Program Profile: Alley-Gating in Liverpool (England)

This is a crime prevention program that consists of the installation of gates to alleyways in Liverpool, England, to reduce burglaries. The gates restrict access to local residents only, thus reducing opportunities for potential crime. The program is rated Effective. Treatment areas that implemented alley gates had a statistically significant reduction in burglaries, compared with comparison areas.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goal/Target Sites

Alley-gates are hardwearing, lockable gates that restrict access to an alley to local residents, thus reducing opportunities for potential crime. This type of installation is particularly suited to many British industrial cities, where so many of the properties have narrow alleys that run along the back of the houses. The goal of installing alley-gates in Liverpool, England, was to reduce burglary. Such programs can sometimes also reduce other types of crime and disorder.

Alleyways that ran along the back of residences in Liverpool were identified as potential sites for alley-gates.

Program Components

The planning process for installing the gates can easily take up to a year. Permission needs to be secured from all the residents affected by the installation. Also, if the alley is a public right of way, then alley-gating may be prohibited. Gates have to be manufactured to fit each specific location. Gates have a life expectancy of 10 years, depending on the upkeep. Residents are given keys.

In Liverpool, the installation of each gate protected approximately 134 houses. A total of 3,178 gates were installed that protected 106 distinct blocks of adjacent houses, which each contained about 362 residential properties.

Study

Bowers, Johnson, and Hirschfield (2004) used a quasi-experimental time series design to assess the impact of alley-gates on burglary rates in Liverpool, England. Treatment alley-gated areas were compared with the surrounding police department areas (PDAs), which were the comparison areas. The study used police data from the Merseyside County (England) Police Department. Data were obtained both for the preimplementation period (January 1998 to December 1999) and for the period of implementation (January 2000 through June 2003). This data were geocoded.

The study assessed for pregroup differences with a related samples t-test and found them to be stable over a historical preintervention period, thereby making postintervention period comparisons more valid.

The study used a related samples t-test to assess trends in the preintervention period, comparing the treatment areas with the PDAs. The test was not significant, indicating that the burglary concentrations in these areas did not differ prior to the intervention. This result suggested that the differences observed in the postevaluation period were attributable to the intervention and not some other variable(s).

This study ruled out the possibility of other crime prevention efforts occurring in Merseyside through the dose–response analysis. The dose–response analysis found significant relationships, which allows for more confident determination of causal effects of the alley gates. Specifically, regressions found the number of blocks secured was the strongest predictor of the reductions. Moreover, the R-squares were remarkably high (compared to most social science R-squares, which rarely reach 50 percent), with up to 55 percent of the variance in burglaries explained by the intervention. The study included a 12-month postimplementation evaluation period. A weighted displacement quotient (WDQ) was used to determine whether displacement (i.e., the relocation of crime) or spatial diffusion (i.e., a reduction in crime) occurred in seven buffer zones near the treatment areas.

Diffusion and Displacement

Bowers, Johnson, and Hirschfield (2004) examined seven buffer zones to assess spatial diffusion, or a reduction in crime in buffer zones near the treatment areas, and displacement, of relocation of crime in buffer zones near the treatment area. Spatial diffusion was observed in four of the seven buffer zones. Displacement was observed in two of the seven buffer zones. These changes were statistically significant. However, there was no change in one buffer zone.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Alley Gating in the United Kingdom

This is a situational crime-prevention strategy, mainly implemented in the United Kingdom, that uses lockable gates to control access to alleys behind rows of homes, where crimes frequently occur. The practice is rated Promising for reducing property offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses

Formal Mentoring to Prevent Youth Substance Use

This practice encompasses programs that provide youths with formal supportive relationships and various positive, community-based activities and experiences to reduce their need to use alcohol and/or drugs. The practice is rated Effective for reducing the likelihood of alcohol initiation and reducing the likelihood of drug use initiation.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Alcohol
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

School-Based Cyberbullying Prevention Programs

This practice aims to decrease cyberbullying perpetration and victimization and promote cyber-bystander behaviors among students in kindergarten through grade 12. This practice is rated Promising for reducing cyberbullying perpetration and victimization and is rated Promising for reducing bullying perpetration and victimization. This practice is rated Ineffective for promoting cyber-bystander behaviors.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Cyberbullying perpetration
	Victimization - Cyberbullying victimization
	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Perpetration
	Victimization - Bullying victimization
	Victimization - Cyber-bystander behavior

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?