The possible “backfire” effects of hot spots policing: an experimental assessment of impacts on legitimacy, fear and collective efficacy

Abstract

Objectives To examine the impacts of broken windows policing at crime hot spots on fear of crime, ratings of police legitimacy and reports of collective efficacy among residents of targeted hot spots. Methods A block randomized experimental design with a police intervention targeting disorder delivered to 55 treatment street segments with an equal number of segments serving as controls. Main outcomes were measured using a panel survey of 371 persons living or working in these sites. Results The broken windows police intervention delivered to crime hot spots in this study had no significant impacts on fear of crime, police legitimacy, collective efficacy, or perceptions of crime or social disorder. Perceptions of physical disorder appear to have been modestly increased in the target areas.Conclusions The findings suggest that recent criticisms of hot spots policing approaches which focus on possible negative "backfire" effects for residents of the targeted areas may be overstated. The study shows that residents are not aware of, or much affected by, a three hour per week dosage of aggressive order maintenance policing on their blocks (in addition to routine police responses in these areas). Future research needs to replicate these findings focusing on varied target populations and types of crime hot spots, and examining different styles of hot spots policing.

Revisiting broken windows theory: A test of the mediation impact of social mechanisms on the disorder–fear relationship

“…Prior studies have found mixed support for the notion that perceived police (in)effectiveness either diminishes or heightens fear of crime (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008;Silver & Miller, 2004;Weisburd, Hinkle, Famega, & Ready, 2011;Zhao et al, 2002). Order maintenance policing, in particular, has met with mixed results in terms of fear reduction.…”

Predictable Policing: Measuring the Crime Control Benefits of Hotspots Policing at Bus Stops

“…While some recent studies continue to reaffirm Sherman and Weisburd's (1995) original finding, that the saturated police presence at hotspots reduces crime and disorder (Telep et al 2014a, b), others have begun to look more closely at precisely what type of police presence prevents crime. For example, some have looked at problem-oriented policing (Weisburd and Green 1995;Braga et al 1999;Braga and Bond 2008;Taylor et al 2011); drug enforcement operations (Weisburd andGreen 1994, 1995); increased gun searches and seizures (Sherman and Rogan 1995); foot patrol (Ratcliffe et al 2011); crackdowns (Sherman and Rogan 1995); 'zero-tolerance' policing or 'broken windows tactics' (Caeti 1999;Weisburd et al 2011); 'soft policing' (Ariel et al 2016); and intensified engagement (Rosenfeld et al, 2014). Despite these treatment variations, there are nevertheless common attributes to all hotspots policing approaches.…”

“Soft” policing at hot spots—do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial

“…Yet others have begun to look more closely at precisely what specific aspects of police presence may more effectively prevent crime than others. For example, some have looked at problem-oriented policing (e.g., Braga and Bond 2008;Braga et al 1999;Taylor et al 2010;Weisburd and Green 1995), drug enforcement operations (e.g., Weisburd andGreen 1994, 1995), increased gun searches and seizures (e.g., Sherman and Rogan 1995a, b), foot patrols (e.g., Ratcliffe et al 2011), crackdowns (Sherman and Rogan 1995a), Bzero-tolerancep olicing or Bbroken windows tactics^ (Caeti 1999;Weisburd et al 2011), and intensified engagement (Rosenfeld et al 2014). Yet few of these studies provide detailed measures of exactly what police were doing in the experimental hot spots; even one that did (Sherman and Rogan 1995a, b) failed to measure what police did in the control hot spot.…”