Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reducing Homicide Risk in Indianapolis between 1997 and 2000

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rates of homicide risk are not evenly distributed across the US population. Prior research indicates that young males in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods are particularly vulnerable to lethal violence. The traditional criminal justice response to violent crime in the urban context has the potential to exacerbate problems, particularly when broad-based arrest sweeps and general deterrence initiatives are the standard models used by law enforcement. Recent studies suggest that alternative intervention approaches that use both specific deterrence combined with improving pro-social opportunities has shown promise in reducing violent crime in these high-risk contexts. This paper examines the changes in homicide patterns for the highest-risk populations in Indianapolis after a “pulling levers” intervention was implemented in the late 1990s to address youth, gang, and gun violence. Multilevel growth curve regression models controlling for a linear trend over time, important structural correlates of homicide across urban neighborhoods, and between-neighborhood variance estimates showed that homicide rates involving the highest-risk populations (i.e., actors 15 to 24 years old) were most likely to experience a statistically significant and substantive reduction after the intervention was implemented (IRR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.29 – 0.78). Among male actors in this age range, Black male homicide rates (IRR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.25 – 0.70) and White male rates (IRR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.15 – 0.79) declined substantially more than homicide rates involving actors outside the 15 to 24 years age range (IRR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.54 – 1.69). In addition, neighborhoods where specific, community-level strategies were implemented had statistically significant and substantive high-risk homicide rate declines. We conclude that further extension of the pulling levers framework appears warranted in light of the recent findings. Alternative justice strategies that rely on the threat of sanctions coupled with strengthening social service provisions, as well as risk communication aimed at high-risk individuals, appears to hold significant promise as a means to reduce lethal violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

FIGURE 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Homicide data were obtained from the Office of Statistics and Programming; National Center for Injury Prevention; Control; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc//wisqars/. Accessed March 20, 2009.

  2. At risk population data were obtained from the US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh. Accessed March 20, 2009.

  3. Homicide offender information was obtained through the Uniform Crime Reports Homicide Incident data. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm. Accessed March 21, 2009.

  4. Taylor C, Boris N, Heller S, Clum G, Rice J, Zeanah C. Cumulative experiences of violence among high-risk urban youth. J Interpers Violence. 2008; 23: 1618-1635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Golembeski C, Fullilove R. Criminal (in)justice in the city and its associated health consequences. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95: 1701-1706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hammett T, Roberts C, Kennedy S. Health-related issues in prisoner reentry. Crime Delinq. 2000; 47: 390-409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Petersilia J. Prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Robinson P, Boscardin W, George S, Teklehaimanot S, Heslin K, Bluthenthal R. The effect of urban street gang densities on small area homicide incidence in a large metropolitan county, 1994–2002. J Urban Health. 2009; http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.lib.siu.edu/content/119977/?Content+Status=Accepted. Accessed April 11, 2009.

  9. Cook P, Ludwig J, Braga A. Criminal records of homicide offenders. JAMA. 2005; 294: 5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marvell T, Moody C. The impact of prison growth on homicide. Homicide Stud. 1997; 1: 205-233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Levitt S. Understanding why crime fell in the 1990’s. J Econ Perspect. 2004; 18: 163-190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Travis J, Waul M. Prisoners once removed: the impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Washington: Urban Institute; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rose D, Clear T. Incarceration, social capital and crime: examining the unintended consequences of incarceration. Criminology. 1998; 36: 441-479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Freudenberg N. Jails, prisons, and the health of urban populations: a review of the impact of the correctional system on community health. J Urban Health. 2001; 78: 214-234.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Braga A, Kennedy D, Waring E, Piehl A. Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: an evaluation of Boston's operation ceasefire. J Res Crime Delinq. 2001; 38: 195-226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kennedy D. Pulling levers: chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev. 1997; 31: 449-484.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Piehl A, Cooper S, Braga A, Kennedy D. Testing for structural breaks in the evaluation of programs. Rev Econ Stat. 2003; 85: 550-558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daly M, Wilson M. Risk taking, intrasexual competition, and homicide. Nebr Symp Motiv. 2001; 47: 1-36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Corsaro N, McGarrell EF. Testing a promising homicide reduction strategy: reassessing the impact of the Indianapolis “pulling levers” intervention. J Exp Criminol. 2009; 5: 63-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McGarrell E, Chermak S, Wilson J, Corsaro N. Reducing homicide through a “lever-pulling” strategy. Justice Q. 2006; 23: 214-231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cullen F. Social support as an ongoing concept for criminology: presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Q. 1994; 11: 527-559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McGarrell, E, Chermak S. Strategic approaches to reducing firearms violence: final report of the Indianapolis violence reduction partnership. United States Department of Justice Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2004: 217.

  23. Chermak S, McGarrell E. Problem solving approaches to homicide: an evaluation of the Indianapolis violence reduction partnership. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2004; 15: 161-192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Studenmund AH. Using econometrics: a practical guide. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Education; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shaw C, McKay HD. Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1942.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Land K, McCall P, Cohen L. Structural covariates of homicide rates: are there any invariances across time and social space. Am J Sociol. 1990; 95: 922-963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sampson R, Raudenbush S, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multi-level study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997; 277: 918-924.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Raudenbush S, Bryk A. Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Raudenbush S, Bryk A, Cheong R, Congdon R, Toit M. HLM for Windows version 6.02a. Lincolnwood: Social Scientific Software; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Indianapolis unemployment data were obtained from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/sae/#tables. Accessed August 29, 2009.

  31. Morgan M, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C. Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chermak, S. Reducing violent crime and firearms violence: the Indianapolis lever-pulling experiment. United States Department of Justice Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 2008: 11–12.

  33. Braga A. Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. J Crim Justice. 2008; 36: 332-343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Papachristos A, Meares T, Fagan J. Attention felons: evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago. J Empir Leg Stud. 2007; 4: 223-272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Greenwood P. Investing in prisons or prevention: the state policy makers’ dilemma. Crime Delinq. 1998; 44: 136-142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This project was supported by Grant No. 2002-GP-CX-1003 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. Points of view in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas Corsaro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Corsaro, N., McGarrell, E.F. Reducing Homicide Risk in Indianapolis between 1997 and 2000. J Urban Health 87, 851–864 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9459-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9459-z

Keywords

Navigation