Program Profile: Operation Regional Analytics for the Safety of Our Residents (RASOR)

This was a modified focused deterrence program that targeted high-risk persons in Massachusetts. The program aimed to increase their risks of getting caught and convicted while providing them with regular meetings with a case management team and a variety of services such as substance abuse treatment. The program is rated Ineffective. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment group and the control group in time-to-arraignment at the 1-year follow-up.

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

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

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

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Programs Goals

Operation Regional Analytics for the Safety of Our Residents (RASOR) was a modified focused deterrence program that targeted high-risk persons in Massachusetts. The program aimed to increase their risk of getting caught and convicted while also providing them with access to a case management team and a variety of services. The goal of RASOR was to reduce offending among targeted high-risk persons.

Target Sites/Population

RASOR was implemented in three neighboring cities in Massachusetts: 1) Cambridge, 2) Everett, and 3) Somerville. The target population was chronic, cross-jurisdictional, high-risk individuals. These people were identified for inclusion by examining the records management systems of the three police departments, and selecting the top 150 based on a “social harm” risk score, which incorporated factors such as the nature of the offense, the role of the individual in the offense, and whether the incident involved a weapon, gangs, or drugs (see Evaluation Methodology for more information about the calculation of the risk score).

Program Components

For those targeted by RASOR, a detailed profile was developed by police officers, detectives, and a social worker. Each person was then assigned a Focused Deterrence Team, which included a police detective and a social worker who were responsible for notifying the individual that he or she had been identified as a potential impact player (due to the social harm risk score). The people were invited to attend a formal notification meeting through a call-in session. Warrant sweeps or crackdowns before the call-in meetings were not used because participation was voluntary.

During the meeting, participants were informed of the harm they were causing the community and were provided with outreach opportunities based on their needs (for example, substance misuse treatment, housing, or employment assistance). Participants were also informed that, because of their status as an impact player, they would be observed carefully for further unlawful behavior. They also were notified that further criminal activity on their part would warrant the use of enhanced sanctions against them.

Participation in case management and outreach also was voluntary. For those who did participate, there were regular meetings with the case management team and an action plan for treatment was developed. For those who were hesitant or unresponsive, the Focused Deterrence Team engaged family or friends to help with the initial contact. Regardless of whether they participated in the outreach/case management portion of the program, all participants were subject to intensive supervision and enforcement activities in the community.

The Focused Deterrence Team coordinated all service delivery after the call-in meeting. The team worked with social service coordinators to develop the individual treatment plans. The team also conducted follow-up meetings, attended court dates, maintained contact with those participants who were reincarcerated, and conducted outreach to service providers. The team was also responsible for sharing information among enforcement agencies as part of the enhanced monitoring component of RASOR.

Program Theory

Operation RASOR was based on a focused deterrence, or “pulling levers,” approach. Deterrence theory argues that crime can be prevented when individuals perceive the risk of apprehension and the seriousness and swiftness of sanctions to outweigh the benefits of committing a crime. Focused deterrence initiatives involve law enforcement officials delivering clear messages directly to them about the high risk of swift apprehension and punishment. The focus of such initiatives is on the most chronic, serious, violent persons who are disproportionately involved in violent crime within the community (Corsaro and Engel, 2015). In Operation RASOR, the call-in session was used to notify the targeted high-risk persons in three Massachusetts cities about the intensive supervision and enforcement activities to which they would be subjected and the enhanced sanctions they could receive for committing additional offenses.

Study

Uchida and colleagues (2019) conducted a randomized experiment with a block design to evaluate the impact of Operation Regional Analytics for the Safety of Our Residents (RASOR) on individual reoffending. RASOR was implemented in three contiguous cities in Massachusetts: 1) Cambridge, 2) Everett, and 3) Somerville.

Individuals targeted by RASOR were identified by examining the records management systems of three police departments and collecting detailed information on 280,000 unique individuals found in police reports. From those 280,000 individuals, approximately 60,000 were listed as suspects or defendants at least one time in their offense history. From there, an algorithm was developed to rank-order these 60,000 individuals. The algorithm computed a weighted “social harm” risk score. The score included the nature of the offense; the role of the individual in the offense (e.g., defendant, suspect, witness); a “decay factor” that adjusted for the recency of the event; and whether the incident involved a weapon, gangs, or drugs. Scores were calculated for all persons in the database, and the they were rank-ordered according to these scores. From this list, the top 150 persons in the list were selected and blocked into three groups of 50. With three groups of 50, participants in the first cohort (1–50) were randomized into the first control and treatment groups, those in the second cohort (51–100) were randomized into the second control and treatment groups, and so forth. This approach addressed concerns about variability of the entire study sample, and concerns of the police that those convicted of more serious offenses might be compared to those convicted of less serious offenses. In each cohort, 25 participants were randomly assigned to the treatment group and 25 were randomly assigned to the control group. Ultimately, this resulted in a total of 75 persons in the treatment group and 75 persons in the control group (those in the control group were subjected only to standard law enforcement activities during the intervention period). The intervention began on April 9, 2014, for Cohort 1; Aug. 12, 2014, for Cohort 2; and Nov. 13, 2014, for Cohort 3. The observation period concluded on May 31, 2015.

The study sample was 83 percent male and 42 percent white, 39 percent Black, 17 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent unknown. The average age was 33 years (ages ranged from 19 to 77). Specific information about gender was not provided. About 74 percent of the sample was in Cambridge, 11 percent in Somerville, and 15 percent in Everett.

The primary outcome of interest was the length of time from the start of the experiment to the arraignment for a new offense. An arraignment occurs when a defendant is formally charged with a crime. It was selected instead of arrest because many arrests do not lead to formal charges. Survival analysis was used to analyze the data. Subgroup analysis was not conducted.

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

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

Corsaro, Nicholas, and Robin S. Engel. 2015. “Most Challenging of Contexts: Assessing the Impact of Focused Deterrence on Serious Violence in New Orleans.” Criminology & Public Policy 14(3):471–505.

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

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