U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Gun Violence

Among Serious

Young Offenders

by Anthony A. Braga

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 23
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your

community, including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• On-line access to research and police practices

Designed for police and those who work with them to

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Gun Violence Among

Serious Young Offenders

Anthony A. Braga

This project was supported by cooperative agreement

#2002CKWX0003 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the

official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 23

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and

to improving the overall response to incidents, not to

investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The

guides are written for police–of whatever rank or

assignment–who must address the specific problem the

guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers

who

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing

principles and methods. The guides are not primers in

problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with

the initial decision to focus on a particular problem,

methods to analyze the problem, and means to assess

the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They

are designed to help police decide how best to analyze

and address a problem they have already identified. (An

assessment guide has been produced as a companion to

this series and the COPS Office has also published an

introductory guide to problem analysis. For those who

want to learn more about the principles and methods of

problem-oriented policing, the assessment and analysis

guides, along with other recommended readings, are

listed at the back of this guide.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that

is most likely to work in your community. You should

not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you

must decide whether they are appropriate to your local

situation. What is true in one place may not be true
ii Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

elsewhere; what works in one place may not work

everywhere.

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police

business. The guides describe responses that other

police departments have used or that researchers have

tested. While not all of these responses will be

appropriate to your particular problem, they should help

give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do.

You may think you cannot implement some of these

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In

many places, when police have discovered a more

effective response, they have succeeded in having laws

and policies changed, improving the response to the

problem.

• Understand the value and the limits of research

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful

research is available to the police; for other problems, little

is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series

summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate

the need for more research on that particular problem.

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to

all the questions you might have about the problem. The

research may help get you started in designing your own

responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This

will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not

every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has

every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so

would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The

references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of

research on the subject.
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

• Are willing to work with other community agencies

to find effective solutions to the problem. The police

alone cannot implement many of the responses

discussed in the guides. They must frequently implement

them in partnership with other responsible private and

public entities. An effective problem-solver must know

how to forge genuine partnerships with others and be

prepared to invest considerable effort in making these

partnerships work.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom,

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and

Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police

practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that

the police everywhere experience common problems. In a

world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is

important that police be aware of research and successful

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own

agency's experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your

agency may have effectively addressed a problem using

responses not considered in these guides and your

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.
iv Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

For more information about problem-oriented policing,

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at

www.popcenter.org or via the COPS website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov. This website offers free online access to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series,

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools

series,

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing

and related topics,

• an interactive training exercise, and

• online access to important police research and practices.
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide

by proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus,

University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke,

professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E.

Eck, associate professor of criminal justice, University of

Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, assistant clinical professor,

University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson,

police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm Weisel,

director of police research, North Carolina State

University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw

the project for the COPS Office. Suzanne Fregly edited

the guides. Research for the guides was conducted at the

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the

direction of Phyllis Schultze.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the

line police officers, police executives and researchers who

peer reviewed each guide.

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Factors Contributing to Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders . . . . . . 3

Previous Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Gangs and Criminally Active Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Geographic and Temporal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Gangs and Criminally Active Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders . . . . . 15

Offender-Oriented Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

General Requirements for a "Pulling Levers" Focused 

Deterrence Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Key Elements of a "Pulling Levers" Focused Deterrence Strategy . . . . . . . 25

Disarming Young Gun Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Place-Oriented Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

General Requirements for a Place-Oriented Enforcement Strategy . . . . . . 29

Key Elements of a Place-Oriented Enforcement Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Gun Violence Among Serious 

Young Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Contents vii
viii Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Other Guides in This Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 1

The Problem of Gun Violence Among

Serious Young Offenders

This guide addresses serious youth gun violence,

describing the problem and reviewing factors that increase

the risks of it. It then identifies a series of questions that

might help you analyze your local problem. Finally, it

reviews responses to the problem, and what is known

about them from evaluative research and police practice.

Criminal misuse of guns kills or injures tens of thousands

of Americans every year. This violence imposes a heavy

burden on our standard of living, not only on groups that

have the highest victimization rates, but also on the

community at large. By one estimate, this burden amounts

to $80 billion per year.1 Although overall U.S. homicide

rates declined between the 1980s and 1990s, youth

homicide, particularly gun homicide, increased

dramatically. Between 1984 and 1994, juvenile (younger

than 18) homicides committed with handguns increased by

418 percent, and juvenile homicides committed with other

guns increased by 125 percent.2 During this time,

adolescents (ages 14 to 17) had the largest proportional

increase in homicide commission and victimization, young

adults (ages 18 to 24) had the largest absolute increase,

and there was much crossfire between the two age groups.3

Gun homicide accounted for all of the increase in youth

homicide. The youth violence epidemic peaked in 1993

and was followed by a rapid, sustained drop over the rest

of the 1990s.4 However, in 2000, more than 10,000

Americans were killed with guns, and guns are much more

likely to be used in homicides of teens and young adults

than in homicides of people of other ages.5
2 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

In urban areas, gun violence takes a particularly heavy toll,

as vastly disproportionate numbers of young minority

males are killed and injured, and increasing fear drives out

businesses and disrupts community social life. Research

has linked urban youth gun violence to gang conflicts,

street drug markets, and gun availability.6 Youth gun

violence is usually concentrated among groups of serious

offenders and in very specific places.7

The police can prevent youth gun violence by focusing on

identifiable risks. While gun violence seems to pervade our

society, it is remarkably clustered among high-risk people,

in high-risk places, at high-risk times. This concentration

of violence provides an important opportunity for police

to strategically address a seemingly intractable problem.

Related Problems

For police agencies, the most pressing concerns regarding

youth gun violence are why offenders target particular

people, at particular places, at particular times. However, it

is also important to recognize that youth gun violence is

often linked to a variety of risk factors beyond the scope

of problem-oriented policing. For example, it has been

linked to changing demographics, adverse economic

conditions, family disruption, media violence, and poor

parenting skills.8 These are sometimes considered the "root

causes" of the problem. However, by the time gun

violence problems come to police attention, the broader

questions of why youth offend are no longer relevant.

While police often help people access social services, they

are best positioned to prevent youth gun crimes by

focusing on the situational opportunities for offending

rather than trying to change those socioeconomic

conditions on which other government agencies primarily

focus. Thinking about how likely offenders, potential
The Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 3

victims, and others are to make decisions based on

perceived opportunities is more useful in designing

effective problem-oriented policing interventions.9

Youth gun violence is only one of many youth-related

problems police must handle. The following require

separate analysis and response:

• gang formation,

• gang intimidation,

• gang crime,

• youth drug dealing,

• youth drug use,

• underage drinking,

• gun availability to youth,

• gun possession by youth,

• illegal gun markets,

• street drug markets,

• disorderly youth in public places,

• assaults in and around bars,

• street cruising, and

• truancy.

Factors Contributing to Gun Violence Among Serious

Young Offenders

Understanding the factors that contribute to your youth

gun violence problem will help you frame your own local

analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures,

recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate

responses. Research has shown that crime problems tend

to cluster among a few offenders, victims, and places.

Youth gun violence is similarly concentrated among a few

offenders in a few places. This section reviews what is

known from criminal profiles of youth gun offenders and
4 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

victims, addresses the importance of gangs and criminally

active groups in youth gun violence, and discusses the

clustering in location and time of youth gun violence. It is

important to note that the problem frames vary across the

studies described below. In many jurisdictions, an initial

interest in "juvenile violence" or "gun violence" shifted, as

the problem assessments proceeded, to a focus on

understanding and controlling violence, regardless of age

or weapon type. However, in all cities, youth gun violence

was the most important component of the problem. For

example, in Minneapolis, problem-oriented research

conducted on an emergent total homicide problem found

that homicide was largely committed by youth ages 24 and

under, who used guns and were known to the criminal

justice system.10

Previous Offenses

Youth gun violence is concentrated among serious

offenders well known to police and other criminal justice

agencies. In Boston, an interagency group of law

enforcement personnel, youth workers, and researchers

examined the criminal histories of youth ages 21 and

under killed by gun or knife in the city between 1990 and

1994, and of the youth offenders responsible.11 Of the

victims, 75 percent had been arraigned for at least one

offense in Massachusetts courts, and 20 percent had

served time in a youth or adult detention center. Nearly 50

percent had been on probation in the past, and many were

on probation when they were killed. Of the offenders, a

little over 75 percent had been arraigned for at least one

offense in Massachusetts courts, 25 percent had served

time, over 50 percent had been on probation in the past,

and 25 percent were on probation when they committed

the crime. Victims and offenders known to the criminal
The Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 5

justice system had an average of nearly 10 prior

arraignments, and nearly 50 percent had 10 or more

arraignments. They had been arraigned for a wide variety

of crimes, including armed violent offenses, disorder

offenses, and drug offenses. In gang literature, this wide

range of offending is described as "cafeteria-style"

offending.12

A number of other jurisdictions have reported similar

findings. In Minneapolis, Baltimore, Los Angeles,

Indianapolis, and Stockton, Calif., gun violence was largely

committed by and against youth with extensive criminal

backgrounds.13

Gangs and Criminally Active Groups

Youth gun violence is concentrated among feuding gangs

and criminally active groups. The Boston interagency

group examined the circumstances of the youth gun and

knife murders and found that nearly two-thirds were gangrelated.14 Most of the murders were not linked to drug

dealing or other "business" interests; instead, most

resulted from relatively long-standing gang feuds. In

Minneapolis, nearly two-thirds of youth murders between

1994 and 1997 were gang-related.15 In the Boyle Heights

section of Los Angeles, slightly less than two-thirds of

youth gun homicides were gang-related. Another 25

percent involved gang members as victims or offenders,

but were motivated for reasons other than gang rivalries.16

Even in neighborhoods suffering from high rates of youth

gun violence, most youth are not in gangs and criminally

active groups. In addition, some gangs are more dangerous

than others. To better understand the city's gang problem,

the Boston interagency group mapped gang turf and
6 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

estimated gang size.17 They identified 61 different crews

with around 1,300 members. Gang members represented

less than 1 percent of all Boston youth, and less than 3

percent of youth in high-risk neighborhoods. The

mapping also documented rivalries and alliances among

gangs. Gangs had identifiable "beefs" with particular rival

gangs, not all rivalries were active (i.e., shots were not

currently being fired), and certain gangs were much more

involved in conflicts than others. In Minneapolis,

researchers identified some 2,650 people in 32 active street

gangs as being central to youth gun violence; they

represented less than 3.5 percent of Minneapolis residents

between the ages of 14 and 24. The gangs tended not to

be territorial; they operated fluidly across Minneapolis and

nearby jurisdictions. In Boyle Heights, researchers

identified 37 criminally active street gangs as being

involved in youth gun violence.

