Policing in America: Broken Windows Policing or Broken Policing?

Editor’s Note: In response to the death of George Floyd and marches calling for significant police reform, Court Watch of Dutchess County has decided to post a multi-part series called “Policing in America,” to educate the public on the racist evolution of policing in America and reform solutions that put the welfare of marginalized communities first. 

“Broken windows” policing is one mechanism through which the police have targeted the most marginalized communities in our society. This theory is named for a 1969 experiment by psychologist Phillip Zimbardo in which he abandoned a car in two neighborhoods: a poor one in New York and an affluent one in Palo Alto, California. While people in New York almost immediately began vandalizing the car and stealing parts, the car in Palo Alto remained untouched until Zimbardo smashed it with a sledgehammer, after which it was promptly stripped. 

In the 1980s, criminologist George Kelling and his colleague James Wilson tried to apply this idea to policing. The two theorized that a sign of disorder, such as a broken window, would signal that a neighborhood is uncared for, encouraging more frequent and severe crime. In line with this idea, they recommended that police shift their focus from solving major crimes to the prevention of smaller ones, such as drug use, prostitution, and littering. Kelling and Wilson believed this form of policing would help accomplish the ultimate goal of empowering the people of affected communities by helping them reclaim safe public spaces. 

While Kelling has repeatedly emphasized that he intended for “broken windows” to be only a part of a more comprehensive community policing effort, that is not how the concept has been actualized. “Broken windows” policing was first applied in New York City in 1993 by newly-elected mayor Rudy Giuliani, who adopted the philosophy to reduce crime. The initiative received bipartisan support, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle saw it as a good way to effectively prevent crime.

In the following years, Giuliani and police commissioner William Bratton initiated a top-down crackdown on crime, beginning with fare beaters in the subway. After initial success in catching some serious criminals who also happened to be fare beaters, the enforcement tactic was employed city-wide. Officers began to arrest people in large numbers for offenses such as spraying graffiti or smoking marijuana in public. Giuliani was re-elected in 1997 and extolled the virtues of “broken windows” policing until he left office in 2001. 

Initially, follow-up research from Kelling found that all crime sharply decreased in neighborhoods where misdemeanor arrests increased. However, further study revealed serious problems with “broken windows” policing. It was later determined that the drop in serious crimes in New York City was just a part of a nationwide decline rather than a trend related to the pursuit of misdemeanor arrests. In fact, a study done by the NYPD’s inspector general’s office found that from 2010-2015, “quality of life” summonses and misdemeanor arrests such as those promoted by “broken windows” policing were unrelated to a drop in felony crimes. Unfortunately, this new evidence comes after a decades-long surge in the prison population, which began in earnest when the Reagan administration declared a War on Drugs in the 1980s. As other municipalities attempted to replicate the purported success of "broken windows" policing in NYC, incarceration rates increased, especially for people of color.

Overall, this policing method has been shown to be deeply flawed, not only because it fails to deter larger crimes but because it has increased the numbers of arrests and fines for more marginalized populations, particularly for those who occupy public spaces, like homeless people and sex workers. Based on implicit bias around race or gender identity (think NYC’s infamously racist Stop and Frisk policy), the approach has not only been unevenly applied, but has often resulted in increased incidents of police violence against people of color. As a result, "broken windows" policing has sowed distrust in law enforcement among those it disproportionately targets: poor and minority communities. Perhaps worst of all, the "broken windows" theory discursively connects small crimes and misdemeanors to large ones, implying that those who commit small crimes must be stopped before they do something worse. Both Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer for selling loose tobacco cigarettes, and George Floyd, who was suspected of using a counterfeit bill, are tragically just two of the many victims of "broken windows" policing.

Coupled with the federal government’s War on Drugs, it is plain to see how "broken windows" policing has given police the requisite discretion to target and decimate low-income and minority communities under the guise of promoting public safety.

Now that we have some understanding of some of the problems with contemporary policing, we’ll turn to a few concrete solutions in our next post.