Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 337–364 | Cite as

The Influence of Investigative Resources on Homicide Clearances

  • Anthony A. BragaEmail author
  • Brandon Turchan
  • Lisa Barao
Original Paper



This paper investigates the influence of case characteristics and investigative resources on homicide clearance rates.


We extend a previous evaluation of a problem-oriented policing project intended to improve homicide clearance rates in Boston. Data were collected on N = 465 homicide incidents that occurred between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2014. Confirmatory factor analyses are used to identify latent variables representing investigative resources, initial crime scene results, and subsequent investigative actions and forensic testing. The effects of these investigative factors on homicide clearances net other covariates were estimated using mixed effects logistic regression models. Mediation analysis was then used to decompose the total, direct, and indirect effect of investigative resources on homicide clearances. Exploratory group comparisons were examined to distinguish investigative differences in gang and drug homicides relative to non-gang and non-drug homicides.


Investigative resources, crime scene results, and subsequent investigative actions and forensic testing were found to increase the likelihood of homicide case clearance controlling for other covariates. Investigative resources were found to produce both direct and indirect impacts on homicide clearances mediated through its positive influence on initial crime scene results and subsequent investigative actions and forensic testing. Clearance through follow-up investigation was more difficult for gang and drug homicide cases when compared to other homicide cases.


While inherited case characteristics matter, enhanced investigative resources and improved practices increase homicide clearances. Beyond investments to improve investigations, gang and drug homicides remain particularly difficult to clear due to a lack of physical evidence and witness cooperation.


Homicide Clearance Investigation Gangs Forensic 



This research was supported by funds provided by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance (Award #2011-DB-BX-0014) and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. We would like to thank Boston Mayor Martin Walsh, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, Deputy Chief of Staff Desiree Dusseault, former Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis, former Chief of Staff Sharon Hanson, Superintendent Gregory Long, Lieutenant Detective Darrin Greeley and the men and women of the BPD homicide unit for their valuable assistance in the completion of this research. We also would like to thank Robert Apel of Rutgers University for his advice on the statistical analyses presented here. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, City of Boston, or the Boston Police Department.