However, gangs are not always behind youth gun violence.

In some cities, criminally active groups who are not

considered "gangs" are major gun offenders. In Baltimore,

violent groups active in street drug markets were involved

in numerous homicides in 1997.18 Most of the murders

occurred in or near a street drug market, and many victims

and suspects were part of a drug organization or a

recognized neighborhood criminal network. Researchers

identified 325 drug groups that ranged in nature from

rather sophisticated organizations, to structured

neighborhood groups, to loose neighborhood groups.

While drug disputes and street drug robberies contributed

to Baltimore's gun violence problem, homicides often

resulted from ongoing, non-drug-related disputes among

people in drug-selling groups.
In thinking about the nature of your youth gun violence

problem, it is important to recognize that the direct links

between youth gangs, drugs, and violence are usually

overstated.19 Even in Baltimore, where most youth gun

violence occurs in a drug market setting, most youth gun

homicide is not drug-related. Gang and group violence is

usually retaliatory or expressive (defending gang honor,

status, and members). Today's offenders are often

tomorrow's victims, and vice versa. Youth gun violence

victims treated in Boston emergency rooms often had scars

from past gun and knife wounds.20 Youth gun violence in

many cities appears to be a self-sustaining cycle among a

relatively small number of criminally active youth. They are

at high risk of being confronted by gun violence, so they

tend to try to protect themselves by getting, carrying, and

using guns; forming and joining gangs; acting tough; and so

forth.21 This behavior adds to the cycle of street violence.

The research confirms a high degree of overlap between

victim and offender populations. It is important that you

determine whether this overlap exists in your jurisdiction.

Geographic and Temporal Distribution

Like most crime problems, youth gun violence is clustered

in specific places. Between 1987 and 1990, half of

Chicago's gang-related homicides occurred in only 10 of its

77 communities.22 In Minneapolis, nearly two-thirds of

homicides were clustered in only eight of its 95

neighborhoods. In Boston, gang turf covered only 3

percent of the city's total area, but over 25 percent of the

city's youth homicides, gun assaults, weapons offenses, and

shots-fired calls for service occurred there. In Boyle

Heights, spatial analyses revealed that youth gun homicide

The Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 7
8 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

was concentrated in specific hot spots, in and around gang

hangouts. Most of the Boyle Heights youth gun homicides

were considered to be predatory, as perpetrators invaded

rival gang territory to commit them.23

Youth gun violence often clusters in time. For example, in

Boston, most youth gun violence occurred in the

afternoon hours immediately following school release, as

well as during weekend evenings. In Kansas City, Mo.,

computer analysis of gun crime hot spots within a beat

revealed that most gun violence occurred between 7 p.m.

and 1 a.m.24
Understanding Your Local Problem 9

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized

description of youth gun violence. Research has shown

that criminal and disorderly youth gangs and groups vary

widely both within and across cities.25 (For example,

Boston gangs were small, loosely organized, mostly

neighborhood-based groups, unlike Chicago and Los

Angeles gangs.) You must combine the basic facts with a

more specific understanding of your local problem.

Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design

a more effective response strategy.

Analyses of youth gun violence should combine official

data with street-level knowledge to provide a dynamic,

real-life picture of the problem. The experiences,

observations, and historical perspectives of police officers,

street workers, and others in routine contact with

offenders, communities, and criminal networks are

underused resources for describing, understanding, and

crafting interventions aimed at crime problems. Collecting

data through interviews and focus groups can help you

refine existing practitioner knowledge.26 For example, you

can greatly enhance official data on youth gun violence by

systematically reviewing and recording the circumstances

of each incident in a working-group setting. Crime

mapping is also an important tool in assessing youth gun

violence. It can provide important insights on the

locations of gun crimes, gang turf, and drug markets.†

† Interested readers should consult

the National Institute of Justice

Mapping and Analysis for Public

Safety website, at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/.
10 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask

in analyzing your particular problem of youth gun

violence, even if the answers are not always readily

available. Your answers to these and other questions will

help you choose the most appropriate set of responses

later on.

Victims 

• Before the shooting, was the victim ever arrested,

arraigned, or incarcerated? If so, how many times, and

for what offense(s)?

• Was the victim ever on probation or parole? Was he or

she on probation or parole when the shooting

occurred?

• Was the victim a member or associate of a gang or

criminally active group?

• What were the circumstances surrounding the victim's

death or injury? Was it gang- or drug-related? The

result of a spontaneous argument or other

interpersonal conflict? 

• Did the victim know the offender? 

• Did the victim or his/her associates have a conflict

with the offender or his/her associates? If so, what was

the conflict about? Was there prior violence associated

with the victim's death or injury?

• Was the victim an innocent bystander killed or injured

during a dispute between two gangs or groups?

• Did the victim own or carry a gun? If so, where did he

or she get it, and why? Was the victim concerned about

personal safety? Seeking status on the street?
Understanding Your Local Problem 11

Offenders

• Before the shooting, was the offender ever arrested,

arraigned, or incarcerated? If so, how many times, and

for what offense(s)?

• Was the offender ever on probation or parole? Was he

or she on probation or parole when the shooting

occurred?

• Was the offender a member or associate of a gang or

criminally active group?

• What type of gun did the offender use, and where did

he or she get it?

• Did the offender routinely carry a gun? If so, why? Was

he or she concerned about personal safety? Seeking

status on the street?

Gangs and Criminally Active Groups

• How many members does the gang or group have?

• Does the gang or group have any conflicts with other

gangs or groups? If so, what are the conflicts about

(retribution, race, turf)?

• Does the gang or group have any alliances with other

gangs or groups?

• What types of crimes do gang or group members

commit?

• Does the gang or group claim turf in particular areas of

the city?
12 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Locations/Times

• Where do gun assaults, gun homicides, and shots-fired

calls for service cluster? Do they occur on public or

private property?

• Do the incidents occur where youth commonly

congregate? If so, why do youth congregate there?

What do they do there?

• What accounts for the location's attractiveness?

Closeness to home? Access to restaurants, telephones,

or video games? Lack of visibility to the police and

others? Absence of management or authority?

• Are other crimes occurring at the location? Is it a street

drug market?

• At what times do gun assaults, gun homicides, and

shots-fired calls for service cluster?

• Why are violent youth converging at specific locations

at particular times? Does the timing involve school

release, sporting events, parties, or some other common

social opportunity?

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might

modify your responses if they are not producing the

intended results. You should take measures of your

problem before you implement responses, to determine how

serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to

determine whether they have been effective. All measures

should be taken in both the target area and the

surrounding area. (For more detailed guidance on

measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide to this

series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide

for Police Problem-Solvers.) 
Understanding Your Local Problem 13

The following are potentially useful measures of the

effectiveness of responses to youth gun violence:

• reduced youth gun homicides,

• reduced youth gun assaults,

• reduced shots-fired calls for service,

• reduced gun recoveries from youth,†

• reduced youth gun injuries (emergency room data are

available from hospitals and state public health

departments),

• reduced severity of youth gun injuries, and

• greater perceptions of safety among neighborhood

youth, other community members, and local

merchants.

† It is important to recognize that

gun recoveries may initially

increase when police start a gun

violence-reduction program. If the

responses are effective, this initial

increase will be followed by a

decrease in gun recoveries.

Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 15

Responses to the Problem of Gun

Violence Among Serious Young

Offenders

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a

better understanding of the factors contributing to it.

Once you have analyzed your local problem and

established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you

should consider possible responses to address the

problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of

ideas for addressing your particular problem. These

strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and

police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to

your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor

responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify

each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an

effective strategy will involve implementing several

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are

seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do

not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give

careful consideration to who else in your community

shares responsibility for the problem and can help police

better respond to it.

Recent evaluation research has revealed that police can

prevent gun violence. While this guide categorizes police

responses by whether they are primarily focused on

offenders or on hot spots, in practice, they overlap. For

example, when police focus on offenders in gangs, they

sometimes also focus on gang turf and drug market areas.
16 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

When police are deployed to prevent gun violence in

particular places, they often focus on controlling the

behavior of particularly dangerous offenders there. The

distinction between the focuses matters less than the fact

that police can prevent youth gun crime by strategically

addressing identifiable risks.

The Richmond (Calif.) Comprehensive Homicide Initiative

demonstrates the benefits of an approach combining

offender- and place-oriented responses.27 This problemoriented policing project entailed a wide range of

community-based and enforcement actions involving local,

state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Offenderoriented strategies included intensive investigations, the

apprehension of violent fugitives, immediate responses to

gang violence to prevent retaliation, and the strategic use

of prevention and intervention programs. Place-oriented

strategies included towing potential getaway cars in areas

with high numbers of drive-by shootings, enforcing

building codes at drug nuisance locations, and assigning

officers to particular schools. An evaluation of this

multifaceted program revealed that it significantly reduced

homicides in Richmond, particularly those involving

guns.28

Offender-Oriented Responses

A number of jurisdictions have been experimenting with

new problem-oriented policing frameworks to prevent

gang and group gun violence among serious young

offenders. Pioneered in Boston, this approach is known as

the "pulling levers" focused deterrence strategy. It was

designed to influence the behavior, and the environment,

of the groups of chronic offenders identified as being at
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 17

the core of the city's gun violence problem. The pullinglevers approach attempted to prevent gang and group gun

violence by making would-be offenders believe that severe

consequences would follow such violence and change their

behavior. A key element of the strategy was the delivery of

a direct and explicit "retail deterrence" message to a

relatively small target audience regarding what behavior

would provoke a special response, and what that response

would be.

