Program Profile: High Point Drug Market Intervention

A problem-oriented policing program that aims to eliminate overt drug markets and the problems associated with them through a deterrence-based, pulling-levers framework. The program is rated Effective. The Intervention had a statistically significant impact on reducing violent incidents in the target areas.

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

Program Goals

The High Point Drug Market Intervention (DMI) is a series of place-based pulling lever interventions that were implemented in High-Point, N.C. Through identifying problem areas and key persistent persons who commit crimes within these areas, the goal of the High Point DMI was to shut down open-air drug markets in targeted neighborhoods, while also reducing the violence associated with these drug markets.

Program Theory

The deterrence theory served as the foundation for the High Point DMI. Deterrence theory holds that humans are rational beings who consider the consequences of their actions and are deterred from engaging in continual patterns of offending as a result of the certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment. In pulling levers initiatives, police officers target high-risk individuals, using specific sanctions as leverage to obtain compliance and reduce the risk of future offending. It is believed that these deterrence-based policing approaches, coupled with proactive policing, have the potential to reduce violence and other disruptive behaviors in an urban environment (Corsaro, Hunt, Hipple and McGarrell 2012).

Program Components

In an effort to eliminate drug markets and reduce the violence associated with overt drug markets, the High Point DMI included three phases: identification phase, notification phase, and resource delivery. During the identification phase, high-density crime areas that had a strong prevalence of drugs were identified through mapping drug arrests, calls for service, reviewing serious crimes in hot spots to determine a drug connection, and finally analyzing information from various criminal justice agencies (Kennedy and Wong 2012). This allowed the Police Department to identify the West End, Daniel Brooks, Southside, and East Central neighborhoods. Once these areas were identified, the police worked with the community, narcotic investigators, probation officers, and parole officers to add additional surveillance in the areas and began carefully identifying dealers in these neighborhoods. Further, the police reviewed every report associated with potential dealers and their known associates. Once these potential individuals were identified, the Police Department checked their current activities and generated an initial list. From this list, police made cases against each individual by using undercover officers or confidential informants who made purchases from these individuals that were recorded by digital audio and video surveillance.

After areas and key persons were identified the intervention moved into the second phase, the notification phase. During the notification phase, collaboration between agencies and community groups was central to changing the communities’ perceptions and norms. In the case of those who commit nonviolent and nonfelony offenses, identified individuals were invited to a ‘call in’ community notification session where key police and prosecution officials notified such persons of the sanctions that were available to criminal justice personnel. Additionally, community members spoke to the them regarding the need for community change and desistance from future offending.

The final stage, resource delivery, consisted of law enforcement speaking with the individuals and having them complete a needs assessment. The law enforcement officers would inform them that if they continued dealing they would be arrested immediately; however, if they chose to stop moving forward no punitive action would be taken against them. This let them know the consequences and know that their chances of being arrested were far greater than they had previously thought. The individuals in question completed a needs assessment so they could be matched with services in the community for extensive follow-up to assist them in their efforts to stop dealing. They received services such as education, housing, employment, food and clothing, drug and alcohol treatment, and transportation through agencies and volunteer groups in the community. Finally, the resource delivery phase aided in the police community relationship and increased the perception of procedural justice.

Study 1

To analyze the impact of the various place-based pulling levers interventions that were implemented in High Point, N.C., Corsaro and colleagues (2012) used a quasi-experimental design, with a treatment group consisting of 1,705 census blocks that were the target of the intervention. The comparison group consisted of 218 census blocks in other areas of High Point that were not the focal point of the intervention. Propensity score matching was used to ensure that the comparison areas were comparable to the treatment blocks.

Official incident data from the High Point Police Department between 1998 and 2008 was used to determine the level of crime in the various geographical contexts. This timeframe was chosen to measure crime rates preintervention and postintervention. The intervention was implemented in the various neighborhoods in staggering years: in the West End during 2004, in Daniel Brooks during 2005, in Southside during 2006, and in East Central during 2007. Census blocks were chosen as the unit of analysis because of research suggesting that drug markets often extend across several streets at a time. Moreover, given that the intervention was directed at specific areas within the city (high-crime areas), it was possible to identify those boundaries.

Overall, through a difference-in-difference panel regression design, the evaluation examined whether the change in violence in the target areas was significantly different than the change in the comparison areas between preintervention and postintervention.

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:

Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing strategies focus on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated. Through hot spots policing strategies, law enforcement agencies can focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. This practice is rated Effective for reducing overall crime and rated Promising for reducing violent, property, public order, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses

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

Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement

This practice includes targeted-policing approaches for reducing drug and drug-related offenses. This practice is rated Promising in reducing reported, drug-related calls for services and offenses against persons. This practice is rated No Effects in reducing reported property offenses, public order calls for service, and total offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

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