What Mayor Mamdani’s new administration can learn from one of the longest-running neighborhood engagement initiatives in the U.S.
Could a surge in 911 and 311 calls actually be a sign that things are getting better? That’s the provocative question raised by researchers affiliated with the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard in a recent study published in Justice Quarterly. Analyzing years of hotline data from Buffalo, the research team found that rising call volumes were not necessarily a signal of worsening conditions, but an indicator that residents were becoming more willing to engage with their community and with city government.
Their case study centers on Buffalo’s long-running Clean Sweep program, which began primarily as a block-by-block code-enforcement effort and has since evolved into a more comprehensive model combining outreach, repair and service coordination. Since the mid-2000s, Clean Sweep teams — consisting of city staff and police officers — have been deployed to historically underserved neighborhoods. Teams go door to door, speak directly with residents, and then carry out a coordinated set of actions within a concentrated area over the course of a week: repairing sidewalks, boarding vacant properties, clearing lots, removing trash and connecting residents to social services.
When researchers examined 911 and 311 calls before and after these interventions, striking patterns emerged. In the six months following a Clean Sweep intervention, residents were 42% more likely to call 911 about drug-related crimes compared to residents near similar properties that did not receive the intervention. They were also 9% more likely to submit 311 service requests related to issues such as trash or graffiti.
These findings are revealed in the recent report, “The Effects of a Place-Based Intervention on Resident Reporting of Crime and Service Needs” — challenging the assumption that an uptick of distress calls is a sign of escalating problems. Instead, the findings suggest that changes in reporting behavior may be an indicator of evolving trust, access and community-government relationships.
A companion qualitative study digs into why the Clean Sweep approach appears to shift reporting behavior. Bloomberg Center for Cities researchers identified three interlocking insights: responsiveness, trust and self-efficacy.
What data can conceal
Residents in underserved neighborhoods described feeling ignored by city services for years. But the visibility of consistent, place-based engagement changed that dynamic. As one resident put it, “It brings the message that we’re important … that our place is important to the city.”
The program’s structured outreach includes city staff and community-oriented police officers walking door to door, introducing themselves and listening. These interpersonal interactions helped rebuild trust. One police officer noted, “I’ve found [with] the more positive interactions … the more there’s a sense of safety and people’s bravery [to report crime] increases.”
Once residents began to see tangible results, many reported a growing sense of agency. “We know what we need to do, but sometimes we need a push — the Clean Sweep is a little push,” one resident said. Others described forming block clubs, calling 311 themselves or simply feeling more empowered to take care of their street or neighborhood.
Together, these place-based dynamics help explain how a focused intervention can shift not only residents’ willingness to report problems, but also their inclination to take collective action.
The research also makes clear, however, that certain conditions are necessary for this shift to occur.
An increase in call volume, on its own, is an incomplete signal. The Bloomberg Center for Cities researchers emphasize the importance of pairing quantitative data with qualitative insight — combining hotline records with community interviews, field observations and neighborhood context to understand what the numbers actually reflect.
The findings also highlight the value of longitudinal data and interagency coordination. The Buffalo analysis was possible in part because the city invested in open data systems that allowed 911 and 311 calls to be linked to property-level information. That transparency not only enabled rigorous evaluation; it also reinforced residents’ sense that government was paying attention and responding.
What can Mayor Mamdani do with these findings?
Rather than launching an entirely new initiative, the Mamdani administration could build on existing programs and stitch them together into something more resident-centered and consistent.
Citywide sanitation efforts such as CleaNYC and Get Stuff Clean already operate at scale, but they primarily measure success through outputs — bags of trash collected, baskets emptied — rather than through resident engagement or responsiveness. Pairing cleanup operations with structured door-to-door outreach, modeled on Buffalo’s Clean Sweep, could make city presence more visible and meaningful in historically underserved neighborhoods.
Two other initiatives launched under Mayor Adams could also be better coordinated to approximate a Clean Sweep-style approach. Community Link brings multiple agencies together to address persistent quality-of-life issues involving sanitation, mental health, housing code enforcement and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the NYPD’s Q-Teams program — spearheaded under Commissioner Jessica Tisch — focuses on responding to 911/311 calls related to low-level quality-of-life complaints at the precinct level, such as noise, illegal parking and public drug-use. There is also the Mayor’s Action Plan for Neighborhood Safety, a place-based initiative launched in 2014 aimed at improving public safety and quality of life in historically disinvested public housing developments operated by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA).
Aligning these efforts — through predictable schedules, shared geographic focus and clear interagency roles — could transform episodic cleanups into sustained, trust-building neighborhood interventions.
Finally, New York City already has one of the country’s most robust 311 and increasingly accessible 911 data systems. That infrastructure is critical to understanding when rising call volumes reflect worsening conditions versus growing civic engagement. Given the potential for misinterpretation as well as reporting biases, as documented by New York’s City Council, qualitative research is critical to understanding what the numbers are really saying.
For urban leaders and data analysts alike, the lesson is clear: Combining data with interpersonal engagement is a viable pathway to improving block-level conditions, strengthening trust in government and increasing social cohesion. As the Harvard researchers show, these efforts change not just what gets reported — but who feels empowered to speak up and act.
This article draws on research from the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative and its partner institutions, including Robb et al. 2025; Dickens et al. 2025.
════════════════════════════════════════
Vital City launched in 2022 as an experiment. Our first “meeting” was me and Greg Berman sitting in a diner in lower Manhattan sketching out the first issue. We were betting that in a time of hyperpartisanship, New Yorkers might be yearning for a calm voice, compelling evidence and engaging writing on how to make cities better.
Our readers answered with a resounding yes, and helped us grow into a trusted civic home for practical solutions.
We have ambitious plans for the months ahead: boosting our operational capacity, expanding our “What to Do (And Not to Do)” series, making academic research usable for decision-makers, strengthening our data analysis and building a more robust community of urban policy practitioners.
To do that, we need your help. We’re directly asking readers to support Vital City. Your tax-deductible gift will help us expand our capacity and ensure our ideas reach the decisionmakers who need them.
If you value rigorous, solutions-focused policy work, we hope you’ll join us. Become a supporter today.
— Liz Glazer, Founder