Abstract
The current study tests neighborhood (i.e., block group) effects reflective of broken windows theory (i.e., neighborhood, public space, social, housing disorder) on crime. Furthermore, these effects are tested independently on serious (i.e., Part I), and less serious (i.e., Part II) crime rates. Disorder data on a racially/ethnically stratified sample of block groups (N = 60) within Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. were collected through systematic observations. Using these data, along with census and crime data, linear regression modeling was employed to test the effect of disorder measures on each crime outcome measure. Consistent with broken windows theory, disorder was associated with crime rates; however, the effect of disorder on crime was limited to the public space disorder measure. Furthermore, the effects of disorder on Part I crime rates were mediated by Part II offenses. Partial support was found for broken windows theory, in which neighborhood context had a greater effect on less serious offenses. Neighborhoods with increasing frequencies of disorder may benefit from bolstering partnerships between law enforcement officers, community members, and other local stakeholders with the aim of deterring offending at all levels, and consequently, decreasing indices of disorder and crime.
Highlights
Social scientists and the general public alike have long questioned, “Why do some areas experience more crime compared to other areas?” [1,2]
Public space disorder was the only disorder measure to show an association with Part I crime rates, and as such, we present the findings from the full model
The current study tested the effects of broken windows theory on Part I and Part II crime rates
Summary
Social scientists and the general public alike have long questioned, “Why do some areas experience more crime compared to other areas?” [1,2]. Pulling from Zimbardo’s [3] Palo Alto abandoned car study, Wilson and Kelling [4] coined the term “broken windows” to describe their theory that, quite literally, argued that a broken window left untended sends cues to potential offenders that residents of the community are not vested in the well-being of the neighborhood. They posited that community members and visitors used visual cues or “signals” related to physical disorder (e.g., litter, broken windows, unkempt homes) to evaluate the likelihood of someone intervening in deviant behaviors [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. This cycle continues to snowball as the fearfulness of community members to intervene in troublesome behaviors intensifies, leading to lower investment in maintaining the neighborhood, and increases in disorder and crime
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
