Research paper
Are suppression and deterrence mechanisms enough? Examining the “pulling levers” drug market intervention strategy in Peoria, Illinois, USA

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.12.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Police agencies across the globe enforce laws that prohibit drug transportation, distribution, and use with varying degrees of effectiveness. Within the United States, law enforcement strategies that rely on partnerships between criminal justice officials, neighbourhood residents, and social service providers (i.e., collaborative implementation) have shown considerable promise for reducing crime and disorder associated with open-air drug markets. The current study examines a comprehensive police enforcement strategy conducted in Peoria, Illinois (USA) designed to reduce patterns of crime and violence associated with an open-air drug market in a specific neighbourhood.

Methods

Change in neighbourhood crime was assessed using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) interrupted time series analysis. Further, target area residents were surveyed to gauge their awareness of the police intervention as well as perceived changes in local crime patterns.

Results

Analyses indicate that the intervention did not produce significant changes in neighbourhood crime offense rates between pre- and post-intervention periods. In addition, the majority of surveyed residents within the target area did not demonstrate an awareness of the intervention nor did they report perceived changes in local crime patterns.

Conclusions

Study findings suggest that police-led approaches in the absence of high levels of community awareness and involvement may have less capacity to generate crime-control when focusing on open-air drug markets. We propose that police agencies adopting this strategy invest considerable resources toward achieving community awareness and participation in order to increase the potential for attaining significant and substantive programmatic impact.

Introduction

Police around the globe enforce laws in an effort to disrupt drug transportation, drug use, and drug markets. Many nations contribute millions of dollars annually to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in order to promote international crime prevention using a criminal justice framework. Within the US alone, roughly 36.3% (US$9.4 billion) of the US$25.9 billion National Drug Control Budget in 2012 was allocated to domestic law enforcement in an effort to combat illicit drug trafficking, and related crimes (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2012).

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of police approaches to address problems associated with drug use, transportation, and market distribution is mixed, at best. There is no indication that police strategies such as interdictions and seizures have an impact on drug supply (Mazerolle, Soole, & Rombouts, 2007). Studies that have tracked patterns of drug consumption among active users have shown little to no change in the frequency of usage patterns – illustrating a resiliency to police interventions (Wood et al., 2004). Research findings are also inconclusive concerning whether police crackdowns, raids, and undercover operations substantively impact drug-related crime rates (Mazerolle et al., 2007). Police suppression techniques (i.e., intensive patrols and directed arrests) appear to have a moderate initial crime impact with diminishing returns over time (Cohen, Gorr, & Singh, 2003). However, police-driven approaches can also inadvertently have a lasting, detrimental impact on broader community contexts (Maher & Dixon, 1999). Further, some research reveals that increases in drug law enforcement simply displaces drug use (Wood et al., 2004), limits users’ access to risk-reduction operations such as needle exchange programs (Bluthenthal, Kral, Lorvick, & Watters, 1997), or actually increases violence (Aitken, Moore, Higgs, Kelsall, & Kerger, 2002; Werb et al., 2011) as well as property crimes (Benson & Rasmussen, 1991).

Over the past decade, US police departments have begun to utilize evidence-based practices (i.e., the use of data, specially crafted police strategies to address specific problems, and rigorous evaluation of impact) long advocated by criminal justice scholars (e.g., Sherman, 1990, Sherman et al., 2002). The use of evidence-based practices has also become a common feature of crime-control initiatives that focus on offences associated with open-air drug markets (i.e., small geographic locations such as street corners where illicit drug transactions take place in public). Reuter and Pollack (2012) note that police-led strategies focusing on open-air drug markets are primarily (if not solely) concerned with suppressing particular marketplaces rather than overall drug use or supply, which means the primary goal is to reduce concentrated public selling of illicit drugs and related crime. Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) compared findings of different drug law enforcement strategies that focused on drug use, drug transportation, neighbourhood crime and disorder. Their results showed geographically focused policing interventions that facilitate partnerships between police and third parties (e.g., community groups, business leaders, social service and health care providers) hold the most promise for facilitating significant and sustained crime impact (see also Ritter, 2011).

In a recently published meta-analysis, Braga and Weisburd (2012) identified eight US cities (e.g., Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Lowell, Newark, and Stockton) that have implemented and rigorously evaluated “pulling levers” policing strategies intended to address crime and offending patterns associated with high-risk groups (e.g., youth, gang, and/or drug offenders). Pulling levers policing is a threat-sanction approach used by criminal justice officials to warn high-risk offenders of the sanctions that will be used by the criminal justice system if re-offense occurs (i.e., that police/prosecutors/probation officers will ‘pull every available lever’ in order to maximize punishment – see Kennedy, 1997). Pulling levers policing is described as a focused deterrence strategy comprised of the following components: (a) identification of high-risk offenders through extensive data analysis; (b) call-in sessions where high-risk offenders are notified of the leverage mechanisms available to police (e.g., intensive surveillance, probation, parole, or the use of federal prosecution) in an effort to facilitate compliance (i.e., lower offending rates); and, (c) the integration of varied community groups, faith-based organizations, and social service providers (Kennedy, 1997). This comprehensive strategy was first implemented in Boston, MA to address rising youth, gang and gun violence by focusing on high-risk offenders’ networks (Kennedy, Braga, & Piehl, 2001). The Boston (Ceasefire) intervention corresponded with a 63% reduction in youth gun violence, which was a significant decline when compared to similar US cities during the same period (Braga, Kennedy, Waring, & Piehl, 2001).

Recent studies conducted in High Point (North Carolina), Nashville (Tennessee), and Rockford (Illinois) have examined the utility of pulling levers policing to combat violence, disorderly conduct, and overall crime problems associated with open-air drug markets in high-risk neighbourhoods (Braga, 2012, Braga and Weisburd, 2012, Corsaro et al., 2010, Corsaro et al., 2012, Corsaro et al., in pressKennedy, 2009, Kennedy and Wong, 2009). The initiatives in High Point, Nashville, and Rockford have all demonstrated modest and significant reductions in neighbourhood drug, property, violence, and disorder crimes (Braga & Weisburd, 2012), as well as increased awareness and support from local residents in High Point and Nashville (Corsaro et al., 2010, Kennedy and Wong, 2009). Further, the US Office of Justice Programs refers to pulling levers drug market policing as a ‘promising practice’ (OJP, 2012). As Reuter and Pollack (2012) note, initial findings of this place-based intervention strategy appear promising given the use of suppression on high-risk offenders, deterrence and social services on low-risk offenders, and promoting involvement of community members in potentially marginalized neighbourhoods.

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of the pulling levers drug market intervention replication in Peoria, Illinois (USA). Additional replications and systematic evaluations of pulling levers drug market policing strategies are warranted in order to better understand the strengths and limitations associated with this strategy. Thus, the present study has the potential to contribute to the literature by examining pulling levers in a particular kind of drug market (i.e., one with loosely connected sellers) and study setting (i.e., a high-risk neighbourhood with low levels of community engagement), beyond what is customary in prior research.

Section snippets

Study setting

In 2009, the pulling levers drug market intervention strategy was implemented in Peoria, Illinois, a medium-sized US city with a population of roughly 115,000 people (US Census Bureau, 2012). In late 2008, city crime analysts examined calls for service (i.e., citizen call requests for police assistance) and offense data from the prior two years. The results of their geographic analyses indicated that a specific area in the city had a disproportionately high number of violent, property, and drug

Methods

As noted by Kennedy (2009) and Reuter and Pollack (2012), the purpose of focused deterrence police initiatives focusing on open-air drug markets is to (a) integrate local citizens throughout the intervention strategy in order to bridge police-community partnerships, and (b) reduce concentrated crime rates and disorder associated with drug markets. Two distinct data sources were used to evaluate the strategy: neighbourhood telephone survey data and official crime and calls for service data.

Analysis

Interrupted time series analysis was used to examine whether there was a significant shift in crime and calls for service outcomes between pre- and post-intervention periods while controlling for underlying trends in the longitudinal data. When examining a single-site intervention, time series analysis can be a useful analytical tool for isolating program impact (Cook & Campbell, 1979). We followed the Box and Jenkins (1976) ARIMA approach using model identification, estimation, and diagnostic

Time series results

The best-fitting time series model for each outcome was selected based on reviewing the time plots, the autocorrelation function (ACF), partial autocorrelation function (PACF), and model fit statistics (AIC and BIC). An AR1 model (1,0,0) was most parsimonious for target area violent crime incidents; neither property nor drug/disorder offense models required a serial correlation parameter (0,0,0) given the stability of each series; an AR1, 12-month seasonal model (1,0,0)(1,0,0)12 was selected to

Discussion

This study examined the impact of a comprehensive policing initiative designed to address crime problems associated with an open-air drug market in a targeted neighbourhood within Peoria, Illinois (USA). Analysis of violent, property, drug and disorder crime data as well as calls for service data indicated there was no significant change in targeted offenses between pre- and post-intervention periods after controlling for underlying trends in the data (using ARIMA time series estimation). In

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was supported by Grant #08-DJ-BX-0034 awarded to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions contained within this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of ICJIA or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References (40)

  • C. Aitken et al.

