Steve Isaacs, 2008

Beyond Enforcement: New Responses to Quality-of-Life Concerns

Greg Berman and Elizabeth Glazer

August 03, 2022

Can cities find new ways to address disorder?

Can cities find new ways to address disorder?

Editors' Note

Disorder is a vexed topic.  

For some, minor misbehavior (for example, farebeating, shoplifting, disorderly conduct) and physical decay (trash, graffiti, boarded-up windows) are signs of a city on the brink, a society at risk of descending into lawlessness.

For others, “disorder” is a loaded term, a social construct and a racist dog whistle.  For these observers, disorder is just an excuse that the powers-that-be use to manage the comings and goings of marginalized populations. 

This debate has been raging for forty years, ever since George Kelling and James Q. Wilson published their seminal “Broken Windows” essay in The Atlantic.  The gist of Kelling and Wilson’s argument was that social and physical disorder, if left unchecked, could lead to more serious crime.  

In the years that followed, police departments across the country interpreted the broken windows theory as a rationale for expanding the enforcement of low-level offenses and credited this strategy with helping to reduce local crime. At the same time, critics blamed broken windows for a host of ills, including stop-question-and-frisk practices that were found to be unconstitutional and increases in incarceration which damaged many Black communities in particular. 

While there is not a lot of good polling data on the topic, there are some indications that urban residents are increasingly concerned about quality-of-life conditions in their neighborhoods and that perceptions of disorder are linked to growing fears about crime. Many pundits attributed the electoral victory of New York City Mayor Eric Adams to his decision to focus his campaign on crime and disorder.  In a similar vein, the recent recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who announced that he would not prosecute quality-of-life crimes, was interpreted as a referendum on disorder, with a clear electoral lesson: the voters care. 

The politics of “disorder” are heavily influenced by the threat of policing.  If policing is the only answer to disorder, then our current debate will simply continue ad infinitum, with cities lurching back and forth between catastrophism and permissiveness depending upon who has won the most recent mayoral and DA elections.

Is there a way out of this box?  Is it possible to forge responses to disorder that do not rely primarily on law enforcement?  What if cities could discourage anti-social activities – for example, public intoxication, urination, minor theft, graffiti, disorderly conduct – in the subways, parks and other public spaces without relying on policing, prosecution, fines and jail?  

In an attempt to answer these questions, we asked a handful of experts for their opinions on how to combat disorder without relying first and foremost on the police. 

The following responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity.  

If you have other ideas that you would like to add to this conversation, please email us at info@vitalcitynyc.org.

Photo by Leslie Davol
Photo by Leslie Davol

Talib Hudson is the founder of The New Hood

It is possible for cities to address and discourage anti-social activities without relying on the coercive power of the state. It is well established at this point that informal social control is much stronger than formal social control. There are three ways that cities can harness informal social control:

  1. Setting the Norm means that cities can use their powers to establish desired standards. The New York City subway system doesn’t have the graffiti of the 1980s because the MTA instituted an innovative strategy of first cleaning “tagged” cars and then never allowing a “clean” car to go into service with visible tags. The lack of visibility discouraged artists from tagging cars. 
  2. Empowering Local Residents means providing civic education, micro-grants, and other resources for neighbors to take care of each other. 
  3. Supporting Private Sector Efforts means making sure business improvement districts have what they need to keep areas clean and leveraging partnerships where available. 

We don't currently have evidence proving that these actions will definitely solve the problem, but they provide opportunities for change without the collateral consequences of the courts. This doesn't mean that there isn't any role for police, prosecution, fines, and jail, but they should only be the option of last resort.


Daniel McPhee is the executive director of the Urban Design Forum.

Ultimately, I think that public space stewardship and on-site management is the foundation for safety. Attendants and ambassadors who are always out can spot issues quickly and address them, from graffiti to public intoxication, and only engage law enforcement in the most serious circumstances. Public bathrooms are just one tool at their disposal; street ambassadors, sanitation services, landscape maintenance, public programming like music and dance, all serve to bring many "eyes on the street."

Our current policies and budgets related to business improvement districts and conservancies have effectively balkanized the city into areas that are clean, safe, and well-managed, and areas that are not. Wealthy neighborhood landowners can fundraise, pay for on-site security and sanitation, improve landscaping and public space design, and address issues before they get severe. Other neighborhoods have small stewardship organizations, if any, limited funding, and limited staff. 

If we think that neighborhood stewardship is an important piece of safety, then government can do a much better job of blanketing the city with stewardship organizations.  This means mapping who lacks access and supporting the development of new organizations with both funding and capacity-building trainings.


John E. Eck is a professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati, where he teaches graduate courses in crime policy and crime prevention.

I routinely walk around my city. The unpredictable person who hangs out in our library branch does not scare me, but the students riding electric scooters on sidewalks do.  I see a lot of disorder, but not everywhere.

Disorder has a long an ugly history in the United States.  Real estate developers, urban planners, and politicians have been decrying “blight” since the early 20th century.  With the great migration of African Americans from the southern states to northern cities, blight became a code word for undesirable people.  In the 1950s and the rhetoric of blight fueled urban renewal.  In the 1980s, “blight” became “disorder,” became linked to crime, and enforcement became the solution.  

So what should we do about “disorder?” There is no single direct solution – disorder covers too wide a range of activities to address with a generic remedy.  However, problem-solving and situation approaches have often proved useful for finding tailored solutions to particular problems.  Often, tailored solutions require those who own and operate places to take care of the messes they allow or create. My condominium building, for example, changed the ground cover to an aesthetic surface that dogs avoid, thus reducing the dog excrement problem. No dog walkers were arrested.

If cities want to take on the varied problems lumped under disorder, they should provide incentives for property owners to keep their property clean.  The city should repair its sidewalks. And those electric scooters ridden by students on sidewalks? The city permitted the scooter companies to sell their machines. Therefore, the city should revoke the permits, or force the companies to regulate their scooters. Nobody needs to be arrested, stopped, or frisked.


Hannah Meyers is the director of policing and public safety at the Manhattan Institute.

There are many creative ways to inspire pro-social behavior in public places, such as greening empty lots, adding street lighting, engaging neighborhood watches, and employing CCTV cameras. Likewise, citizens enjoying civil activities in shared spaces promote lawful respect among others. But the full success of these measures relies on the expectation of robust criminal justice responses—the underlying deterrent to bad conduct. 

New York City’s subway system provides an illustration of these dynamics. Rampant anti-social behavior, crime, and violence was ultimately only curbed by the conscientious and systematic increase in proactive policing in the early 1990s. And patrolling infractions like loitering also allowed police to prevent larger crimes by, for example, discovering weapons on low-level offenders and deterring others from entering the subway system or entering armed. 

Further, these gains created “peace dividends”: less policing, prosecution, and incarceration were necessary as an expectation of good behavior became the norm. However, in the past few years we’ve seen a reversal. As local prosecutors ceased to prosecute farebeating and dismissed many more cases overall for a variety of reasons, police withdrew further on arrests and summonses, and the city methodically detained fewer offenders in jail, levels of antisocial behavior shot up underground and have not decreased—even as ridership returns post-pandemic.


Greg Newburn is the director of criminal justice at the Niskanen Center. Richard Hahn is senior fellow for research, criminal justice, at the Niskanen Center.

The typical civic response to anti-social behavior in the United States is grudging tolerance punctuated by periodic enforcement. In the intermittent instances when sanctions intended to deter unwanted behavior are imposed, they are often perceived as arbitrary and heavy-handed. Unsurprisingly, strategies built on disproportionate, sporadically applied penalties fail to create stable and tolerable community conditions.    

Cities should develop and test responses to anti-social behavior that can be applied with consistency and predictability. These would include deterrence through sanctions proportionate to the harms they mean to prevent, but would typically exclude fines and jail after prosecution. Cities might try strategies that employ the principles behind what we call a “TAIL” approach to order maintenance:

  1. Triage: Responses should match the rational capacity of the person subject to the response. Diversion to services may be more efficient and fair for people who present mental or substance misuse problems. Coercion may be necessary for sufficiently rational people, though it should be designed to create temporary disruption rather than lasting harm. 
  2. Alternatives: Investments in public spaces could allow people who might engage in anti-social behaviors to avoid them, and generate benefits that exceed their costs. For example, open public lavatories like those in London might reduce public urination. Easily accessible donation boxes might discourage people from giving to panhandlers but encourage them to contribute to supplemental social services. 
  3. Inconvenience:  Passive strategies like “target hardening” can make public spaces less vulnerable to anti-social behavior. Meanwhile, some active sanctions could delay or embarrass troublemakers without taking away their freedom or money through traditional enforcement. For example, cities might consider requiring people who evade the subway fare to wait on the train platform for an hour rather than fining or arresting and prosecuting them. 
  4. Location: Cities should concentrate enforcement resources in areas where problem behavior generates intolerable costs. Officials should make clear what types of behavior will lead to sanctions. In these circumstances, cities should be prepared to follow through on enforcement threats. At the same time, temporary “zones of tolerance” might also reduce the costs of anti-social behaviors imposed on unwilling bystanders and make the allocation of social service resources more efficient. For example, authorities might tolerate homeless encampments in certain disused city spaces to provide both a stable living location for people unwilling to accept public shelter and an opportunity to address needs among a spatially concentrated population. 

The goal of responses to anti-social behavior should not be to eliminate it everywhere but to suppress such behavior to levels at which communities, businesses, and individuals can exert informal social controls to keep it in check. Cities looking to reduce anti-social behavior and enforcement costs should consider testing responses rooted in the “TAIL” approach described above. As always, implementation should be informed by local needs, and responses should be evaluated frequently and improved as necessary.