From a criminological perspective this issue has been examined in several fashions. But, in terms of a direct explanation accounting for the role of broken windows, I have seen relatively few tests or papers that point towards compstat or “broken windows” as a direct explanation. However, it should be noted that the criminology literature there is more of a focus on empirical tests, meaning that testing for compstat or “broken windows” would be difficult, as there is almost no data that could be used to operationalize those specific concepts direct effects. However, it should be noted that broader measures of police power (such as changes in the number of officers per capita have been, which will be discussed further below).

In terms of the general explanation’s criminologists (and other scientists) have developed a number of potential explanations including; incapacitation (refers to the role of prison in preventing crime), the transition to unleaded gasoline, increases in police power, the legalization of abortion, the end of the crack epidemic, changes in population (in particular age changes), economic changes, and changes in security.

Each of these proposed factors in the drop in crime rates (in the US crime rate) have seen tests in the US context, (it should be noted that in most cases these factors are not all tested in the same models). In terms of what has the most consensus in the explanation of the crime drop, I would argue the current literature is quite split, as some have emphasized the predictive power of almost all of the mentioned factors (see Bernard and colleagues for this), whereas others have emphasis a smaller number of factors (see Baumer & Wolff; Farrell et al.; and the NRC report for extended analysis). In particular, a synthesis of factors —as in Baumer & Wolff­—, looks at how specific factors act at different levels of analysis: such as the effects of the decline in lead (or more general environmental regulations), economic conditions, and security changes at the global level; changes in imprisonment and economic perceptions at the national level (they specifically here look at the US drop in crime), and changes in economics, immigration, and city/ county development, and growth in police force/arrest rates at the county/city level.

However, one thing to note is that recent literature, has cast doubt upon the conclusion (reached by many earlier researchers) that higher rates of incarceration, resulted or contributed to the decline in US crime rates. The reasons for this doubt can be summarized into two main categories. First, the estimates of researchers have been widely divergent, ranging from no effect to a quite substantial effect. Second, there are flaws in both the theory and statistics supporting the role of imprisonment as a factor for reducing crime (these issues include: control variable inclusion, issues with selection bias, the relatively high US recidivism rates). Finally, it should be noted that this research area seeks to measure crime that didn’t occur because of incarceration. Which leads to what I would deem an overreliance on model assumptions, as the number of crimes averted by incapacitation will always be unknown.

In Summary, I would argue that there is no academic consensus on what really caused the drop in crime in the 1990’s. Further, much of the research to this point looks at aggregate level data, so the effects of compstat or “broken windows” policing are unlikely to be measured directly. However, research at the city or county level could prove useful in understanding the trends you are asking about.

Sources:

-Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. L. (2016). Theory and Policy in Context. In Vold’s Theoretical Criminology (7th ed., pp. 14–36). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

-Baumer, E. P., & Wolff, K. T. (2014). Evaluating Contemporary Crime Drop(s) in America, New York City, and Many Other Places. Justice Quarterly, 31(1), 5–38.

- Farrell, G., Tilley, N., & Tseloni, A. (2014). Why the Crime Drop? Crime and Justice, 43(1), 421–490.

- National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. (J. Travis & B. Western, Eds.). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

-Forthcoming chapter in the Cambridge Handbook of Compliance, from Cambridge University Press, (working title is Incarceration & Crime) which was essential for summarizing incapacitation research (and it's methodological issues), I do not currently have author names as this is a work in the review process.