Focused deterrence strategies are a recently developed crime prevention method, pioneered in the 1990s. The paper “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control”, penned by Anthony A. Braga, David Weisburd, and Brandon Turchan, provides an overview of contemporary literature and a statistical assessment of the strategy’s effectiveness. The numerous case studies provide an insight into its application and results.
The theory behind the paper was that focused deterrence strategies are an effective crime prevention tool. Criminals, especially repeat offenders, were given a message that should they choose to mend their ways, the community and the state would give them opportunities to change their life for the better. Otherwise, the police would already know who and where they are, and punishment would be swift and severe (Hamilton, Rosenfeld, & Levin, 2018).
A secondary effect of focused deterrence strategies is claimed to be an increased community cohesion. There is evidence to suggest that community disorder is an important factor in criminal behavior and mutual mistrust, while the police are often seen as the upholders of community values (Jackson, Bradford, Hohl, & Farrall, 2009). However, the effect on communities is not clear, and there needs to be more research in that direction.
The authors have picked out 24 evaluations of law enforcement operations and performed a meta-analysis of the operations’ effect sizes, evaluations’ methodology, and extraneous factors. The effect sizes were moderate, with drug-related crime prevention programs being the least effective, and the weakest individual research producing more favorable results (Braga, Weisburd, & Turchan, 2018). Overall, the meta-analysis concludes that focus deterrence strategies are an effective method of crime prevention.
From the methodological standpoint, the meta-analysis appears solid, and its data robust. It used random-effects models to measure mean effect sizes of the study outcomes by program and design types, as well as a trim-and-fill method to address a likely publication bias. The limitations of the research appear to stem from the analyzed works themselves rather than the method of analysis.
There are other works that suggest the effectiveness of these strategies. In particular, Hamilton, Rosenfeld, and Levin (2018) performed a randomized controlled study of attending the focused deterrence meetings and their effects. The treatment group of parolees and probationers was asked to attend, and the control group was not. Some members of the treatment group opted out of the meetings. The study concluded that those who did not attend the meetings were more likely to be arrested again within the next 17 months, which reinforces the effectiveness of focused deterrence.
To put these strategies in perspective, the broader causes of crime must be analyzed. Cantora, Iyer, and Restivo (2016) suggest that primary drivers of crime in urban areas include neighborhood disorder, trust between the citizens and the police, barriers to employment, and lack of recreational opportunities. Some residents of high-crime areas cite poor communication between denizens and lack of communal activities. Another work suggests that a primary driver of violent crime worldwide is economic disparity (Coccia, 2017).
That disparity often occurs in tandem with high population growth, which creates a generation of young people that cannot reach their goals due to the lack of economic opportunity and turn to crime instead. While focused deterrence strategies can dissuade people from committing a crime out of fear of being punished, they do not solve these underlying problems. Another community-oriented approach needs to be adopted in tandem with focused deterrence in order to combat crime at its source, instead of punishing individuals.
The analysis of 24 different focused deterrence programs has shown a statistically significant moderate positive effect. These programs are more effective when dealing with violent crime, rather than drug-related offenses. More research is required into the community aspects of these strategies, but the existing data is sufficient to conclude that these programs are worthwhile, and have a tangible benefit to society.
References
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205–250. Web.
Cantora, A., Iyer, S., & Restivo, L. (2016). Understanding drivers of crime in East Baltimore: Resident perceptions of why crime persists. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 686–709. Web.
Coccia, M. (2017). A Theory of general causes of violent crime: Homicides, income inequality and deficiencies of the heat hypothesis and of the model of CLASH. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 190–200. Web.
Hamilton, B., Rosenfeld, R., & Levin, A. (2018). Opting out of treatment: Self-selection bias in a randomized controlled study of a focused deterrence notification meeting. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(1), 1–17. Web.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hohl, K., & Farrall, S. (2009). Does the fear of crime erode public confidence in policing?Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(1), 100–111. Web.