The Broken Windows Theory and School Leadership
In our schools there needs to be an accepted consistency in expectations about the cultural and academic standards that characterise each school. Members of the school community soon sniff out inconsistencies and gaps between the school’s espoused platform and the platform in use statements, and the school’s culture is slowly eroded when the two do not match up. The Broken Windows Theory is very relevant to the way that modern schools operate because it gives school leaders a perception of the multitude of potential problems that impact on the schools’ operations.
Introduction The American sociologists George Kelling and James Q. Wilson (1982) popularised what was known as the Broken Windows Theory. This theory posits that the deliberate breaking of windows in a community results in societal changes (disorder, fear, withdrawal), which then allows more serious crimes to creep in, thus starting a decline in respect for the law, property, and people’s rights. Kelling and Wilson (1982) noted that “… vandalism can occur anywhere once communal barriers—the sense of mutual regard and the obligations of civility— are lowered by actions that seem to signal that ‘no one cares’." The “no one cares” is a signal that crosses all socio-economic boundaries, and all organisations.
While the theory has become mired in the political application of police forces in relation to minor issues, the authors of this paper have seen that the theory has relevance in the leadership roles of school principals and the operations of classroom-based staff.
The well-known author, Malcolm Gladwell (2000), examined the Broken Windows Theory and said it was an epidemic theory of crime that was contagious: “just as a fashion trend is contagious – that can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community” (p. 141). He then developed what he called the “Power of Context” that says that behaviour “is a function of social context” (p. 150) and “you don’t have to solve the big problems to solve crime” (p. 151). For example, the reduction of graffiti on trains and the arrest of fare evaders had a flow-on effect on general crime on the transit system.
Catholic School Closures and Broken Windows In relation to religious school education, Brinig and Garnett (2012) carried out ground-breaking research which investigated whether the closure of Catholic community schools had resulted in increased neighbourhood crime and decreased communal harmony. Their research showed that:
"We find that Catholic school closures are strongly linked with increased disorder, reduced neighborhood social cohesion, and, eventually, serious crime. However, our study does more. Importantly, we provide a novel test of the purported causal connection between disorder and serious crime by linking the reductions in cohesion and increase in disorder prompted by school closures to later increases in serious crime" (p. 366).
The authors had a strong commitment to The Broken Windows Theory and they demonstrated the decline in the moral standing of the community was followed by a series of events that included an increase in neighbourhood crime.
The Broken Windows Theory in Schools
Case 1: Teachers’ insistence on standards The school year had just commenced, and the principal and deputy principals had noticed that the high standards of work and behaviour that had been achieved last year had been eroded by the school holidays and a big influx of new staff members. In the third staff meeting of term 1 the principal commenced his address to staff by raising the issue of the need for consistency in the standards expected in the school.
“Colleagues, this is a great school and I need to draw your attention to the declining standards of students’ dress, manners, and work standards this year,” he said. “Some of you think that we should adopt a more laissez faire approach and treat the students as adults. That would be fine, but these students are still kids who need our support, and I would like to draw your attention to the Broken Windows Theory that affects each one of us. Basically, Broken Windows says that failure to address small acts of crime (such as breaking windows) results in an expanding acceptance of criminal acts and the eventual destruction of the moral fabric of that community. The same holds for teaching and learning. I noticed that the Year 4 students have an untidy acceptance of the need to rule up the work pages, and date the work, Also, it is policy that the students need to learn and use cursive writing. So, in our school it is not acceptable to tell me that the students make up their own minds how they write or present their work. You are in charge, and you need to insist on appropriate standards of presentation. This is the thin edge of the “no one cares” wedge, and we have all seen colleagues fail because they failed to assert standards that reinforce their control in classrooms in the first weeks of the school year. As I walk through your classes I need to know who is in-charge in each classroom!”
Case 2: Behaviour management The new principal had just been appointed to the local school. During his first day in classrooms, he observed that teachers were spending a great deal of their time managing behaviours that were not only interrupting the learning and teaching process, but were unacceptable. This was occurring in nearly every room that he walked through. Because of this, teachers appeared to be engaging in very little quality instruction time.
At the first staff meeting he raised the matter with staff. He began “I have noticed, in your rooms, that some students are displaying behaviours that, aside from not being acceptable in a classroom, are interrupting learning for the other students. Apart from dealing with students hitting or annoying each other, teachers seem to be ignoring the use of offensive language, calling out and blatant disrespect” After a short pause one of the teachers responded, “ We ignore the little things because we can’t target everything and so the bigger issues are where we focus our time and energy.”
This was the response he had expected and as such it came as no surprise. It is difficult for a teacher to control and manage everything so; naturally, they looked at the larger behaviours as the biggest threat. What they failed to acknowledge or notice for that matter, is the fact that the disruption in the rooms did not begin with the more severe behaviours, it would have started small and grown from there. Students would have tested the boundaries and, once they were permitted to get away with something smaller they would have pushed the boundaries further. This ultimately became the new normal in terms of what was acceptable in a classroom. Further to this, students who would normally comply with the classrooms standards, seeing that the standards were no longer being enforced, adopted the new behaviour norms as being acceptable. In turning this around two practices had to be adopted.
In the first instance classroom teachers had to enforce the basic behavioural expectations. These included not talking while the teacher was talking, making eye contact with the speaker, raising your hand to respond, not touching other students’ property and not using inappropriate language in the room. The second practice required teachers to report highly disruptive behaviour to the principal. On instances where this occurred the student was removed from the room and the parents were contacted. In this way new behaviour standards were being established and students were seeing that the little things mattered. Students were also presented with opportunities to learn in an environment that was not being disrupted by unacceptable behaviour and when it was, the offender was removed from the learning environment.
Case 3: Graffiti Graffiti in the school’s toilets was an ongoing issue, and something that continued to trouble the principal since his arrival at the school. Further to this, he noticed that the wooden benches outside the rooms were also littered with writing. In a conversation with the head cleaner he was informed that the toilet walls and doors were cleaned of graffiti every few weeks once when her team had some spare time and, were able to get to it.
When he inquired about the outside benches the response he was given surprised him “If it is offensive we fault it, this is then removed by an external professional team contracted by the department, however, if it’s not offensive it remains on the bench as a school problem”.
The principal noted several complications with this scenario. In the first instance, by not cleaning the toilet walls and doors of graffiti as it occurred, or at least by the start of the next day, the outward message for the students and wider community was that this was okay, we would tolerate it. This, in turn, resulted in more graffiti appearing and actually increased the time required to remove it once the cleaners got to it. Further to this, the offenders, obviously noting that the toilet graffiti was not being removed, had moved their activities to a more visible setting in the wooden benches outside the classroom and, while the offensive material was removed within 1-3 days, the less offensive material was not.
This was not to dissimilar to the situation David Gunn faced in the 1980s when he was hired by the New York Transit Authority to tackle crime in the subways. Gunn believed that “The graffiti was symbolic of the collapse of the system” (Gladwell, 2000, p.144) Like Gunn, the principal saw this as representative of the behaviours in the rooms and therefore winning this battle was important in sending a clear signal that things were going to change.
The principal directed the cleaners to remove graffiti as soon as they noticed it. He too, also took to carrying steel wool with him and, on being notified of graffiti, removed it from the walls and doors. In extreme cases the toilets were closed and students were directed to another block. The benches were a little more difficult however; the cleaners and gardener were issued with sandpaper and wherever possible the graffiti was removed. The principal also helped in this venture. Where the offenders were identified, they were made to remove the material themselves.
This application of the Broken Windows Theory, while appearing insignificant in its application, brought about meaningful change in behavioural attitudes across the school’s culture. It sent a clear message that someone cared and, while it took a bigger investment in time to bring about behaviour changes in the recidivist offenders, it stopped those students who sat on the fringes from offending.
Conclusions The key roles of schooling are teaching and learning, and the vignettes presented above show how the peripheral actions in schools actually impact on all aspects of the school culture and operations. School leaders, school staff and education assistants all face aspects of the Broken Windows Theory every day in every aspect of the schools’ operations. Regardless of how small, or insignificant actions or incidents may appear, they all form an integral part of the fabric moulds the acceptable behaviours of students, which in turn creates the culture that permeates the school setting.
The Broken Windows Theory is still very relevant in our schools today.
References Brinig, M.F., & Garnett, N.S. (2012, June). Catholic schools and broken windows. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(2), 347-367.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Kelling, G.J., & Wilson, J.Q. (1982, March). Broken windows: The police and neighbourhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/
- Bipolar Disorder
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Self-Improvement
- Healthy Relationships
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Guided Meditations
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2024 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
Broken Windows Theory
How Environment Impacts Behavior
Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.
Akeem Marsh, MD, is a board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist who has dedicated his career to working with medically underserved communities.
Verywell / Dennis Madamba
Origins and Explanation
- Application
- Impact on Behavior
- Positive Environments
The broken windows theory was proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982, arguing that there was a connection between a person’s physical environment and their likelihood of committing a crime.
The theory has been a major influence on modern policing strategies and guided later research in urban sociology and behavioral psychology . But it’s also come under increasing scrutiny and some critics have argued that its application in policing and other contexts has done more harm than good.
The theory is named after an analogy used to explain it. If a window in a building is broken and remains unrepaired for too long, the rest of the windows in that building will eventually be broken, too. According to Wilson and Kelling, that’s because the unrepaired window acts as a signal to people in that neighborhood that they can break windows without fear of consequence because nobody cares enough to stop it or fix it. Eventually, Wilson and Kelling argued, more serious crimes like robbery and violence will flourish.
The idea is that physical signs of neglect and deterioration encourage criminal behavior because they act as a signal that this is a place where disorder is allowed to persist. If no one cares enough to pick up the litter on the sidewalk or repair and reuse abandoned buildings, maybe they won’t care enough to call the police when they see a drug deal or a burglary either.
How Is the Broken Windows Theory Applied?
The theory sparked a wave of “broken windows” or “zero tolerance” policing where law enforcement began cracking down on nonviolent behaviors like loitering, graffiti, or panhandling. By ramping up arrests and citations for perceived disorderly behavior and removing physical signs of disorder from the neighborhood, police hope to create a more orderly environment that discourages more serious crime.
The broken windows theory has been used outside of policing, as well, including in the workplace and in schools. Using a similar zero tolerance approach that disciplines students or employees for minor violations is thought to create more orderly environments that foster learning and productivity .
“By discouraging small acts of misconduct, such as tardiness, minor rule violations, or unprofessional conduct, employers seek to promote a culture of accountability, professionalism, and high performance,” said David Tzall Psy.D., a licensed forensic psychologist and Deputy Director for the Health and Wellness Unit of the NYPD.
Criticism of the Broken Window Theory
While the idea that one broken window leads to many sounds plausible, later research on the topic failed to find a connection. “The theory oversimplifies the causes of crime by focusing primarily on visible signs of disorder,” Tzall said. “It neglects underlying social and economic factors, such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of education, which are known to be important contributors to criminal behavior.”
When researchers account for those underlying factors, the connection between disordered environments and crime rates disappears.
In a report published in 2016, the NYPD itself found that its “quality-of-life” policing—another term for broken windows policing—had no impact on the city’s crime rate. Between 2010 and 2015, the number of “quality-of-life” summons issued by the NYPD for things like open containers, public urination, and riding bicycles on the sidewalk dropped by about 33%.
While the broken windows theory would theorize that serious crimes would spike when the police stopped cracking down on those minor offenses, violent crimes and property crimes actually decreased during that same time period.
“Policing based on broken windows theory has never been shown to work,” said Kimberly Vered Shashoua, LCSW , a therapist who works with marginalized teens and young adults. “Criminalizing unhoused people, low socioeconomic status households, and others who create this type of ‘crime’ doesn't get to the root of the problem,”
Not only have policing efforts that focus on things like graffiti or panhandling failed to have any impact on violent crime, they have often been used to target marginalized communities. “The theory's implementation can lead to biased policing practices as law enforcement officers can concentrate their efforts on low-income neighborhoods or communities predominantly populated by minority groups,” Tzall said.
That biased policing happens, in part, because there’s no objective measure of disordered environments so there’s a lot of room for implicit bias and discrimination to influence decision-making about which neighborhoods to target in crackdowns.
Studies show that neighborhoods where residents are predominantly Black or Latino are perceived as more disorderly and prone to crime than neighborhoods where residents are mostly white, even when police-recorded crime rates and physical signs of physical deterioration in the environment were the same.
Moreover, many of the behaviors that are used by police and researchers as signs of disorder are influenced by racial and class bias . Drinking and hanging out are both legal activities that are viewed as orderly when they happen in private spaces like a home or bar, for example. But those who socialize and drink in parks or on stoops outside their building are viewed as disorderly and charged with loitering and public drunkenness.
The Impact of Physical Environment on Behavior
While the broken windows theory and its application are flawed, the underlying idea that our physical environment can influence our behavior does hold some water. On one hand, “the physical environment conveys social norms that influence our behavior,” Tzall explained. “When we observe others adhering to certain norms in a particular space, we tend to adjust our own behavior to align with them.”
If a person sees litter on the street, they might be more likely to litter themselves, for example. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll make the leap from littering to robbery or violent assault. Moreover, litter can often be a sign that there aren’t enough public trashcans available on the streets for people to throw away food wrappers and other waste while they’re out. In that scenario, installing more trashcans would do far more to reduce litter than increasing the number of citations for littering.
“The design and layout of spaces can also signal specific expectations and guide our actions,” Tzall explained. In the litter example, then, the addition of more trashcans could also act as an environmental cue to encourage throwing trash away rather than littering.
How to Create Positive Environments to Foster Safety, Health, and Well-Being
Ultimately, reducing crime requires addressing the root causes of poverty and social inequality that lead to crime. But taking care of public spaces and neighborhoods to keep them clean and enjoyable can still have a positive impact on the communities who live in and use them.
“Positive environments provide opportunities for meaningful interactions and collaboration among community members,” Tzall said. “Access to green spaces, recreational facilities, mental health resources, and community services contribute to physical, mental, and emotional health,” said Tzall.
By creating more positive environments, we can encourage healthier lifestyle choices—like adding protected bike lanes to encourage people to ride bikes—and prosocial behavior —like adding basketball courts in parks to encourage people to meet and play a game with their neighbors.
At the individual level, Tzall suggests people “can initiate or participate in community projects, volunteer for local organizations, support inclusive initiatives, engage in dialogue with neighbors, and collaborate with local authorities or community leaders.” Create positive environments by taking the initiative to pick up litter when you see it, participate in tree planting initiatives, collaborate with your neighbors to establish a community garden, or volunteer with a local organization to advocate for better public spaces and resources.
Wilson JQ and Kelling GL. Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety . The Atlantic Monthly. 1982.
Harcourt B, Ludwig J. Broken windows: new evidence from new york city and a five-city social experiment . University of Chicago Law Review. 2006;73(1).
Peters M, Eure P. An Analysis of Quality-of-Life Summonses, Quality-of-Life Misdemeanor Arrests, and Felony Crime in New York City, 2010-2015 . New York City Department of Investigation Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD; 2016.
Sampson RJ. Disparity and diversity in the contemporary city: social (Dis)order revisited . The British Journal of Sociology. 2009;60(1):1-31. Doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01211.x
By Rachael Green Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.
School Facilities and the ‘Broken Window’ Theory
- Share article
To the Editor:
Sara Mead performs a valuable service by highlighting the urgent need to address the growing problem of school maintenance ( “Schooling’s Crumbling Infrastructure,” Commentary, June 15, 2005). In their zeal to improve educational quality, reformers have focused almost exclusively on the accountability of teachers, while widely ignoring the accountability of policymakers.
Not too long after the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the California legislature pondered the wisdom of establishing an “opportunity to learn” index, which would have required the publication of not only test scores, but also factors associated with learning. High on the list was a rating of the overall learning environment. This would have taken into account such items as clean restrooms and comfortable room temperatures.
The thinking behind the index was reminiscent of the “broken windows” theory of crime first published in the March 1982 issue of The Atlantic Monthly . Its authors, James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, hypothesized that if a broken window in a building is not repaired, people will be likely to assume that no one cares about the building, and soon more windows will be broken. Carried to its logical extreme, the theory posited that it eventually becomes acceptable to trash an entire neighborhood.
Perhaps the broken-windows theory helps explain the vandalism and associated disrespect for school facilities and faculty members that characterize too many large urban districts. The theory is certainly in line with Ms. Mead’s contention that classroom neglect sends a subtle but clear message to students about the priority we place on their education. It would be ironic if proper maintenance resulted in a decrease in overall criminal activity on school campuses.
Walt Gardner
Los Angeles, Calif.
Sign Up for EdWeek Update
Edweek top school jobs.
Sign Up & Sign In
Smart Classroom Management
Broken Windows Theory And Classroom Management
In his seminal book, The Tipping Point , author Malcolm Gladwell describes the precipitous fall of crime in New York City in the early 1990’s. There were several factors that accounted for the drop, but the most interesting from a classroom management standpoint, and perhaps the most influential, was called the broken windows theory.
The broken windows theory of crime prevention postulates that disorder is an invitation for crime to occur. If the environment of a particular neighborhood triggers the belief that no one cares or that no one is in charge, then crime in that neighborhood goes up.
Hence, petty crime, graffiti, and other “broken windows”, which signal that no one is watching, would be invitations to more frequent and more serious criminal activity.
So the city of New York began cleaning up the physical environment and making a show of cracking down on minor crimes. They painted over the graffiti covering subway cars, increased misdemeanor arrests like public drunkenness and failing to pay subway fares, and otherwise focused on policing the smallest details.
They sent the message that indeed someone cared and was watching.
As soon as they began cracking down on these smaller quality-of-life crimes, all forms of crime decreased. Today, you can safely walk the same New York City streets that 20 years ago would have been out of the question.
Just as enforcing minor quality-of-life crimes can benefit cities and neighborhoods, enforcing classroom rule violations that many teachers perceive to be not worth the time are, in fact, very much worth the time.
Imagine you are standing in front of an open closet or a row of hooks along a wall of your classroom, looking at a collection of student backpacks. Some of the backpacks are lying rumpled on the floor, some are hanging sideways from a shoulder strap, and a few are hanging appropriately by the center “hook” loop. Several of the backpacks are unzipped, exposing various articles of clothing and old assignments.
Is this scene an invitation for more frequent and more serious disruptive behaviors?
I contend that it is. Small details that for many teachers don’t seem to be worth the effort can have a strong impact on the behavior of your students. By enforcing rules and standards of behavior that protect a classroom’s pleasantness (i.e., polite interactions and practices, kindness, cleanliness, orderliness, and organization), all forms of disruptive and disrespectful behavior decrease—often dramatically.
If a student is inconsiderate of others and shows a lack of respect for the classroom when it comes to a trivial matter like hanging up a backpack, then he or she will be similarly behaved when it comes to more important and potentially more disruptive matters.
The power to manage your classroom and enjoy every day of teaching is in the details. Though at first glance, disordered backpacks may not seem like such a big deal, they send the message that respect for others, neatness, and pride in doing things the right way are not valued.
The lesson of the broken windows theory, then, is to enforce each of your classroom management rules precisely.
Too many teachers wait until a rule is broken in a big way before enforcing it. This is a mistake in the highest order. It’s confusing to students to have rules on a sliding scale, dependent upon your mood, who the student is, or how severely the rule was broken.
It is also an invitation for more frequent and more serious misbehavior.
It allows your students to break rules on some level and at some times without consequence, indicating that such behavior is okay. This encourages more of the same and invites your students to push the limits as far as they can.
Let’s say one Monday morning you are sharing with your students a story about your weekend. The students are happy and engaged and you’re having a nice moment together. During a pause in the story, one of your best students smiles broadly and asks an excellent question but forgets to raise her hand.
The question was asked at an appropriate time and didn’t interrupt you in any way. What do you do? Do you answer the question and move on? Do you remind the student that she should raise her hand the next time? Do you chalk it up to being a non-educational situation and not a big deal? Do you decide that because she is well behaved and a good student there is no need to make issue of it? Or do you follow your classroom management plan exactly as it is posted in your classroom?
The fact is, this is a wonderful opportunity. That the student is one of your best is perfect. It’s an opportunity to show all of your students that rules will be enforced no matter what, no matter when, and no matter who is breaking them.
You follow through every time because not doing so is an invitation for bad behavior. I encourage you to try it yourself. Test the broken windows theory in your own classroom by enforcing even the little things—minor infractions that at first seem inconsequential, but in reality, are the most important. I know you will be happy with the results.
If you haven’t done so already, please join us. It’s free! Click here and begin receiving classroom management articles like this one in your email box every week.
2 thoughts on “Broken Windows Theory And Classroom Management”
I love the ‘broken windows theory’! It applies to preschool and parenting too.
Hi, I can’t seem to find the videos you mentioned in Broken Windows. Thanks
Leave a Comment Cancel reply
Privacy Policy
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Download Free PDF
The Broken Window Theory and school leadership
In our schools there needs to be an accepted consistency in expectations about the cultural and academic standards that characterise each school. Members of the school community soon sniff out inconsistencies and gaps between the school’s espoused platform and the platform in use statements, and the school’s culture is slowly eroded when the two do not match up. The Broken Windows Theory is very relevant to the way that modern schools operate because it gives school leaders a perception of the multitude of potential problems that impact on the schools’ operations.
Related papers
Education Today, 2021
The Broken Windows Theory posits that the deliberate breaking of windows in a community results in societal changes (disorder, fear, withdrawal), which then allows more serious crimes to creep in. Environments reflect mindsets. In our schools there needs to be an accepted consistency in expectations about the cultural and academic standards that characterise each school. Members of the school community soon sniff out inconsistencies and gaps between the school's espoused platform and the platform in use statements, and the school's culture is slowly eroded when the two do not match up. The Broken Windows Theory is very relevant to the way that modern schools operate because it gives school leaders a perception of the multitude of potential problems that impact on the schools' operations. The American sociologists George Kelling and James Q. Wilson (1982) popularised what was known as the Broken Windows Theory. This theory posits that the deliberate breaking of windows in a community results in societal changes (disorder, fear, withdrawal), which then allows more serious crimes to creep in, thus starting a decline in respect for the law, property, and people's rights. Kelling and Wilson (1982) noted that "… vandalism can occur anywhere once communal barriers-the sense of mutual regard and the obligations of civility-are lowered by actions that seem to signal that 'no one cares'." The "no one cares" is a signal that crosses all socioeconomic boundaries, and all organisations. While the theory has become mired in the political application of police forces in relation to minor issues, the authors of this paper have seen that the theory has relevance in the leadership roles of school principals and the operations of classroom-based staff.
Penn Gse Perspectives on Urban Education, 2008
Much has been written about the adaptation from criminology of the "Broken Windows" theory of order maintenance in successful urban educational models. Yet, the manner in which the theory is written and discussed often misses the nuances and feel of the theory as successfully applied. This misunderstanding has lead to its conflation with the "Zero Tolerance" approach to discipline management in schools with its emphasis on draconian punishment for both serious and semi-serious offenders. The more powerful current of Broken Windows, however, emphasizes the manner in which student behavior adapts, often unconsciously, to even the subtlest of cultural expectations, when consistently applied. Thus, in order to avoid the confusion involved in the application of Broken Windows, this paper proposes the use of the phrase "Unrelenting Expectations" as a clearer descriptive term for this approach to cultural management in Urban Education.
Journal of Educational Administration, 2021
PurposeThe study explores characteristics of strong school cultures through principals' exploitation of additional resources within implementation of a national reform.Design/methodology/approachAn interpretive approach was utilized to analyze qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 35 Israeli high school principals who implemented a national reform in state and religious-state schools from all school districts.FindingsThe article presents four types of cracking cultures led by the principals: (1) a school values-based culture, such as respect; (2) a caring culture based on trust and a positive atmosphere; (3) a maintenance achievement-oriented culture; and (4) a creative culture that supports the teachers and takes risks in using resources beyond their intended purpose.Originality/valueExploring principals' exploitation of resources within a cracking culture may promote school improvement and innovation during national reform implementation.
Journal of Educational Change, 2008
In this article, we compare two North Carolina public schools that were simultaneously implementing reforms with seemingly different orientations, the A+ School Program and the ABCs of Public Education. We use the literature on caring and critiques of bureaucracy as a framework to look at the concurrent implementation of two educational reforms in North Carolina. We discuss data from a 5 year longitudinal study and critique our own assumptions as we develop portraits of schools that are both situated and complex. We do this to explore the question: In what ways does educational reform actually change educational practice? We develop a framework that articulates a critique of bureaucracy from the standpoint of caring, locate the culture of each school within the theoretical framework, and analyze how the culture of schools affects the implementation of educational reform. We conclude that reform is deeply cultural and that ethnographic methods are essential to understanding educational reform efforts.
Improving Schools, 2005
This article explores the leadership of a closing school. It draws on the case of Newley School, a mixed comprehensive for students aged between 11 and 18 years, and examines the primary leadership activities undertaken during the 12-month period when the school reopened temporarily as a ‘new’ school. These activities were driven by the imperative of ensuring the provision of a positive learning environment for students. The article examines the key factors underpinning the cultural change required to secure this environment. It moves on to explore the impact of cultural change activities from the viewpoint of some of the school's main stakeholders – students, parents, teachers and governors. It highlights the importance of short-term culture building and provides insights into the potential benefits of school federations. The article concludes with implications for school leaders attempting to manage cultural change.
IGI Global eBooks, 2019
Two themes, 1) administrative managerialism and 2) human kinship, are used to theorize an effective approach to educational leadership. The first arises from difficulty in Canada recruiting teachers into school administration. The second emphasizes human kinship, where we speak out of our materiality as an earthling. These themes suggest a leadership profile grounded in valuable experience gained in the practice of teaching. The intent of this chapter is to theorize an approach to leadership that emphasizes a sense of calling toward the public good, where school leaders can engage in the action that nurtures a culture encouraging teachers to be responsibly accountable and students to engage in assiduous study. "Careerists" rarely take time to understand the complexities of a symbolic/cultural approach and the author's claim is that we need to select leaders who understand how to infuse the work of teaching with value, meaning, passion, and purpose.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2001
This report examines the nature and practice of effective leadership in schools in England and Wales in the 1990s. It is based on a study that explored how existing theories of effective leadership--purposeful leadership, transformational leadership, or moral leadership--compared to the practices of successful head teachers in times of change. The research was based on more than 200 interviews with heads (principals), staff, governors, parents, and students in 12 primary, secondary, and special schools. The methodology recognized that effective leadership was a highly contextualized and relational construct. A generic case-study protocol was designed in which each school was visited for two-and-a-half days. Analysis revealed that the various stakeholders shared a broadly similar social construction of leadership that did not wholly endorse existing theories of leadership. The heads themselves operated on the basis of both internally and externally determined measures of quality control; their quality-assurance criteria had a broader agenda in keeping with a holistic moral vision of a good school and good teachers. Their leadership approaches did not neatly adhere to existing leadership theories, in part because the complexity of the role they faced meant that no one theory could explain existing practices. (Contains 30 references.) (RJM)
In New Zealand, the government has recently proposed instituting more centralised control to meet the growing concerns about the lack of equity in the education system and about falling student achievement. This paper argues that increased centralisation is not the answer. Instead, it suggests that there will be no systemic change in the education environment in New Zealand until imbedded assumptions about school leadership are also changed. Drawing on the results of two studies into the leadership perceptions and experiences of principals in New Zealand (Slowley, 2012,2017), as well as on the literature of school leadership, the paper argues that a key factor inhibiting educational development in New Zealand is that entrepreneurialism, with its contingent element of self-interest, has become a key aspect of the school leadership praxis. The paper also argues that the role of the principal in New Zealand has become a form of piecemeal functionalism because it is heavily influenced by the beliefs that schools should be predictable and well-prescribed, businesslike organisations and that leadership effectiveness should be determined by the degree of organisational and administrative efficiency. The paper also points to the limitations on the role of the principal that are created by the imposition of strong personal accountability measures because they compel principals to over-focus on organisational or systems management efficiency and maintenance of the status quo. The paper therefore, suggests that if the education system in New Zealand is to really change, it needs to enable principals to develop flexible leadership models that will allow schools to become more socially activist and be more focused on social skill development and learning enhancement, rather than economic principles and personalised well-being.
School culture is a pervasive element of schools, yet it is elusive and difficult to define. Understanding school culture is an essential factor in any reform initiative. Any type of change introduced to schools is often met with resistance and is doomed to failure as a result of the reform being counter to this nebulous, yet allencompassing facet -school culture. This article defines culture as it applies to schools and examines the effects of school culture on teachers and schools in general. Underlying assumptions held by school personnel that articulate the culture of schools is also examined. The reasons for change to be accepted or rejected are also discussed.
Acta Univ. Sapientiae, Social Analysis, 13: 29–55, 2023
Drugs, 2008
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2013
Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 2023
Iconic Research and Engineering Journals, 2019
Afr.J.Bio.Sc, 2024
Proceedings of the The 3rd International Conference Community Research and Service Engagements, IC2RSE 2019, 4th December 2019, North Sumatra, Indonesia, 2020
Journal of Animal Ecology, 2008
Seminars in Arthroplasty: JSES, 2022
Virology, 1993
TecnoHumanismo, 2021
Roczniki Teologiczne, 2017
Related topics
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
Broken Windows Theory of Criminology
Charlotte Ruhl
Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate
BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University
Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Saul McLeod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
On This Page:
The Broken Windows Theory of Criminology suggests that visible signs of disorder and neglect, such as broken windows or graffiti, can encourage further crime and anti-social behavior in an area, as they signal a lack of order and law enforcement.
Key Takeaways
- The Broken Windows theory, first studied by Philip Zimbardo and introduced by George Kelling and James Wilson, holds that visible indicators of disorder, such as vandalism, loitering, and broken windows, invite criminal activity and should be prosecuted.
- This form of policing has been tested in several real-world settings. It was heavily enforced in the mid-1990s under New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, Lowell, Massachusetts, and the Netherlands later experimented with this theory.
- Although initial research proved to be promising, this theory has been met with several criticisms. Specifically, many scholars point to the fact that there is no clear causal relationship between lack of order and crime. Rather, crime going down when order goes up is merely a coincidental correlation.
- Additionally, this theory has opened the doors for racial and class bias, especially in the form of stop and frisk.
The United States has the largest prison population in the world and the highest per-capita incarceration rate. In 2016, 2.3 million people were incarcerated, despite a massive decline in both violent and property crimes (Morgan & Kena, 2019).
These statistics provide some insight into why crime regulation and mass incarceration are such hot topics today, and many scholars, lawyers, and politicians have devised theories and strategies to try to promote safety within society.
One such model is broken windows policing, which was first brought to light by American psychologist Philip Zimbardo (famous for his Stanford Prison Experiment) and further publicized by James Wilson and George Kelling. Since its inception, this theory has been both widely used and widely criticized.
What Is the Broken Windows Theory?
The broken windows theory states that any visible signs of crime and civil disorder, such as broken windows (hence, the name of the theory), vandalism, loitering, public drinking, jaywalking, and transportation fare evasion, create an urban environment that promotes even more crime and disorder (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).
As such, policing these misdemeanors will help create an ordered and lawful society in which all citizens feel safe and crime rates, including violent crime rates, are low.
Broken windows policing tries to regulate low-level crime to prevent widespread disorder from occurring. If these small crimes are greatly reduced, then neighborhoods will appear to be more cared for.
The hope is that if these visible displays of disorder and neglect are reduced, violent crimes might go down too, leading to an overall reduction in crime and an increase in public safety.
Source: Hinkle, J. C., & Weisburd, D. (2008). The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(6), 503-512.
Academics justify broken windows policing from a theoretical standpoint because of three specific factors that help explain why the state of the urban environment might affect crime levels:
- social norms and conformity;
- the presence or lack of routine monitoring;
- social signaling and signal crime.
In a typical urban environment, social norms and monitoring are not clearly known. As a result, individuals will look for certain signs and signals that provide both insight into the social norms of the area as well as the risk of getting caught violating those norms.
Those who support the broken windows theory argue that one of those signals is the area’s general appearance. In other words, an ordered environment, one that is safe and has very little lawlessness, sends the message that this neighborhood is routinely monitored and criminal acts are not tolerated.
On the other hand, a disordered environment, one that is not as safe and contains visible acts of lawlessness (such as broken windows, graffiti, and litter), sends the message that this neighborhood is not routinely monitored and individuals would be much more likely to get away with committing a crime.
With a decreased likelihood of detection, individuals would be much more inclined to engage in criminal behavior, both violent and nonviolent, in this type of area.
As you might be able to tell, a major assumption that this theory makes is that an environment’s landscape communicates to its residents in some way.
For example, proponents of this theory would argue that a broken window signals to potential criminals that a community is unable to defend itself against an uptick in criminal activity. It is not the literal broken window that is a direct cause for concern, but more so the figurative meaning that is ascribed to this situation.
It symbolizes a vulnerable and disjointed community that cannot handle crime – opening the doors to all kinds of unwanted activity to occur.
In neighborhoods that do have a strong sense of social cohesion among their residents, these broken windows are fixed (both literally and figuratively), giving these areas a sense of control over their communities.
By fixing these windows, undesired individuals and behaviors are removed, allowing civilians to feel safer (Herbert & Brown, 2006).
However, in environments in which these broken windows are left unfixed, residents no longer see their communities as tight-knit, safe spaces and will avoid spending time in communal spaces (in parks, at local stores, on the street blocks) so as to avoid violent attacks from strangers.
Additionally, when these broken windows are not fixed, it also symbolizes a lack of informal social control. Informal social control refers to the actions that regulate behavior, such as conforming to social norms and intervening as a bystander when a crime is committed, that are independent of the law.
Informal social control is important to help reduce unruly behavior. Scholars argue that, under certain circumstances, informal social control is more effective than laws.
And some will even go so far as to say that nonresidential spaces, such as corner stores and businesses, have a responsibility to actually maintain this informal social control by way of constant surveillance and supervision.
One such scholar is Jane Jacobs, a Canadian-American author and journalist who believed sidewalks were a crucial vehicle for promoting public safety.
Jacobs can be considered one of the original pioneers of the broken windows theory. One of her most famous books, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, describes how local businesses and stores provide a necessary sense of having “eyes on the street,” which promotes safety and helps to regulate crime (Jacobs, 1961).
Although the idea that community involvement, from both residents and non-residents, can make a big difference in how safe a neighborhood is perceived to be, Wilson and Keeling argue that the police are the key to maintaining order.
As major proponents of broken windows policing, they hold that formal social control, in addition to informal social control, is crucial for actually regulating crime.
Although different people have different approaches to the implementation of broken windows (i.e., cleaning up the environment and informal social control vs. an increase in policing misdemeanor crimes), the end goal is the same: crime reduction.
This idea, which largely serves as the backbone of the broken windows theory, was first introduced by Philip Zimbardo.
Examples of Broken Windows Policing
1969: philip zimbardo’s introduction of broken windows in nyc and la.
In 1969, Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo ran a social experiment in which he abandoned two cars that had no license plates and the hoods up in very different locations.
The first was a predominantly poor, high-crime neighborhood in the Bronx, and the second was a fairly affluent area of Palo Alto, California. He then observed two very different outcomes.
After just ten minutes, the car in the Bronx was attacked and vandalized. A family first approached the vehicle and removed the radiator and battery. Within the first twenty-four hours after Zimbardo left the car, everything valuable had been stripped and removed from the car.
Afterward, random acts of destruction began – the windows were smashed, seats were ripped up, and the car began to serve as a playground for children in the community.
On the contrary, the car that was left in Palo Alto remained untouched for more than a week before Zimbardo eventually went up to it and smashed the vehicle with a sledgehammer.
Only after he had done this did other people join the destruction of the car (Zimbardo, 1969). Zimbardo concluded that something that is clearly abandoned and neglected can become a target for vandalism.
But Kelling and Wilson extended this finding when they introduced the concept of broken windows policing in the early 1980s.
This initial study cascaded into a body of research and policy that demonstrated how in areas such as the Bronx, where theft, destruction, and abandonment are more common, vandalism would occur much faster because there are no opposing forces to this type of behavior.
As a result, such forces, primarily the police, are needed to intervene and reduce these types of behavior and remove such indicators of disorder.
1982: Kelling and Wilson’s Follow-Up Article
Thirteen years after Zimbardo’s study was published, criminologists George Kelling and James Wilson published an article in The Atlantic that applied Zimbardo’s findings to entire communities.
Kelling argues that Zimbardo’s findings were not unique to the Bronx and Palo Alto areas. Rather, he claims that, regardless of the neighborhood, a ripple effect can occur once disorder begins as things get extremely out of hand and control becomes increasingly hard to maintain.
The article introduces the broader idea that now lies at the heart of the broken windows theory: a broken window, or other signs of disorder, such as loitering, graffiti, litter, or drug use, can send the message that a neighborhood is uncared for, sending an open invitation for crime to continue to occur, even violent crimes.
The solution, according to Kelling and Wilson and many other proponents of this theory, is to target these very low-level crimes, restore order to the neighborhood, and prevent more violent crimes from happening.
A strengthened and ordered community is equipped to fight and deter crime (because a sense of order creates the perception that crimes go easily detected). As such, it is necessary for police departments to focus on cleaning up the streets as opposed to putting all of their energy into fighting high-level crimes.
In addition to Zimbardo’s 1969 study, Kelling and Wilson’s article was also largely inspired by New Jersey’s “Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Program” that was implemented in the mid-1970s.
As part of the program, police officers were taken out of their patrol cars and were asked to patrol on foot. The aim of this approach was to make citizens feel more secure in their neighborhoods.
Although crime was not reduced as a result, residents took fewer steps to protect themselves from crime (such as locking their doors). Reducing fear is a huge goal of broken-windows policing.
As Kelling and Wilson state in their article, the fear of being bothered by disorderly people (such as drunks, rowdy teens, or loiterers) is enough to motivate them to withdraw from the community.
But if we can find a way to make people feel less fear (namely by reducing low-level crimes), then they will be more involved in their communities, creating a higher degree of informal social control and deterring all forms of criminal activity.
Although Kelling and Wilson’s article was largely theoretical, the practice of broken windows policing was implemented in the early 1990s under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. And Kelling himself was there to play a crucial role.
Early 1990s: Bratton and Giuliani’s implementation in NYC
In 1985, the New York City Transit Authority hired George Kelling as a consultant, and he was also later hired by both the Boston and Los Angeles police departments to provide advice on the most effective method for policing (Fagan & Davies, 2000).
Five years later, in 1990, William J. Bratton became the head of the New York City Transit Police. In his role, Bratton cracked down on fare evasion and implemented faster methods to process those who were arrested.
He attributed a lot of his decisions as head of the transit police to Kelling’s work. Bratton was just the first to begin to implement such measures, but once Rudy Giuliani was elected as mayor in 1993, tactics to reduce crime began to really take off (Vedantam et al., 2016).
Together, Giuliani and Bratton first focused on cleaning up the subway system, where Bratton’s area of expertise lay. They sent hundreds of police officers into subway stations throughout the city to catch anyone who was jumping the turnstiles and evading the fair.
And this was just the beginning.
All throughout the 90s, Giuliani increased misdemeanor arrests in all pockets of the city. They arrested numerous people for smoking marijuana in public, spraying graffiti on walls, selling cigarettes, and they shut down many of the city’s night spots for illegal dancing.
Conveniently, during this time, crime was also falling in the city and the murder rate was rapidly decreasing, earning Giuliani re-election in 1997 (Vedantam et al., 2016).
To further support the outpouring success of this new approach to regulating crime, George Kelling ran a follow-up study on the efficacy of broken windows policing and found that in neighborhoods where there was a stark increase in misdemeanor arrests (evidence of broken windows policing), there was also a sharp decline in crime (Kelling & Sousa, 2001).
Because this seemed like an incredibly successful mode, cities around the world began to adopt this approach.
Late 1990s: Albuquerque’s Safe Streets Program
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a Safe Streets Program was implemented to deter and reduce unsafe driving and crime rates by increasing surveillance in these areas.
Specifically, the traffic enforcement program influenced saturation patrols (that operated over a large geographic area), sobriety checkpoints, follow-up patrols, and freeway speed enforcement.
The effectiveness of this program was analyzed in a study done by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Stuser, 2001).
Results demonstrated that both Part I crimes, including homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and theft, and Part II crimes, such as sex offenses, kidnapping, stolen property, and fraud, experienced a total decline of 5% during the 1996-1997 calendar year in which this program was implemented.
Additionally, this program resulted in a 9% decline in both robbery and burglary, a 10% decline in assault, a 17% decline in kidnapping, a 29% decline in homicide, and a 36% decline in arson.
With these promising statistics came a 14% increase in arrests. Thus, the researchers concluded that traffic enforcement programs can deter criminal activity. This approach was initially inspired by both Zimbardo’s and Kelling and Wilson’s work on broken windows and provides evidence that when policing and surveillance increase, crime rates go down.
2005: Lowell, Massachusetts
Back on the east coast, Harvard University and Suffolk University researchers worked with local police officers to pinpoint 34 different crime hotspots in Lowell, Massachusetts. In half of these areas, local police officers and authorities cleaned up trash from the streets, fixed streetlights, expanded aid for the homeless, and made more misdemeanor arrests.
There was no change made in the other half of the areas (Johnson, 2009).
The researchers found that in areas in which police service was changed, there was a 20% reduction in calls to the police. And because the researchers implemented different ways of changing the city’s landscape, from cleaning the physical environment to increasing arrests, they were able to compare the effectiveness of these various approaches.
Although many proponents of the broken windows theory argue that increasing policing and arrests is the solution to reducing crime, as the previous study in Albuquerque illustrates. Others insist that more arrests do not solve the problem but rather changing the physical landscape should be the desired means to an end.
And this is exactly what Brenda Bond of Suffolk University and Anthony Braga of Harvard Kennedy’s School of Government found. Cleaning up the physical environment was revealed to be very effective, misdemeanor arrests were less so, and increasing social services had no impact.
This study provided strong evidence for the effectiveness of the broken windows theory in reducing crime by decreasing disorder, specifically in the context of cleaning up the physical and visible neighborhood (Braga & Bond, 2008).
2007: Netherlands
The United States is not the only country that sought to implement the broken windows ideology. Beginning in 2007, researchers from the University of Groningen ran several studies that looked at whether existing visible disorder increased crimes such as theft and littering.
Similar to the Lowell experiment, where half of the areas were ordered and the other half disorders, Keizer and colleagues arranged several urban areas in two different ways at two different times. In one condition, the area was ordered, with an absence of graffiti and littering, but in the other condition, there was visible evidence for disorder.
The team found that in disorderly environments, people were much more likely to litter, take shortcuts through a fenced-off area, and take an envelope out of an open mailbox that was clearly labeled to contain five Euros (Keizer et al., 2008).
This study provides additional support for the effect perceived order can have on the likelihood of criminal activity. But this broken windows theory is not restricted to the criminal legal setting.
2008: Tokyo, Japan
The local government of Adachi Ward, Tokyo, which once had Tokyo’s highest crime rates, introduced the “Beautiful Windows Movement” in 2008 (Hino & Chronopoulos, 2021).
The intervention was twofold. The program, on one hand, drawing on the broken windows theory, promoted policing to prevent minor crimes and disorder. On the other hand, in partnership with citizen volunteers, the authorities launched a project to make Adachi Ward literally beautiful.
Following 11 years of implementation, the reduction in crime was undeniable. Felony had dropped from 122 in 2008 to 35 in 2019, burglary from 104 to 24, and bicycle theft from 93 to 45.
This Japanese case study seemed to further highlight the advantages associated with translating the broken widow theory into both aggressive policing and landscape altering.
Other Domains Relevant to Broken Windows
There are several other fields in which the broken windows theory is implicated. The first is real estate. Broken windows (and other similar signs of disorder) can indicate low real estate value, thus deterring investors (Hunt, 2015).
As such, some recommend that the real estate industry adopt the broken windows theory to increase value in an apartment, house, or even an entire neighborhood. They might increase in value by fixing windows and cleaning up the area (Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006).
Consequently, this might lead to gentrification – the process by which poorer urban landscapes are changed as wealthier individuals move in.
Although many would argue that this might help the economy and provide a safe area for people to live, this often displaces low-income families and prevents them from moving into areas they previously could not afford.
This is a very salient topic in the United States as many areas are becoming gentrified, and regardless of whether you support this process, it is important to understand how the real estate industry is directly connected to the broken windows theory.
Another area that broken windows are related to is education. Here, the broken windows theory is used to promote order in the classroom. In this setting, the students replace those who engage in criminal activity.
The idea is that students are signaled by disorder or others breaking classroom rules and take this as an open invitation to further contribute to the disorder.
As such, many schools rely on strict regulations such as punishing curse words and speaking out of turn, forcing strict dress and behavioral codes, and enforcing specific classroom etiquette.
Similar to the previous studies, from 2004 to 2006, Stephen Plank and colleagues conducted a study that measured the relationship between the physical appearance of mid-Atlantic schools and student behavior.
They determined that variables such as fear, social order, and informal social control were statistically significantly associated with the physical conditions of the school setting.
Thus, the researchers urged educators to tend to the school’s physical appearance to help promote a productive classroom environment in which students are less likely to propagate disordered behavior (Plank et al., 2009).
Despite there being a large body of research that seems to support the broken windows theory, this theory does not come without its stark criticisms, especially in the past few years.
Major Criticisms
At the turn of the 21st century, the rhetoric surrounding broken windows drastically shifted from praise to criticism. Scholars scrutinized conclusions that were drawn, questioned empirical methodologies, and feared that this theory was morphing into a vehicle for discrimination.
Misinterpreting the Relationship Between Disorder and Crime
A major criticism of this theory argues that it misinterprets the relationship between disorder and crime by drawing a causal chain between the two.
Instead, some researchers argue that a third factor, collective efficacy, or the cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for the social control of public space, is the causal agent explaining crime rates (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).
A 2019 meta-analysis that looked at 300 studies revealed that disorder in a neighborhood does not directly cause its residents to commit more crimes (O’Brien et al., 2019).
The researchers examined studies that tested to what extent disorder led people to commit crimes, made them feel more fearful of crime in their neighborhoods, and affected their perceptions of their neighborhoods.
In addition to drawing out several methodological flaws in the hundreds of studies that were included in the analysis, O’Brien and colleagues found no evidence that the disorder and crime are causally linked.
Similarly, in 2003, David Thatcher published a paper in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology arguing that broken windows policing was not as effective as it appeared to be on the surface.
Crime rates dropping in areas such as New York City were not a direct result of this new law enforcement tactic. Those who believed this were simply conflating correlation and causality.
Rather, Thatcher claims, lower crime rates were the result of various other factors, none of which fell into the category of ramping up misdemeanor arrests (Thatcher, 2003).
In terms of the specific factors that were actually playing a role in the decrease in crime, some scholars point to the waning of the cocaine epidemic and strict enforcement of the Rockefeller drug laws that contributed to lower crime rates (Metcalf, 2006).
Other explanations include trends such as New York City’s economic boom in the late 1990s that helped directly contribute to the decrease of crime much more so than enacting the broken windows policy (Sridhar, 2006).
Additionally, cities that did not implement broken windows also saw a decrease in crime (Harcourt, 2009), and similarly, crime rates weren’t decreasing in other cities that adopted the broken windows policy (Sridhar, 2006).
Specifically, Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig examined the Department of Housing and Urban Development program that placed inner-city project residents into housing in more orderly neighborhoods.
Contrary to the broken windows theory, which would predict that these tenants would now commit fewer crimes once relocated into more ordered neighborhoods, they found that these individuals continued to commit crimes at the same rate.
This study provides clear evidence why broken windows may not be the causal agent in crime reduction (Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006).
Falsely Assuming Why Crimes Are Committed
The broken windows theory also assumes that in more orderly neighborhoods, there is more informal social control. As a result, people understand that there is a greater likelihood of being caught committing a crime, so they shy away from engaging in such activity.
However, people don’t only commit crimes because of the perceived likelihood of detection. Rather, many individuals who commit crimes do so because of factors unrelated to or without considering the repercussions.
Poverty, social pressure, mental illness, and more are often driving factors that help explain why a person might commit a crime, especially a misdemeanor such as theft or loitering.
Resulting in Racial and Class Bias
One of the leading criticisms of the broken windows theory is that it leads to both racial and class bias. By giving the police broad discretion to define disorder and determine who engages in disorderly acts allows them to freely criminalize communities of color and groups that are socioeconomically disadvantaged (Roberts, 1998).
For example, Sampson and Raudenbush found that in two neighborhoods with equal amounts of graffiti and litter, people saw more disorder in neighborhoods with more African Americans.
The researchers found that individuals associate African Americans and other minority groups with concepts of crime and disorder more so than their white counterparts (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004).
This can lead to unfair policing in areas that are predominantly people of color. In addition, those who suffer from financial instability and may be of minority status are more likely to commit crimes in the first place.
Thus, they are simply being punished for being poor as opposed to being given resources to assist them. Further, many acts that are actually legal but are deemed disorderly by police officers are targeted in public settings but aren’t targeted when the same acts are conducted in private settings.
As a result, those who don’t have access to private spaces, such as homeless people, are unnecessarily criminalized.
It follows then that by policing these small misdemeanors, or oftentimes actions that aren’t even crimes at all, police departments are fighting poverty crimes as opposed to fighting to provide individuals with the resources that will make crime no longer a necessity.
Morphing into Stop and Frisk
Stop and frisk, a brief non-intrusive police stop of a suspect is an extremely controversial approach to policing. But critics of the broken windows theory argue that it has morphed into this program.
With broken-windows policing, officers have too much discretion when determining who is engaging in criminal activity and will search people for drugs and weapons without probable cause.
However, this method is highly unsuccessful. In 2008, the police made nearly 250,000 stops in New York, but only one-fifteenth of one percent of those stops resulted in finding a gun (Vedantam et al., 2016).
And three years later, in 2011, more than 685,000 people were stopped in New York. Of those, nine out of ten were found to be completely innocent (Dunn & Shames, 2020).
Thus, not only does this give officers free reins to stop and frisk minority populations at disproportionately high levels, but it also is not effective in drawing out crime.
Although broken windows policing might seem effective from a theoretical perspective, major valid criticisms put the practical application of this theory into question.
Given its controversial nature, broken windows policing is not explicitly used today to regulate crime in most major cities. However, there are still traces of this theory that remain.
Cities such as Ferguson, Missouri, are heavily policed and the city issues thousands of warrants a year on broken window types of crimes – from parking infractions to traffic violations.
And the racial and class biases that result from such an approach to law enforcement have definitely not disappeared.
Crime regulation is not easy, but the broken windows theory provides an approach to reducing offenses and maintaining order in society.
What is the broken glass principle?
The broken glass principle, also known as the Broken Windows Theory, posits that visible signs of disorder, like broken glass, can foster further crime and anti-social behavior by signaling a lack of regulation and community care in an area.
How does social context affect crime according to the broken windows theory?
The Broken Windows Theory proposes that the social context, specifically visible signs of disorder like vandalism or littering, can encourage further crime.
It suggests that these signs indicate a lack of community control and care, which can foster a climate of disregard for laws and social norms, leading to more severe crimes over time.
How did broken windows theory change policing?
The Broken Windows Theory influenced policing by promoting proactive attention to minor crimes and maintaining urban environments.
It led to strategies like “zero-tolerance” or “quality-of-life” policing, focusing on reducing visible signs of disorder to prevent more serious crime.
Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46(3), 577-607.
Dunn, C., & Shames, M. (2020). Stop-and-Frisk data . Retrieved from https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data
Fagan, J., & Davies, G. (2000). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urb. LJ , 28, 457.
Harcourt, B. E. (2009). Illusion of order: The false promise of broken windows policing . Harvard University Press.
Harcourt, B. E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. U. Chi. L. Rev., 73 , 271.
Herbert, S., & Brown, E. (2006). Conceptions of space and crime in the punitive neoliberal city. Antipode, 38 (4), 755-777.
Hunt, B. (2015). “Broken Windows” theory can be applied to real estate regulation- Realty Times. Retrieved from https://realtytimes.com/agentnews/agentadvice/item/40700-20151208-broken-windws-theory-can-be-applied-to-real-estate-regulation
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities . Vintage.
Johnson, C. Y. (2009). Breakthrough on “broken windows.” Boston Globe.
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322 (5908), 1681-1685.
Kelling, G. L., & Sousa, W. H. (2001). Do police matter?: An analysis of the impact of new york city’s police reforms . CCI Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.
Metcalf, S. (2006). Rudy Giuliani, American president? Retrieved from https://slate.com/culture/2006/05/rudy-giuliani-american-president.html
Morgan, R. E., & Kena, G. (2019). Criminal victimization, 2018. Bureau of Justice Statistics , 253043.
O”Brien, D. T., Farrell, C., & Welsh, B. C. (2019). Looking through broken windows: The impact of neighborhood disorder on aggression and fear of crime is an artifact of research design. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 , 53-71.
Plank, S. B., Bradshaw, C. P., & Young, H. (2009). An application of “broken-windows” and related theories to the study of disorder, fear, and collective efficacy in schools. American Journal of Education, 115 (2), 227-247.
Roberts, D. E. (1998). Race, vagueness, and the social meaning of order-maintenance policing. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 89 , 775.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (3), 603-651.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”. Social psychology quarterly, 67 (4), 319-342.
Sridhar, C. R. (2006). Broken windows and zero tolerance: Policing urban crimes. Economic and Political Weekly , 1841-1843.
Stuster, J. (2001). Albuquerque police department’s Safe Streets program (No. DOT-HS-809-278). Anacapa Sciences, inc.
Thacher, D. (2003). Order maintenance reconsidered: Moving beyond strong causal reasoning. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 94 , 381.
Vedantam, S., Benderev, C., Boyle, T., Klahr, R., Penman, M., & Schmidt, J. (2016). How a theory of crime and policing was born, and went terribly wrong . Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-policing-and-the-origins-of-stop-and-frisk-and-how-it-went-wrong
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic monthly, 249 (3), 29-38.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska press.
Further Information
- Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic monthly, 249(3), 29-38.
- Fagan, J., & Davies, G. (2000). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urb. LJ, 28, 457.
- Fagan, J. A., Geller, A., Davies, G., & West, V. (2010). Street stops and broken windows revisited. In Race, ethnicity, and policing (pp. 309-348). New York University Press.
Broken Windows Theory
Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff
The broken windows theory states that visible signs of disorder and misbehavior in an environment encourage further disorder and misbehavior, leading to serious crimes. The principle was developed to explain the decay of neighborhoods, but it is often applied to work and educational environments.
- What Is the Broken Windows Theory?
- Do Broken Windows Policies Work?
The broken windows theory, defined in 1982 by social scientists James Wilson and George Kelling, drawing on earlier research by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo, argues that no matter how rich or poor a neighborhood, one broken window would soon lead to many more windows being broken: “One unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.” Disorder increases levels of fear among citizens, which leads them to withdraw from the community and decrease participation in informal social control.
The broken windows are a metaphor for any visible sign of disorder in an environment that goes untended. This may include small crimes, acts of vandalism, drunken or disorderly conduct, etc. Being forced to confront minor problems can heavily influence how people feel about their environment, particularly their sense of safety.
With the help of small civic organizations, lower-income Chicago residents have created over 800 community gardens and urban farms out of burnt buildings and vacant lots. Now, instead of having trouble finding fresh produce, these neighborhoods have become go-to food destinations. This example of the broken windows theory benefits the people by lowering temperatures in overheated cities, increasing socialization, reducing stress , and teaching children about nature.
George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson popularized the broken windows theory in an article published in the March 1982 issue of The Atlantic . They asserted that vandalism and smaller crimes would normalize larger crimes (although this hypothesis has not been fully supported by subsequent research). They also remarked on how signs of disorder (e.g., a broken window) stirred up feelings of fear in residents and harmed the safety of the neighborhood as a whole.
The broken windows theory was put forth at a time when crime rates were soaring, and it often spurred politicians to advocate policies for increasing policing of petty crimes—fare evasion, public drinking, or graffiti—as a way to prevent, and decrease, major crimes including violence. The theory was notably implemented and popularized by New York City mayor Rudolf Giuliani and his police commissioner, William Bratton. In research reported in 2000, Kelling claimed that broken-windows policing had prevented over 60,000 violent crimes between 1989 and 1998 in New York City, though critics of the theory disagreed.
Although the “Broken Windows” article is one of the most cited in the history of criminology , Kelling contends that it has often been misapplied. The implementation soon escalated to “zero tolerance” policing policies, especially in minority communities. It also led to controversial practices such as “stop and frisk” and an increase in police misconduct complaints.
Most important, research indicates that criminal activity was declining on its own, for a number of demographic and socio-economic reasons, and so credit for the shift could not be firmly attributed to broken-windows policing policies. Experts point out that there is “no support for a simple first-order disorder-crime relationship,” contends Columbia law professor Bernard E. Harcourt. The causes of misbehavior are varied and complex.
The effectiveness of this approach depends on how it is implemented. In 2016, Dr. Charles Branas led an initiative to repair abandoned properties and transform vacant lots into community parks in high-crime neighborhoods in Philadelphia, which subsequently saw a 39% reduction in gun violence. By building “palaces for the people” with these safe and sustainable solutions, neighborhoods can be lifted up, and crime can be reduced.
When a neighborhood, even a poor one, is well-tended and welcoming, its residents have a greater sense of safety. Building and maintaining social infrastructure—such as public libraries, parks and other green spaces, and active retail corridors—can be a more sustainable option and improve the daily lives of the people who live there.
According to the broken windows theory, disorder (symbolized by a broken window) leads to fear and the potential for increased and more severe crime. Unfortunately, this concept has been misapplied, leading to aggressive and zero-tolerance policing. These policing strategies tend to focus on an increased police presence in troubled communities (especially those with minorities and lower-income residents) and stricter punishments for minor infractions (e.g., marijuana use).
Zero-tolerance policing metes out predetermined consequences regardless of the severity or context of a crime. Zero-tolerance policies can be harmful in an academic setting, as vulnerable youth (particularly those from minority ethnic/racial backgrounds) find themselves trapped in the School-to-Prison Pipeline for committing minor infractions.
Aggressive policing practices can sour relationships between police and the community. However, problem-oriented policing—which identifies the specific problems or “broken windows” in a neighborhood and then comes up with proactive responses—can help reduce crime. This evidence-based policing strategy has been shown to be effective.
We question the contribution made by criminology to the practicalities of policing and suggest that police officers would be better off acquainting themselves with psychology.
In reports of police use of force, officers and minority citizens are often portrayed as natural enemies. Here is what we know and some suggestions for a helpful approach.
Once we've mastered self-rationalization, our "inner weasels" can silence our consciences.
Part 2: A high murder rate. A cry for help. And I was walking down the street…
Pace yourself. It all comes down to this month, and it doesn't. It's ongoing, uphill work.
Lying is always bad except when it's good. Recursion suggests how to find exceptions to moral rules.
Defund the police is the rallying cry you hear as people feel more resources need to help residents deal with mental health issues. In one city, therapists respond with the police.
We live in a time of political chaos, terrorism, civil unrest, and economic unpredictability. We must build resilient communities if we are to survive and thrive. Here's how.
- Find a Therapist
- Find a Treatment Center
- Find a Psychiatrist
- Find a Support Group
- Find Online Therapy
- United States
- Brooklyn, NY
- Chicago, IL
- Houston, TX
- Los Angeles, CA
- New York, NY
- Portland, OR
- San Diego, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Seattle, WA
- Washington, DC
- Asperger's
- Bipolar Disorder
- Chronic Pain
- Eating Disorders
- Passive Aggression
- Personality
- Goal Setting
- Positive Psychology
- Stopping Smoking
- Low Sexual Desire
- Relationships
- Child Development
- Self Tests NEW
- Therapy Center
- Diagnosis Dictionary
- Types of Therapy
When we fall prey to perfectionism, we think we’re honorably aspiring to be our very best, but often we’re really just setting ourselves up for failure, as perfection is impossible and its pursuit inevitably backfires.
- Emotional Intelligence
- Gaslighting
- Affective Forecasting
- Neuroscience
IMAGES
COMMENTS
The Broken Windows Theory is very relevant to the way that modern schools operate because it gives school leaders a perception of the multitude of potential problems that impact on the schools' operations. Introduction The American sociologists George Kelling and James Q. Wilson (1982) popularised what was known as the Broken Windows Theory.
In education, the broken windows theory is used to promote order in classrooms and school cultures. The belief is that students are signaled by disorder or rule-breaking and that they in turn imitate the disorder. Several school movements encourage strict paternalistic practices to enforce student discipline. Such practices include language ...
The broken windows theory is widely criticized in the way it's applied in law enforcement. But taking care of our physical environment can improve community health and well-being. ... "It neglects underlying social and economic factors, such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of education, which are known to be important contributors to ...
The thinking behind the index was reminiscent of the "broken windows" theory of crime first published in the March 1982 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Its authors, James Q. Wilson and George L ...
The broken windows theory of crime prevention postulates that disorder is an invitation for crime to occur. If the environment of a particular neighborhood triggers the belief that no one cares or that no one is in charge, then crime in that neighborhood goes up. Hence, petty crime, graffiti, and other "broken windows", which signal that no ...
228 American Journal of Education to better understand the relationships among physical disorder (e.g., broken ... broken windows and other visible signs of physical disorder (e.g., graffiti, litter, ... as criminal activities.1 Consistent with social disorganization theory (Sampson and Groves 1989; Shaw and McKay [1942] 1969), Sampson and ...
The Broken Windows Theory in schools Case 1: Teachers' insistence on standards he school year had just commenced, and the principal and deputy principals had noticed that the high standards of work and behaviour that had been achieved last year had been eroded by the school holidays 3.000 Open catholic school No open catholic school 2.500 2. ...
It is thus that the Broken Windows theory receives its name. The theory was first revealed in an article titled "Broken Windows" in The Atlantic Monthly written by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling of The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Broken windows in a high crime
The Broken Windows Theory of Criminology suggests that visible signs of disorder and neglect, such as broken windows or graffiti, can encourage further crime and anti-social behavior in an area, as they signal a lack of order and law enforcement. ... Another area that broken windows are related to is education. Here, the broken windows theory ...
The broken windows theory states that visible signs of disorder and misbehavior in an environment encourage further disorder and misbehavior, leading to serious crimes. The principle was developed ...