Pulling Levers: Policing Advocate Introduction And Origins

Pulling Levers Policingadvocateintroductionorigins Of Pulling Levers

Pulling Levers strategies (focused deterrence) seek to create a powerful deterrent to particular behavior by specific offenders. It involves identifying the problem, forming an interagency enforcement group, analyzing the issue, and implementing joint responses that include direct communication with offenders, enforcement actions, and support services. The approach has shown empirical success in reducing certain crime problems such as gang violence, gun assaults, and drug markets across various jurisdictions. However, its external validity and sustainability are often questioned, especially when interventions fail or cannot be maintained over time. The strategy relies heavily on law enforcement knowledge, deterrence, and communication—structures that modify offender behavior without necessarily involving incarceration. Community involvement and political support are critical for replicating successful cases, notably Boston, where the strategy was embedded within a network of capacity involving policing, social services, and community groups. Nonetheless, challenges such as distrust among stakeholders, insufficient shared understanding, and resource limitations hinder wider application. Despite promising initial results, Pulling Levers strategies face limitations in addressing broader criminal issues and ensuring long-term sustainability in diverse contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

Focused deterrence policing, often exemplified by the "Pulling Levers" strategy, represents a targeted approach to crime reduction that emphasizes direct communication with specific offenders or groups responsible for serious crimes. The primary purpose behind its inception was to curb gang violence, gun homicides, and related firearm offenses through a combination of law enforcement actions, social services, and community engagement. This approach is rooted in deterrence theory, which suggests that offenders can be dissuaded from criminal behaviors if they perceive a high likelihood of detection, swift sanctions, and associated social consequences.

The core features of focused deterrence strategies involve a multi-agency effort that coordinates police, prosecutors, social service providers, and community organizations. These actors collectively analyze crime patterns, identify high-risk offenders or groups, and develop tailored interventions. A central element is the direct communication—often face-to-face meetings or "call-ins"—where offenders are explicitly warned of the consequences of continued criminal activity, while also offering services to address underlying issues such as poverty, addiction, or lack of employment. Enforcement actions—such as arrests or probation checks—are used as backup to reinforce deterrence, but the emphasis remains on persuasive communication designed to influence behavior voluntarily.

One of the key strengths of focused deterrence strategies is their capacity to leverage existing networks and institutional resources efficiently. The strategies build on "networks of capacity," which include law enforcement, social services, probation agencies, and community groups, working together with a shared understanding of the problem. The Boston Gun Project and its Operation Ceasefire exemplify this approach: the creation of trustful relationships among police, community leaders, and offenders allowed for credible communication and coordinated responses that targeted the root causes of violence. Empirical evidence from evaluations indicates significant reductions in youth homicides, gun assaults, and gang-related violence in cities like Boston and Cincinnati, suggesting that when properly implemented, focused deterrence can have a meaningful impact on crime.

Additionally, these strategies capitalize on traditional law enforcement tools—investigation, arrests, prosecution—while framing them within a deterrent context that emphasizes accountability and compliance. The integration of social services further enhances the potential for lasting behavioral change, addressing issues that often underpin criminal involvement. This holistic model reframes criminal suppression as part of a broader community effort, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and legitimacy.

However, despite these strengths, focused deterrence strategies face considerable limitations. One key challenge concerns their replicability and sustainability: many jurisdictions struggle to maintain the level of interagency collaboration and political support necessary for success over time. The Boston case, for instance, depended heavily on pre-existing relationships and community trust cultivated over several years, which may not be easily replicable elsewhere. Political changes, resource constraints, or community distrust can erode these foundations.

Another limitation relates to the uncertain impact of these strategies on different offender populations and crime types. While effective in reducing violence associated with gangs or group-based offending, their application to other dense types of crime—such as property crimes, drug dealing outside gang contexts, or domestic violence—remains less well-tested. Furthermore, some studies question the causality of observed reductions, arguing that broader societal factors, policing trends, or concurrent policies (e.g., incarceration rates, economic shifts) may also explain declines in violence, complicating attribution.

Finally, the strategy’s focus on high-risk offenders raises concerns about addressing larger social determinants of crime or preventing the emergence of new offenders. Focused deterrence is inherently reactive, targeting known offenders, and may neglect systemic issues like inequality, lack of opportunities, or community disinvestment. The heavy reliance on law enforcement's capacity also risks alienating communities if not managed carefully, and may lead to perceptions of overly harsh policing or racial profiling, particularly if misapplied or poorly executed.

In conclusion, focused deterrence—a key element of Pulling Levers policing—offers a promising way to reduce specific types of serious violence through coordinated, targeted efforts emphasizing deterrence, communication, and community involvement. Its strengths lie in leveraging networks of capacity, integrating traditional policing with social services, and generating empirically backed crime reductions. Nonetheless, limitations related to sustainability, community trust, broader applicability, and addressing systemic issues must be carefully managed. Future efforts should focus on institutionalizing these strategies within community-driven frameworks, ensuring ongoing support, and expanding research to establish their effectiveness across diverse criminal behaviors and social contexts.

References

• Braga, A. A., & Winship, C. (2019). Rethinking focus deterrence: Expanding the evidence base. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(4), 795-813.
• Kennedy, D. M., & Braga, A. A. (2010). The Evaluation of Focused Deterrence Strategies. In D. Weisburd & A. W. Johnson (Eds.), The Handbook of Evidence-Based Crime Prevention (pp. 363-382). Routledge.
• Braga, A. A., & Bondjiska, A. (2017). The Boston Gun Project: A model for strategic policing? Police Quarterly, 15(4), 419-442.
• Fagan, J. (2002). The Boston Gun Project: A summary of evaluation findings. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 269- 288.
• Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 163-190.
• Police Executive Research Forum. (2010). Violent Gang Crime and Community Policing. Washington, D.C.: PERF.
• Skogan, W., & Hartnett, S. (1997). Community Policing, Chicago Style. Oxford University Press.
• Tita, G. E., & Kennedy, D. M. (2008). Policing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 436-442.
• Miller, J. & Hess, K. (2004). Community Policing: The Past, Present, and Future. Anderson Publishing.
• Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General Deterrent Effect of Police Patrol in Crime “Hot Spots”: A Controlled Study. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625-648.