Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 113–139 | Cite as

Deterring Gang-Involved Gun Violence: Measuring the Impact of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire on Street Gang Behavior

  • Anthony A. Braga
  • David M. Hureau
  • Andrew V. Papachristos
Original Paper



The relatively weak quasi-experimental evaluation design of the original Boston Operation Ceasefire left some uncertainty about the size of the program’s effect on Boston gang violence in the 1990s and did not provide any direct evidence that Boston gangs subjected to the Ceasefire intervention actually changed their offending behaviors. Given the policy influence of the Boston Ceasefire experience, a closer examination of the intervention’s direct effects on street gang violence is needed.


A more rigorous quasi-experimental evaluation of a reconstituted Boston Ceasefire program used propensity score matching techniques to develop matched treatment gangs and comparison gangs. Growth-curve regression models were then used to estimate the impact of Ceasefire on gun violence trends for the treatment gangs relative to comparisons gangs.


This quasi-experimental evaluation revealed that total shootings involving Boston gangs subjected to the Operation Ceasefire treatment were reduced by a statistically-significant 31 % when compared to total shootings involving matched comparison Boston gangs. Supplementary analyses found that the timing of gun violence reductions for treatment gangs followed the application of the Ceasefire treatment.


This evaluation provides some much needed evidence on street gang behavioral change that was lacking in the original Ceasefire evaluation. A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that jurisdictions should adopt focused deterrence strategies to control street gang violence problems.


Gang violence Guns Deterrence Problem-oriented policing 


  1. Apel RJ, Nagin D (2011) General deterrence: a review of recent evidence. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds) Crime and public policy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 411–436Google Scholar
  2. Apel RJ, Sweeten G (2010) Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In: Piquero A, Weisburd DL (eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer, New York, pp 543–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin P, Grootendorst P, Anderson G (2007) A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26:734–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk R (2005) Knowing when to fold ‘em: an essay on evaluating the impact of Ceasefire, Compstat, and Exile. Criminol Public Policy 4:451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black D (1970) The production of crime rates. Am Sociol Rev 35:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blalock H (1979) Social statistics, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumstein A (1995) Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. J Crim Law Criminol 86:10–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (eds) (1978) Deterrence and incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Braga AA (2012) Getting deterrence right? Evaluation evidence and complementary crime control mechanisms. Criminol Public Policy 11:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2012) The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. J Res Crime Delinq 49:323–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braga AA, Winship C (2006) Partnership, accountability, and innovation: clarifying Boston’s experience with pulling levers. In: Weisburd DL, Braga AA (eds) Police innovation: contrasting perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 171–190Google Scholar
  12. Braga AA, Kennedy DM, Waring E, Piehl AM (2001) Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: an evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. J Res Crime Delinq 38:195–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braga AA, Hureau DM, Winship C (2008a) Losing faith? Police, black churches, and the resurgence of youth violence in Boston. Ohio State J Crim Law 6:141–172Google Scholar
  14. Braga AA, Pierce G, McDevitt J, Bond BJ, Cronin S (2008b) The strategic prevention of gun violence among gang-involved offenders. Justice Q 25:132–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butterfield F (1996) In Boston, nothing is something. The New York Times, November 21: A20Google Scholar
  16. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S (2005) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching (discussion paper 1588). Institute for the Study of Labor, BonnGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell DT, Boruch RF (1975) Making the case for randomized assignment to treatment by considering the alternatives. In: Bennett C, Lumsdaine A (eds) Evaluation and experiments: some critical issues in assessing social programs. Academic Press, New York, pp 195–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen J, Ludwig J (2003) Policing crime guns. In: Ludwig J, Cook PJ (eds) Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 217–239Google Scholar
  19. Cook PJ (1980) Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. In: Morris N, Tonry M (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 211–268Google Scholar
  20. Cook P, Laub J (2002) After the epidemic: recent trends in youth violence in the United States. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 29. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–38Google Scholar
  21. Cook PJ, Ludwig J (2006) Aiming for evidence-based gun policy. J Policy Anal Manage 48:691–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corsaro N, McGarrell EF (2009) Testing a promising homicide reduction strategy: reassessing the impact of the Indianapolis “pulling levers” intervention. J Exp Criminol 5:63–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corsaro N, Hunt ED, Hipple NK, McGarrell EF (2012) The impact of drug market pulling levers policing on neighborhood violence: an evaluation of the High Point drug market intervention. Criminol Public Policy 11:167–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dalton E (2002) Targeted crime reduction efforts in ten communities: lessons for the project safe neighborhoods initiative. US Attorney’s Bull 50:16–25Google Scholar
  25. Decker S (1996) Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Q 13:243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Decker S, Katz C, Webb V (2008) Understanding the black box of gang organization: implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime Delinq 54:153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DiPrete T, Gangl M (2004) Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments. Sociol Methodol 34:271–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Durlauf S, Nagin D (2011) Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminol Public Policy 10:13–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellement JR (2007) 25 alleged Boston gang members charged with gun, drug offenses. The Boston Globe, May 24, p A1Google Scholar
  31. Engel RS, Skubak Tillyer M, Corsaro N (2011) Reducing gang violence using focused deterrence: evaluating the cincinnati initiative to reduce violence (CIRV). Justice Q. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.619559
  32. Fagan J (2002) Policing guns and youth violence. Future Child 12:133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Farrington D, Gottfredson D, Sherman L, Welsh B (2002) The Maryland scientific methods scale. In: Sherman L, Farrington D, Welsh B, MacKenzie D (eds) Evidence-based crime prevention. Routledge, London, pp 13–21Google Scholar
  34. Gelman A (2005) Analysis of variance: why it is more important than ever. Ann Stat 33:1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gibbs JP (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd P (1997) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Rev Econ Stud 64:605–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heckman J, LaLonde R, Smith J (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1865–2097Google Scholar
  38. Horney J, Marshall IH (1992) Risk perceptions among serious offenders: the role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30:575–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hughes L, Short J (2005) Disputes involving gang members: micro-social contexts. Criminology 43:43–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Imbens GW (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 86:4–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Imbens GW, Wooldredge J (2009) Some recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit 47:5–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kennedy DM (1997) Pulling levers: chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev 31:449–484Google Scholar
  43. Kennedy DM (2011) Don’t shoot. Bloomsbury, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Kennedy DM, Piehl AM, Braga AA (1996) Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law Contemp Probl 59:147–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kennedy DM, Braga AA, Piehl AM (1997) The (un)known universe: mapping gangs and gang violence in Boston. In: Weisburd D, McEwen JT (eds) Crime mapping and crime prevention. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, pp 219–262Google Scholar
