Approach

Focused deterrence programs (also known as “pulling levers” policing) are problem-oriented policing strategies that are rooted in deterrence theory.¹National Institute of Justice, “Practice Profile: Focused Deterrence Strategies,”  accessed June 3, 2019, https://www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=11; RAND Corporation, “Focused Deterrence,” accessed June 3, 2019, http://bit.ly/2MYB2zp. The focused deterrence framework, which was developed in Boston in the 1990s, seeks to reduce violence by altering the perceptions of high-risk groups and individuals about the costs of offending.²RAND, “Focused Deterrence”; Everytown for Gun Safety, National Urban League, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, “Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence in American Cities, June 2016, 46, http://bit.ly/2W5iWjG; Anthony A. Braga, David Weisburd, and Brandon Turchan, “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Criminology & Public Policy 17, no.1 (February 2018): 205-250. It achieves this by combining strict legal consequences for continued violent behavior, access to social services and opportunities for individuals at risk of committing violence, and ongoing support and monitoring from community members.³RAND,“Focused Deterrence”; George Mason University, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCP), “Focused Deterrence Strategies,” accessed June 3, 2019, http://bit.ly/2J4G5gN; Everytown for Gun Safety, National Urban League, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, “Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence,” 46. These efforts are focused on groups and individuals—often group or gang members or chronic violent offenders—who have been identified by police, criminal justice data, and members of the community as being the most at risk for shooting or being shot.⁴CEBCP, “Focused Deterrence Strategies”; Everytown for Gun Safety, National Urban League, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, “Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence,” 46; RAND, “Focused Deterrence.”

Impact

Research consistently suggests that group violence intervention programs and focused deterrence are associated with a modest reduction in gun/violence, particularly when targeted toward high-risk individuals and/or gang members. A 2018 meta-analysis of 24 focused deterrence studies found that overall, the intervention is associated with a moderate impact on crime reduction. Group violence intervention programs focused on gangs and groups had the largest impact, followed by high risk individuals, and lastly open air drug markets.⁵Anthony A. Braga, David Weisburd, and Brandon Turchan, “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Criminology & Public Policy 17, no. 1 (2018): 205–50, https://doi.org/10.111/1745-9133.12353.

Necessary Resources

Focused deterrence programs require collaboration between law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, social service providers, and other community groups. An interagency team will be needed to help coordinate the program, and the agencies and organizations involved will need to dedicate staff members and other resources to complete tasks such as analyzing data and identifying participants, communicating with recipients of the intervention, running formal intervention meetings, carrying out enforcement efforts, and coordinating service provision.⁶RAND, “Focused Deterrence.”

Strategy in Practice

Although the details of focused deterrence programs vary, most follow a general framework that includes the following steps:

1. Conducting a problem analysis to identify potential groups and group dynamics that may contribute to community violence;
2. Convening an interagency working group of program partners;
3. Identifying high-risk groups and individuals, including those engaging in serious violence, using resources such as police data, community tips, and social network analysis;
4. Holding an intervention meeting, or “call-in,” of the identified high-risk individuals to inform them of their selection, explaining the strict legal consequences if they continue to perpetuate violence, and discussing services and support they can receive;
5. Enhancing enforcement for those who persist in crime, using swift, certain enforcement after violence has been committed by group members, etc.;
6. Providing services to people who want to change, including counseling, substance abuse treatment, housing, employment training and placement, education, etc.; and
7. Enlisting community members, such as family, friends, churches, and other organizations, to provide ongoing support and monitoring.RAND, “Focused Deterrence”; Everytown for Gun Safety, National Urban League, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence, 46; National Institute of Justice, “Practice Profile: Focused Deterrence Strategies”; CEBCP, “Focused Deterrence Strategies”; Roman et al., “Philadelphia Focused Deterrence.” The goal of this process is to increase the perceived risk of engaging in violent crime and provide incentives for desisting from criminal activity.

Common Barriers

Program design challenges: For a focused deterrence program to be effective, it must be designed to address the particular problems, groups, and individuals that are driving violence within the jurisdiction.⁷RAND, “Focused Deterrence”; Everytown for Gun Safety, National Urban League, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence, 46; National Institute of Justice, “Practice Profile: Focused Deterrence Strategies”; CEBCP, “Focused Deterrence Strategies”; Roman et al., “Philadelphia Focused Deterrence.” One of the keys to this is identifying the right people to attend the call-in intervention meetings. To maximize the program’s deterrent effects, these participants should include individuals who are the most influential within the jurisdiction’s networks and who are in the best position to spread the message about the program’s enhanced consequences and offered services.⁸RAND, “Focused Deterrence.” These messengers need not be the most violent individuals, but should be in a position to leverage their community associations to be effective messengers. Identifying these messengers can be challenging, and it can be useful to employ social network analysis to map out connections between violent actors.⁹Jean Marie McGloin, “Policy and Intervention Considerations of a Network Analysis of Street Gangs,” Criminology & Public Policy, 4, no. 3 (October 2005): 607-635.

Program implementation challenges: Another challenge is ensuring that the focused deterrence program is properly organized, well-managed, and has buy-in from the various partners. Communication and coordination between these partners is critical, and the program will be undermined if a partner does not follow through or if commitment to the program is not institutionalized throughout each partner organization.¹⁰Everytown for Gun Safety, National Urban League, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence, 47; Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan, “Focused Deterrence Strategies,” 240-41.

Ability to deliver sanctions and services: Focused deterrence programs rely on two key strategies: the swift and certain delivery of legal consequences if violent behavior persists and the delivery of social services and resources. Therefore, if a jurisdiction’s criminal justice system (including police, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies) cannot credibly follow through on delivering swift and certain sanctions, then the deterrence prong of the program may be undermined.¹¹Everytown for Gun Safety, National Urban League, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence, 47. Similarly, if the participants do not receive social services—either because they are not adequately persuaded to take advantage of them or because the program fails to properly provide the services—then the intervention may be less effective.¹²Ibid.

Agencies, Organizations, and Other Necessary Partners

Collaboration among a community-wide network of partners is the cornerstone of the focused deterrence framework.¹³Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan, “Focused Deterrence Strategies,” 240-41. These partners will likely include federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; local and federal prosecutors; courts and correctional agencies; social services providers; community leaders; and researchers.¹⁴Roman et al., “Philadelphia Focused Deterrence,” 1-2; Police Executive Research Forum, “Reducing Gun Violence” 11.

What Else You Need to Know

Although studies have shown that focused deterrence strategies are associated with moderate crime reduction effects, there are some research gaps that still need addressing.¹⁵Braga, Weisburd and Turchan, “Focused Deterrence Strategies,” 238-41. For example, the current research on focused deterrence programs does not shed light on which of the program elements were the most important in reducing crime.¹⁶Braga, Weisburd and Turchan, “Focused Deterrence Strategies,” 238-41.