Reducing Serious Violent Crime: Lessons from PSN in

the U.S.

Edmund F. McGarrell

Director and Professor

School of Criminal Justice

Travel Rule #1 – Carry on the clothes you need

Why Share Lessons Between US & SA?

• Democratic governments

• Regional & global economic powers

• Committed to rule of law

But

• High levels of violent crime

• Historic patterns racial conflict & injustice that complicate policing & justice system processes

The Promise

• Within U.S., evidence has accumulated over the last 15 years that can significantly reduce the most serious gun violence

Reducing Homicide Risk (Indianapolis)

Note: Each trend is population specific for each graph presented above

All 15-

24 y

ear o

ld ho

mici

des

Young

whit

e fe

male

hom

icide

s

Young

whit

e m

ale h

omici

des

Young

blac

k fe

male

hom

icide

s

Young

blac

k m

ale h

omici

des

Young

blac

k m

ale h

omici

des

in fiv

e ho

tspo

ts

All oth

er h

omici

des

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0

26.15.1

14.9 18.2

112.9

152.1

3.514.8

2.2 4.5 11.5

66.445.6

2.6

Homicide Risk by Group per 10,000 Residents

Pre-IVRP Post-IVRP

Plan

• Briefly review this research evidence

• Present evidence from Project Safe Neighborhoods

• Discuss both the process (how) and the substance (why) of these violence reduction interventions

• Consider implementation issues - how to make it happen

Evidence-Based Strategies for Reducing Gun Crime Circa 1994

Promising Practices for Reducing Gun Crime, Circa 1999

Directed Police Patrol

Project Exile Strategic Problem Solving – Boston Ceasefire Model

Kansas City Richmond Boston

Indianapolis Indianapolis

Pittsburgh Los Angeles

Key Ingredients

• Use of analysis to understand & guide interventions

• Focused on specific problems (gun violence, high risk people, places, contexts)

• Focused deterrence

– Focus on high risk individuals, groups, contexts

– Risk communication strategy

• Steps to increase legitimacy, perceptions of fairness

Project Safe Neighborhoods

• National program to reduce gun crime (2001-2010)

• Built on these promising practices

• National program coordinated locally through U.S. Attorneys Offices (94 cover the U.S.)

PSN – Federal Program Adapted to Local Context

Federal government will provide resources to local initiatives with following conditions:

• Must be focused on violent crime & homicide

• Must include a research & analysis component

• Must include partnerships beyond police & prosecutors

PSN Evaluation Challenges

• National, “full coverage,” program• Uneven implementation• Larger cities offer treatment and comparison sites but

may have both citywide and targeted program components

• Smaller and medium cities – may be no logical comparison site

• Lack of consistent measures of gun crime across jurisdictions

• Variation in data availability (e.g., NIBRS vs. non-NIBRS)

PSN Impact – Stage One

Series of site specific case studies

• Ten tests of impact on gun crime

• Reductions in gun crime in all ten sites (impact in two of these studies was equivocal)

PSN Impact – Stage Two

• Assess impact of PSN in all U.S. cities with populations of 100,000+

• Trend in violent crime 2000-01 compared to 2002-06

• Compare PSN target cities with non-target cities

• Compare cities by level of PSN implementation dosage (range 3-9)

Measuring Implementation

• Implementation Dosage

– Research integration

– Extent & quality partnerships

– Federal prosecution for gun crime

Overall Finding

• PSN target cities in high implementation districts experienced significant declines in violent crime in comparison to cities in low implementation districts and non-target cities

Violent Crime Trends in PSN Target Cities by Level Federal Prosecution

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006850.00

900.00

950.00

1000.00

1050.00

1100.00

1150.00

High prosecution sites (n = 26)

Medium prosecution sites (n = 29)

Low prosecution sites (n = 27)

Vio

len

t C

rim

e R

ate

per

100

,000

Low Prosecution

Medium Prosecution

High Prosecution

PSN Impact

Level of PSN Dosage

PSN Target Cities

Non-target Cities

Low -5.3% +7.8%

Medium -3.1% <-1.0%

High -13.1% -4.9%

-8.89% -0.25%

PSN Impact

Level of PSN Dosage

PSN Target Cities

Non-target Cities

Low -5.3% +7.8%

Medium -3.1% <-1.0%

High -13.1% -4.9%

Total -8.89% -0.25%

HGLM Models

Being a target city and having a higher level of dosage was significantly related to a reduction in violent crime controlling for:

• Concentrated disadvantage

• Population density

• Police resources

• Correctional population Journal of Quantitative Criminology (2010) 26:165-190.

Promising Practices

• Some combination of focused deterrence, communication, data-driven problem solving, & linkage to opportunities, appears promising in reducing gun crime

15 Years of Suggestive Evidence on Reducing Gun Crime

Directed Police Patrol

Project Exile Strategic Problem Solving

Equivocal Evidence

Kansas City Richmond Boston St. Louis

Indianapolis Montgomery Indianapolis Durham

Pittsburgh Mobile Los Angeles

Stockton

Lowell

Omaha

Greensboro

Winston-Salem

Mixed Model Chicago

PSN National Assessment (all cities over 100,000 population)

Pre-PSN

Key Elements

• Process (how it works)

• Substance (why it works)

Process – Intelligence Led Problem Solving

• Strategic & tactical understanding of the gun crime problem in specific jurisdictions

• Highly focused

• Evidence-based

• Adaptive & self-correcting

Intelligence-led Problem Solving

Problem Analysis

Strategy

Implementation

Assessment & Feedback

Specific Strategies

Enforcement • Chronic violent offender

lists• Call-in meetings• Directed police patrol gun

hot spots• Smart prosecution• Probation/parole home

visits• Focused warrant service

Intervention/Prevention • Direct linkage to services

for at-risk populations• Mentoring• Street-level intervention• Moral voice of community• Community revitalization

Risk-Based StrategiesIncapacitation

Focused Deterrence

Limit Opportunity, General Deterrence

Compliance through Belief,

Stakes in Conformity

High Risk

Low Risk

Balanced Strategies

• Focused and Fair

Substance/Theory Process

Highly Focused Multi-agency, Multi-sector

Focused Deterrence backed up by incapacitation

Data-driven; intelligence-led; research partner

Risk Communication Offender notification meetings and public education campaign

Social Support/Procedural Justice/Restorative

Community collaboration

Caution - Although evidence shows it can work, it does not always do so

• Lack commitment and leadership

• Misdiagnosis

• Not focused

• Lack intensity or dosage

• Not sustained

– Declare victory

– Turnover

Lessons Learned – Cascading Implementation (vs. National Implementation)

Assessing Capacity for Implementation

• Leadership & Commitment

• Prior Experience with Key Components

• Assess & Learn from Early Adopters while Building Capacity in other Locations