Understanding the Mechanisms Underlying Broken Windows Policing

Abstract

Objectives: We argue that the model underlying broken windows policing requires a developmental sequence involving reductions in fear of crime and eventual enhancement of community social controls. We investigate whether existing evaluation studies provide evidence on these mechanisms. Methods: Drawing from a larger systematic review of disorder policing, we identify six eligible studies. We use narrative review and meta-analytic methods to summarize the impacts of these interventions on fear of crime and collective efficacy (a proxy for community social controls). Findings: Downloaded from Disorder policing strategies do not have a significant impact on fear of crime in a meta-analysis of six studies. In the one study measuring collective efficacy, there is also not a significant outcome. Conclusions: Existing broken windows policing programs do not show evidence of influencing the key mechanisms of the broken windows model of crime prevention, though evidence is currently not persuasive. We outline four key directions for improving research in this area, namely, (1) explore the mechanisms underlying the model, not just test crime outcomes; (2) use measures of disorder distinct from crime; (3) employ longitudinal designs to better fit the developmental nature of the mechanism; and (4) include observational analyses to examine the complex nature of feedback mechanisms.

Policing Gentrification: Stops and Low–Level Arrests during Demographic Change and Real Estate Reinvestment

“…; Sharp ; Weisburd et al. ). While the NYPD sharply curtailed their use of stop and frisk in 2012 following public outrage and a federal court decision, they used order‐maintenance policing widely through 2015, the last year of this study (see Figure below for graphs of the frequency of each police practice over time).…”

Gating Alleys to Reduce Crime: A Meta-Analysis and Realist Synthesis

“…Unfortunately, such data were not available in the studies reviewed here. Future primary evaluation studies should focus on collecting data on these underlying mechanisms (see also Weisburd, Hinkle, Braga, & Wooditch, 2015). This may require primary data collection, such as the use of observation methods to determine the extent to which alley gates are closed or the presence of signs of disorder before and after the installation of alley gates.…”

Introducing EMMIE: an evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews

“…As suggested by Lipsey and Wilson (see also Cartwright and Hardie 2012;Weisburd et al 2015), to better inform policy, the evidence base needs to speak to how interventions work and where and when they might do so most effectively. Consequently, when assessing the quality of the available evidence, in addition to considering the extent to which evaluations manage to rule out biases that might distort estimates of effect size, we also need to gauge the extent to which they contribute to understanding of the contexts/moderators relevant to the activation of the mechanisms/mediators that produce variations in outcome across differing sub-groups.…”

“…An example of such a review is provided by Weisburd et al (2015), who conducted a SR of broken windows policing (Wilson and Kelling 1982). To test for evidence of the broken windows mechanism (that intervention reduces residents' fear of crime, and this in turn increases their willingness to act collectively to deter crime: p. 6), the authors searched not for studies that examined the impact of intervention on crime but for those that examined the impact on fear of crime and/or collective efficacy.…”