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)
Homicide Risk by Group
per 10,000 Residents
152.1
160.0
140.0
112.9
120.0
100.0
80.0
66.4
60.0
40.0
20.0
45.6
26.1
18.2
14.9
14.8
5.1
2.2
4.5
11.5
3.5
2.6
0.0
All 15-24 year
old homicides
Young white
female
homicides
Young white
male homicides
Young black
female
homicides
Pre-IVRP
Young black
Young black
male homicides male homicides
in five hotspots
All other
homicides
Post-IVRP
Note: Each trend is population specific for each graph presented above
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
Kansas City
Richmond
Strategic
Problem Solving
– Boston
Ceasefire Model
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
1150.00
1100.00
Violent Crime Rate per 100,000
Medium Prosecution
1050.00
Low Prosecution
1000.00
High prosecution sites (n = 26)
Medium prosecution sites (n = 29)
Low prosecution sites (n = 27)
950.00
900.00
High Prosecution
850.00
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
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
Kansas City
Indianapolis
Richmond
Montgomery
Pittsburgh
Mobile
Strategic
Problem Solving
Boston
Equivocal
Evidence
Indianapolis
Durham
St. Louis
Los Angeles
Stockton
Lowell
Pre-PSN
Omaha
Greensboro
Winston-Salem
Mixed Model
Chicago
PSN National Assessment (all cities over 100,000 population)
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
Assessment
& Feedback
Strategy
Implementation
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 Strategies
High
Risk
Incapacitation
Focused
Deterrence
Limit Opportunity, General
Deterrence
Low
Risk
Compliance through Belief, Stakes in
Conformity
Balanced Strategies
• Focused and Fair
Substance/Theory
Process
Highly Focused
Multi-agency, Multi-sector
Focused Deterrence
backed up by incapacitation
Data-driven; intelligenceled; 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