The number of jurisdictions implementing focused deterrence strategies targeted at gangs continues unabated. Although recent research suggests positive impacts of the strategy on reductions in gun violence, little is known about the particular mechanisms operating behind the strategy. This article provides a descriptive analysis of the law enforcement activities or levers undertaken after enforcement operations in Philadelphia as a part of the focused deterrence strategy. The article quantifies the execution of levers related to arrest, case processing, and probation sanctioning during enforcement activities after shootings. The results show that Philadelphia achieved success in implementing the enforcement levers as intended, and there was little evidence that arrest practices were overly aggressive. The authors suggest that future evaluations seek to carefully document the wide array of levers used in concert with an assessment of community understanding of and reactions to the strategy as well as an examination of reactions of group members targeted.
Aba-OnuU. F.Levy-PoundsN.SalmenJ.TynerA. (2010).
Evaluation of gang databases in Minnesota and recommendations for change.Information and Communications Technology Law,
19(3), 223–254.
2.
BarrowsJ.HuffR.C. (2009).
Gangs and public policy: Constructing and deconstructing gang databases.Criminology & Public Policy,
8, 675–703.
3.
BragaA. A. (2012).
Getting deterrence right? Evaluation evidence and complementary crime control mechanisms.Criminology & Public Policy,
11(2), 201–210.
4.
BragaA. A.ApelR.WelshB. C. (2013).
The spillover effects of focused deterrence on gang violence.Evaluation Review,
37(3–4), 314–342.
5.
BragaA. A.KennedyD. M. (2012). Linking situational crime prevention and focused deterrence strategies. In TilleyN.FarrellG. (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honour of Ronald V. Clarke (pp. 51–65).
London, England:
Taylor and Francis.
6.
BragaA. A.WeisburdD. L. (2012).
The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
49(3), 323–358.
7.
BragaA. A.WeisburdD. L.TurchanB. (2018).
Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence.Criminology & Public Policy,
17(1), 205–250.
8.
CorsaroN. (2018).
More than lightning in a bottle and far from ready-made.Criminology & Public Policy,
17(1), 251–259.
9.
EngelR. S. (2018).
Focused deterrence strategies save lives: Introduction and discussion of an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Criminology & Public Policy,
17(1), 199–203.
10.
EngelR. S.CorsaroN.OzerM. M. (2017).
The impact of police on criminal justice reform.Criminology & Public Policy,
16(2), 375–402.
11.
FaganJ.DaviesG. (2000).
Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urban Law Journal,
28(2), 457–504.
12.
FontaineJ.JannettaJ.PapachristosA.V.LeitsonD.DwivediA. (2017). Put the guns down: Outcomes and impacts of the Chicago violence reduction strategy.
Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.
13.
GibbsJ. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence.
New York, NY:
Elsevier.
14.
GuinC. C.BarthelemyJ.RizzutoThomas-SmithJ.Winchester.E.MayberryS., … ZhuH. (2017). Baton Rouge area violence elimination: Year 4 evaluation report.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana:
Louisiana State University. Retrieved from http://www.ebrda.org/pdfs/BRAVE_Year_4_Evaluation.pdf
JensenE. L.GerberJ. (1996).
The civil forfeiture of assets and the war on drugs: Expanding criminal sanctions while reducing due process protections.Crime and Delinquency,
42, 421–434.
17.
KennedyD. M. (2011). Don’t shoot: One man, a street fellowship, and the end of violence in inner-city America.
New York, NY:
Bloomsbury.
18.
KennedyD. M.PiehlA. M.BragaA. A. (1996).
Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy.Law and Contemporary Problems,
59(1), 147–196.
MunizA. (2015). Police, power, and the production of racial boundaries.
New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
21.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities.
Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24928.
22.
National Network for Safe Communities. (2016). Group violence intervention: An implementation guide.
Washington, DC:
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
23.
NaginD. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty first century: A review of the evidence. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (pp. 199–263).
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
24.
NaginD. S.PogarskyG. (2001).
Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence,Criminology,
39(4), 865–892.
PagerD. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration.
Chicago, IL:
University Of Chicago Press.
27.
PapachristosA. V.MearesT. L.FaganJ. (2012).
Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
102(2), 397–440.
28.
RatcliffeJ. (2004).
Geocoding crime and a first estimate of a minimum acceptable hit rate.International Journal of Geographical Information Science,
18(1), 61–72.
29.
RomanC. G.LinkN. W.HyattJ. M.BhatiA.ForneyM. (2019).
Assessing the gang-level and community-level effects of the Philadelphia Focused Deterrence strategy. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
15, 499–527.
30.
RoweM.SogaardT. F. (2019). ‘Playing the man, not the ball’: Targeting organised criminals, intelligence and the problems with pulling levers. Policing and Society, 1–16. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10439463.2019.1603226
31.
SparrowM. K. (2015). Measuring performance in a modern police organization. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin (NCJ 248476).
Washington, D.C:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
32.
TitaG.RileyJ.RidgewayG.GrammichC.AbrahamseA.GreenwoodP. (2004). Reducing gun violence: Results from an intervention in East Los Angeles.
Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
33.
UggenC.StewartR. (2015).
Piling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision. Minessota Law Review,
99, 1871–1912.
34.
Von HirschA.BottomsA.BurneyE.WikstromP.-O. H. (1999). Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research,
Cambridge, England:
Hart Oxford.
35.
WeisburdD.BragaA. A. (Eds.). (2006). Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
36.
WrightJ. D. (2005).
Dangerous data: The use and abuse of gang databases.Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties,
2, 115–140.
