Advertisement

Addressing the “black box” of focused deterrence: an examination of the mechanisms of change in Chicago’s Project Safe Neighborhoods

  • Rick TrinknerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Chicago’s Project Safe Neighborhoods focused deterrence program is an effective crime reduction policy. However, similar to other focused deterrence programs, prior evaluations have not empirically established the mechanisms of change believed to underlie the program. The purpose of this paper was to address this gap by examining the influence of offender notification meetings—a key component of the program—on three mechanisms: perceptions of risks associated with future offending, perceptions of police legitimacy, and adherence to community norms.

Methods

Over a 1-year period, parolees attending the notification meetings were randomly assigned to complete surveys assessing each of the mechanisms immediately before the meeting (control) or immediately after (treatment).

Results

Parolees in the treatment condition had higher perceptions of risk and police legitimacy compared to those in the control condition. Additionally, they were more likely to judge police as procedurally fair. The groups did not differ with respect to adherence to community norms. Within both groups, perception of risk was positively associated with motivation to stay out of prison. Police legitimacy was also positively associated with motivation for the treatment group, while community norm adherence was positively associated with motivation for those in the control condition.

Conclusions

This study indicates that the offender notification meetings are working as intended with respect to the underlying mechanisms of change embedded in Chicago’s Project Safe Neighborhoods.

Keywords

Focused deterrence Police legitimacy Community norms Procedural justice Corrections Project Safe Neighborhoods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of Valerie Pinkston, United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Illinois, for overseeing survey distribution and data collection. Without her efforts in the field, this study would not have been possible.

Supplementary material

11292_2019_9364_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 232–358.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811419368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Engel, R. S. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies save lives: introduction and discussion of an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grunwald, B., & Papachristos, A. V. (2017). Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago: looking back a decade later. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 107(1), 131–160.Google Scholar
  6. Ludwig, J., Kling, J. R., & Mullainathan, S. (2011). Mechanism experiments and policy evaluations. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 17–38.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.3.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Meares, T., Papachristos, A. V., & Fagan, J. (2009). Homicide and gun violence in Chicago: evaluation and summary of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Research Brief. Available at www.saferfoundation.org/files/documents/2009-PSN-Research-Brief_v2.pdf
  8. Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention felons: evaluating Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(2), 223–272.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00096.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701996.003.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tyler, T. R., & Trinkner, R. (2018). Why children follow rules: legal socialization and the development of legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Wallace, D., Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T., & Fagan, J. (2016). Desistance and legitimacy: the impact of offender notification meetings on recidivism among high risk offenders. Justice Quarterly, 33(7), 1237–1264.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1081262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology & Criminal JusticeArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations