16-U3D1 - Evaulating Broken Windows Theory & How to Address the Issues?
drcdopen82
broken_windows_theory.docxBroken windows theory, academic theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighbourhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime.
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 misdemeanours 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 behaviour, 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.
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.
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 neighbours, 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
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 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 neighbourhood disorder and purse snatching, assault, rape, and burglary vanished when poverty, neighbourhood 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 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 neighbourhood will inevitably become economically disadvantaged. This suggests that the next wave of theorization about neighbourhood dynamics and crime may take an economic bent.
Inspiration
Posted: November 30, 2012 in Article Reactions, Article Summaries, Classes, Journal Articles, Policing, Research, Student Life, Theories of Justice, Trials and Tribulations Tags: anarchy, broken windows, classes, college, crime, criminology, keeping up, law, philosophy, police, policing, reactions, school, student life, Thacher, university
Inspiration can come from the strangest of places. I’ve been struggling with a topic to write a paper on. The paper had very broad instructions: a paper related to a theory of justice. Sometimes those are the hardest papers to write. Most students had emailed the professor (if you are ever stumped, do that), I was too proud and just sat here and procrastinated. And then I wrote this reading response and I was inspired.
Reading Response: Broken Windows by James Wilson and George Kelling
On the surface, one may look at the Broken Window theory as a simple causal relationship: broken window in a house leads to vandalism and an increase in crime, but it’s just not that simple. I think the deeper meaning of what a broken window represents and what it really leads to is important and presents a more cyclical relationship.
Let’s start with their example: Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.
The reason why broken windows and acts of vandalism are still prevalent is because communities simply do not seem to care for it. The window itself actually symbolizes that the community does not care and will not address the problem. The negligence of society towards any form of a “broken window” signifies the lack of concern for the community.
What isn’t shown in a simple diagram is the deeper actions and emotions that have to play into a simple broken window. For one, there has to be a feeling of disjointedness in the community, a sense of anonymity, in order for the window to be broken. The window itself should become a signal crime to community; however, when there is no repair, it instead signals to others that antisocial behavior is acceptable. When the window is not repaired, a further reinforcement of said behavior exists and states that such behavior is tolerable and overlooked. Soon, the behavior becomes a social norm in the community and more people feel that they can engage in the act. The feeling of conformity to the social norm (the act of vandalism) is further enforced when there is such a lack of routine monitoring (ignoring the increase in vandalism) that the further acts go ignored.
I think what’s important here is that it’s not a simple causal model: Instead of just leading to a simple increase in crime, this act reinforces the previous acts and the increase become cyclical, reinforcing itself, and adding to further increases in a lack of community cohesion and a feeling of anonymity within the community; the community continues to ignore the individual and the crime. This basically shows the power of reinforcement—by ignoring the crime, you are reinforcing that crime is acceptable. At any point in this cycle, a simple increase in patrol (be it community or police) or even a repair would show some thought and that the community recognizes the damage.
Edward Abbey once wrote: In my notion of an anarchist community every citizen – man or woman – would be armed, trained, capable when necessary of playing the part of policeman or soldier. A healthy community polices itself; a healthy society would do the same. Looters, thugs, criminals, may appear anywhere, anytime, but in nature such types are mutants, anomalies, a minority; the members of a truly democratic, anarchistic community would not require outside assistance in dealing with them. Some might call this vigilante justice; I call it democratic justice. Better to have all citizens participate in the suppression and punishment of crime—and share the moral responsibility—than turn the nasty job over to some quasi-criminal type (or hero) in a uniform with a tin badge on his shirt. Yes, we need heroes. We need heroines. But they should serve only as inspiration and examples, not as leaders.
As shown in the broken window theory and in things like the murder Kitty Genovese, we are not able to police ourselves. Some may argue that this is because we are not a healthy society, but I would argue that it is the fundamental nature of our society. Though our society has shifted from a communal and collectivistic society to a more individualistic society, this need for a sense of community is still important in order to maintain a lawful and orderly way of living. The way this is done is through policing.
The backlash against order maintenance policing is unfairly narrow. Contrary to the popular “crime-control” role that police take, order maintenance policing has officers maintaining the social order of society. In fact, the notion that the function of law (or in this case police) is to maintain social order is a very common one. Bronislaw Malinowski’s Crime and Custom in a Savage Society took this approach from an anthropological standpoint. Further, Eugen Ehrich (1975), while working in the hinterlands of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, laid out the same basic thesis. “Living law” was the label Ehrlich gave to this action. Aristotle (1988) stated that “for law is order” and Vago (2009, p. 10) openly stated that “The paramount function of law is to regulate and constrain the behavior of individuals in their relationship with one another.”
I liken the signal crime of a broken window to an open wound: if you recognize that the wound is an issue, you can apply a Band-Aid; if you ignore it, the wound could fester and infection could spread. The way I see it? Order maintenance is not the Band-Aid, it is ointment: The police presence can’t repair the community, but it can speed along the process; it is up to the body to eventually fix itself.
The Abbey quote has always been one of my favorite, but I never thought it would inspire me. I want to argue that though community policing, though it may not reduce crime, has intrinsic value because it strengthens the community. Instead of taking a conventional approach, I want to use this anarchistic/utopian philosophy to argue the true merit of community policing is within its community-empowerment value: You can argue that (a) the police are public servants, (b) should maintain social order and not focus on crime-control, and (c) help the community return to a state where it can police itself. After all, Abbey did argue that anarchy does not imply no rules, it means no rulers.
Now I just have to start writing and stop procrastinating!
Moral of the story?
1. Inspiration can come from anywhere
2. When you are not able to pick a topic, ask for help (which I didn’t do)
3. Never procrastinate (which I never do)
Reference: https://crimgal.wordpress.com/category/classes-2/theories-of-justice/
By John Leo
Introduction
Question: Graffiti is a big issue in Los Angeles, litter is i1 major issue in downtown
Philadelphia, and panhandUng is emerging as a dominant issue in a dozen cities.
Why should this be so? Aren't most of these cities swamped with far more urgent
social problems?
Likelyanswer: The cities are displaying a significant shift in public attitudes. This
shift is strongly in the direction of the "broken window" theory of social decay.
The theory was outlined in a 1982 article in The Atlantic by political scientist
James Q. Wilson and criminologist George Kelling. It says this: The key to social
decay is a rising level of disorder that residents fail to challenge in time. When
broken windows are not fixed, when graffiti and uncollected garbage become
regular features and winos begin to doze off on stoops and sidewalks, a powerful
signal goes out that the residents of the area have ceased to care about conditions.
This leads to a break in morale and a feeling that events are out of control. Landlords
don't make repairs. Vandalism spreads. The stage is set for prostitutes,
druggies and criminals to drift in, and the neighborhood goes under.
Disorder and Decline
The broken-window theory is largely upheld by a
book Disorder and Decline, a study of 40 urban
neighborhoods by Wesly Skogan, professor of
pnlitical science at Northwestern. But mayors and
councilmen and city administrators haven't
needed to wait for academic proof. More and
more, they grasp the idea intuitively. That's why
Los Angeles is trying to keep up with the flood of
graffiti, why Philadelphia businessmen spent so
much money to get the litter out of an 80-block
downtown area, and why New York spent tens of
millions of dollars to wipe graffiti from its subway
system and keep it out.
Minor battles. The major lesson of the brokenwindow
theory is that the crucial battles to save a
neighborhood must be fought over apparently
minor social infractions, well below the threshold
of police response. By the time the offenses are
great enough to justify police time and effort, the
struggle is often lost.
101
This is the real reason - not "the new war on the
poor" or "compassion fatigue" - why panhandling
has mushroomed into a sizable political
issue. In many cities, the life of downtown areas
and the remaining stable residential neighborhoods
is dearly at stake. Shoppers are increasingly
afraid of going downtown, for fear of being
-
hassled. Polls in cities such as Nashville and San
Francisco show that large numbers of people are
beginning to feel intimidated and coerced by
panhandlers. Even in cities where almost nobody
walks, such as Miami, the drifters who clean
windshields at red lights have become a serious
issue .... There is the growing gut feeling, often
confused and inarticulated, that things have gone
too far and that the quarter given to a panhandler
is helping to finance the downward spiral of cities.
A study by social scientists at Columbia University
shows that 69 percent of Americans think the
homeless should not be allowed to panhandle.
This appears to be broken-window sentiment: The
study also shows that most people are willing to
pay more taxes to solve the problem.
The New York City Transit Authority banned
beggars from the subways, lost the right to do so in
district court, and then won back the right on
appeal. This was an important victory. It was not
a triumph of the well-to-do over the poor. A large
percentage of riders are blue-collar or poor themselves.
It was not a victory for compassion fatigue
- polls showed that sympathy for the plight of
beggars and the homeless actually increased
among the ridership after the court decision.
Felonies decreased 15 percent. ...
The Transit Authority acted on the proposition that
the majority is right in claiming that public spaces
must be kept open for orderly public use, free of
hassles or coercion. Ten years ago, the suit probably
could not have been filed in New York. It
would have been out of bounds politically as an
attack on social victims or individual freedoms.
But time marches on. I think we are coming to the
end of a 25-year experiment to see whether we
can tolerate the consequences of social policies
based entirely on individual rights and compassion.
In my opinion, the answer is in: We can't.
The disaster of deinstitutionalization is part of this.
So is the gradual surrender of parks, bus depots,
train stations and other public spaces. There is
now a drive to reclaim those spaces and to find a
better balance between the rights of the community
and the rights of the individual. No one
knows how this will develop, but the impatience
with the old pol icies is all around us and it is
starting to flow into the political mainstream.
THE BROKEN-WINDOW THEORY OF URBAN DECAY
By John Leo
Adapted from "The Broker.-Window Theory of Urban Decay"
Published in This World, March 15, 1992; first published in U.s. News and World Report, 1992.
Broken panes bring bad luck:
the broken window theory
In the eighties and nineties the New York City police were confronted with increasing rates of theft, violent crime and drug sales in the city. In order to combat this, the police launched the ‘Quality of life’ campaign. The idea behind this was that a littered environment was a feeding ground for criminality. An environment with social disorder (such as loitering youths, public drunkenness and prostitution) and physical disorder (such as graffiti, abandoned buildings and trash in the street) increased the chance of both petty and serious crime. For this reason graffiti and traces of vandalism were removed and, mindful of the message of the previous chapter, the litter in the streets was cleaned up. To the delight of the police, crime figures in the city dropped significantly.
The explanation was termed the ‘broken window theory’. James Wilson and George Kwelling propose that when a window in a building is broken and goes unrepaired, the chance of another window breaking increases. The more broken windows, the greater the chance of more windows being smashed to smithereens. A building with broken windows subsequently attracts other forms of criminality, such as breaking in, squatting and stripping the building. This in turn will cause criminality around the building to increase; it attracts criminals, while law-abiding citizens avoid the area. According to the broken window theory, people see physical and social disorder as a sign that everything is permissible and that authority is absent. Such an environment puts ideas into people’s heads, and lowers the threshold to overstepping their boundaries. The underlying idea is that a single transgression encourages people to commit further transgressions or expands to become one big transgression, and that one transgressor grows into many.
Empirical evidence for this theory was supplied years later by Kees Keizer and colleagues. In one experiment the main entrance to a parking lot was temporarily closed by the researchers. However, they had left a gap of 50 centimeters. On the fence the researchers had hung up a sign with the text ‘No entry, go around to the other entrance’. The side entrance was 200 meters further on. What would people do when they wanted to get to their cars, walk around, or slip through the opening? The researchers were curious in particular as to whether the
behavior of the drivers would depend on the environment. For that reason they had hung up another board on the fence with the text, ‘No locking bicycles to the fence’. In one scenario there were four bicycles one meter from the fence. In the other there were four bicycles locked directly to the fence. In the environment with the freestanding bicycles, 27 percent of the people slipped through the fence; with the bicycles locked to the fence the figure was 82 percent. The researchers had expected this effect, but were surprised by the big difference.
In another experiment, Keizer and colleagues examined whether the negative effect of such an environment could spur people on to more serious misdemeanors. This time the researchers stuffed an addressed envelope half way into a red letterbox. A five-euro bill was clearly visible through the window of the envelope. Would passers-by take the letter out and pocket the money? In a clean environment 13 percent did this. When there was graffiti around the letterbox, the figure doubled to 27 percent.
The explanation which Keizer and colleagues gave was the following. They distinguished three goals for influencing behavior: ‘normative goals’ (behaving as you should), ‘hedonic goals’ (feeling good), and ‘gain goals’ (improving your material situation). These three goals do not always weigh equally; their relative weight is affected by the environment. The normative goal, however, is a priori the weakest of the three and is under pressure from the two other goals. Environmental factors, such as disorder, push normative goals to the background, bringing the other goals to the fore. If someone sees that others give the normative goal less priority, that reduces their own attention for the goal, and laziness and greed gain the upper hand. If you notice that others violate the rules (for instance by locking their bicycles to the fence when this is explicitly prohibited), then you yourself will attach less importance to the normative goal of behaving properly, increasing the chance that you will slip through the fence. If you see an envelope containing five euros hanging out of a letterbox, then the disordered environment increases the weight you give to your own gain goal, so you are more likely to take the envelope. Violation of norms spreads because the normative goal (following the rules) is weakened, opening up more space for self-interest.
The strength of this theory is that it shows that people not only imitate the behavior of others (as shown in the previous chapter in Cialdini’s research), but that when people observe others violating the norms, this also leads them to violate other norms. The normative goal
53
15. Broken panes bring bad luck: the broken window theory
is weakened in its entirety. This means that in order to prevent an escalation of violations, minor misdemeanors and their visible effects should be dealt with quickly, and that if you want to improve the ethics and integrity of an organization, this must be done in an integrated and coherent way. If an organization wishes to combat internal fraud, then it must also prevent antisocial behavior such as intimidation, aggression, and hostility. If an organization wishes to deal carefully and responsibly with clients, then it must deal carefully with other stakeholders. Unethical behavior is very difficult to isolate: an organization cannot be ethical in one relationship or situation, and unethical in another. Unethical behavior, as shown in the above experiments, is a wildfire that spreads easily.
Keizer’s theory also helps to explain why, if unethical behavior has escalated and spread widely, this cannot be reversed simply by cleaning up afterwards. The culture is then already so badly infected that people no longer attach any significance to the normative goal. Much energy must then be put into establishing and communicating the importance of this. Companies which have slipped off the rails and been discredited can therefore make a good start towards recovery by re-evaluating their business mission from a normative perspective, reformulating business goals, rewriting the code of conduct, making intensive efforts to communicate this, and providing extensive training to employees. This is the only way to win back territory for the normative goal, and it will improve behavior on countless fronts in its wake.
If you want to prevent an organization being derailed and a great deal of energy being required to get things back on track, then the task is to repair “broken windows” in the organization as quickly as possible.
54
15. Broken panes bring bad luck: the broken window theory
The CDA had dual purposes of creating measures to deal with anti-social behaviour, and
changing the youth justice system. In placing these two issues within the same framework
ASB and youth crime were situated within the same discourse. The Act is heavily weighted
towards measures which target children and young people, and as a result some have
suggested that the title is misleading. Piper (1999) writing soon after the introduction of
the Act suggests that:
“…an Act entitled ‘Crime and Disorder’ which concentrates to the extent
this Act does on children and young persons [sic] is clearly endorsing
those political and social ideas which emphasise the ‘danger’ of young
people’s behaviour – the perceived threat from children ‘out of control’
and the potential threat to society if children are not guided into
responsible and law-abiding adulthood.” (Piper, 1999: 399)
A sentiment reiterated by Muncie:
“...many of [the CDA’s] provisions are explicitly directed not only at
young offenders, but at young people in general.” (Muncie, 1999: 147)
Beginning with the CDA, the ASB Agenda has sought to control the activities of young
people in general, not only those who have acted anti-socially (if that can ever be clearly
defined). One of the central aims of the ASB agenda is “keeping young people off the
streets” (DCSF Press Release, 6th January 2010). This is fulfilled in one of two ways: either
through encouraging young people to join youth clubs and other extra-curricular activities
(discussed in chapter 6.4.1), or through enforcement measures such as child curfews or
dispersal powers. This reinforces the perception that the presence of young people on the
[54]
streets is somehow dangerous; both for members of the community who may be the target
of youth ASB as well as for the young people themselves who may become criminal as a
result of their ASB. Youths hanging around on the streets “have become the universal
symbol of disorder and, increasingly, menace” (Burney, 2002: 73). This problematisation of
youth on the streets is further explored in chapter 6.4. Much of the discourse justifying
ASB measures targeted at young people and children is based on the premise that ASB
leads to crime (usually based on ‘broken window’ theory, see: Wilson and Kelling, 1982)
and that children and young people who undertake ASB even at a low level are at risk of
becoming criminals (Home Office, 1997b, 1998). Thus, ASB enforcement measures are restructured
as positive interventions to ‘nip it in the bud’ (Home Office, 1997b), and
members of the public are also encouraged to view all levels of ASB as unacceptable and
report it to the authorities.
The political rhetoric and legislation of the ASB Agenda has created a recognisable folk devil
in the anti-social youth. Pre-existing social types such as ‘yob’, ‘hooligan’ and ‘thug’ have
been absorbed into ASB discourse at the same time as newer concepts of the ‘chav’
(discussed further in chapter 4.6.4) and ‘hoodie’. In particular the ‘hoodie’, a young person
who wears hooded jumpers or jackets with the hood over their heads seemingly for the
purpose of acting in a menacing way, has become shorthand for anti-social young people.
Events widely reported in the media such as the banning of ‘hoodies’ from shopping
centres: “Torquay hoodie ban for Asbo teenagers” (The Independent, 15th October 2008)
and “'Mall bans shoppers' hooded tops” (BBC News, 11th May 2005) serve to create an
association between the action (wearing a hoodie) and a whole class of individuals
(teenagers). Attempts to challenge these stereotypes are further hindered when politicians
join the debate to confirm the stereotypes: “Blair backs ban on hooded sweatshirts” (The
Times, 12th May 2005). Thus the picture of the anti-social youth is confirmed and through
this process the folk devil is created and maintained.
Community Policing Nugget
Broken Windows and Community Policing
The notion of broken windows has provided important insights and innovation to the field of policing. At times, however, these ideas have been misunderstood, misapplied, and often viewed outside the context of community policing. Broken windows is based on the notion that signs of incivility, like broken windows, signify that nobody cares, which leads to greater fear of crime and a reduction of community efficacy, which in turn can lead to more serious crimes and greater signs of incivility, repeating the cycle into a potential spiral of decay. For police, the insight of broken windows is that they are called on to address minor quality-of-life offenses and incidents of social disorder to prevent more serious crime, and that they must take specific steps to increase the capacity of communities to exert informal social control. Just as many have inaccurately reduced community policing to community relations, others have incorrectly reduced broken windows to merely zero tolerance or order enforcement policies, with little regard for community concerns or outcomes. In fact, broken windows advocates for the careful implementation of these specific police tactics so that individual rights and community interests are respected. In addition, broken windows stresses the importance of including communities in the change process, with the primary goal being the development of informal social control mechanisms within the communities in question and not merely increased enforcement of minor offenses.
Later articulations of broken windows place it squarely within the context of community policing and attempt to address some of the legal and moral implication of its adoption. As Sousa and Kelling (2006:90) state, “we believe that order maintenance should represent a policy option in support of police and community efforts to be implemented as problem-analysis and problem-solving dictates.” An application of a one- size-fits-all order maintenance program is unlikely to have universally positive effects on all of the various crimes and serious problems confronted by police departments and is not advocated for by broken-windows theory. Rather, from the perspective of community policing, broken windows represents an important potential response to crime and disorder problems that may or may not be dictated through problem-solving processes and broken-windows-style interventions should be conducted in partnership with community stakeholders.
Broken windows is more narrow in scope than the overarching community policing philosophy and fits well within the community policing context. For example, unlike the community policing philosophy, broken windows does not attempt to identify specific organizational changes in law enforcement agencies that are necessary to institutionalize these types of police interventions. Situating broken windows within the broader community policing philosophy can help to advance the organizational changes necessary to make broken windows interventions (when they are called for through careful analysis) successful and sustainable. For example, broken windows can benefit from community policing’s focus on hiring different kinds of officers (who pay attention to disorder and have skills in community capacity building), building stronger analytical functions to support proper analysis, and making specific efforts to engage communities and increase trust to facilitate order-maintenance interventions.
When broken windows is correctly understood within a broader community policing philosophy, improper implementation of its central tenets through such things as ignoring community concerns, applying a zero tolerance one-size-fits-all approach to minor offenses, and conducting cursory or no analysis of problems, are less likely to occur. Appreciating the true scope of broken windows policing concepts within the context of community policing will enable these innovations to flourish and be most effective.
Sousa, W.H. & Kelling, G.L. (2006). Of “broken windows,” criminology, and criminal justice. In D. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives (pp.77-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press./p>
· -Matthew C. Scheider, Ph.D. Assistant Director, The COPS Office
