Program Profile: Detroit (Mich.) Ceasefire

This is a focused deterrence police strategy that was designed to reduce gang- and group-related violence in Detroit, Mich. The program is rated Ineffective. There were no statistically significant differences found for weapons arrests or shooting victimizations for participants in two age groups (15–24 and 25–34). The program did show a statistically significant reduction in all arrests and violent arrests for individuals who attended the Detroit Ceasefire call-in meetings.

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

Program Goals

In 2013, in an effort to reduce gang- and group-related violence, the city of Detroit implemented the Ceasefire program. The Detroit Ceasefire program is modeled after Operation Ceasefire in Boston, Mass., a focused deterrence model that has been replicated in many other cities (Circo et al. 2020). Following the focused deterrence strategy (also known as “pulling levers”), Detroit Ceasefire uses a data-driven approach to address violent crime by focusing police and community resources on high-risk individuals involved in gun violence and those in their networks.

Target Population/Target Area

Detroit Ceasefire focuses on two precincts in East Detroit that are known for high levels of violent crime. The program targets individuals identified as being involved in gangs and street groups, both of which account for a disproportionate share of the serious violent crime in the city. Individuals are identified using gang data from the Detroit Police Department, which lists individuals who are known to belong to at least one gang. Most program participants are under parole or probation supervision.

Program Components/Key Personnel

Using street-level intelligence and crime analysis, the Detroit Ceasefire intervention identifies groups involved in serious gun-related violence. Once these high-risk individuals have been identified, police and community officials communicate a deterrent message to them through two different types of face-to-face meetings. First, participants are required to attend a “call-in” meeting as part of their probation or parole supervision. At this call-in meeting, a deterrent message is communicated to participants by law enforcement, community members, and service providers. There are, on average, three to six call-in meetings over the course of the year. Second, if needed, high-risk individuals may receive a more personalized deterrent message from a law enforcement officer in a one-on-one meeting.

Regardless of the approach taken, the overall theme of the deterrent message is consistent. In general, the messages communicate to targeted individuals who commit offenses that 1) violence is unacceptable, 2) law enforcement is aware of targeted individuals’ risk of violence and are closely monitoring their behavior, 3) law enforcement organizations are working together to remove those who commit violence from the community, and 4) future violence committed by targeted individuals or their associates will be met with increased sanctions (i.e., all possible levers will be pulled). Community representatives also communicate the pain and impact of violence, while service providers offer support to help individuals exit their criminal lifestyle. Services provided may include housing, vocational training, employment preparation, identification, transformation, and various treatment programs. Individuals who had previously been involved in the criminal justice system also assist in the outreach.

Program personnel involved in the implementation of the program include the Detroit Police Department; U.S. Attorney’s Office; Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office; Michigan Department of Corrections; Michigan State Police; and local, state, and federal partners. There are weekly meetings held among representatives from these groups that attempt to identify incidents involving gangs or violent groups that could be targets for the Ceasefire program.

Program Theory

Detroit Ceasefire is a focused deterrence strategy, which is based on deterrence theory. Deterrence theory posits that crimes can be prevented when the costs of committing the crime are perceived to outweigh the benefits (Braga et al. 2001). The Detroit Ceasefire intervention uses a pulling-levers approach, which attempts to prevent violence by making individuals who commit offenses aware of the severe consequences of continued involvement in violence; specifically, that law enforcement will pull all available levers to hold all individuals accountable. Thus, these messages are designed to increase perceptions of the certainty, severity, and swiftness of sanctions for criminal behavior (i.e., the main tenets of deterrence theory). Furthermore, by communicating this message to individuals in a respectful manner, Ceasefire also seeks to improve perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy among participants.

Study

Circo, and colleagues (2020) used a quasi-experimental, synthetic control approach to estimate the impact of Detroit Ceasefire on shooting victimization in certain neighborhoods of Detroit, Mich., above and beyond decreases in violence experienced in the rest of the city. A synthetic control approach was used to identify the causal influence of the intervention on a series of outcomes. Synthetic control designs compare changes in the outcome variables between treated and untreated groups. The study authors used a synthetic control method called “microsynth” to evaluate the impact of the Ceasefire intervention. They chose the “microsynth” method because it was designed for studies with many small observational units. In this study, the shooting data were aggregated to the census block level in the two areas of interest (e.g., fifth and ninth precincts).

The main outcome of interest was shooting victimizations. Data for the analysis were provided by the Detroit Police Department and included detailed information (e.g., time, date, location, circumstances, age, race, and sex) about all fatal and nonfatal shooting incidents from 2011 to 2019. All shooting incidents were linked to a census block and police precinct. In total, the data included 9,699 shooting incidents with 11,271 victims. The post-intervention period of the analysis began during the third quarter of 2015 and the study authors examined four endpoints for analysis purposes. Shooting victims were categorized into the following age groups: 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, and 55+. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the effects of the intervention on ages 15–24 and 25–34 at the 1-year follow-up period.

The Ceasefire treatment group included 160 census blocks in the fifth and ninth precincts. The comparison group used for the synthetic controls analysis was selected from all remaining census blocks in the city (n = 518). Following matching procedures using both time-varying and time-stable characteristics, a synthetic control group was formed with 160 units. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Circo and colleagues (2019) used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the impact of Detroit Ceasefire on individual-level outcomes, focusing on individuals who attended call-in meetings that occurred between August 29, 2013, and December 1, 2016. During this time period, 14 meetings occurred, during which a total of 254 individuals involved in gang and street-group violence attended. Meeting attendance ranged from 9 to 26 individuals.

The primary outcome of interest was time to arrest following call-in meetings (measured in number of days) for any arrest, any violent arrest, and any weapons arrest. The follow-up period was 3 years; thus, the minimum number of days that individuals were observed was 395 and the maximum number of days was 1,095.

To evaluate the impact of the Ceasefire call-in meetings on arrests, individuals who attended the meetings were compared with a matched comparison group. A comparison pool of individuals under correctional supervision who were not subject to the call-in meetings but were known as gang- or group-involved individuals, were selected. This resulted in a total of 335 individuals. In terms of demographics, all individuals in the treatment and comparison groups were Black males.

Next, the treatment and comparison groups were matched using inverse-probability weighting on the propensity scores. This was made possible by the criminal history data provided by the Michigan State Police. Post weighting, the average age of individuals in the comparison group was 24.9 years, and the average age of individuals in the treatment group was 25.4 years. On average, comparison group individuals had 0.50 violent arrests, 0.80 property arrests, 0.62 disorder arrests, 0.20 drug arrests, and 0.26 weapons arrests, while the treatment group had 0.60 violent arrests, 0.78 property arrests, 0.83 disorder arrests, 0.53 drug arrests, and 0.37 weapons arrests. This weighting procedure reduced the covariate imbalance between the treatment and comparison groups.

Finally, to evaluate time to rearrest following the call-in meetings, Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze the 3-year survival rates. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

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

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

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

Reducing Gun Violence

Reducing gun violence is a persistent public policy concern for communities, policymakers and leaders. To reduce gun violence, several strategies have been deployed including public health approaches (e.g., training and safe gun storage); gun buy-back programs; gun laws; and law enforcement strategies. The practice is rated Promising for reducing violent gun offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses

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