  1. Addington LA (2006) Using national incident-based reporting system murder data to evaluate clearance predictors: a research note. Homicide Stud 10(2):140–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Addington LA (2007) Hot vs. cold cases: examining time to clearance for homicides using NIBRS data. Justice Res Policy 9(2):87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alderden MA, Lavery TA (2007) Predicting homicide clearances in Chicago: investigating disparities in predictors across different types of homicide. Homicide Stud 11(2):115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison P (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Soc Methods Res 28:186–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apel R, Horney J (2017) How and why does work matter? Employment conditions, routine activities, and crime among adult male offenders. Criminology 55:307–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arkelof G, Yellen J (1994) Gang behavior, law enforcement, and community values. In: Aaron H, Mann T, Taylor T (eds) Values and public policy. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Baskin D, Sommers I (2010) The influence of forensic evidence on the case of homicide incidents. J Crim Justice 38:1141–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bayley D (1994) Police for the future. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Black D (1970) The production of crime rates. Am Sociol Rev 35:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bloch P, Bell D (1976) Managing criminal investigations: the Rochester system. The Police Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Bloch P, Weidman D (1975) Managing criminal investigations: prescriptive package. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Borg MJ, Parker KF (2001) Mobilizing law in urban areas: the social structure of homicide clearance rates. Law Soc Rev 35(2):435–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braga AA, Dusseault D (2018) Can homicide detectives improve homicide clearance rates? Crime Delinq 64(3):283–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braga AA, Piehl A, Kennedy D (1999) Youth homicide in Boston: an assessment of supplementary homicide reports. Homicide Stud 3:227–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braga AA, Hureau D, Winship D (2008) Losing faith? Police, black churches, and the resurgence of youth violence in Boston, Ohio St. J Crim Law 6:141–172Google Scholar
  16. Braga AA, Flynn E, Kelling G, Cole C (2011) Moving the work of criminal investigators towards crime control. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Breen R, Karlson KB, Holm A (2013) Total, direct, and indirect effects in logit and probit models. Soc Methods Res 42:164–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Carter DL, Carter JG (2016) Effective police homicide investigations: evidence from seven cities with high clearance rates. Homicide Stud. 20:150–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cassell PG, Fowles R (1998) Falling clearance rates after Miranda: coincidence or consequence? Stanf Law Rev 50:1181–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clampet-Lundquist S, Carr P, Kefalas M (2015) The sliding scale of snitching: a qualitative examination of snitching in three Philadelphia communities. Soc Forum 30(2):265–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen M, Piquero A (2009) New evidence on the monetary values of saving a high risk youth. J Quant Criminol 25:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Comrey A, Lee H (1992) A first course in factor analysis. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  24. Cook PJ, Ho J, Shilling S (2017) Criminal investigations of gun assaults and murders in Durham, 2015: the challenge of securing victim and witness cooperation. Duke University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Decker SH (1995) Reconstructing homicide events: the role of witnesses in fatal encounters. J Crim Justice 23:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DeLisi M, Kosloski A, Sween M, Hachmeister E, Moore M, Drury A (2010) Murder by numbers: monetary costs imposed by a sample of homicide offenders. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol 21:501–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dugin L, Nagin D, Rosenfeld R (2003) Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide. Law Soc Rev 27:169–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eck JE (1983) Solving crimes: the investigation of burglary and robbery. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Eck JE (1992) Criminal investigation. In: Cordner G, Hale D (eds) What works in policing? Operations and administration examined. Anderson, Cincinnati, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  31. Ericson R (1982) Reproducing order: a study of police patrol work. University of Toronto Press, TorontoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fagan J, Braga AA, Brunson R, Pattavina A (2016) Stops and stares: street stops, race, and surveillance in the new policing. Fordham Urban Law J 43(3):621–696Google Scholar
  33. Folk JF (1971) Municipal detective systems: a quantitative approach (Operations Research Center Technical Report No. 55). Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  34. Gilbert JN (1983) A study of the increased rate of unsolved criminal homicide in San Diego, CA, and its relationship to police investigative effectiveness. Am J Police 2:149–166Google Scholar
  35. Greenwood P, Petersilia J (1975) The criminal investigation process: volume I—summary and policy implications. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  36. Greenwood P, Chaiken J, Petersilia J (1977) The investigative process. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Guadagnoli E, Velicer W (1988) Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol Bull 103(2):265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harding D (2009) Living the drama: community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. Hopwood A, Hurth C, Yang J, Cai Z, Moran N, Lee-Edghill J, Tully G (2010) Integrated microfluidic system for rapid forensic DNA analysis: sample collection to DNA profile. Anal Chem 82(16):6991–6999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jarvis J, Regoeczi W (2012) Homicide solvability. Police Chief 79(8):10–11Google Scholar
  42. Keel T, Jarvis J, Muirhead Y (2009) An exploratory analysis of factors affecting homicide investigations. Homicide Stud 13:50–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kennedy D, Piehl A, Braga AA (1996) Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law Contemp Probl 59(1):147–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keppel R, Weis J (1994) Time and distance as solvability factors in murder cases. J Forensic Sci 39:386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kirk D, Papachristos AV (2011) Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. Am J Sociol 116:1190–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee C (2005) The value of life in death: Multiple regression and event history analyses of homicide clearance in Los Angeles County. J Crim Justice 33:527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Litwin KJ (2004) A multilevel multivariate analysis of factors affecting homicide clearances. J Res Crime Delinq 41:327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Litwin KJ, Xu Y (2007) The dynamic nature of homicide clearances: a multilevel model comparison of three time periods. Homicide Stud 11:94–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Loftin C (1986) The validity of robbery-murder classifications in Baltimore. Violence Vict 1:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Loftin C, Kindley K, Norris S, Wiersema B (1987) An attribute approach to relationships between offenders and victims in homicide. J Crim Law Criminol 78:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Long JS (1983) Confirmatory factor analysis: quantitative applications in the social sciences, paper 33. Sage, Newbury ParkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. MacKinnon D, Dwyer J (1993) Estimating mediating effects in prevention studies. Eval Rev 17:144–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maxfield M (1989) Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: variety and validity. Criminology 27:671–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McEwen T (2010) The role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. McEwen T, Regoeczi W (2015) Forensic evidence in homicide investigations and prosecutions. J Forensic Sci 60(5):1188–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mouzos J, Muller D (2001) Solvability factors of homicide in Australia: an exploratory analysis. In: Graycar A (ed) Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice series, no 216. Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  57. Ousey G, Lee M (2010) To know the unknown: the decline in homicide clearance rates, 1980–2000. Crim Justice Rev 35:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peterson J, Sommers I, Baskin D, Johnson D (2010) The Role and Impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. Pizarro J, Zeoli A (2013) An assessment of the supplementary homicide reports: a research note. Justice Q 30:711–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Puckett J, Lundman R (2003) Factors affecting homicide clearances: multivariate analysis of a more complete conceptual framework. J Res Crime Delinq 40:171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raudenbush S, Bryk A (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications in data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  62. Regoeczi W, Jarvis J (2013) Beyond the social production of homicide rates: extending social disorganization theory to explain homicide case outcomes. Justice Q 30:983–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Regoeczi W, Kennedy LW, Silverman RA (2000) Uncleared homicides: a Canada/United States comparison. Homicide Stud 4(2):135–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Regoeczi W, Jarvis J, Riedel M (2008) Clearing murders: Is it about time? J Res Crime Delinq 45:142–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Richardson D, Kosa R (2001) An examination of homicide clearance rates: foundation for the development of a homicide clearance model. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  66. Riedel M (1989) Nationwide homicide datasets: an evaluation of UCR and NCHS data. In: MacKenzie DL, Baunach PJ, Roberg RR (eds) Measuring crime: large-scale, long range efforts. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 175–208Google Scholar
  67. Riedel M (1995) Getting away with murder: an examination of arrest clearances. In: Block C, Block R (eds) Trends, risks, and interventions in lethal violence. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  68. Ritter N (2008) DNA solves property crimes (but are we ready for that?). Natl Inst Justice J 261:2–12Google Scholar
  69. Roberts A (2007) Predictors of homicide clearance by arrest: an event history analysis of NIBRS incidents. Homicide Stud 11:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosenfeld R, Jacobs B, Wright R (2003) Snitching and the code of the street. Br J Criminol 43(2):291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (1981) Philips Commission (Research Study 17). Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Sampson R, Bartusch D (1998) Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: the neighborhood context of racial differences. Law Soc Rev 32:777–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schroeder D, White M (2009) Exploring the use of DNA evidence in homicide investigations: implications for detective work and case clearance. Police Q 12:319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sobel M (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Soc Methodol 13:290–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sobel M (1986) Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structural models. Soc Methodol 16:159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. StataCorp (2015) Stata release 14.0, StataCorp, College StationGoogle Scholar
  77. Tabachnick B, Fidell L (2013) Using multivariate statistics, 6th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  78. Topalli V (2005) When being good is bad: an Expansion of neutralization theory. Criminology 43(3):797–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. U.S. Department of Justice (2017) Advancing justice through DNA technology: using DNA to solve crimes. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  80. Ward RH (1971) The investigative function: criminal investigation in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  81. Wellford C, Cronin J (1999) An analysis of variables affecting the clearance of homicides: a multistate study. Justice Research and Statistics Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  82. Whitman J, Davis R (2007) Snitches get stitches: youth, gangs, and witness intimidation in massachusetts. National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams K, Flewelling R (1987) Family, acquaintance, and stranger homicide: alternative procedures for rate calculations. Criminology 25:543–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony A. Braga
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brandon Turchan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa Barao
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations