Reducing Serious Violent Crime: Lessons from PSN in the U.S. Edmund F. McGarrell Director and Professor School of Criminal Justice

Travel Rule #1 – Carry on the clothes you need

Why Share Lessons Between US & SA? Democratic governments Regional & global economic powers Committed to rule of law But High levels of violent crime Historic patterns racial conflict & injustice that complicate policing & justice system processes

The Promise Within U.S., evidence has accumulated over the last 15 years that can significantly reduce the most serious gun violence

Reducing Homicide Risk (Indianapolis) Note: Each trend is population specific for each graph presented above

Plan Briefly review this research evidence Present evidence from Project Safe Neighborhoods Discuss both the process (how) and the substance (why) of these violence reduction interventions Consider implementation issues - how to make it happen

Evidence-Based Strategies for Reducing Gun Crime Circa 1994

Promising Practices for Reducing Gun Crime, Circa 1999 Directed Police Patrol Project ExileStrategic Problem Solving – Boston Ceasefire Model Kansas CityRichmond Boston Indianapolis PittsburghLos Angeles

Key Ingredients Use of analysis to understand & guide interventions Focused on specific problems (gun violence, high risk people, places, contexts) Focused deterrence –Focus on high risk individuals, groups, contexts –Risk communication strategy Steps to increase legitimacy, perceptions of fairness

National Academy of Sciences “There is strong research evidence that the more focused and specific the strategies of the police, the more they are tailored to the problems they seek to address, the more effective the police will be in controlling crime and disorder.” National Academy of Sciences, Fairness & Effectiveness in Policing (2004: p. 5)

Project Safe Neighborhoods National program to reduce gun crime ( ) Built on these promising practices National program coordinated locally through U.S. Attorneys Offices (94 cover the U.S.)

PSN – Federal Program Adapted to Local Context Federal government will provide resources to local initiatives with following conditions: Must be focused on violent crime & homicide Must include a research & analysis component Must include partnerships beyond police & prosecutors

PSN Builds Upon Compstat Directed Patrol Focused Gun Crime Project Exile (Richmond) Boston Gun Project (Ceasefire) Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI)

Foundations PSN Some element of research & crime analysis – adapt national program to local context Focus resources on people, places, contexts driving crime Attempt to increase credibility deterrence Enforcement coupled with social support (prevention & intervention)

National Academy of Sciences “There is strong research evidence that the more focused and specific the strategies of the police, the more they are tailored to the problems they seek to address, the more effective the police will be in controlling crime and disorder.” National Academy of Sciences, Fairness & Effectiveness in Policing (2004: p. 5)

PSN Key components: Research-based problem solving Focused deterrence Communication of deterrence message Social support for at-risk individuals

PSN Evaluation Challenges National, “full coverage,” program Uneven implementation Larger cities offer treatment and comparison sites but may have both citywide and targeted program components Smaller and medium cities – may be no logical comparison site Lack of consistent measures of gun crime across jurisdictions Variation in data availability (e.g., NIBRS vs. non-NIBRS)

PSN Impact – Stage One Series of site specific case studies Ten tests of impact on gun crime Reductions in gun crime in all ten sites (impact in two of these studies was equivocal)

Summary of Case Studies Project Exile Montgomery Mobile Strategic Problem Solving Lowell Omaha Greensboro Winston-Salem Chicago (Papachristos et al.) Stockton (Braga) St. Louis (significant but also drop in comparison sites) Raleigh (reduction but not significant)

Summary of Case Studies Sites chosen because of evidence that PSN was implemented in rigorous fashion Thus, not generalizable but suggest that PSN may have an impact where effectively implemented

PSN Impact – Stage Two Assess impact of PSN in all U.S. cities with populations of 100,000+ Trend in violent crime compared to Compare PSN target cities with non-target cities Compare cities by level of PSN implementation dosage (range 3-9)

Measuring Implementation Implementation Dosage –Research integration –Extent & quality partnerships –Federal prosecution for gun crime

Overall Finding PSN target cities in high implementation districts experienced significant declines in violent crime in comparison to cities in low implementation districts and non-target cities

Violent Crime Trends in PSN Target Cities by Level Federal Prosecution High Prosecution

Violent Crime Trends in Non-PSN Sites by Level Federal Prosecution

PSN Impact Level of PSN Dosage PSN Target Cities Non-target Cities Low -5.3%+7.8% Medium -3.1%<-1.0% High -13.1%-4.9% -8.89%-0.25%

PSN Impact Level of PSN Dosage PSN Target Cities Non-target Cities Low -5.3%+7.8% Medium -3.1%<-1.0% High -13.1%-4.9% Total -8.89%-0.25%

HGLM Models Being a target city and having a higher level of dosage was significantly related to a reduction in violent crime controlling for: Concentrated disadvantage Population density Police resources Correctional population Journal of Quantitative Criminology (2010) 26:

Next Steps Trend in firearm homicide (initial analysis suggests similar impact) Trend in firearms crime Extend beyond 2006

Promising Practices Some combination of focused deterrence, communication, data-driven problem solving, & linkage to opportunities, appears promising in reducing gun crime

