Testing a promising homicide reduction strategy: re-assessing the impact of the Indianapolis “pulling levers” intervention

Article

Abstract

Since the publication of analyses suggesting the significant impact on youth homicide of the Boston “pulling levers” intervention, a series of studies of similar strategies have indicated promise in reducing homicide and gun assaults. One of these studies was an assessment of a pulling levers strategy in Indianapolis, where trend analyses indicated a significant reduction in homicide following the intervention, while six other similar Midwestern cities did not experience a significant decline in homicide. We re-assess the results of the Indianapolis study by disaggregating the offenses into gang- and non-gang homicides. Given that the pulling levers program focused on influencing gangs and networks of chronic offenders, the impact of the intervention should be more apparent for gang homicides than for non-gang homicides. Alternatively, should the impact be similar for non-gang homicides, then it is more likely that the downward trend would be caused by unmeasured external forces. Coefficient-difference tests relying on estimates obtained from autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time–series models indicate that gang homicides declined significantly more than did non-gang homicides following the Indianapolis intervention. These findings suggest ‘something happened’ to gang homicides that did not happen to non-gang homicides, which adds further support that the pulling levers initiative was the driving force behind the overall reduction in homicide in Indianapolis.

Keywords

Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time–series analysis Pulling levers Quasi-experimental design Threats to validity 

References

  1. Berk, R. (2003). Regression analysis: a constructive critique. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Berk, R. (2005). Knowing when to fold ’em: an essay on evaluating the impact of ceasefire, compstat, and exile. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berk, R. A., & Sherman, L. W. (1988). Police responses to family violence incidents. American Statistical Association, 83, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumstein, A., & Rosenfeld, R. (1998). Explaining recent trends in US homicide rates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 1175–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (2000). The recent rise and fall of American violence. In A. Blumstein, & J. Wallman (Eds.), The crime drop in America. New York, NY: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Blumstein, A., Rivara, F. R., & Rosenfeld, R. (2000). The rise and decline of homicide - and why. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 505–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowker, L. H., Gross, H. S., & Klein, M. W. (1980). Female participation in delinquent gang activities. Adolescence, 15, 509–519.Google Scholar
  8. Braga, A. (2008). Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braga, A., Kennedy, D. M., Waring, E. J., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: an evaluation of Boston’s operation ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braga, A., Kennedy, D., & Tita, G. (2002). New approaches to the strategic prevention of gang and group-involved violence. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 271–286, 3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Braga, A. A., Pierce, G. L., McDevitt, J., Bond, B. J., & Cronin, S. (2008). The strategic prevention of gun violence among gang-involved offenders. Justice Quarterly, 25, 132–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bushway, S. D., & McDowall, D. (2006). Here we go again-can we learn anything from aggregate-level studies of policy interventions. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chermak, S. (2007). Reducing violent crime and firearms violence: the Indianapolis lever-pulling experiment. Final Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  14. Chermak, S. M., & McGarrell, E. F. (2004). Problem-solving approaches to homicide: an evaluation of the Indianapolis violence reduction partnership. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 161–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Symposium on applied regression: statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1261–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M. B., & Seth, M. (1994). Deterrence or brutalization. Criminology, 32, 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman, V., Holton, W., Olson, K., Robinson, S., & Stewart, J. (1999). Using knowledge and teamwork to reduce crime. National Institute of Justice Journal, October, 16–23.Google Scholar
  18. Cullen, F. T. (1994). Social support as an ongoing concept for criminology: presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Quarterly, 11, 527–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Curry, G. D., & Spergel, I. A. (1988). Gang homicide, delinquency, and community. Criminology, 26, 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dalton, E. (2002). Targeted crime reduction efforts in ten communities: lessons for the Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative. U.S. Attorney’s Bulletin, 50, 16–25.Google Scholar
  21. Decker, S. H. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Decker, S. H. (2003). Policing gangs and youth violence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: family, friends, and violence. New York, NY: Cambridge Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Decker, S. H., & Curry, D. G. (2002). Gangs, gang homicides, and gang loyalty: organized crimes or disorganized Criminals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fagan, J. (1989). The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs. Criminology, 27, 501–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Uniform Crime Reports. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html. Accessed on August 25, 2008.
  27. Fox, J. A., & Zawitz, M. W. (2002). Homicide trends in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  28. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Greene, W. H. (1993). Econometric analysis. New York, NY: McMillan.Google Scholar
  30. Horney, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Risk perceptions among serious offenders. Criminology, 30, 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huff, C. R. (2002). Gangs and public policy: prevention, intervention, and suppression. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 287–294, 3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelling, G., & Sousa, W. H. (2001). Do police matter? An analysis of the impact of New York City’s police reforms. Manhattan Institute Civic Report, December.Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy, D. (1997). Pulling levers: chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso University Law Review, 31, 449–484.Google Scholar
  35. Kennedy, D., & Braga, A. A. (1998). Homicide in Minneapolis: research for problem solving. Homicide Studies, 2, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy, D., Piehl, A., & Braga, A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 147–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kennedy, D., Braga, A., & Piehl, A. (1997). The (Un)Known universe: mapping gangs and gang violence in Boston. In D. Weisburd, & J. T. McEwen (Eds.), Crime mapping and crime prevention (pp. 219–262). New York, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kennedy, D. M., Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Waring, E. J. (2001). Reducing gun violence: the Boston gun project’s operation ceasefire. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  39. Kleck, G. (1997). Targeting guns: firearms and their control. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Kubrin, C. E. (2003). Structural covariates of homicides rates: does type of homicide matter? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kubrin, C. E., & Wadsworth, T. (2003). Identifying the structural correlates of African American killings. Homicide Studies, 7, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Cohen, L. E. (1990). Structural covariates of homicide rates: are there any invariances across time and social space? American Journal of Sociology, 95, 922–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levitt, S. (2004). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maxson, C. L. (1999). Gang homicide. In D. Smith, & M. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide studies: a sourcebook of social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Maxson, C. L., & Klein, M. W. (1990). Street gang violence: twice as great, or half as great. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 71–100). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Maxson, C. L., & Klein, M. W. (1996). Defining gang homicide: An updated look at member and motive approaches. In C. Ronald (Ed.), Gangs in America (2nd edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Maxson, C., Gordon, M. A., & Klein, M. W. (1985). Differences between gang and nongang homicides. Criminology, 23, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCleary, R., & Hay, R. (1980). Applied time-series analysis for the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. McGarrell, E.F., & Chermak, S. (2003a). Problem solving to reduce gang and drug-related violence: Final report on the Indianapolis violence reduction partnership. Final Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  50. McGarrell, E. F., & Chermak, S. (2003b). Problem solving to reduce gang and drug-related violence in Indianapolis. In S. H. Decker (Ed.), Policing gangs and youth violence (pp. 77–101). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. McGarrell, E. F., Chermak, S., Wilson, J. M., & Corsaro, N. (2006). Reducing homicide through a “lever-pulling” strategy. Justice Quarterly, 23, 214–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McGloin, J. M. (2005). Policy and intervention considerations of a network analysis of street gangs. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McQuarrie, A. D., & Tsai, C. L. (1998). Regression and time-series model selection. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Messner, S., Deane, G., Anselin, L., & Pearson-Nelson, B. (2005). Locating the vanguard in rising and falling homicide rates among U.S. cities. Criminology, 43, 661–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moore, M. (1984). Dangerous offenders: the elusive target of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nagin, D. S. (1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: a review of research (pp. 1–42). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Papachristos, A., Meares, T., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention felons: evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 223–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parker, K. F. (2001). A move toward specificity: examining urban disadvantage and race-and relationship-specific homicide rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Parker, K. F., & Johns, T. (2002). Urban disadvantage and types of race specific homicide: assessing the diversity in family structures in the urban context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the quality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 26, 859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Piehl, A., Cooper, S., Braga, A., & Kennedy, D. (2003). Testing for structural breaks in the evaluation programs. The Review of Econometrics and Statistics, 85, 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pizarro, J. M., & McGloin, J. M. (2006). Explaining gang homicides in Newark, New Jersey: collective behavior or social disorganization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pridemore, W. A. (2002). What we know about social structure and homicide: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Violence and Victims, 7, 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raphael, S., & Ludwig, J. (2003). Prison sentence enhancements: the case of Project Exile. In J. Ludwig, & P. J. Cook (Eds.), Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  65. Riecken, H., & Boruch, R. (1978). Social experiments. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Riedel, M. (1987). Symposium stranger violence: perspectives, issues, and problems. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 223–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenfeld, R., & Decker, S. H. (1996). Consent to search and seize: evaluating an innovative youth firearm suppression program. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rosenfeld, R. B., Bray, T., & Egley, H. A. (1999). Facilitating violence: a comparison of gang-motivated, gang-affiliated, and non-gang youth homicides. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., & Baumer, E. (2005). Did ceasefire, compstat, and exile reduce homicide? Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 419–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal justice sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sherman, L., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime ‘hot spots’: a randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simpson, S. S., Bouffard, L. A., Garner, J., & Hickman, L. (2006). The influence of legal reform on the probability of arrest in domestic violence cases. Justice Quarterly, 23, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spergel, I. A. (1983). Violent gangs in Chicago: segmentation and integration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  74. Tita, G., Riley, K. J., Ridgeway, G., Grammich, C., Abrahamse, A., & Greenwood, P. (2003). Reducing gun violence: results from an intervention in East Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  75. Vigil, D. (1988). Barrio gangs. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wakeling, S. (2003). Ending gang homicide: deterrence can work. Sacramento, CA: California Attorney General’s Office.Google Scholar
  77. Wellford, C., Pepper, J. V., & Petrie, C. (2005). Firearms and violence: a critical review. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  78. Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns of criminal homicide. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and CorrectionsSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations