborhood, where the drug dealers and gang bangers if anything seem to be gaining strength, despite very positive progress in terms of redevelopment in Cole. I'm from the school of thought that we have a serious problem in Cole, and especially given the apathy of many residents and their current inexplicable willingness to look the other way when crimes are committed, the police are our only hope for improvement. If people think increased enforcement isn't the solution, I'm all ears to hear an alternative.

The resident mentioned above writes in her article:

On any given day, you can drive down streets in the Cole neighborhood in urban Denver and be a witness to an unofficial version of “broken windows” policing: flashing lights from police cars as motorists are pulled over and their vehicles searched; Black and Latino people standing on sidewalks being frisked and handcuffed; or youth of color lined up to gain entry to the juvenile “community court."

Now, before we jump to the conclusion that the author of this quote clearly is trying to lead us to, let's consider facts here: According to the Piton Foundation, our neighborhood is 92% African American and Hispanic. With such a majority, there's no secret why the majority of traffic stops and police contacts are with blacks and Hispanics--it very likely is simple statistical probability, not necessarily racial profiling. Would we expect to see whites, comprising 8% of Cole's population being pulled over most of the time?

And with that kind of majority, are you beginning to realize how difficult a task it is the DPD faces, increasing enforcement with an overwhelmingly white police force in an overwhelmingly black and Hispanic area?

But Kelling and the Broken Windows proponents are racists, right? I have to present a quote from Mr. Kelling (from the April 1st, 2000 NY Times), that stands in stark contrast to his reputation among many people of color as a proponent or instigator of racial profiling:

"Special units, such as the street crimes unit and anti-drug operations... can be effective tools, but they can also be troublesome and potentially dangerous. While special units have been important ingredients in the Police Department's crime-reduction efforts, they tend to be remote from neighborhoods and communities.

The second issue is police planning. Police increasingly rely on analysis of crime data, mapping and other methods to develop tactics for addressing specific problems. When they discover that guns are the primary instruments of murder in black neighborhoods, is it racial profiling or smart policing to target anti-gun efforts there?

Resolutions to these issues are possible, but not easy. They involve balancing individual rights with community interests, effectiveness with costs, and the tradeoffs among important values. Getting out of the current political mess, however, is the first step. Police and neighborhood leaders will have to seek each other out aggressively and honestly. Then, they can get back to the business of improving policing."

Again, sound a little different than Kelling is portrayed by Broken Windows critics? Do your own homework folks, the information is out there!

Kelling is all about checks and balances to prevent unilateral and excessive police force. Where do those checks come in? Well, in Denver, the police department are proposing (not being forced to implement, it was their idea) an empirical system of surveys to be taken before, during and each year following Broken Windows implementation, to measure not only arrest rates and traditional statistical measures of police effectiveness, but also community satisfaction and feedback.

Afraid that local residents of color will feel harassed and profiled? Well, as long as they stay involved in the community, and participate in these control processes, that will come out in the wash.

Additionally, despite the DPD's somewhat patchy reputation, according to an article in the Denver Post the largely Hispanic residents of the Westwood neighborhood in Denver seemed happy with their tactics and results in implementing the Broken Windows theory there. One Hispanic resident even went so far as to say that "fears that the 'broken windows' policing method could promote racial profiling should be laid to rest." Jesus Espino, a Westwood youth agreed, saying he welcomes more officers in Westwood because now he and his friends can walk without fear. He said that while police officers do sometimes stop him in the street to ask him where he is going and for his identification, "It don't bother me 'cause I don't do nothing wrong."

How did Broken Windows first come to Denver anyway? First, in 1995 mayor John Hickenlooper hired Broken Windows originator Kelling to bring Broken Windows to Denver. According to the Mayor's original press release, Kelling and his group were to provide "observations and recommendations in the following areas":

• The nature of crime in Denver, its patterns and projections for the future
• The strategies of the Denver Police Department in addressing crime and disorder, including crime analysis capabilities
• Organizational issues in the Denver Police Department that impact crime reduction efforts; internal organizational changes to meet those requirements
• Staffing analysis of the resources required for effective crime reduction efforts; internal organizational changes to meet those requirements
• Recommended anti-crime strategies and performance measures for adoption by the Denver Police Department; implementation strategies

So, while critics grossly oversimplify Kelling's contributions to the Denver Police Department down to simply bringing Broken Windows theory here, it seems clear that he and his group were hired as much for organizational development as for policing strategy. While critics also try to pidgeonhole Kelling and Broken Windows as simply aggressive, even militaristic policing, it again doesn't take much research to learn that there is much more to Broken Windows and its implementation, including:

• Increased foot patrols--Get officers out of their cars and out into the community where they are more visible, more approachable, and closer to the communities in which they work.
• Thus, leading to better communication between police and residents. Officers can become more familiar with who the good and bad guys are in a neighborhood.
• Ongoing empirical analysis of the program, including resident feedback and surveys before, during, and after implementation.
• Police and courts working with the community to devise alternate enforcement and punishments for first offenses (other than just handing out tickets) including community service and increased parent accountability for youth offenses.
• Increased accountability on the part of the Police to demonstrate progress and a reduction in crime.

**If this sounds familiar to you, you were likely at the last MOP/DPD meeting where Broken Windows was discussed, as their goal in bringing in the Broken Windows model is as much about increased communication and interaction between the police and community members as it is increased police presence and enforcement. Sound a bit different than what the critics and media are describing?

Additionally, while as I understand it, it was DPD's initiative that brought Broken Windows to the Westwood Neighborhood, it was our community leaders and MOP that contacted the DPD and asked that they expand the program in Cole--So, contrary to popular belief, DPD isn't imposing this on us--They're simply providing assistance upon the request of our neighborhood. If you're going to get mad at someone about Broken Windows, get mad at MOP (though I hope you don't), or get mad at me (many readers of this blog do), but not the DPD.

Do your homework folks, before dismissing this new initiative by the DPD and MOP. If after doing your own research, if you still don't agree with Broken Windows, that's certainly your choice and your right--But at least at that point you'll have an educated opinion, instead of relying on the largely uninformed critics that use scare tactics and propaganda to maintain an atmosphere of distrust with the Denver Police.

Am I saying that all police officers are good guys? Or that the DPD hasn't had its struggles in the past? Nope, they've had their problems; still do I'm sure; but not all of you that are reading this are honest, law-abiding citizens--that's life folks. But I can speak from first-hand experience, and say unequivocally that the police I've come in contact with in district 2--The ones that are going to be implementing Broken Windows AT OUR REQUEST, not forcing it on us, have been consistently responsive, responsible, and infinitely willing to listen to the residents of Cole and their needs. And if some problems occur, I'm confident there are processes in place to help identify them and bring them to light.

If you don't attend the neighborhood meetings and Broken Windows round tables, and the only way you speak out is by complaining and trying to further polarize the community and the police, then you're not a solution to a problem, you're a problem in itself.

And there lies the biggest potential fallacy in Broken Windows--The DPD will be out practicing increasing community involvement, foot patrols, and enforcement, based on the request of a relatively small percentage of Cole's residents. The other residents, the vast, apathetic majority, aren't asking for increased enforcement and accountability among the police; they're not involved in the community meetings or Broken Windows discussions, and as a result will potentially be blind-sided by the "crackdown". And of course, like the current, mis- or un-informed critics, they'll be the first ones to complain to the media about police harassment and profiling.

Thanks for reading. I hope to see you at the next Cole Neighborhood and Broken Windows planning program March 19th at Manual High at 6PM. And I hope you grab two or three of your neighbors as you head out the door.