  46. Klein M (1993) Attempting gang control by suppression: the misuse of deterrence principles. Stud Crime Crime Prev 2:88–111Google Scholar
  47. Klofas J, Hipple NK (2006) Crime incident reviews. Project safe neighborhoods: strategic interventions case study 3. US Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Leuven E, Sianesi B (2003) PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Available online:
  49. Levitt S, Venkatesh S (2000) An economic analysis of a drug-selling gang’s finances. Q J Econ 115:755–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lipsey M, Wilson DB (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Applied social research methods series, vol 49. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  51. Long JS, Freese J (2006) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. StataCorp, LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  52. Loughran T, Paternoster R, Piquero A, Pogarsky G (2011a) On ambiguity in perceptions of risk: implications for criminal decision making and deterrence. Criminology 49:1029–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Loughran T, Pogarsky G, Piquero A, Paternoster R (2011b) Re-examining the functional form of the certainty effect in deterrence theory. Justice Q 29(5):712–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ludwig J (2005) Better gun enforcement, less crime. Criminol Public Policy 4:677–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McGarrell EF, Chermak S, Weiss A, Wilson J (2001) Reducing firearms violence through directed police patrol. Criminol Public Policy 1:119–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McGarrell EF, Chermak S, Wilson J, Corsaro N (2006) Reducing homicide through a ‘lever-pulling’ strategy. Justice Q 23:214–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morenoff JD, Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (2001) Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology 39:517–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morgan SL, Winship C (2007) Counterfactuals and causal inference: methods and principals for social research. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nagin D (1998) Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 23. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  60. Papachristos A (2009) Murder by structure: dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. Am J Soc 115:74–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Papachristos A, Kirk D (2006) Neighborhood effects and street gang behavior. In: Short J (ed) Studying youth gangs. Alta Mira, Landham, pp 63–84Google Scholar
  62. Papachristos A, Meares T, Fagan J (2007) Attention felons: evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago. J Emp Legal Stud 4:223–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Piehl AM, Cooper SJ, Braga AA, Kennedy DM (2003) Testing for structural breaks in the evaluation of programs. Rev Econ Stat 85:550–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosenbaum P (2002) Observational studies, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39:33–38Google Scholar
  68. Rosenfeld R, Bray TM, Egley A (1999) Facilitating violence: a comparison of gang-motivated, gang-affiliated, and nongang youth homicides. J Quant Criminol 15:495–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosenfeld R, Fornango R, Baumer E (2005) Did Ceasefire, Compstat, and Exile reduce homicide? Criminol Public Policy 4:419–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rossi PH, Lipsey M, Freeman H (2006) Evaluation: a systematic approach, 7th edn. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  71. Rubin DB (1990) Formal modes of statistical inferences for causal effects. J Stat Plan Inference 25:279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sampson RJ, Wilson WJ (1995) Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In: Hagan J, Peterson R (eds) Crime and inequality. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 37–56Google Scholar
  73. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schneider VW, Wiersema B (1990) Limits and use of uniform crime reports. In: MacKenzie DL, Baunach PJ, Roberg RR (eds) Measuring crime. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 21–48Google Scholar
  75. Seabrook J (2009) Don’t shoot: a radical approach to the problem of gang violence. The New Yorker, June 22, pp 32–39Google Scholar
  76. Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  77. Sherman LW, Rogan D (1995) Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: ‘hot spots’ patrol in Kansas City. Justice Q 12:755–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sherman LW, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie DL, Eck JE, Reuter P, Bushway S (1997) Preventing crime: what works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  79. Singer JD, Willet JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Smith C (2012) The influence of gentrification on gang homicides in Chicago neighborhoods, 1994 to 2005. Crime Delinq. doi:10.1177/0011128712446052
  81. Smith J, Todd P (2005) Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? J Econom 125:303–353Google Scholar
  82. Tita G, Greenbaum R (2009) Crime, neighborhoods, and units of analysis: putting space in its place. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma G (eds) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New York, pp 145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tita G, Radil S (2011) Spatializing the social networks of gangs to explore patterns of violence. J Quant Criminol 27:521–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tita G, Riley J, Ridgeway G, Grammich C, Abrahamse A, Greenwood P (2004) Reducing gun violence: results from an intervention in East Los Angeles. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  85. Travis J (1998) Crime, justice, and public policy. Plenary presentation to the American Society of Criminology, (, November 1, Washington, DC
  86. Weisburd D, Lum C, Petrosino A (2001) Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals 578:50–70Google Scholar
  87. Wellford CF, Pepper JV, Petrie CV (eds) (2005) Firearms and violence: a critical review. Committee to improve research information and data on firearms. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  88. Welsh BC, Peel ME, Farrington DP, Elffers H, Braga AA (2011) Research design influence on study outcomes in crime and justice: a partial replication with public area surveillance. J Exp Criminol 7:183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilkinson L, Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and expectations. Am Psychol 54:594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Witkin G (1997) Sixteen silver bullets: smart ideas to fix the world. US News and World Report, December 29, p 67Google Scholar
  91. Wright B, Caspi A, Moffitt T, Paternoster R (2004) Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. J Res Crime Delinq 41:180–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zimring F (1968) Is gun control likely to reduce violent killings? Univ Chic Law Rev 35:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zimring F (1972) The medium is the message: Firearm caliber as a determinant of death from assault. J Legal Stud 1:97–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zimring F, Hawkins G (1973) Deterrence: the legal threat in crime control. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony A. Braga
    • 1
    • 2
  • David M. Hureau
    • 2
  • Andrew V. Papachristos
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  2. 2.John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations