The purpose of this paper is to review the growing body of literature on zero tolerance policing, to discuss what the term means, where zero tolerance policing has been applied and, with particular reference to New York, to consider its effect on crime rates. It should be emphasised that, while this paper reviews assessments of whether zero tolerance provides a good model for Australian policing, in no way does it attempt to decide if zero tolerance policing should be adopted in NSW. As noted, its purpose is to review the literature, not to make recommendations or form definitive conclusions on the matters raised. The paper's main findings are as follows:

• Zero tolerance policing is said to have its philosophical origins in the Broken Windows' article published by James Q Wilson and George L Kelling in the journal, The Atlantic Monthly, in March 1982. In short, this thesis asserts that just as an unrepaired broken window is a sign that nobody cares and leads to more damage; minor incivilities - such as begging, public drunkenness, vandalism and graffiti - if unchecked and uncontrolled, produce an atmosphere in a community in which more serious crime will flourish. Over time, individuals may feel that they can get away with minor offences, which leads them to commit more serious offences (pages 3-5).
• As a result of its popularity and vogue status, the term zero tolerance policing is defined in many different ways. It is therefore said to be an ambiguous term: To some, it connotes comprehensive, aggressive law enforcement with "no holds barred". To others, it refers to a policing strategy which exists as part of a package of carefully designed approaches to combat the crime problems of a specific locality" (pages 5-6).
• Usually two, or possibly three, instances of zero tolerance policing are referred to in the literature. New York is of course a constant reference point, in particular the model of policing which came to the fore after the election of Rudolph Giuliani as Mayor of New York City in 1993 and the appointment of William Bratton as NYC Police Commissioner in January 1994. A second reference point is the Cleveland Constabulary in North-East England and, in particular, the confident policing' model which was established after Detective Chief Inspector Ray Mallon took over as chief of crime strategy in Hartlepool in April 1994. A third, less cited, reference point is the 1996 Spotlight Initiative in Strathclyde, Scotland which has been described as a deliberate strategy to tackle minor crime, including under-age drinking, public drinking, street robbery, vandalism and truancy' (pages 6-8).
• For most commentators the New York zero tolerance experience is associated with aggressive order maintenance. That strategy is described by its critics as a punitive approach' to maintaining law and order, with little or no reference to negotiating acceptable public behaviour at the neighbourhood level. Amongst many criminologists, therefore, the clearest picture of the New York model of zero tolerance policing is drawn in terms of aggressive enforcement', as a confrontational form of policing in which petty offenders are targeted directly and fed into the criminal justice system by arrest or summons (pages 8-11).
• Importantly, the crime prevention hypothesis contained in the zero tolerance policing theory is that the more arrests police make for every petty disorder, the less serious crime there will be (page 11).
• Part of the difficulty in assessing the effects of zero tolerance policing is that, when analysed in more detail, the policing strategies employed in New York are more complex than the term zero tolerance policing' suggests. In particular, that strategy has included the use of crime analysis based on accurate and timely intelligence. Also, under the Compstat process local commanders have been made accountable for their staff performance. Instead of questioning the effectiveness of zero tolerance policing, it makes more sense therefore to ask: Has the New York model of policing reduced the crime and murder rate? (pages 11-14)
• The incidence of crime in New York City has been reduced to its lowest level in 25 years. New York City's Independent Budget Office commented in March 1998 that recent reductions in crime have resulted in the city having one of the lowest crime rates in the country among large cities, a lower crime rate in fact than all but two (Indianapolis and San Jose) of the nation's 25 most populous cities (page 16).
• Nonetheless, many criminologists question the precise part played by the police in this process. They point out that the reductions in crime in New York City must be viewed in the context of a general reduction in the major US cities in recent years. A diversity of causes are said to lie behind these developments, including the sustained period of economic growth in the US in the 1990s and the changing nature of the drug market in this period (page 18).
• Six contrasting interpretations of these developments are presented, with some commentators placing greater emphasis on the role played by the police in reducing crime in New York City. In many ways, these contrasting interpretations say as much about the limits of criminology, as an explanatory and predictive discipline, as they do about the precise impact of policing strategies on crime rates (pages 19-28).
• Many commentators also focus on the purported costs' of the NYPD model of policing, including an increase in complaints against police. Again, there are contrasting perspectives on these issues (pages 29-35).
• The relevance of zero tolerance policing to NSW has been discussed, again from contrasting standpoints (pages 35-37).