This article contends that previous conclusions by Sampson and Raudenbush regarding the “broken windows theory” were not the only ones permitted by their findings, and seeks to provide an alternative. In 1999, Sampson and Raudenbush published an influential article in the American Sociological Review on the link between disorder and crime in urban neighborhoods. Their research showed that there was no direct link between disorder and crime. The theory derived from previous work which had compared disorder to broken windows, which left unfixed, led to more broken windows. This writing offers a reinterpretation of their 1999 article based on the contentions that their interpretation of the broken windows thesis was imprecise, and that there was an alternative interpretation of their findings that was not considered. Based on these contentions, and contrary to Sampson and Raudenbush's (1999) assertions, the authors conclude that the results of Sampson and Raudenbush's study are not inconsistent with the broken windows thesis, and therefore should not be used as empirical evidence against it. The interpretation presented here was said to show that the 1999 study could just as easily be seen as empirical evidence in support of the broken windows theory. Figure, references