CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 204Crime Patterns and InterventionsPolicing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and Penology

The Effects of “Pulling Levers” Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime

Open access
Braga, Anthony A., Weisburd, David L.·2012·Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World
DOI 10.4073/csr.2012.6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of focused deterrence strategies known as “pulling levels” in reducing crime. The review summarises findings from 10 studies, all of which report evidence from programmes in the US. Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies are associated with a medium-sized crime reduction effect. Nine out of 10 studies reported a statistically significant positive effect. There is a strongly significant medium size effect average effect across all studies. Gang or group intervention programs had the largest effect, followed by the drug market intervention programs, with the smallest but still statistically significant effect for the high-risk individuals programs. All included studies use non-randomized experimental designs, which have a risk of over-stating impact. However, the effect size is large enough to have reasonable confidence in the effectiveness of these programs. Abstract: BACKGROUND: A number of American police departments have been experimenting with new problem-oriented policing frameworks to prevent gang and group-involved violence generally known as the “pulling levers” focused deterrence strategies. Focused deterrence strategies honor core deterrence ideas, such as increasing risks faced by offenders, while finding new and creative ways of deploying traditional and non-traditional law enforcement tools to do so, such as directly communicating incentives and disincentives to targeted offenders. Pioneered in Boston to halt serious gang violence, the focused deterrence framework has been applied in many American cities through federally sponsored violence prevention programs. In its simplest form, the approach consists of selecting a particular crime problem, such as gang homicide; convening an interagency working group of law enforcement, social-service, and community-based practitioners; conducting research to identify key offenders, groups, and behavior patterns; framing a response to offenders and groups of offenders that uses a varied menu of sanctions (”pulling levers”) to stop them from continuing their violent behavior; focusing social services and community resources on targeted offenders and groups to match law enforcement prevention efforts; and directly and repeatedly communicating with offenders to make them understand why they are receiving this special attention. These new strategic approaches have been applied to a range of crime problems, such as overt drug markets and individual repeat offenders, and have shown promising results in the reduction of crime. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the extant evaluation literature and assess the effects of pulling levers focused deterrence strategies on crime. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies had to meet three criteria: (1) the program had to have the core elements of a pulling levers focused deterrence strategy present; (2) a comparison group was included; (3) at least one crime outcome was reported. The units of analysis had to be people or places. SEARCH STRATEGY: Several strategies were used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility criteria. First, a keyword search was performed on an array of online abstract databases. Second, we reviewed the bibliographies of past narrative and empirical reviews of literature that examined the effectiveness of pulling levers focused deterrence programs. Third, we performed forward searches for works that have cited seminal focused deterrence studies. Fourth, we searched bibliographies of narrative reviews of police crime prevention efforts and past completed Campbell systematic reviews of police crime prevention efforts. Fifth, we performed hand searches of leading journals in the field. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For our ten eligible studies, we complete a narrative review of effectiveness and a formal meta-analysis of the main effects of these programs on reported crime outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Based on our narrative review, we find that nine of the ten eligible evaluations reported statistically significant reductions in crime. It is important to note here that all ten evaluations used nonrandomized quasi-experimental designs. No randomized controlled trials were identified by our search strategies. Our meta-analysis suggests that pulling levers focused deterrence strategies are associated with an overall statistically-significant, medium-sized crime reduction effect. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that pulling levers focused deterrence strategies seem to be effective in reducing crime. However, we urge caution in interpreting these results because of the lack of more rigorous randomized controlled trials in the existing body of scientific evidence on this approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4073/csr.2012.6

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SUTVA posits that the assignment of units to treatment or control groups should not influence the outcomes of other units.

    “SUTVA posits that the assignment of units to treatment or control groups should not influence the outcomes of other units (Braga et al., 2012(Braga et al., , 2018)).”

    From ‘Led by Intelligence': A Scoping Review on the Experimental Evaluation of Intelligence-Led Policing (2024) · cites this paper as Braga et al., 2012

    The cited paper’s sections on outcome measures (3.1.4) and crime effects (4.3) discuss spillover and diffusion into non-treated areas, but they do not define SUTVA or state what it posits. Searches for SUTVA, interference, and treatment assignment found no passage addressing the attributed definition. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 1 ELIGIBLE STUDIES WITH COMPARISON GROUPS INCLUDED IN SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
  2. OTHER WORKS CITED Apel, Robert and Daniel Nagin. 2011. "General Deterrence: A Review of Recent Evidence." In James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and Public Policy (pp. 411 -436). New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Blalock, Hubert. 1979. Social Statistics. Revised Second Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
  4. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin (Eds.). 1978. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  5. Boyum, David A., Jonathan P. Caulkins, and Mark A.R. Kleiman. 2011. "Drugs, Crime, and Public Policy." In James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and Public Policy (pp. 368 -410). New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Braga, Anthony. 2008a. Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention. Second edition. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  7. Braga, Anthony A. and David M. Kennedy. 2012. "Linking Situational Crime Prevention and Focused Deterrence Strategies." In Graham Farrell and Nick Tilley (Eds.), The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke. London: Taylor and Francis.
  8. Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  9. Cook, Philip J. 1980. "Research in Criminal Deterrence: Laying the Groundwork for the Second Decade." In Norval Morris and Michael Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 2 (pp. 211-268). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Dalton, Erin. 2002. "Targeted Crime Reduction Efforts in Ten Communities: Lessons for the Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative." U.S. Attorney's Bulletin, 50: 16 -25.
  11. Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  12. Guerette, Robert T. 2009. "The Pull, Push, and Expansion of Situation Crime Prevention Evaluation: An Appraisal of Thirty-Seven Years of Research." In Johannes Knutsson and Nick Tilley (Eds.), Evaluating Crime Reduction Initiatives, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 24 (pp. 29 -58). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  13. Kleiman, Mark A.R. and Kerry D. Smith. 1990. "State and Local Drug Enforcement: In Search of a Strategy." In Michael Tonry and James Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and Crime, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 13 (pp. 69 - 108). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 18911803, 2012, 1, · DOI
  14. McGarrell, Edmund F. and Steven Chermak. 2003. "Problem Solving to Reduce Gang and Drug-Related Violence in Indianapolis." In Scott H. Decker (Ed.), Policing Gangs and Youth Violence (pp. 77 -101). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  15. Meares, Tracey, Andrew Papachristos, and Jeffrey Fagan. 2009. Homicide and Gun Violence in Chicago: Evaluation and Summary of the Project Safe Neighborhoods Program. Review of Research.
  16. Nagin, Daniel. 1998. "Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty- First Century." In Michael Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 23 (pp. 1 -42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  17. Perry, Amanda, David Weisburd, and Catherine Hewitt. 2010. "Are Criminologists Reporting Experiments in Ways that Allow us to Assess Them?" Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6: 245 -263.
  18. Rosenthal, Robert. 1994. "Parametric Measures of Effect Size." In Harris Cooper and Larry Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  19. Sherman, Lawrence. 2002. "Fair and Effective Policing." In James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia(Eds.), Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control (pp. 383-412). Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.
  20. Skogan, Wesley and Kathleen Frydl (Eds.) 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  21. Tita, George E., K. Jack Riley, and Peter Greenwood. 2003. "From Boston to Boyle Heights: The Process and Prospects of a 'Pulling Levers' Strategy in a Los Angeles Barrio." In Scott H. Decker (ed.), Policing Gangs and Youth Violence (pp. 102 -130). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  22. Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  23. Wellford, Charles F., John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie (Eds.). 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  24. Zimring, Franklin and Gordon Hawkins. 1973. Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 18911803, 2012, 1, · DOI
  25. Natalie K. Hipple, Michigan State University 18911803, 2012, 1, · DOI
  26. Elaine B. Sharp, University of Kansas 72. Lawrence Sherman, University of Cambridge 73. Wesley Skogan, Northwestern University 74. Nick Tilley, University College London 75. Marie S. Tillyer, University of Texas, San Antonio 76. George E. Tita, University of California, Irvine 18911803, 2012, 1, Reference Information 1. Document ID: __ __ __ __ · DOI
  27. Publication date (year): ______________ 6a. Journal Name: ____________________________________________ 6b. Journal Volume: _______________ 6c. Journal Issue: ____________
  28. Coder's Initials: __ __ __ 18911803, 2012, 1, · DOI
  29. Other (specify) _____________ 18911803, 2012, 1, · DOI
  30. For the units of analysis in this study, what time periods were examined for the outcome covered on this coding sheet? 1. Yearly 2. Monthly 3. Weekly 4. Other researcher defined time periods (specify) __________________ 18911803, 2012, 1, · DOI
  31. Additional notes about study: __________________________________________________________ 18911803, 2012, 1, · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Braga, Anthony A.
ORCID
Venue
Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-03-04
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
1891-1803 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4073/csr.2012.6
OpenAlex
W135423543
Cited by
204
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
29.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Campbell Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Issue Lab (Candid) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
Funders
National Policing Improvement Agency, United Kingdom
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
focused deterrence, crime reduction, gang violence, problem-oriented policing, high-risk individuals, repeat offenders, violence prevention, social services

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review