broken windows theory
-
What is the broken windows theory?
The broken windows theory, introduced in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, uses broken windows as a metaphor for neighborhood disorder, linking incivility and disorder to serious crime. It posits that unchecked disorder creates fear among residents, weakening social controls and leading to more crime; crime, in turn, causes further disorder. Disorder includes physical elements like vacant buildings and social elements like aggressive panhandling.
Though popular, the theory faces criticism, including limited empirical evidence that disorder causes crime. Some studies suggest the link between disorder and crime disappears when factors like poverty are considered. Despite criticisms, the theory has significantly influenced policing strategies, such as New York City's "quality of life initiative" that addressed misdemeanors to reduce overall crime.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who developed the broken windows theory?
The broken windows theory was developed in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. The theory uses broken windows as a metaphor for neighborhood disorder, linking community incivility to serious crime. Wilson and Kelling posited that if disorder is eliminated, serious crimes would not occur. Disorder creates fear among citizens, weakening the social controls that keep criminals in check, causing further disorder and crime.
The theory suggests that change can be quickly effected, with minimal expense, by simply altering the police crime-control strategy. However, some critics say there is little empirical evidence that disorder causes crime.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What does the theory suggest about small signs of disorder, like broken windows?
The broken windows theory suggests that visible signs of disorder, such as broken windows, indicate a community's lack of concern for itself, signaling that serious crime is likely to occur. The theory posits that unchecked disorder creates fear among citizens, leading to a weakening of social controls and fostering further crime and disorder.
Scholars identify two types of disorder: physical (e.g., vacant buildings, trash) and social (e.g., aggressive panhandling, public intoxication). While the theory gained popularity and influenced policing strategies, particularly in New York City in the 1990s, some critics argue that there is limited evidence directly linking disorder to crime.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How has the broken windows theory influenced police or community actions?
The broken windows theory, proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982, posits that addressing minor incivilities like broken windows can prevent more serious crimes. This theory significantly influenced policing in the 1990s, most notably in New York City under Police Commissioner William Bratton. Bratton's "quality of life initiative" aggressively targeted panhandling, public drinking, and other disorderly behaviors.
However, the theory has faced criticism, with some arguing there's little evidence that disorder directly causes crime. Some researchers suggest that factors like poverty, neighborhood stability, and race are more influential. Despite the criticism, the broken windows theory has had a lasting impact on law enforcement and community actions, leading to a focus on order maintenance and quality-of-life issues.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What are some criticisms of the broken windows theory?
The broken windows theory, linking neighborhood disorder to serious crime, has faced criticism despite its popularity.
Critics argue there's limited evidence directly linking unchecked disorder to subsequent crime. To validate the theory, it must be shown that disorder causes fear, fear causes a breakdown of social controls, and this breakdown, in turn, causes crime. It must also be shown that crime increases levels of disorder.
Bernard Harcourt, a political theorist, found that the link between neighborhood disorder and crimes, such as purse snatching, assault, rape, and burglary, vanished when poverty, neighborhood stability, and race were statistically controlled. Harcourt also criticized the broken windows theory for fostering "zero-tolerance" policies that are prejudicial against the disadvantaged segments of society.
Criminal justice scholar Ralph Taylor found that specific disorderly acts were linked to some specific crimes. He concluded that attention to disorder, in general, might be an error and that specific problems would require specific solutions.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How has the broken windows theory affected cities and their crime policies over time?
The broken windows theory, introduced by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982, posits that addressing minor incivilities like broken windows can prevent more serious crimes. This theory gained prominence in the 1990s, notably in New York City, where Police Commissioner William Bratton implemented aggressive order-maintenance practices.
These practices led to a significant decrease in crime rates. However, the theory has faced criticism, with some arguing there's limited evidence that disorder directly causes crime. Some studies suggest the link between disorder and serious crime disappears when factors like poverty and race are considered. Despite debates over its validity, the broken windows theory has greatly influenced crime policies and continues to be a topic of discussion in law enforcement and academic circles.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
broken windows theory, academic theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighborhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime.
The theory
Prior to the development and implementation of various incivility theories such as broken windows, law enforcement scholars and police tended to focus on serious crime; that is, the major concern was with crimes that were perceived to be the most serious and consequential for the victim, such as rape, robbery, and murder. Wilson and Kelling took a different view. They saw serious crime as the final result of a lengthier chain of events, theorizing that crime emanated from disorder and that if disorder were eliminated, then serious crimes would not occur.
Their theory further posits that the prevalence of disorder creates fear in the minds of citizens who are convinced that the area is unsafe. This withdrawal from the community weakens social controls that previously kept criminals in check. Once this process begins, it feeds itself. Disorder causes crime, and crime causes further disorder and crime.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
Scholars generally define two different types of disorder. The first is physical disorder, typified by vacant buildings, broken windows, abandoned vehicles, and vacant lots filled with trash. The second type is social disorder, which is typified by aggressive panhandlers, noisy neighbors, and groups of youths congregating on street corners. The line between crime and disorder is often blurred, with some experts considering such acts as prostitution and drug dealing as disorder while many others classify them as crimes. While different, these two types of disorder are both thought to increase fear among citizens.
The obvious advantage of this theory over many of its criminological predecessors is that it enables initiatives within the realm of criminal justice policy to effect change, rather than relying on social policy. Earlier social disorganization theories and economic theories offered solutions that were costly and would take a long time to prove effective. Broken windows theory is seen by many as a way to effect change quickly and with minimal expense by merely altering the police crime-control strategy. It is far simpler to attack disorder than it is to attack such ominous social ills as poverty and inadequate education.
The theory in practice: 1990s New York City
Broken windows theory had an enormous impact on police policy throughout the 1990s and remained influential into the 21st century. Perhaps the most notable application of the theory was in New York City under the direction of Police Commissioner William Bratton. He and others were convinced that the aggressive order-maintenance practices of the New York City Police Department were responsible for the dramatic decrease in crime rates within the city during the 1990s. Bratton began translating the theory into practice as the chief of New York City’s transit police from 1990 to 1992. Squads of plainclothes officers were assigned to catch turnstile jumpers, and, as arrests for misdemeanors increased, subway crimes of all kinds decreased dramatically. In 1994, when he became New York City police commissioner, Bratton introduced his broken windows-based “quality of life initiative.” This initiative cracked down on panhandling, disorderly behavior, public drinking, street prostitution, and unsolicited windshield washing or other such attempts to obtain cash from drivers stopped in traffic. When Bratton resigned in 1996, felonies were down almost 40 percent in New York, and the homicide rate had been halved.
Criticism and influence
Although popular in both academic and law-enforcement circles, broken windows theory is not without its critics. One line of criticism is that there is little empirical evidence that disorder, when left unchallenged, causes crime. To validate the theory in its entirety, it must be shown that disorder causes fear, that fear causes a breakdown of social controls (sometimes referred to as community cohesion), and that this breakdown of social controls in turn causes crime. Finally, crime must be shown to increase levels of disorder.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
The strongest empirical support for the broken windows theory came from the work of political scientist Wesley Skogan, who found that certain types of social and physical disorder were related to certain kinds of serious crime. However, Skogan prudently recommended caution in the interpretation of his results as proof of the validity of the broken windows theory. Even this qualified support has been questioned by some researchers. In a reanalysis of Skogan’s data, political theorist Bernard Harcourt found that the link between neighborhood disorder and purse snatching, assault, rape, and burglary vanished when poverty, neighborhood stability, and race were statistically controlled. Only the link between disorder and robbery remained. Harcourt also criticized the broken windows theory for fostering “zero-tolerance” policies that are prejudicial against the disadvantaged segments of society.
In his attempt to link serious crime with disorder, criminal justice scholar Ralph Taylor found that no distinct pattern of relationships between crime and disorder emerged. Rather, some specific disorderly acts were linked to some specific crimes. He concluded that attention to disorder in general might be an error and that, while loosely connected, specific acts may not reflect a general state of disorder. He suggested that specific problems would require specific solutions. This seemed to provide more support for problem-oriented policing strategies than it did for the broken windows theory.
In short, the validity of the broken windows theory is not known. It is safe to conclude that the theory does not explain everything and that, even if the theory is valid, companion theories are necessary to fully explain crime. Alternatively, a more complex model is needed to consider many more cogent factors. Almost every study of the topic has, however, validated the link between disorder and fear. There is also strong support for the belief that fear increases a person’s desire to abandon disorderly communities and move to environments that are more hospitable. This option is available to the middle class, who can afford to move, but not to the poor, who have fewer choices. If the middle class moves out and the poor stay, the neighborhood will inevitably become economically disadvantaged. This suggests that the next wave of theorization about neighborhood dynamics and crime may take an economic bent.