IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v8y2012i1p1-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of “Pulling Levers” Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony A. Braga
  • David L. Weisburd

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of focused deterrence strategies known as “pulling levels” in reducing crime. The review summarises findings from 10 studies, all of which report evidence from programmes in the US. Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies are associated with a medium‐sized crime reduction effect. Nine out of 10 studies reported a statistically significant positive effect. There is a strongly significant medium size effect average effect across all studies. Gang or group intervention programs had the largest effect, followed by the drug market intervention programs, with the smallest but still statistically significant effect for the high‐risk individuals programs. All included studies use non‐randomized experimental designs, which have a risk of over‐stating impact. However, the effect size is large enough to have reasonable confidence in the effectiveness of these programs. Abstract BACKGROUND A number of American police departments have been experimenting with new problem‐oriented policing frameworks to prevent gang and group‐involved violence generally known as the “pulling levers” focused deterrence strategies. Focused deterrence strategies honor core deterrence ideas, such as increasing risks faced by offenders, while finding new and creative ways of deploying traditional and non‐traditional law enforcement tools to do so, such as directly communicating incentives and disincentives to targeted offenders. Pioneered in Boston to halt serious gang violence, the focused deterrence framework has been applied in many American cities through federally sponsored violence prevention programs. In its simplest form, the approach consists of selecting a particular crime problem, such as gang homicide; convening an interagency working group of law enforcement, social‐service, and community‐based 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 (”pulling levers”) 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. These new strategic approaches have been applied to a range of crime problems, such as overt drug markets and individual repeat offenders, and have shown promising results in the reduction of crime. OBJECTIVES To synthesize the extant evaluation literature and assess the effects of pulling levers focused deterrence strategies on crime. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies had to meet three criteria: (1) the program had to have the core elements of a pulling levers focused deterrence strategy present; (2) a comparison group was included; (3) at least one crime outcome was reported. The units of analysis had to be people or places. SEARCH STRATEGY Several strategies were used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility criteria. First, a keyword search was performed on an array of online abstract databases. Second, we reviewed the bibliographies of past narrative and empirical reviews of literature that examined the effectiveness of pulling levers focused deterrence programs. Third, we performed forward searches for works that have cited seminal focused deterrence studies. Fourth, we searched bibliographies of narrative reviews of police crime prevention efforts and past completed Campbell systematic reviews of police crime prevention efforts. Fifth, we performed hand searches of leading journals in the field. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For our ten eligible studies, we complete a narrative review of effectiveness and a formal meta‐analysis of the main effects of these programs on reported crime outcomes. MAIN RESULTS Based on our narrative review, we find that nine of the ten eligible evaluations reported statistically significant reductions in crime. It is important to note here that all ten evaluations used nonrandomized quasi‐experimental designs. No randomized controlled trials were identified by our search strategies. Our meta‐analysis suggests that pulling levers focused deterrence strategies are associated with an overall statistically‐significant, medium‐sized crime reduction effect. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that pulling levers focused deterrence strategies seem to be effective in reducing crime. However, we urge caution in interpreting these results because of the lack of more rigorous randomized controlled trials in the existing body of scientific evidence on this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony A. Braga & David L. Weisburd, 2012. "The Effects of “Pulling Levers” Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 1-90.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:8:y:2012:i:1:p:1-90
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2012.6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2012.6
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2012.6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blumstein, Alfred, 1978. "Research on deterrent and incapacitative effects of criminal sanctions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-2.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Mejía & Ervyn Norza & Santiago Tobón & Martín Vanegas-Arias, 2022. "Broken windows policing and crime: Evidence from 80 Colombian cities," Chapters, in: Paolo Buonanno & Paolo Vanin & Juan Vargas (ed.), A Modern Guide to the Economics of Crime, chapter 4, pages 55-87, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Kerris Cooper & Nicola Lacey, 2019. "Physical safety and Security: Policies, spending and outcomes 2015-2020," CASE - Social Policies and Distributional Outcomes Research Papers 05, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    3. Jason Chan & Shu He & Dandan Qiao & Andrew Whinston, 2024. "Shedding Light on the Dark: The Impact of Legal Enforcement on Darknet Transactions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 145-164, March.
    4. Naci Akdemir & Serkan Yenal, 2021. "How Phishers Exploit the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Content Analysis of COVID-19 Themed Phishing Emails," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    5. Evans, William N. & Kotowski, Maciej H., 2024. "The demand for protection and the persistently high rates of gun violence among young black males," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    6. Ashley Englefield & Barak Ariel, 2017. "Searching For Influential Actors in Co-Offending Networks: The Recruiter," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(5), pages 24-45, May.
    7. Cooper, Kerris Maya Louise & Lacey, Nicola Mary, 2019. "Physical safety and security: policies, spending and outcomes 2015-2020," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121549, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. repec:cep:spccrp:05 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Aaron Chalfin & Michael LaForest & Jacob Kaplan, 2021. "Can Precision Policing Reduce Gun Violence? Evidence from “Gang Takedowns” in New York City," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(4), pages 1047-1082, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David L. Sollars & Bruce L. Benson & David W. Rasmussen, 1994. "Drug Enforcement and the Deterrence of Property Crime Among Local Jurisdictions," Public Finance Review, , vol. 22(1), pages 22-45, January.
    2. Alfred Blumstein, 2002. "Crime Modeling 1," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 16-24, February.
    3. Matthew J. Baker & Niklas J. Westelius, 2013. "Crime, expectations, and the deterrence hypothesis," Chapters, in: Thomas J. Miceli & Matthew J. Baker (ed.), Research Handbook on Economic Models of Law, chapter 12, pages 235-280, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Maurice J. G. Bun & Richard Kelaher & Vasilis Sarafidis & Don Weatherburn, 2020. "Crime, deterrence and punishment revisited," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2303-2333, November.
    5. Steven N. Durlauf & Daniel S. Nagin, 2010. "The Deterrent Effect of Imprisonment," NBER Chapters, in: Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, pages 43-94, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Eoin O’Sullivan & Ian O’Donnell, 2003. "Imprisonment and the Crime Rate in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 34(1), pages 33-64.
    7. George Tsebelis, 1990. "Penalty has no Impact on Crime:," Rationality and Society, , vol. 2(3), pages 255-286, July.
    8. Berit C. Gerritzen & Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2013. "Facts or Ideology: What Determines the Results of Econometric Estimates of the Deterrence Effect of Death Penalty?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2013-04, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Gerritzen, Berit & Kirchgässner, Gebhard, 2013. "Facts or Ideology: What Determines the Results of Econometric Estimates of the Deterrence Effect of Death Penalty? A Meta-Analysis," Economics Working Paper Series 1303, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    10. Fleury, Jean-Baptiste, 2021. "Social Scientists on Crime in the 20th century," SocArXiv nuwy9, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:8:y:2012:i:1:p:1-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.