Program Profile: Geographically Based Focused Deterrence Intervention (Midwest)

This was a focused deterrence intervention designed to reduce the presence of gun violence and gang activity. The program is rated Promising. There was a statistically significant reduction in confirmed shots fired, residents’ reports of hearing gunshots, and residents’ reports of seeing gang activity. However, there was no statistically significant impact on calls for service for shots fired.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Sites

A geographically based focused deterrence intervention was implemented in a midwestern city, with the goal of reducing gun violence, particularly gang-related gun violence (Kochel, Nouri, and Samadi 2022). The dual place- and person-based components of focused deterrence strategies typically target gang networks and areas that suffer from high amounts of gang and gun violence.

In the two years leading up to the focused deterrence intervention implementation (starting in January 2015), 92 percent of the homicides in the jurisdiction were committed using a firearm. Additionally, 56 percent of gun homicides were gang-related, compared with 20 percent, on average, in large cities nationally. The target area was selected using official police data on the number of shots fired during a specific period of time. The police department looked at the density of confirmed shots fired, to identify an area where gun violence was both high in density and persistent over time.

Program Components

This program featured both place- and person-based components. The goal of place-based, or geographically focused, efforts was to both alter the choices of gang-involved shooters and to impact perceptions of community residents where shootings take place (Kennedy 2009). The place-based component began in May 2018 and focused on interacting with the residents of the target area about gun violence and gang activity. One method was through “knock-and-talks,” in which teams consisting of police officers, plain-clothes detectives, and civilian volunteers went door-to-door to provide residents with brochures about the focused deterrence intervention and to discuss violence in the area. Intervention project staff also attended community barbecues to engage with residents and talk more about the program. Additionally, following high-profile shootings in the target area, police employed saturation patrols and intensive surveillance of focused deterrence targets and their gang-involved associates.

The person-based component also began in May 2018. A multidisciplinary team of criminal justice partners, social service representatives, community members, and city leaders selected 28 people with repeat gun offenses to be brought into the initiative. These individuals were selected based on three criteria: 1) their status as an impactful gang member/associate, 2) the number and frequency of their recent firearm offenses, and 3) their perceived potential involvement in future violent crimes and behaviors. The ages of the individuals were between 17 and 28, and they were associated with two local gangs. Of the 28 selected, 24 participated in the project. Between May 2018 and April 2019, the participants attended three call-in meetings, where they were warned that penalties for future gun crimes had been drastically increased and that future gun crimes committed by them, or their associates would result in intensive, targeted patrols. The goal of these call-in meetings was for those selected to pass along this message to their social networks and associates. In addition to providing these warnings, the intervention provided participants with access to social and educational services, to help them avoid future violent behavior and desist from gang activity. Examples of services included mentorship; job placement and training; anger management counseling; transportation to interviews and jobs; and assistance to gain access to food, obtain a driver’s license, or find housing. Impact speakers, including victims of gun violence, family members of victims, or previous gang-involved shooters gave talks about their personal experiences (Kochel, Nouri, and Samadi 2022).

Program Theory

Focused deterrence is based on deterrence theory, which states that people are less likely to commit a crime if they believe that the costs of committing the crime outweigh the potential benefits (Kochel, Nouri, and Samadi 2022). The theory posits that individuals are deterred from committing a crime when the certainty, celerity, and/or the severity of the punishment is perceived to be too great. Through the call-in meetings, the individuals with repeat gun offenses were warned about the certainty, celerity, and severity of penalties for gun crimes and were to spread this message to their social ties, which would therefore deter them from committing future crimes.

Study

Kochel, Nouri, and Samadi (2022) conducted a quasi-experimental design to assess the impact of a geographically based focused deterrence intervention on gang activity and gun violence in a midwestern city. The city has a population of more than 100,000, and the racial breakdown of the population was as follows: 76 percent white, 19 percent Black, 2 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and 3 percent other races. The median family income between 2014 and 2018 was approximately $53,000 (compared with the national average at the time, $60,294). In the two years before the experiment, 92 percent of homicides in the city were committed with a gun, and 56 percent of gun homicides were gang-related.

The target area was selected based on official police data of shots fired between January 2015 and April 2017. The density of confirmed shootings was examined within 0.1 square mile polygons across five, 6-month intervals, to identify a target area that had a high concentration of persistent gun violence. The target area was created to correspond with streets and was 1.4 square miles. The first comparison area was selected because of its similarities to the target area in rates of gun violence (though its rate was slightly lower) and because it is the police district that surrounds the target area. This comparison area was 5 square miles. The second comparison area encompasses the other three police districts in the city. This comparison area experienced less average crime and is larger in area. This second comparison area was selected because it is subject to the same police jurisdiction and other events that occur in the city but is not adjacent to the target area; therefore, it was less likely to be impacted by the implementation of the intervention.

Outcomes of interest were confirmed shots fired, calls for service for shots fired, how often residents reported hearing gunshots, and how often residents reported seeing gang activity. Data for confirmed shots fired and calls for service were collected from official police records from January 2015 to October 2019 and included approximately 40 months of pre-intervention data and 18 months of data during the intervention. Information on how often residents heard gunshots or saw gang activity was collected through a two-wave household survey conducted in the target area and both comparison areas. The first wave was conducted pre-intervention in the summer of 2017, and the second wave was conducted during the fall of 2019.

A monthly time-series analysis was utilized to assess the impact of geographically based focused deterrence on trends in gun violence (i.e., confirmed shots fired and calls for service for shots fired). Poisson and negative binomial models were used to analyze the data. A multilevel mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression analysis was applied to examine the impact of the intervention on residents’ experiences (i.e., reports of hearing gunshots and reports of seeing gang activity). For this analysis, the study authors controlled for demographic factors. They noted that the first comparison area was geographically proximate to the target area, which thus put it at risk for displacement and diffusion effects, whereas the second comparison area was not as similar in crime problems and demographic makeup. Though this is a limitation, the location of the comparison areas helps account for historical events that may have impacted crime and public perceptions, which is why these areas were found suitable. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

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

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

Kennedy, David M. 2009. Deterrence and Crime Prevention: Reconsidering the Prospect of Sanction. Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: Routledge.

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

Focused Deterrence Strategies

This practice (also referred to as “pulling-levers policing”) includes problem-oriented policing strategies that follow the core principles of deterrence theory. The strategies target specific criminal behavior committed by a small number of individuals who chronically commit offenses, such as youth gang members or those who repeatedly commit violent offenses, who are vulnerable to sanctions and punishment. The practice is rated Promising for reducing crime.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Geographically Focused Policing Initiatives

Geographically focused policing initiatives increase the presence and visibility of police officers at specific high-crime locations to significantly reduce crime and disorder. This practice is rated Promising for reducing crime in treatment areas relative to control areas.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

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