    The impact of a police crackdown on a street drug scene: Evidence from the street

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2002)
  • D. Werb et al.

    Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic review

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2011)
  • B.L. Benson et al.

    Relationship between illicit drug enforcement policy and property crimes

    Contemporary Economic Policy

    (1991)
  • R.N. Bluthenthal et al.

    Impact of law enforcement on syringe exchange programs: A look at Oakland and San Francisco

    Medical Anthropology

    (1997)
  • G.P. Box et al.

    Time series analysis: Forecasting and control

    (1976)
  • A.A. Braga

    Getting deterrence right? Evaluation evidence and complimentary crime control mechanisms

    Criminology and Public Policy

    (2012)
  • A.A. Braga et al.

    Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston's operation ceasefire

    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

    (2001)
  • A.A. Braga et al.

    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

    (2012)
  • A.A. Braga et al.

    Partnership, accountability and innovation: Clarifying Boston's experience with pulling levers

  • P.J. Carr

    The new parochialism: Implications of the beltway case for arguments concerning informal social control

    American Journal of Sociology

    (2003)
  • J. Cohen et al.

    Estimating intervention effects in varying risk settings: Do police raids reduce illegal drug dealing in nuisance bars?

    Criminology

    (2003)
  • T.D. Cook et al.

    Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings

    (1979)
  • N. Corsaro et al.

    Evaluating a policing strategy intended to disrupt an illicit street-level drug market

    Evaluation Review

    (2010)
  • N. Corsaro et al.

    The impact of drug market pulling levers policing on neighborhood violence: An evaluation of the high point drug market intervention

    Criminology and Public Policy

    (2012)
  • Corsaro, N., Brunson, R.K., & McGarrell, E.F. Problem-oriented policing and open-air drug markets: Examining the...
  • J.M. Frabutt et al.

    A street-drug elimination initiative: The law enforcement perspective

    Policing

    (2010)
  • A. Hawken

    HOPE for probation: How Hawaii improved behavior with high-probability, low-severity sanctions

    The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

    (2010)
  • D. Kennedy

    Pulling levers: Chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention

    Valparaiso University Law Review

    (1997)
  • D. Kennedy

    Old wine in new bottles: Policing and the lessons of pulling levers

  • D. Kennedy

    Deterrence and crime prevention: Reconsidering the prospect of sanction

    (2009)
  • Cited by (17)

    • How risky are heroin markets? A multi-site study of self-reported risk perceptions among police detainees in Australia

      2021, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      In Australia—where the present study is situated—heroin use has remained relatively stable over the past two decades (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2018; Patterson, Sullivan, Ticehurst & Bricknell, 2018) and there has been a persistent empirical interest in heroin market dynamics, not least because the ‘overt’ nature of most heroin markets has long been associated with a diverse range of negative individual, social, and community-level consequences (Baumer, Lauritsen, Rosenfeld & Wright, 1998; Blumstein & Rosenfeld, 1998; Harocopos & Haugh, 2005; Meylakhs, 2017; Moore et al., 2005; Saunders, Ober, Kilmer & Greathouse, 2016; Taniguchi, Rengert & McCord, 2009; Weisburd & Mazerolle, 2000; Werb et al., 2011). How best to respond to the supply and demand dynamics of heroin markets remains a matter of ongoing conjecture, although the most widely implemented techniques at the point of transaction are those led by law-enforcement, such as police-led crackdowns (Corsaro & Brunson, 2013), saturation and highly visible policing (Piza, 2018) and intelligence-led interdiction programs (Webster, 2015). In Australia, law enforcement activities account for the largest share of Australian government expenditure in drug policy (Ritter, McLeod & Shanahan, 2013), despite limited empirical evidence of effectiveness and strong indications of unintended consequences (Mazerolle, Soole & Rombouts, 2007).

    • Unintended consequences of cigarette prohibition, regulation, and taxation

      2016, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text