15 Years of Suggestive Evidence on Reducing Gun Crime Directed Police Patrol Project ExileStrategic Problem Solving Equivocal Evidence Kansas CityRichmond Boston St. Louis Indianapolis MontgomeryIndianapolis Durham Pittsburgh Mobile Los Angeles Stockton Lowell Omaha Greensboro Winston-Salem Mixed ModelChicago PSN National Assessment (all cities over 100,000 population) Pre-PSN

Key Elements Process (how it works) Substance (why it works)

Process – Intelligence Led Problem Solving Strategic & tactical understanding of the gun crime problem in specific jurisdictions Highly focused Evidence-based Adaptive & self-correcting

Intelligence-led Problem Solving Problem Analysis StrategyImplementation Assessment & Feedback

Strategic Intelligence Patterns (rates, trends, historic hot spots – who, what, where, when, why) Is there a network structure (groups, gangs)? Is it connected to drug markets? How “hot” are the hot spots?

Tactical Intelligence Who is most at-risk now? Who are they connected to? What are the “hottest” hot spots? Is it connected to open & overt drug markets?

Problem Analysis - Specific Tactics COMPSTAT-style crime analysis Systematic incident reviews - Homicide review team

Specific Strategies Enforcement Chronic violent offender lists Call-in meetings Directed police patrol gun hot spots Smart prosecution Probation/parole home visits Focused warrant service Intervention/Prevention Direct linkage to services for at-risk populations Mentoring Street-level intervention Moral voice of community Community revitalization

Adaptive & Self-Correcting Accountability Feedback mechanism

Substance – Effective & Fair Focused deterrence Selective incapacitation Credible deterrence message communicated to at- risk individuals & groups Legitimate; Perceived as fair Procedural & restorative justice Builds informal social control; Neighborhood collective efficacy

Legitimacy & Fairness Legitimate; Perceived as Fair Prosecution focused on most violent Call-in meetings offer warning & options (services) Community included

Informal Social Control; Neighborhood Collective Efficacy Gain control public space (“breathing space”) Include citizens (have a “say”) Willing to participate because fair Re-assert control

Summary -Highly Focused, Evidence- Based Strategies (people & places) “Pulling levers” Aggressive prosecution of most violent & chronic Deterrence message communicated to at- risk populations Combined with offer social support Community voice

Risk-Based Strategies Incapacitation Focused Deterrence Limit Opportunity, General Deterrence Compliance through Belief, Stakes in Conformity High Risk Low Risk

Balanced Strategies Focused and Fair Substance/TheoryProcess Highly FocusedMulti-agency, Multi-sector Focused Deterrence backed up by incapacitation Data-driven; intelligence- led; research partner Risk CommunicationOffender notification meetings and public education campaign Social Support/Procedural Justice/Restorative Community collaboration

Characteristics of Effective Implementation Partnerships (knowledge, resources, credibility) Local, state, federal law enforcement Federal – local prosecution Probation, parole, DOC Social services Community Research partner/analysts

Characteristics of Effective Implementation – Who is Needed? Executive level commitment & involvement Line & middle management commitment & involvement Project leader/manager(s) Research partner Real community partners

Characteristics of Effective Implementation – What is Needed? Regular meetings –Executive/strategic –Operational/tactical Accountability mechanisms –Are we doing what we said we’d do? –Are we having the intended impact? Sustainability (resources; human capital)

Limitations Limited availability of ‘gun-related offense’ data Models assume an ‘on-off’ PSN treatment/dosage effect that started in 2002 and was stable through 2006 Examination assumes equal treatment WITHIN PSN target cities Different ‘starting points’ between PSN target and non- target cities is important (treatment calibrated with need) Some threat of regression to mean (though seems less of a threat when compare PSN target sites by level prosecution)

Additional Research Finding Integration of research was positively associated with other implementation components

Bivariate Correlations Research Integration Collaborative Implementation Enhanced Prosecution Table 10.Correlations Matrix for Policy Adoption Elements Source: Zimmermann, 2006

Lingering Research Questions Is the impact short-term or sustained? –Theoretical Issue –Programmatic Issue What is the impact on individual offenders in contrast to neighborhood/community effects?

Lingering Research Questions Which program components are producing the impact? Can we increase the scientific rigor of the tests of these “promising practices?”

15 Years of Evidence - Reducing Gun Crime Directed Police Patrol Project ExileStrategic Problem Solving Equivocal Evidence Kansas CityRichmond Boston St. Louis Indianapolis MontgomeryIndianapolis Durham Pittsburgh Mobile Los Angeles Stockton Lowell Drug Market Intervention* OmahaHigh Point Greensboro Rockford Winston-SalemNashville Chicago(plus reports # other jurisdictions) Mixed Model *drug crime PSN National Assessment violence ? (all cities over 100,000 population) Pre-PSN

Caution - Although evidence shows it can work, it does not always do so Lack commitment and leadership Misdiagnosis Not focused Lack intensity or dosage Not sustained –Declare victory –Turnover

