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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
At risk population data were obtained from the US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh. Accessed March 20, 2009.
Homicide offender information was obtained through the Uniform Crime Reports Homicide Incident data. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm. Accessed March 21, 2009.
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.
Golembeski C, Fullilove R. Criminal (in)justice in the city and its associated health consequences. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95: 1701-1706.
Hammett T, Roberts C, Kennedy S. Health-related issues in prisoner reentry. Crime Delinq. 2000; 47: 390-409.
Petersilia J. Prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
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.
Cook P, Ludwig J, Braga A. Criminal records of homicide offenders. JAMA. 2005; 294: 5.
Marvell T, Moody C. The impact of prison growth on homicide. Homicide Stud. 1997; 1: 205-233.
Levitt S. Understanding why crime fell in the 1990’s. J Econ Perspect. 2004; 18: 163-190.
Travis J, Waul M. Prisoners once removed: the impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Washington: Urban Institute; 2003.
Rose D, Clear T. Incarceration, social capital and crime: examining the unintended consequences of incarceration. Criminology. 1998; 36: 441-479.
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.
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.
Kennedy D. Pulling levers: chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev. 1997; 31: 449-484.
Piehl A, Cooper S, Braga A, Kennedy D. Testing for structural breaks in the evaluation of programs. Rev Econ Stat. 2003; 85: 550-558.
Daly M, Wilson M. Risk taking, intrasexual competition, and homicide. Nebr Symp Motiv. 2001; 47: 1-36.
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.
McGarrell E, Chermak S, Wilson J, Corsaro N. Reducing homicide through a “lever-pulling” strategy. Justice Q. 2006; 23: 214-231.
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.
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.
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.
Studenmund AH. Using econometrics: a practical guide. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Education; 2006.
Shaw C, McKay HD. Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1942.
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.
Sampson R, Raudenbush S, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multi-level study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997; 277: 918-924.
Raudenbush S, Bryk A. Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
Raudenbush S, Bryk A, Cheong R, Congdon R, Toit M. HLM for Windows version 6.02a. Lincolnwood: Social Scientific Software; 2004.
Indianapolis unemployment data were obtained from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/sae/#tables. Accessed August 29, 2009.
Morgan M, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C. Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
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.
Braga A. Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. J Crim Justice. 2008; 36: 332-343.
Papachristos A, Meares T, Fagan J. Attention felons: evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago. J Empir Leg Stud. 2007; 4: 223-272.
Greenwood P. Investing in prisons or prevention: the state policy makers’ dilemma. Crime Delinq. 1998; 44: 136-142.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9459-z