Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 777–806 | Cite as

Neighborhood Disorder and Local Participation: Examining the Political Relevance of “Broken Windows”

  • Jamila MichenerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Anyone who has lived in, driven through or walked by a “bad” neighborhood has a sense of the attributes that render such places unique: graffiti, litter, public intoxication and much more. According to the well-known theory of “broken windows,” these readily observable corporeal characteristics signal neighborhood disorder and lead to increased criminal behavior. This article investigates the implications of disorder for political behavior, taking particular care to distinguish between the objective tangible conditions of disorder and residents’ subjective interpretations of those conditions. Utilizing exceptionally rich data, this analysis reveals that while certain aspects of objective “reality” are consequential, perceptions of such reality are a more powerful mechanism through which neighborhood disorder impacts local political engagement. For some political outcomes, a heightened sense of the problems associated with disorder is linearly associated with an increase in participation. For others, the pattern is parabolic: those who perceive so little disorder that they remain content or so much disorder that they become disaffected are substantially less likely to take action to make their communities better. Ultimately, holding objective contextual features constant, the lenses through which residents interpret things like “broken windows” are critical determinants of grassroots politics. This information, combined with broader understandings of what shapes perceptions of disorder, lays the foundation for structuring policy in ways that facilitate grassroots activism—a vital component of the American democratic process.

Keywords

Perceptions Neighborhood Political participation Broken windows Disorder Objective context Subjective context Community engagement Local politics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible by funding from the Ford Foundation and the University of Chicago. Special thanks go to Cathy J. Cohen, Michael C. Dawson, Christopher A. Bail, Jon C. Rogowski and the helpful participants of the American Politics Workshop at the University of Chicago. I also owe a tremendous debt to the editors and anonymous reviewers at Political Behavior for their valuable insights and comments. All remaining errors are my own.

References

  1. Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2003). Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime: A Guide for the New Century. Advances in Criminological Theory (Vol. 11). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Alex-Assensoh, Y. (1998). Neighborhoods, family and political behavior in urban America. New York: Gerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Glasgow, G. (2000). Two-stage estimation of non-recursive choice models. Political Analysis, 8, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. R. (2009). Beyond membership: A sense of community and political behavior. Political Behavior, 31, 603–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37(4), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolan, M. (1997). The mobility experience and neighborhood attachment. Demography, 34, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Books, J., & Prysby, C. (1988). Studying contextual effects on political behavior: A research inventory and agenda. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brook, D. (2006). The cracks in broken windows. The Boston Globe. Available at: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/02/19/the_cracks_in_broken_windows/?page=full.
  9. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Burbank, M. J. (1995). How do contextual effects work? Developing a theoretical model. In Munroe Eagles (Ed.), Spatial and contextual models in political research (pp. 166–178). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Casciano, R., & Massey, D. (2011). Neighborhood disorder and economic self-sufficiency. Working paper. Office of Population Research Princeton University.Google Scholar
  13. Chavis, D. M., & Wandesman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christie-Mizell, A., & Erickson, R. J. (2007). Mothers and mastery: The consequences of perceived neighborhood disorder. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(4), 340–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Churchman, A. (1987). Can resident participation in neighborhood rehabilitation programs succeed? Israel’s project renewal through a comparative perspective. In I. Altman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments (pp. 113–162). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, C. J., & Dawson, M. C. (1993). Neighborhood poverty and African-American politics. American Political Science Review, 87, 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Curtis, L. A. (1987). Policies to prevent crime: Neighborhood, family and employment strategies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 494, 9–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dassopoulos, A., & Monnat, S. M. (2011). Do perceptions of social cohesion, social support, and social control mediate the effects of local community participation on neighborhood satisfaction? Environment and Behavior, 43(4), 546–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagles, M. (1995). Class versus community? Social identities and political mobilization. In M. Eagles (Ed.), Spatial and Contextual Models in Political Research (pp. 211–233). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Earls, F. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1997). Project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods: Community survey, 1994–1995. ICPSR02766-v3. Boston, MA: Harvard Medical School [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
  21. Earls, F. J., Raudenbush, S. W., Reiss, A. J. Jr., & Sampson, R. J. (2002). Project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods (PHDCN): Systematic social observation, 1995. ICPSR13578-v1. Boston, MA: Harvard Medical School [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
  22. Elo, I. T., Mykyta, L., Margolis, R., & Culhane, J. F. (2009). Perceptions of neighborhood disorder: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1298–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A New look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epstein, P. D., Coates, P. M., Wray, L. D., & Swain, D. (2006). Results that matter: Improving communities by engaging citizens, measuring performance and getting things done. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Florin, P. (1989). Nurturing the grassroots: Neighborhood volunteer organizations and America’s cities. New York: Citizens Committee for New York City.Google Scholar
  26. Franzini, L., O’Brien, Caughy M, Murray Nettles, S., & O’Campo, P. (2008). Perceptions of disorder: Contributions of neighborhood characteristics to subjective perceptions of disorder. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gay, C. (2012). Moving to opportunity: The political effects of a housing mobility experiment. Urban Affairs Review, 48(2), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hadley-Ives, E., Stiffman, A. R., Elze, D., Johnson, S. D., & Dore, P. (2000). Measuring neighborhood and school environments perceptual and aggregate approaches. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 3(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  29. Haney, T. J. (2007). “Broken windows” and self-esteem: Subjective understandings of neighborhood poverty and disorder. Social Science Research, 36, 968–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harcourt, B. E. (2001). Illusion of order: The false promise of broken windows policing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Harcourt, B. E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 271–320.Google Scholar
  32. Hardy-Fanta, C. (1993). Latina politics, Latino politics: Gender, culture and political participation in Boston. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hauser, R. M. (1974). Contextual analysis revisited. Sociological Methods and Research, 2, 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill, T. D., Ross, C. E., & Angel, R. J. (2005). Neighborhood disorder, psychophysiological distress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 170–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huckfeldt, R. (1986). Politics in context: Assimilation and conflict in urban neighborhoods. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1993). Citizens, contexts, and politics. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline II (pp. 281–303). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  37. Kamphuis, C. B. M., Mackenbach, J. P., Giskes, K., Huisman, M., Brug, J., & Van Lenthe, F. J. (2010). Why do poor people perceive poor neighbourhoods? The role of objective neighbourhood features and psychosocial factors. Health and Place, 16(4), 744–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Kasl, S. V., & Harburg, E. (1972). Perceptions of the neighborhood and the desire to move out. Journal of the American Planning Association, 38, 318–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelling, G., & Coles, C. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Keshk, O. M. G. (2003). CDSIMEQ: A Program to implement two staged probit least squares. The Stata Journal, 3(2), 157–167.Google Scholar
  42. Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kubrin, C. E. (2008). Making order of disorder: A call for conceptual clarity. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kweon, B., Ellis, C. D., Lee, S., & Rogers, G. O. (2006). Large-scale environmental knowledge: Investigating the relationship between self-reported and objectively measured physical environments. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social networks, social capital, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19, 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Latkin, C. A., & Curry, A. D. (2003). Prospective study of the impact of neighborhood disorder. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lee, B. A., & Campbell, K. E. (1997). Common ground? Urban neighborhoods as survey respondents see them. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 922–936.Google Scholar
  48. Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  49. Lott, J. (2000). More guns, less crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marschall, M. J. (2004). Citizen participation and the neighborhood context: A new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231–244.Google Scholar
  52. Meersman, S. C. (2005). Objective neighborhood properties and perceptions of neighborhood problems: Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) in neighborhood effects and ageing research. Ageing International, 30, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oliver, E. J. (2000). City size and civic involvement in metropolitan America. American Political Science Review, 94, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson, S. A. (1990). Political behavior: Patterns in everyday life. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  56. Pomerantz, J. R. (2003). Perception: Overview. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 3, pp. 527–537). London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  57. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  59. Quillian, L., & Pager, D. (2001). Black neighbors, higher crime? The role of racial stereotypes in evaluations of neighborhood crime. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 717–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rich, R. C. (1979). The roles of neighborhood organizations in urban service delivery. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roberts, S. (2011). Fewer broken windows, and a decline in crime. The New York Times. Available Online: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/fewer-broken-windows-and-a-decline-in-crime/.
  62. Rohe, W. M., & Basolo, Victoria. (1997). Long-term effects of homeownership on the self-perceptions and social interaction of low-income persons. Environment and Behavior, 29, 793–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rohe, W. M., & Stegman, M. A. (1994). The impact of home ownership on the social and political involvement of low-income people. Urban Affairs Review, 30(1), 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation and democracy in America. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  65. Ross, C. E. (2000). Neighborhood disadvantage and adult depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(2), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Pribesh, S. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review, 66, 568–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structures and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing ‘neighborhood effects’: Social processes and new direction in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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, 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of ‘Broken Windows’. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Santiago, A. M., Galster, G. C., Kaiser, A. A., Roman, A. H. S.-S., Grace, R. A., & Linn, A. T. W. (2010). Low-income homeownership: Does it necessarily mean sacrificing neighborhood quality to buy a home? Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Skogan, W. G. (2008). Broken windows: Why-and How -We Should Take Them Seriously. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Skogan, W. G. (2012). Disorder and Crime. In Brandon C. Welsh & David P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 173–188). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Small, M. L. (2004). Villa victoria: The transformation of social capital in a Boston barrio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Steenbergen, M. R., & Jones, B. S. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 218–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taylor, R. B. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  79. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Veysey, B. M., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Further testing of social disorganization theory: An Elaboration of Sampson and Groves’s ‘‘Community Structure and Crime’’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wandersman, A., Jakubs, J. F., & Giamartino, G. A. (1981). Participation in block organizations. Journal of Community Action, 1, 40–48.Google Scholar
  82. Weden, M. M., Carpiano, R. M., & Robert, S. A. (2008). Subjective and objective neighborhood characteristics and adult health. Social Science and Medicine, 66(6), 1256–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. (1982). The police and neighborhood safety: Broken windows. The Atlantic Monthly, 127, 29–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations