Book contents
- Police Innovation
- Police Innovation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Community Policing
- Part II Procedural Justice Policing
- Part III Broken Windows Policing
- Part IV Problem–Oriented Policing
- Part V Pulling Levers (Focused Deterrence) Policing
- 9 Advocate
- 10 Critic
- Part VI Third–Party Policing
- Part VII Hot Spots Policing
- Part VIII Predictive Policing
- Part IX CompStat
- Part X Evidence-Based/ Risk-Focused Policing
- Part XI Technology Policing
- Index
- References
10 - Critic
Partnership, Accountability, and Innovation: Clarifying Boston’s Experience with Focused Deterrence
from Part V - Pulling Levers (Focused Deterrence) Policing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2019
Book contents
- Police Innovation
- Police Innovation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Community Policing
- Part II Procedural Justice Policing
- Part III Broken Windows Policing
- Part IV Problem–Oriented Policing
- Part V Pulling Levers (Focused Deterrence) Policing
- 9 Advocate
- 10 Critic
- Part VI Third–Party Policing
- Part VII Hot Spots Policing
- Part VIII Predictive Policing
- Part IX CompStat
- Part X Evidence-Based/ Risk-Focused Policing
- Part XI Technology Policing
- Index
- References
Summary
Pioneered in Boston as part of its Operation Ceasefire strategy to halt serious youth violence in the 1990s, focused deterrence approaches (also known as “pulling levers” policing) have been embraced by police departments in the United States and other countries as an effective approach to crime prevention (Travis, 1998; Dalton, 2002; Deuchar, 2013). In its simplest form, the approach consists of selecting a particular crime problem, such as youth homicide; convening an interagency working group of law enforcement practitioners; conducting research to identify key offenders, groups, and behavior patterns; framing a response to offenders and groups of offenders that uses a varied menu of sanctions to stop them from continuing their violent behavior; focusing social services and community resources on targeted offenders and groups to match law enforcement prevention efforts; and directly and repeatedly communicating with offenders to make them understand why they are receiving this special attention (Kennedy, 1997; Kennedy, Chapter 9 in this volume). Although the goal of focused deterrence strategies is to prevent crime by changing offender perceptions of sanction risk, other complementary crime prevention mechanisms seem to support the crime control efficacy of these programs (Braga & Kennedy, 2012; Kennedy, Kleiman & Braga, 2017). These strategies are also intended to change offender behavior by mobilizing community action, enhancing procedural justice, and improving police legitimacy.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Police InnovationContrasting Perspectives, pp. 227 - 248Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting Agencies to Work Together. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Berrien, J., & Winship, C. (2002). An umbrella of legitimacy: Boston’s police department – Ten Point Coalition collaboration. In Katzmann, G. (ed.), Securing Our Children’s Future: New Approaches to Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Berrien, J., & Winship, C. (2003). Should we have faith in the churches? The Ten-Point Coalition’s effect on Boston’s youth violence. In Harcourt, B. (ed.), Guns, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Braga, A. (2008). Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention. 2nd edition. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Braga, A. (2012). Getting deterrence right? Evaluation evidence and complementary crime control mechanisms. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A., Apel, R., & Welsh, B. (2013). The spillover effects of focused deterrence on gang violence. Evaluation Review, 37(3–4), 314–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braga, A., & Hureau, D. M. (2012). Strategic problem analysis to guide comprehensive gang violence reduction strategies. In Gebo, E., & Bond, B.J. (eds.), Looking Beyond Suppression: Community Strategies to Reduce Gang Violence. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Braga, A., Hureau, D. M., & Grossman, L. S. (2014). Managing the Group Violence Intervention: Using Shooting Scorecards to Track Group Violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
Braga, A., Hureau, D. M., & Papachristos, A. V. (2014). Deterring gang-involved gun violence: Measuring the impact of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire on street gang behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 113–139.Google Scholar
Braga, A., Hureau, D. M., & Winship, C. (2008). Losing faith? Police, Black Churches, and the resurgence of youth violence in Boston. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 141–172.Google Scholar
Braga, A., & Kennedy, D. (2012). Linking situational crime prevention and focused deterrence strategies. In Tilley, N., & Farrell, G. (eds.), The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Braga, A., Kennedy, D., & Tita, G. (2002). New approaches to the strategic prevention of gang and group-involved violence. In Huff, C. R. (ed.), Gangs in America, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Braga, A., Kennedy, D., Waring, E., & Piehl, A. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1).Google Scholar
Brunson, R. (2015). Focused deterrence and improved police-community relations: Unpacking the proverbial “black box”. Criminology and Public Policy, 14(3), 507–514.Google Scholar
Chacon, R. (1995). Boston Police investigators seek cause of undercover officer’s injuries. The Boston Globe, February 4: 22.Google Scholar
Coles, C., & Kelling, G. (1999). Prevention through community prosecution. The Public Interest, 136, 69–84.Google Scholar
Conroy, A., Harmon, R., & Roehl, J. (2015). Implementing a comprehensive smart on crime strategy. United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, March, 22–44.Google Scholar
Corbett, R., Fitzgerald, B., & Jordan, J. (1998). Boston’s Operation Night Light: An emerging model for police-probation partnerships. In Petersilia, J. (ed.), Community Corrections: Probation, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corsaro, N., Brunson, R. K., & McGarrell, E. F. (2009). Problem-oriented policing and open-air drug markets: Examining the Rockford pulling levers strategy. Crime & Delinquency, 59(7), 1085–1107.Google Scholar
Corsaro, N., Hunt, E. D., Kroovand, Hipple N., & McGarrell, E. F., (2012). The impact of drug market pulling levers policing on neighborhood violence: An evaluation of the High Point drug market intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corsaro, N., & McGarrell, E. F. (2009). An evaluation of the Nashville drug market initiative (DMI) pulling levers strategy. East Lansing: Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
Dalton, E. (2002). Targeted crime reduction efforts in ten communities: Lessons for the Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative. US Attorney’s Bulletin, 50, 16–25.Google Scholar
Delaney, C. (2006). The Effects of Focused Deterrence on Gang Homicide: An Evaluation of Rochester’s Ceasefire Program. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Deuchar, R. (2013). Policing Youth Violence: Transatlantic Connections. London, UK: IEP Press.Google Scholar
Engel, R. S., Tillyer, M. S., & Corsaro, N. (2013). Reducing gang violence using focused deterrence: Evaluating the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV). Justice Quarterly, 30, 403–439.Google Scholar
Fagan, J. (2002). Policing guns and youth violence. The Future of Children, 12, 133–151.Google Scholar
Fox, A. M., Novak, K. J., & Yaghoub, M. B. (2015). Measuring the Impact of Kansas City’s No Violence Alliance. Kansas City: University of Missouri; Kansas City, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology.Google Scholar
Griffiths, E., & Christian, J. (2015). Considering focused deterrence in the age of Ferguson, North Charleston, and beyond. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 573–581.Google Scholar
Grunwald, M., & Anand, G. (1995). Authorities praised; Some Blacks wary. The Boston Globe, September 30: 80.Google Scholar
Grunwald, B., & Papachristos, A. V. (2017). Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago: Looking back a decade later. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107, 131–160.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. (1997). Pulling levers: Chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso University Law Review, 31, 449–484.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. (2002). A tale of one city: Reflections on the Boston Gun Project. In Katzmann, G. (ed.), Securing Our Children’s Future: New Approaches to Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D., & Braga, A. (1998). Homicide in Minneapolis: Research for problem solving. Homicide Studies, 2, 263–290.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D., Braga, A., & Piehl, A. (2001). Developing and implementing operation ceasefire. In Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D., Kleiman, M., & Braga, A. (2017). Beyond deterrence: Strategies of focus and fairness. In Tilley, N., & Sidebottom, A. (eds.), Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D., Piehl, A., & Braga, A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 147–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, D. M., & Wong, S. (2009).The High Point Drug Market Intervention Strategy. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
Levitt, S. (2004). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallia, J., & Mulvihill, M. (1994). Minister dies as cops raid wrong apartment. The Boston Herald, March 26: 1.Google Scholar
McGarrell, E. F., Corsaro, N., Hipple, N. K., & Bynum, T. S. (2010). Project Safe Neighborhoods and violent crime trends in US Cities: Assessing violent crime impact. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 165–190.Google Scholar
Meares, T. (2009). The legitimacy of police among young African American men. Marquette Law Review, 92(4), 651–666.Google Scholar
Moore, M. (2002). Creating networks of capacity: the challenge of managing society’s response to youth violence. In Katzmann, G. (ed.), Securing Our Children’s Future: New Approaches to Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
National Network for Safe Communities. (2016). Group Violence Intervention: An Implementation Guide. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention felons: Evaluating Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 223–272.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. (1987). The iron law of evaluation and other metallic rules. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 4, 3–20.Google Scholar
Saunders, J., Lundberg, R., Braga, A., Ridgeway, G., & Miles, J. (2015). A synthetic control approach to evaluating place-based crime interventions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 413–434.Google Scholar
Saunders, J., Ober, A. J., Kilmer, B., & Greathouse, S. M. (2016). A Community-Based, Focused-Deterrence Approach to Closing Overt Drug Markets: A Process and Fidelity Evaluation of Seven Sites, Appendix G. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Saunders, J., Robbins, M., & Ober, A. J. (2017). Moving from efficacy to effectiveness: Implementing the drug market intervention across multiple sites. Criminology & Public Policy, 16, 787–814.Google Scholar
Sherman, L., & Rogan, D. (1995). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: “Hot spots” patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly, 12, 673–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogan, W., & Hartnett, S. (1997). Community Policing, Chicago Style. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tench, M. (2002). Group offers support for Evans, Points to progress in curbing violence. The Boston Globe, September 21: 34.Google Scholar
Tillyer, M. S., Engel, R. S., & Lovins, B. (2012). Beyond Boston: Applying theory to understand and address sustainability issues in focused deterrence initiatives for violence reduction. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 973–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, J. 1998. Crime, Justice, and Public Policy. Plenary presentation to the American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC, November 12. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/speeches/asc.htm.Google Scholar
Wallace, D., Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T., and Fagan, J. (2016). Desistance and Legitimacy: The Impact of Offender Notification Meetings on Recidivism among High Risk Offenders. Justice Quarterly, 33(7), 1–28.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. (eds.). (2018). Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Committee on Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime, Communities, and Civil Liberties. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Wellford, C., Pepper, J., & Petrie, C. (eds.). (2005). Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Winship, C., & Berrien, J. (1999). Boston cops and Black Churches. The Public Interest, 136, 52–68.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by