Practice Profile: 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.

Practice Goals

Focused deterrence strategies (also referred to as “pulling levers" policing) are 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 are vulnerable to sanctions and punishment. These individuals are directly confronted and informed that continued criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Targeted persons are also told how the criminal justice system (such as the police and prosecutors) will respond to continued criminal behavior; mainly that all potential sanctions, or levers, will be applied. The deterrence-based message is reinforced through crackdowns on known persons, or groups (such as gang members), who continue to commit crimes despite the warning. In addition to deterring violent behavior, the strategies also reward compliance and nonviolent behavior among targeted persons by providing positive incentives, such as access to social services and job opportunities.

Target Population

Focused deterrence strategies generally target a specific type or group, such as youth gang members or those who repeatedly commit violent offenses. Many focused deterrence interventions have primarily targeted incidents of homicide and serious violence (criminal activities that usually involve people who chronically commit offenses) in urban settings (Kennedy 2006). Some strategies have focused on eliminating public forms of drug dealing (such as street markets and crack houses). These strategies are known as drug market interventions and they work by warning dealers, buyers, and their families that enforcement is imminent.

Practice Theory

Deterrence theory posits that crime can be prevented if individuals believe the costs of committing a crime outweigh the benefits (Zimring and Hawkins 1973). Three key concepts play an important role in deterrence theory: the certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment. The deterrent effects of crime prevention programs and policies are a function of the perceptions of the certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment (Nagin 1998). Focused deterrence strategies combine elements of classic deterrence with additional elements thought to prevent crime. First, focused deterrence strategies typically begin with an intense focus on particular types of crime and the people most responsible for carrying out those crimes. The most frequent target of focused deterrence strategies is gun violence. Second, focused deterrence strategies are often referred to as “pulling levers” strategies because they seek to apply every lever available, whether formal or informal, in deterring those who may look to commit a crime. Third, unlike conventional deterrence strategies which may alter objective sanction risks, focused deterrence strategies seek to directly influence perceived sanction risks by communicating directly with them about the consequences of their actions. An important part of altering perceived risks is administering sanctions swiftly so these individuals can observe the immediate consequences of their actions. Finally, since many focused deterrence strategies target groups (like street gangs) rather than individuals, another key element is the idea of collective responsibility: holding all members of the group responsible for the actions of any individual member. Together, these program elements are intended to influence the perceived risk of sanctions, thereby altering their decisions about whether or not to carry out an offense.

Practice Components

The focused deterrence framework was developed in Boston during the 1990s. Operation Ceasefire (Boston) was a problem-oriented policing project to stop serious gang violence by directly communicating to gang members that violence would no longer be tolerated, and backing up that message by “pulling every lever” legally available when violence occurred. At the same time, youth workers, probation and parole officers, and other community-based organizations offered services and resources to gang members (Kennedy 1997).

At a general level, the approach of focused deterrence strategies includes the following:

1. Selecting a particular crime problem (such as youth homicide);
2. Convening an interagency working group that may include law enforcement, social service, and community-based practitioners;
3. Developing a response to offenders or groups of offenders that uses a variety of sanctions (“pulling levers”) to stop continued violent behavior;
4. Focusing social services and community resources on target offenders to match the prevention efforts by law enforcement; and
5. Directly and continually communicating with offenders to make them understand why they are receiving special attention (Kennedy 2006).

There are several similarities and overlapping features between focused deterrence strategies and other policing models, such as community-oriented, problem-oriented, and hot spots policing. Community-oriented policing draws on a variety of approaches to address crime and disorder issues. Often partnerships are formed between law enforcement and organizations outside of policing, especially community-based groups. Hot spots policing strategies rely mostly on traditional law enforcement approaches. However, police powers and resources are directed toward dealing with a specific crime-ridden area or group of people who are likely to commit a crime. Problem-oriented policing combines the resource targeting strategies of hot spots policing with the variety of approaches of community-oriented policing (National Research Council 2004; pg. 249). Focused deterrence strategies rely primarily on a problem-oriented policing approach, but also use elements of community-oriented policing (for example, forming partnerships between the police and community-based organizations through the creation of an interagency work group).

This practice has been updated to reflect findings from a more recent meta-analysis. In 2013, the practice was rated Promising for reducing crime based on a review of a meta-analysis by Braga and Weisburd (2012). In 2019, an updated version of the original meta-analysis (Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan 2018) was reviewed. Based on information from the updated meta-analysis, the practice is still rated Promising for reducing crime.

Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan (2018) conducted subgroup analyses on the effect of focused deterrence strategies by program type (i.e., gang/group interventions, programs targeting high-risk individuals, and drug market interventions), and on crime diffusion and displacement. Each of the three program types was associated with a statistically significant reduction in crime. Gang/group intervention programs had the largest effect size (d =.657), followed by smaller effect sizes for programs targeting high-risk individuals (d =.204) and drug market intervention (DMI) programs (d =.091).

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

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

Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd. 2012b. “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):323–58.

Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd. 2012. Crime Prevention Research Review No. 6: Pulling Levers Focused Deterrence Strategies to Prevent Crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of community Oriented Policing Services.

Durlauf, Steve N., and Daniel S. Nagin. 2011. “Imprisonment and Crime: Can Both Be Reduced?” Criminology & Public Policy 10(1):13–54.

Kennedy, David. 1997. “Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, High-Crime Settings, and a Theory of Prevention.” Valparaiso University Law Review 31:449–84.

Kennedy, David. 2006. “Advocate Old Wine in New Bottles: Policing and the Lessons of Pulling Levers.” In D. Weisburd and A. Braga (eds.). Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McGarrell, Edmund F., Steven Chermak, Jeremy M. Wilson, and Nicholas Corsaro. 2006. “Reducing Homicide Through a ‘Lever-Pulling’ Strategy.” Justice Quarterly 23(2):214–31.

Nagin, Daniel S. 1998. “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century.” M. Tonry (ed.). Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Volume 23. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

National Research Council. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy Practices. Wesley Skogan and Kathleen Frydl (eds.). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Weisburd, David, and John Eck. 2004. “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?” The Annals of the American Academy 593:42–65.

Zimring, Frank, and Gordon Hawkins. 1973. Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd. 2012a. “The Effects of ‘Pulling Levers’ Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 6.

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

Operation Peacekeeper (Stockton, Calif.)

Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE)

Indianapolis (Ind.) Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP)

Nashville (Tenn.) Drug Market Intervention

Operation Ceasefire: Hollenbeck Initiative

Operation Ceasefire (Boston, Mass.)

Project Safe Neighborhoods (Chicago, Ill.)

High Point Drug Market Intervention

Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment: Offender-Focused Policing

Group Violence Reduction Strategy (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Indianapolis (Indiana) Reentry Project

Kansas City (MO) No Violence Alliance

Group Violence Reduction Strategy (Chicago, Ill.)

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

Ceasefire (Oakland, Calif.)

Philadelphia (Pa.) Focused Deterrence Strategy

Project Safe Neighborhoods (Tampa, FL)

Rockford (Ill.) Area Violence Elimination Network (RAVEN)

Detroit (Mich.) Ceasefire

Geographically Based Focused Deterrence Intervention (Midwest)

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