Lessons Learned – Cascading Implementation (vs. National Implementation) Assessing Capacity for Implementation Leadership & Commitment Prior Experience with Key Components Assess & Learn from Early Adopters while Building Capacity in other Locations

Summary Strategic Components: Focus on people, networks, places, contexts driving violence Credible & focused deterrence Communication Credible link to social support

Summary Key elements: Leadership of U.S. Attorney and Chiefs of Police Integration of research into problem solving Highly focused interventions Partnerships among local, state, federal law enforcement and with community

Directed Police PatrolProject ExileStrategic Problem Solving/Pulling LeversEquivocal Evidence Kansas City (Sherman and Rogan, 1995) Richmond (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer, 2005) Boston (Kennedy, 1997; Braga, Kennedy, Waring and Piehl, 2001; Piehl, Cooper, Braga, and Kennedy, 2003) St. Louis (Decker, Huebner, Watkins, Green, Bynum, and McGarrell, 2007) Indianapolis (McGarrell, Chermak, Weiss and Wilson, 2001; McGarrell, Chermak, and Weiss, 2002) Montgomery (McGarrell, Hipple, Corsaro, Pappanastos, and Stevens, 2007) Indianapolis (McGarrell and Chermak, 2003; McGarrell, Chermak, Wilson, and Corsaro, 2006; Corsaro and McGarrell, 2009) Durham (Hipple, Frabutt, Corsaro, McGarrell, and Gathings, 2007) Pittsburgh (Cohen and Ludwig, 2003) Mobile (Hipple, O’Shea and McGarrell, 2007) Los Angeles (Tita, Riley, Ridgeway, Grammich, Abrahamse, and Greenwood, 2003) Stockton (Braga, 2008) Lowell (McDevitt, Braga, Cronin, McGarrell, and Bynum, 2007) Omaha (Hipple, Perez, McGarrell, Corsaro, Robinson, and Culver, 2007) Greensboro (Hipple, Frabutt, Corsaro, McGarrell, and Gathings, 2007) Winston-Salem (Hipple, Frabutt, Corsaro, McGarrell, and Gathings, 2007) Chicago (Papachristos, Meares, and Fagan, 2007) References

Recent Research Findings McGarrell, E., Hipple, N., Corsaro, N., Bynum, T., Perez, H., Zimmermann, C. & Garmo, M. (2009). Project Safe Neighborhoods – A National Program to Reduce Gun Crime: Final Project Report. Submitted to the National Institute of Justice. McGarrell, E., Corsaro, N., Hipple, N. & Bynum, T. (2010) “Project Safe Neighborhoods and Violent Crime Trends in U.S. Cities: Assessing Violent Crime Impact.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26,2: Corsaro, N. & McGarrell, E. (2009) “Testing a Promising Homicide Reduction Strategy:Re-Assessing the Impact of the Indianapolis ‘Pulling Levers’ Intervention.”Journal of Experimental Criminology 5: Corsaro, N. & McGarrell, E. (2010) “Reducing Homicide Risk in Indianapolis between 1997 and 2000.” Journal of Urban Health 87,5:

Additional Resources – PSN Case Studies Bynum, T. et al Chronic Violent Offender Strategies: A Project Safe Neighborhoods Strategic Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Decker, S. et al Strategic Problem Solving Responses to Gang Crime and Gang Problems: A Project Safe Neighborhoods Strategic Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Decker, S. et al Gun Prosecution Case Screening: A Project Safe Neighborhoods Strategic Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Decker, S. et al Project Safe Neighborhoods Case Study Report: Eastern District of Missouri. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Klofas, J., et al Crime Incident Reviews: A Project Safe Neighborhoods Strategic Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. McDevitt, J. et al. 2006, Offender Notification Meetings: A Project Safe Neighborhoods Strategic Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. McDevitt, J Project Safe Neighborhoods Case Study Report: Lowell, District of Massachusetts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. McGarrell, E. et al., Project Safe Neighborhoods Case Study Report: Middle District of Alabama. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Additional Resources Kennedy D Deterrence and crime prevention: Reconsidering the prospect of sanction. New York, NY: Routledge. Klofas, J., N.K. Hipple, and E. McGarrell The New Criminal Justice. New York: Routledge.

Additional Resources - DMI “Reclaiming the Streets, Healing the Community” (Video - High Point Experience) Available for viewing at Corsaro, N., R.K. Brunson, and E.F. McGarrell. Forthcoming.“Evaluating a Policing Strategy Intended to Disrupt an Illicit Street-Level Drug Market.” Evaluation Review (Nashville) Corsaro, N., R. Brunson, and E.F. McGarrell. Forthcoming. “Problem-Oriented Policing and Open-Air Drug Markets: Examining the Pulling Levers Deterrence Strategy in Rockford, Illinois.”Crime and Delinquency. Hipple, N.K., and E. F. McGarrell Drug market intervention implementation guide and lessons learned. Paper prepared for Bureau of Justice Assistance. Kennedy, D. M., and S.L. Wong The High Point Drug Market Intervention Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Legitimacy & Fairness Legitimate; Perceived as Fair Prosecution focused on most violent Call-in meetings offer warning & options (services) Community included