Broken Windows Theory

The primary theory I will use to frame this study is broken windows theory. Theories from the fields of criminology and law enforcement are applicable to the study of the effect of physical disorder because they attempt to explain how people interact with and are affected by the physical environment of neighborhoods. Though a number of criminological theories (see Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) (Cozens, Saville, & Hillier, 2005), defensible space theory (Newman, 1972), and routine activities theory (L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979)) relate to features of the built environment and their impact on crime, the most frequently cited in the literature relevant to this paper is broken windows theory. Broken windows theory, originally introduced by Wilson and Kelling (1982) in a widely read Atlantic Monthly article, suggests that minor crime and social incivilities invite predatory crime because they cue potential

criminals that a neighborhood is indifferent and unwilling to intervene in crime (Sampson &

Raudenbush, 1999). Broken windows theory has received considerable buy in from policy makers and law enforcement bureaus who saw a manageable policing strategy that was lauded as the “magic bullet” to achieving a decline in violent crime. The following section will explore the empirical support and critiques of broken windows theory.

Broken windows theory, which rests on the notion that petty crime and visible disorder lead to the withdrawal of orderly residents and the onset of more serious crime, is popularly known among laypeople as well as social scientists. The theory, introduced in the 1980s by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, built upon Wilson’s prior work that investigated the relationship between the daily hassles of urban life (e.g., deteriorated housing, panhandlers) and resident fear (Taylor, 1999; J. Q. Wilson, 1975). Broken windows theory extended this work to outline a causal process through which physical and social disorder lead to higher violent crime rates. Broken windows theory suggests that minor incivilities, left unrepaired, trigger a spiral of decay that leads to a breakdown of social order and an invitation to criminals.

The process begins with a minor incivility, such as a broken window. The sign of incivility is not the primary concern, but the community or resident response and the speed with which they address the issue. If a window remains broken or a house deteriorates over a period of time, residents conclude that other residents have given up and do not care what happens to the community. They determine that there is no sense of mutual obligation to enforce

community norms and that social control is weak and withdraw from public spaces, fearing for their own safety. This withdrawal opens the door to petty criminals who engage in public intoxication, panhandling, and the like, which in turn causes residents to disengage.

As more normative residents disengage, the “eyes on the street”, that once maintained a sense of order are blinded (Jacobs, 1961). Over time, conditions deteriorate further and outside offenders become aware that the disorganized community is a place where more serious crime will go undeterred or undetected and crime rates increase (Taylor, 1999). They note the importance of time in predicting the consequences of disorder; it is posited as a sequential process of deterioration followed by delinquent and petty offenses, withdrawal of normative residents, and onset of serious crime (Taylor, 1999; J. Q. Wilson & Kelling, 1982). In later versions of the theory, Kelling outlines the role of the broader societal context on neighborhood crime and disorder including the role of the police.

Through the 1990s, Kelling worked closely with police departments and policy makers that put broken windows theory into action. This led to theory development specific to policing and intervention (Kelling & Coles, 1996). Later iterations of the theory criticized law

enforcement officials’ focus on serious, violent crime as part of the reason for increases in disorder and, in effect, serious crime. They suggested a move toward “incivilities policing” and community oriented policing strategies to clean up petty crime and disorder. They suggest that certain neighborhoods that they call “teetering” are at a stage where they have fallen into

disrepair but could be turned around through remediation of incivilities (Kelling & Coles, 1996).

Further, they describe the specific role of the community based police officer; “to learn what conditions are troubling residents and merchants in these teetering neighborhoods and then help them address these concerns” (Taylor, 1999, p.69). This theory applies directly to the study of physical disorder and its impact on children.

Broken windows theory is applicable to the study of the effects of blight and physical disorder on young people because it focuses specifically on how deterioration in the built

environment affects the social fabric of communities and, in turn, resident and community outcomes. The theory incorporates the importance of visual cues of disorder, social withdrawal and isolation in promoting fear and in some cases deviance among youth. Specifically, youth who reside in “teetering” neighborhoods are exposed to physical incivilities that provide visual cues which, according to broken windows theory, cause a range of outcomes from fear and stress to delinquency (Taylor, 1999). Broken windows theory postulates a sequential process through which disorder exerts its influence on the well-being of both residents and neighborhoods.

Broken windows theory has been described as “enormously influential” on researchers, policy analysts, and police forces (Taylor, 1999 , p.68). This theory has received considerable attention and was, in part, responsible for a shift in policing strategies in New York City that targeted lower level public nuisances in an attempt to curb violent crime (Franzini et al., 2009;

Perkins & Taylor, 1996). In the 1990s, during the height of a nation-wide crime wave, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani adopted a “broken windows policing” strategy (Messner et al., 2007). Some attribute the overall crime reduction in New York City to this strategy’s focus on cleaning up the then notorious subway system and petty criminals (e.g., “squeegee men” and panhandlers) (Kelling & Bratton, 1998). Several studies have confirmed these findings.

In a review of the empirical data in support of broken windows theory, Taylor (1999) outlines several studies that lend cross-sectional and longitudinal support for the proposition that perceived disorder predicts crime at the block level (Perkins et al., 1992). In one of the most widely cited studies of disorder, Perkins, Meeks, and Taylor (1992) interviewed residents and conducted neighborhood observations in Baltimore and found that physical disorder was

independently related to resident perceptions of social incivilities and crime. Skogan and Lurigio

in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to learn about their perceptions of disorder and crime. The results showed that perceived disorder reported in previous years was a strong predictor of current drug crimes in the community. Though these findings lend support for the basic premise of broken windows theory, more recent research has called into question the proposed causal relationship between incivilities and crime while still underscoring the connection between disorder and crime (Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006; Raudenbush & Sampson, 1999; Rosenfeld, Fornango, &

Rengifo, 2007).

These studies have suggested that other factors mediate the relationship between disorder and crime and have focused primarily on the role of race and collective efficacy in shaping the perception and effects of disorder (Franzini, et al., 2009; Perkins & Taylor, 1996; Sampson &

Raudenbush, 1999). Collective efficacy, which in this case is defined as, “the fusion of social cohesion with shared expectations for the active social control of public space,” functions to reduce crime through cohesive resident networks and expected norms (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 , p. 637). The most ambitious study that tests, and questions, the causal relationship between disorder and crime, was a large-scale assessment of 196 Chicago neighborhoods (the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN)). They reported that unlike the broken windows theory assumption that observed disorder directly causes predatory crime; social disorder and crime are both the result of weakened social controls and a lack of neighborhood norms (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). In a later rebuttal, these findings were challenged; the authors suggested that the relationship between disorder and crime is not spurious, as thought by Sampson and Raudenbush (1999), but mediated by collective efficacy (Gault & Silver, 2008).

Most recently, researchers have begun to examine the demographic composition of neighborhoods as a predictor of the perception of disorder in the neighborhood (Franzini et al., 2009; R.J. Sampson & S.W. Raudenbush, 2004). The studies found that neighborhood poverty independently predicts perceptions of disorder. Black residents reported less disorder than their white counterparts in the same neighborhoods, which the authors attributed to black residents’

increased likelihood to have been exposed to more disorder in the past (based on historical segregation and neighborhood patterns in Chicago). Interestingly, as the percentage of blacks in a neighborhood increased, so too did the perception of disorder, even among blacks (R.J.

Sampson & S.W. Raudenbush, 2004). This suggests that disorder is socially constructed and is influenced by other neighborhood factors including racial and economic composition.

The original construction of broken windows theory neglected the role of race and poverty in shaping peoples’ perceptions of disorder. Like social disorganization theory, broken windows theory operates under the implicit assumption that residents have a shared sense of what constitutes disorder and what is and is not normative community behavior. It fails to acknowledge the reality that race and poverty shape perceptions of disorder above and beyond the more objective visual cues of disorder. Overall, the research supports the idea that disorder and crime are linked but needs further development to truly understand the nature and direction of those connections.