Focused deterrence strategies are a relatively new addition to a growing portfolio of evidence-based violent gun injury prevention practices available to policy makers and practitioners. These strategies seek to change offender behavior by understanding the underlying violence-producing dynamics and conditions that sustain recurring violent gun injury problems and by implementing a blended strategy of law enforcement, community mobilization, and social service actions. Consistent with documented public health practice, the focused deterrence approach identifies underlying risk factors and causes of recurring violent gun injury problems, develops tailored responses to these underlying conditions, and measures the impact of implemented interventions. This article reviews the practice, theoretical principles, and evaluation evidence on focused deterrence strategies. Although more rigorous randomized studies are needed, the available empirical evidence suggests that these strategies generate noteworthy gun violence reduction impacts and should be part of a broader portfolio of violence prevention strategies available to policy makers and practitioners.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Apel R, Nagin DS. 1.  2011. General deterrence: a review of recent evidence. Crime and Public Policy JQ Wilson, J Petersilia 411–36 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Beha JA. 2.  1977. “And nobody can get you out”: the impact of a mandatory prison sentence for the illegal carrying of a firearm on the use of firearms and the administration of justice in Boston—part I. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 57:96–146 [Google Scholar]
  3. Braga AA. 3.  2008. Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. J. Crim. Justice 36:332–43 [Google Scholar]
  4. Braga AA. 4.  2012. Getting deterrence right? Evaluation evidence and complementary crime control mechanisms. Criminol. Public Policy 11:201–10 [Google Scholar]
  5. Braga AA, Apel R, Welsh BC. 5.  2013. The spillover effects of focused deterrence on gang violence. Eval. Rev. 37:314–42 [Google Scholar]
  6. Braga AA, Hureau DM, Papachristos AV. 6.  2014. Deterring gang-involved gun violence: measuring the impact of Boston's Operation Ceasefire on street gang behavior. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:113–39 [Google Scholar]
  7. Braga AA, Kennedy DM. 7.  2012. Linking situational crime prevention and focused deterrence strategies. The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke G Farrell, N Tilley 65–79 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  8. Braga AA, Kennedy DM, Tita GE. 8.  2002. New approaches to the strategic prevention of gang and group-involved violence. Gangs in America CR Huff 271–86 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3rd. ed. [Google Scholar]
  9. Braga AA, Kennedy DM, Waring EJ, Piehl AM. 9.  2001. Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: an evaluation of Boston's Operation Ceasefire. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 38:195–225 [Google Scholar]
  10. Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM. 10.  2010. The concentration and stability of gun violence at micro places in Boston, 1980–2008. J. Quant. Criminol. 26:33–53 [Google Scholar]
  11. Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM. 11.  2012. The effects of hot spots policing on crime: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Q. 31:633–63 [Google Scholar]
  12. Braga AA, Pierce G, McDevitt J, Bond B, Cronin S. 12.  2008. The strategic prevention of gun violence among gang-involved offenders. Justice Q. 25:132–62 [Google Scholar]
  13. Braga AA, Weisburd DL. 13.  2010. Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Braga AA, Weisburd DL. 14.  2012. The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 49:323–58 [Google Scholar]
  15. Braga AA, Winship C. 15.  2006. Partnership, accountability, and innovation: clarifying Boston's experience with pulling levers. See Ref. 64 171–90
  16. Clarke RV. 16.  1989. Theoretical background to crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and situational prevention. Designing Out Crime: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design S Geason, PR Wilson 13–20 Canberra: Aust. Inst. Criminol. [Google Scholar]
  17. Clarke RV, Weisburd D. 17.  1994. Diffusion of crime control benefits: observations on the reverse of displacement. Crime Prev. Stud. 2:165–84 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohen J. 18.  1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  19. Cook PJ. 19.  1980. Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. Crime and Justice 2 N Morris, M Tonry 211–68 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Durlauf SN, Nagin DS. 20.  2011. Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced?. Criminol. Public Policy 10:13–54 [Google Scholar]
  21. Engel RS, Corsaro N, Skubak Tillyer M. 21.  2010. Evaluation of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV) Cincinnati, OH: Univ. Cincinnati Policing Inst. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gibbs JP. 22.  1975. Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence New York: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldstein H. 23.  1990. Problem-Oriented Policing Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenwood PW. 24.  2006. Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control Policy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  25. Guerette RT, Bowers K. 25.  2009. Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: a review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology 47:1331–68 [Google Scholar]
  26. Horney J, Marshall IH. 26.  1992. Risk perceptions among serious offenders: the role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30:575–94 [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. Inst. Med 2008. Violence Prevention in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Finding a Place on the Global Agenda: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. Inst. Med., Comm for the Study of the Future of Public Health; 1988. The Future of Public Health. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. Inst. Med., Natl. Res. Counc 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Katzmann G. 30.  2002. Securing Our Children's Future: New Approaches to Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennedy DM. 31.  1997. Pulling levers: chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso Univ. Law Rev. 31:449–84 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kennedy DM. 32.  2002. A tale of one city: reflections on the Boston gun project. See Ref. 30 229–61
  33. Kennedy DM. 33.  2006. Old wine in new bottles: policing and the lessons of pulling levers. See Ref. 64 155–70
  34. Kennedy DM. 34.  2008. Deterrence and Crime Prevention New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  35. Kennedy DM. 35.  2011. Don't Shoot: One Man, a Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City America New York: Bloomsbury [Google Scholar]
  36. Kennedy DM, Braga AA, Piehl AM. 36.  1997. The (un)known universe: mapping gangs and gang violence in Boston. Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention D Weisburd, JT McEwen 219–62 Monsey, NY: Crim. Justice Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Kennedy DM, Braga AA, Piehl AM. 37.  2001. Developing and implementing Operation Ceasefire. Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire5–54 Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Natl. Inst. Justice [Google Scholar]
  38. Kennedy DM, Moore MH. 38.  1995. Underwriting the risky investment in community policing. Justice Syst. J. 17:271–90 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kennedy DM, Piehl AM, Braga AA. 39.  1996. Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law Contemp. Probl. 59:147–96 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kerani RP, Handcock MS, Handsfield HH, Holmes KK. 40.  2005. Comparative geographic concentrations of 4 sexually transmitted infections. Am. J. Public Health 95:324–30 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lewin K. 41.  1947. Group decisions and social change. Readings in Social Psychology TM Newcomb, EL Hartley 340–44 New York: Atherton [Google Scholar]
  42. Lipsey MW. 42.  2009. Primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Vict. Offenders 4:124–47 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. 43.  2001. Practical Meta-Analysis Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  44. McGarrell EF, Chermak S, Wilson JM, Corsaro N. 44.  2006. Reducing homicide through a “lever-pulling” strategy. Justice Q. 23:214–31 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mercy JA, Hammond WR. 45.  1999. Combining action and analysis to prevent homicide: a public health perspective. Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research MD Smith, MA Zahn 297–310 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  46. Mercy JA, Rosenberg ML, Powell KE, Broome CV, Roper WL. 46.  1993. Public health policy for preventing violence. Health Aff. 12:7–29 [Google Scholar]
  47. Miles TJ, Ludwig J. 47.  2007. The silence of the lambdas: deterring incapacitation research. J. Quant. Criminol. 23:287–301 [Google Scholar]
  48. Moore MH. 48.  2002. Creating networks of capacity. See Ref. 30 338–85
  49. Moore MH, Prothrow-Stith D, Guyer B, Spivak H. 49.  1994. Violence and intentional injuries: criminal justice and public health perspectives on an urgent national problem. Understanding and Preventing Violence 4 AJ Reiss, JA Roth 167–216 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Nagin DS. 50.  1998. Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice 23 ed. M Tonry 1–42 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  51. Papachristos AV. 51.  2009. Murder by structure: dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. Am. J. Sociol. 115:74–128 [Google Scholar]
  52. Papachristos AV, Braga AA, Hureau DM. 52.  2012. Social networks and the risk of gunshot injury. J. Urban Health 89:992–1003 [Google Scholar]
  53. Papachristos AV, Meares T, Fagan J. 53.  2007. Attention felons: evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4:223–72 [Google Scholar]
  54. Paternoster R. 54.  1987. The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q. 4:173–217 [Google Scholar]
  55. Paternoster R, Brame R, Bachman R, Sherman L. 55.  1997. Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law Soc. Rev. 31:163–204 [Google Scholar]
  56. Poundstone KE, Strathdee SA, Celentano DD. 56.  2004. The social epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Epidemiol. Rev. 26:22–35 [Google Scholar]
  57. Reppetto T. 57.  1976. Crime prevention and the displacement phenomenon. Crime Delinq. 22:166–177 [Google Scholar]
  58. Skogan W, Frydl K. 58.  Comm. Rev. Res. on Police Policy and Pract., eds 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Skubak Tillyer M, Kennedy DM. 59.  2008. Locating focused deterrence approaches within a situational crime prevention framework. Crime Prev. Community Saf. 10:75–84 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tita G, Riley KJ, Ridgeway G, Grammich C, Abrahamse AF, Greenwood PW. 60.  2004. Reducing Gun Violence: Results from an Intervention in East Los Angeles Santa Monica, CA: RAND [Google Scholar]
  61. Tyler TR. 61.  1990. Why People Obey the Law New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Tyler TR. 62.  2004. Enhancing police legitimacy. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 593:84–99 [Google Scholar]
  63. Webster DW, Whitehill JM, Vernick JS, Parker EM. 63.  2012. Evaluation of Baltimore's Safe Streets Program: Effects on Attitudes, Participants' Experiences, and Gun Violence Baltimore, MD: Bloomberg Sch. Public Health, Johns Hopkins Univ. [Google Scholar]
  64. Weisburd D, Braga AA. 64.  2006. Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Weisburd D, Groff E, Yang S-M. 65.  2014. Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: the importance of formal and informal social controls. Prev. Sci. 15:31–43 [Google Scholar]
  66. Weisburd D, Lum CM, Petrosino A. 66.  2001. Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice?. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 578:50–70 [Google Scholar]
  67. Weisburd D, Wyckoff L, Ready J, Eck JE, Hinkle JC, Gajewski F. 67.  2006. Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology 44:549–92 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wellford CF, Pepper JV, Petrie CV. 68.  Comm. to Improve Res. Inf. and Data on Firearms, eds 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  69. Welsh BC, Braga AA, Sullivan CJ. 69.  2014. Serious youth violence and innovative prevention: on the emerging link between public health and criminology. Justice Q. 31:500–23 [Google Scholar]
  70. Welsh BC, Peel ME, Farrington DP, Elffers H, Braga AA. 70.  2011. Research design influence on study outcomes in crime and justice: a partial replication with public area surveillance. J. Exp. Criminol. 7:183–98 [Google Scholar]
  71. Zimring FE, Hawkins G. 71.  1973. Deterrence Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error