Evaluation research has revealed the pulling-levers

deterrence strategy to be effective in reducing gun

violence among serious young offenders. The well-known

Boston Gun Project/Operation Ceasefire intervention has

been credited with a two-thirds reduction in youth

homicides, and significant reductions in nonfatal gun

violence.29 Subsequent replications of the Boston strategy

have shown very promising results in reducing gun

violence. An evaluation of the Indianapolis Violence

Reduction Partnership revealed that homicides dropped by

42 percent, and that they were less likely to involve a

firearm.30 Less scientifically rigorous assessments in

Baltimore, Los Angeles, High Point, N.C., Winston-Salem,

N.C., and Stockton reveal similar reductions in homicide

and firearms violence.31

Some key elements of the "pulling levers" approach to

prevent gun violence are also part of Richmond, Va.'s

well-known Project Exile to deter convicted felons from

illegally carrying guns. This program is essentially a

firearms sentence-enhancement initiative, as offenders are

diverted from state to federal courts. At the heart of the

project, all Richmond felon-in-possession cases are
18 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

prosecuted in federal courts, with the defendants' facing

an average five-year prison sentence if convicted. The

project also includes training for local police on federal

statutes and search-and-seizure procedures, a public

relations campaign to increase community involvement in

fighting gun crime, and a massive publicity campaign to

warn potential offenders about zero tolerance for gun

crime and about the swift and certain federal sentence.

Project advocates claim success based on a 40 percent

decrease in Richmond gun homicides between 1997 and

1998. This claim has been disputed, however, as a recent

evaluation found that the decrease would have likely

occurred regardless of the project;32 the study suggests

that nearly all of the decrease was probably attributable to

an unusually high increase in and level of gun homicide

before the project began. Nevertheless, it is important to

note here that, as demonstrated in Boston, federal

prosecution of gang-involved chronic offenders central to

gun violence problems is an important component of an

integrated violence reduction strategy.

.
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 19

General Requirements for a "Pulling Levers" Focused

Deterrence Strategy

1. Enlisting community support. It is important for

community members to think that police efforts to

address youth gun violence are legitimate. Communities

will not support any indiscriminate, highly aggressive

crackdowns that put nonviolent youth at risk of being

swept into the criminal justice system.† Before

implementing a pulling-levers strategy, police need to

engage community members in an ongoing conversation

about legitimate and illegitimate means to control crime.

The community needs to be aware that most of the gun

violence problem is concentrated among groups of serious

young offenders, and that police will be tightly focusing

their activities on those youth (see text box below).

† See the POP Guide on The Benefits

and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

for further information.

Although they were not involved in Boston's Operation Ceasefire until after the

strategy had been designed and implemented, the 10-Point Coalition of activist

black clergy made it much easier for police to speak directly about the nature of

youth violence in the city. Police could talk with relative safety about the painful

realities of minority male offending and victimization, gangs, and chronic

offenders. The clergy supported Operation Ceasefire's tight focus on violent

youth, but condemned any indiscriminate, highly aggressive sweeps. Before the

development of this partnership, Boston's black community viewed police

activities to monitor violent youth with knee-jerk suspicion. With the coalition's

approval of and involvement in Operation Ceasefire, the community supported it

as a legitimate youth violence prevention campaign (Winship and Berrien 1999).
20 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

2. Convening an interagency working group. Criminal

justice agencies often work largely independent of each

other, at cross-purposes, without coordination, and in an

atmosphere of distrust and dislike.33 This is often also true

of different units within agencies. To effectively address

youth gun violence, an interagency working group of linelevel personnel with decision-making power must be

convened. The group should include members from all

relevant local, state, and federal criminal justice agencies.

Serious young gun offenders are often involved in a wide

range of crime, and often vulnerable to some form of

criminal justice intervention. For example, by enforcing

and manipulating the conditions of community release,

probation and parole officers can be powerful partners in

influencing the behavior of serious young gun offenders

under their supervision (see text box below).

Boston's Operation Night Light was an innovative police-probation partnership

that involved intensive home and street contact with high-risk offenders during the

evening. It was a key component of the Operation Ceasefire intervention. As

Corbett (2002) describes, probation officers are matched with officers from the

Boston Police Department's Youth Violence Strike Force. The probation officers

identify some 10 to 15 probationers they want to see each evening, concentrating

on those thought to be "active" on the street. The teams use unmarked cars and

wear plain clothes, visit probationers at home, and drive through crime-ridden

areas to determine whether probationers are there who should not be. Probation

officers gain a new credibility that did not exist when they conducted probation

activities in the office. Police have a new tool that significantly increases their

power. Many officers speak of their frustration at knowing that certain offenders

are active, but being unable to control them because of the difficulties involved in

detecting crime and apprehending criminals. While most probationers will not be

detected committing crime, their failure to obey court orders can put them at risk

of being jailed as certainly as being arrested for a new offense. Unlike people not

on probation, they can be removed from the street for a variety of noncriminal

behaviors. Feedback from offenders, police, parents, and community members

indicates that the youth have become more cautious and more compliant in their

behavior.
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 21

Prosecutors can give priority to crimes committed by

particularly dangerous offenders and work with police to

develop solid cases. Federal law enforcement agencies can

contribute the extra resources of the federal government

and apply a wider range of stiff penalties for certain gun

offenses. Social service providers should also have a role

in the group, as the best way to change some offenders'

behavior may be to offer them substance abuse

counseling, job skills training, recreational opportunities,

and the like (see text box below).

3. Placing responsibility on the working group. In

most cities, no one agency is responsible for developing

and implementing an overall strategy for reducing youth

gun violence. Most police agencies have units or groups

responsible for responding to incidents, but not for

preventing incidents. The working group needs to be

charged with preventing incidents to keep its focus on the

bottom line of reducing youth gun violence.

Boston Community Centers' street workers were key members of the Operation

Ceasefire working group and, along with juvenile corrections caseworkers,

probation officers, and parole officers, added a much needed social-intervention

and opportunity-provision dimension to the Ceasefire strategy (Kennedy, Braga,

and Piehl 2001). The city-employed street workers were charged with seeking out

at-risk youth in Boston's neighborhoods and providing them with services such as

job skills training, substance abuse counseling, and special education. When the

risk to drug-dealing gang members increases, legitimate work becomes more

attractive, and when legitimate work is more available, raising risks will be more

effective in reducing violence.
22 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

4. Involving researchers. Researchers can be important

assets to the working group by providing thorough and

reliable data to refine the group's understanding of the

problem, testing prospective intervention ideas, and

maintaining a focus on clear outcomes and performance

evaluation. Researchers can also be helpful in producing

basic accounts of the implementation processes and

problem analysis findings that will be helpful to other

jurisdictions.

5. Developing an effective communication strategy.

While enforcement actions are being conducted, it is

important for working-group members to communicate

directly with serious young gun offenders. It is crucial to

demonstrate cause and effect to those subjected to a

pulling-levers intervention. In essence, group members

need to deliver a direct and explicit message to violent

gangs and groups that violent behavior will no longer be

tolerated, and that the group will use any legal means

possible to stop the violence. The group also needs to

convey this message to other gangs and groups not

engaged in violence so they can understand what is

happening to the violent gangs and groups, and why. The

group can deliver the message in a variety of ways: by

talking to gang members on the street, handing out fliers

explaining the enforcement actions (see Figures 1 and 2),

and conducting forums with gang members in a public

building such as a courthouse or community recreation

center. Probation and parole officers can require gang

members under their supervision to attend such forums.

Social service providers and community members should

also be involved, as they may be able to convince gang

members that it is in their best interest to attend the

forums.
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 23

Problem:

Violent Gang Member

Solution:

Armed Career-Criminal Conviction

If you have a criminal record and are arrested with

a gun or even a single bullet, you could face a

mandatory-minimum sentence of 15 years to life,

with no parole.

Future Address:

Federal Correctional Institute, 

Maximum Security Facility

Fig. 1. Anti-gang violence flier
24 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

GOAL: STOP THE VIOLENCE

INTERVALE POSSE

• THEY WERE WARNED; THEY DIDN'T LISTEN.

• INTERAGENCY DRUG OPERATION:

• BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

• DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

• BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND

EXPLOSIVES

• MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE

• U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

• SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

• MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

• MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE

• SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE

• AUG. 29, 1996:

• 15 FEDERAL ARRESTS: DRUGS AND CONSPIRACY

• EIGHT STATE ARRESTS

• EACH FEDERAL CHARGE CARRIES AT LEAST A 10-

YEAR MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE. SEVERAL

POSSE MEMBERS MAY FACE LIFE IN FEDERAL

PRISON:

• CONFINED UNTIL TRIAL

• NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE

• THE INVESTIGATION PROCEEDS: THESE CHARGES

MAY BE JUST THE BEGINNING.

Fig. 2. Anti-gun violence flier
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 25

Key Elements of a "Pulling Levers" Focused Deterrence

Strategy

6. Targeting intervention. Gangs and groups of serious

young offenders select themselves for intervention by

engaging in gun violence. The working group should focus

on gangs and groups of chronic offenders currently

engaged in gun violence rather than indiscriminately

selecting or developing a "hit list" of gangs, groups, or

particular individuals.

7. Sending the initial message. Working-group members

must send a message to violent gang or group members

that they are "under the microscope" because of their

violent gun behavior. Police, probation, and parole officers

should immediately increase their presence and activities in

areas frequented by the targeted gang or group, and

explain that their increased presence and activities are a

response to gun violence. Social service agencies and

community-based groups should also increase their

presence and activities in the area, and explain to the

target group or gang that they support police efforts to

quell violence and will provide help to those who want it.

8. Pulling all available enforcement levers. The working

group should identify a variety of possible enforcement

actions. The group should tailor its approach to the

targeted gang or group and assess different options,

including conducting probation and parole checks,

changing the community-release conditions for supervised

offenders, serving warrants, giving special prosecutorial

attention to any past or present crimes committed by gang

or group members, enforcing disorder laws, and shutting

down drug markets run by the gang or group. The key is

to use the gang's or group's chronic offending against
26 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

them, as it provides many opportunities for police to

intervene. The goal is to save violent offenders from

themselves rather than remove them from their

environments. Police intervention should be harsh only to

the extent necessary to stop gun offending. For some

groups or particular individuals, changing probation

conditions or shutting down a profitable drug market may

be enough. For certain hardened offenders, heavy federal

penalties may be necessary.

9. Continuing communication. It is critically important

to demonstrate cause and effect to the targeted gang or

group by directly and explicitly conveying the message. It

should be very clear to the gang or group that the police

are focusing on them because of their involvement in gun

violence.† 

10. Providing social services and opportunities. While

law enforcement members of the working group are

focusing on pulling the appropriate enforcement levers,

social service providers and community-based groups

should focus on diverting young offenders from their

violent lifestyle. In the face of an impressive array of law

enforcement actions, some gang or group members may

want to take advantage of social services and other

opportunities. This element of the approach allows the

working group to provide some benefit to those who put

down their guns.

Disarming Young Gun Offenders

11. Searching for and seizing juveniles' guns. The St.

Louis Firearm Suppression Program (FSP) sought parental

consent to search for and seize juveniles' guns.35 While this

program did not explicitly focus on "dangerous"

† Police agencies should be creative

in communicating with offenders. In

Boston, face-to-face forums with

violent gang members and workinggroup members were key in

delivering the antiviolence message

(Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga 1996a).

In Minneapolis, working-group

members visited gang-involved

victims of gun violence–who were

often in the company of their

friends, in the hospital–and warned

them against retaliation (Kennedy

and Braga 1998). In Winston-Salem,

N.C., older offenders were involving

juvenile gun offenders in their

criminal activities. In response, the

Winston-Salem working group, while

maintaining their focus on juvenile

offenders, met with older offenders

and explicitly warned them that

involving juveniles in their illegal

activity would result in focused police

attention (Coleman et al. 1999).
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 27

offenders, it aimed to prevent gun violence by disarming a

very risky population of potential offenders–juveniles

suspected of gang or gun involvement. The FSP was

operated by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police

Department's Mobile Reserve Unit, a squad dedicated to

responding to pockets of crime throughout St. Louis.

Officers conducted home searches based on citizen

requests for police service, reports from other police units,

and information gained from other investigations. An

innovative feature of the program was its use of a

"Consent to Search and Seize" form to secure legal access

to residences. Officers informed adult residents that the

purpose of the program was to confiscate illegal firearms,

particularly those owned by juveniles, without seeking

prosecution. They told residents that they would not

charge them with illegally possessing a firearm if they

signed the consent form.36 While it was operating, the FSP

generated few complaints from those subjected to

searches, but received criticism from local representatives

of the American Civil Liberties Union, who questioned

whether residents could give real consent to search when

standing face to face with police officers.

A key program component was to respond to problems

identified by citizens, and the program's success depended

on effective police-community relationships. By requesting

community input regarding the gun confiscation process,

the police department developed a model for policing gun

violence that put a premium on effective communication

and community trust not found in most policing projects.

The FSP also was designed to send a clear message that

the police and the community would not tolerate juvenile

firearm possession because it threatened public safety.

Unfortunately, while the program gained national attention

for its innovative approach and seemed to be a very
28 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

promising route to disarming juveniles,† the Mobile

Reserve Unit underwent a series of changes that caused

the program to be stopped and restarted several times;

subsequent variations of the FSP did not use the same

approach as the original one. Thus, a rigorous impact

evaluation of the original FSP was not completed.

Place-Oriented Responses

In addition to focusing on high-risk individuals, police can

prevent gun violence among serious young offenders by

focusing on high-risk places at high-risk times. The Kansas

City Gun Project,37 and its subsequent replications in

Indianapolis38 and Pittsburgh,39 successfully used placeoriented policing responses to prevent gun crime in gun

violence hot spots. In general, these studies examined the

gun violence prevention effects of proactive patrol and

intensive enforcement of firearms laws via safety frisks

during traffic stops, plain-view searches and seizures, and

searches incident to arrests on other charges. The Kansas

City and Indianapolis studies also examined whether

focusing police enforcement efforts at problem places

simply displaced gun crime to different places or times.

Neither study found any evidence of significant

displacement.

It is important to note here that the research evidence is

currently limited to place-oriented strategies involving

mostly traditional police activities, such as increased patrol

and street searches of suspicious individuals, at gun crime

hot spots. While these interventions have produced crime

control gains and have added to law enforcement's array

of crime prevention tools, problem-oriented police should

focus their efforts on those characteristics that cause a

† Rosenfeld and Decker (1996)

reported that, while the program was

operating as originally designed,

police seized 402 firearms in 1994,

and another 104 firearms during the

first quarter of 1995.
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 29

place to be a gun crime hot spot.40 Officers can reduce gun

crime by changing the features, facilities, and management

of problem places. For example, if problem analysis

reveals that easy access to common areas in front of a

high school causes youth gun crimes to be clustered there

immediately upon school release, police should experiment

with ways to limit access to these areas during problem

times. The practice of problem-oriented policing is still

developing, and additional research is needed on different

approaches to controlling gun violence hot spots.

General Requirements for a Place-Oriented Enforcement

Strategy

12. Enlisting community support. Some observers

question the fairness and intrusiveness of aggressive law

enforcement approaches and caution that street searches,

especially of young minority males, look like police

harassment.41 However, the results of the Kansas City and

Indianapolis projects suggest that residents of

communities suffering from high rates of gun violence

welcome intensive police efforts against it. They strongly

supported the intensive patrols and perceived an

improvement in the quality of life in the targeted

neighborhoods. Thus, the patrols apparently did not

increase community tensions. The studies did not,

however, assess the views of people stopped by police

patrolling the hot spots. The police managers involved in

these projects secured community support before and

during the interventions through a series of meetings with

community members. Effective police management

(leadership, supervision, and maintenance of positive

relationships with the community) seems to be the crucial

factor in securing community support for aggressive, but

respectful, policing.
30 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

13. Training officers in appropriate search-and-seizure

techniques. In general, the gun hot-spot patrol teams

initiated citizen contacts through traffic stops and "stop

and talk" with people on foot. They used these contacts as

an opportunity to solicit information and investigate

suspicious activities associated with illegally carrying and

using guns. When warranted for officer safety reasons

(usually after people acted suspiciously), police conducted

"Terry"† pat-downs for weapons; these searches sometimes

escalated to more thorough checks when police had

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and arrests were

made. Officers participating in these programs must be

trained in appropriate search-and-seizure techniques so

that they conduct only legally warranted searches and

seizures.† † In addition, police supervisors should stress to

their officers that they need to treat citizens with respect

and explain the reasons for stops.

Key Elements of a Place-Oriented Enforcement Strategy

14. Increasing gun seizures. The Kansas City Gun

Project focused on testing the hypothesis that gun seizures

and gun crimes would be inversely related. In other words,

an increase in the number of guns seized in a targeted

location would be associated with a decrease in gun crimes

there. The evaluation revealed that proactive patrols

focused on firearm recoveries resulted in a 65 percent

increase in gun seizures and a 49 percent decrease in gun

crimes in the target beat area.42 The authors concluded that

removing guns from high-risk places at high-risk times

caused the crime prevention gains.

† In Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 US 1,

the Supreme Court upheld police

officers' right to conduct brief

threshold inquiries of suspicious

persons when they have reason to

believe that such persons may be

armed and dangerous to the police

and others. In practice, this threshold

inquiry typically involves a safety

frisk of the suspicious person.

†† Beyond the landmark Terry

decision, there are many court

decisions that govern search-andseizure techniques. For example, in

Houghton v. Wyoming (1999) 526 US

295, the Supreme Court upheld

police officers' right to search the

belongings of the passengers of the

car, incident to the arrest of any of

the vehicle occupants. You should

consult legal counsel regarding the

application of search and seizure law

in your jurisdiction.
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 31

15. Increasing contacts with potential gun offenders.

The Indianapolis program tested the effects of two

different types of directed patrol strategies on gun crime.

In the north district, police focused on suspicious

activities by particular people at high-risk locations. In the

east district, police increased vehicle stops in the targeted

area. During the intervention period, the number of

firearms seized in the east district increased by 50 percent,

while the north district experienced a modest 8 percent

increase. The evaluation revealed that there were

significant decreases in gun homicide, aggravated assault

with a gun, armed robbery, and other gun crime in the

north district. The east district had no significant changes

in gun crime. In this study, the authors suggested that

simply increasing gun seizures in a specific area does not

seem to be enough to cause crime prevention gains.

Rather, in Indianapolis, the effectiveness of this approach

seems to depend on the ability of police to increase their

visibility and contact with likely gun offenders within very

small areas.43

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

16. Suppressing gangs without providing programs

and services to address the social conditions that

contribute to gang affiliation. The typical law

enforcement suppression approach assumes that most

street gangs are criminal associations that must be attacked

through an efficient gang identification, tracking, and

targeted enforcement strategy. The basic premise of this

approach is that improved data collection systems and

information coordination across different criminal justice

agencies lead to more efficiency and to more gang
32 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

members' being removed from the streets, quickly

prosecuted, and given longer prison sentences.45 Typical

suppression approaches have included street sweeps in

which police officers round up hundreds of suspected

gang members; special gang probation and parole

measures that subject gang members to heightened

surveillance levels and more stringent revocation rules;

prosecution programs that target gang leaders and serious

gang offenders; civil procedures that use gang membership

to define arrest for conspiracy or unlawful associations;

and school-based law enforcement programs that use

surveillance and buy-bust operations.46 Unfortunately,

gangs and gang problems usually remain in the wake of

these intensive operations. Police agencies generally cannot

"eliminate" all gangs in a gang-troubled jurisdiction, nor

can they powerfully respond to all gang offending in such

jurisdictions.47 Pledges to do so, though common, are

simply not credible to gang members. Gang suppression

programs' emphasis on selective enforcement may increase

the cohesiveness of gang members–who often perceive

such enforcement as unwarranted harassment–rather than

cause them to withdraw from gang activity. Thus,

suppression programs may have the perverse effect of

strengthening gang solidarity.48

Focused law enforcement is an important part of a

comprehensive gang violence prevention strategy. Clearly,

violent gang members need to be arrested and prosecuted

for their crimes. However, these suppression approaches

work best when based on a thorough understanding of the

nature of gangs and gang violence problems in local

jurisdictions and blended with social intervention,

opportunity provision, and community mobilization
Responses to the Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 33

activities.49 Boston's Operation Ceasefire and the

integrated approaches suggested by the U.S. Department

of Justice's Strategic Approaches to Community Safety

Initiative50 provide practical examples of gang suppression

programs integrated within this broader framework.

17. Implementing gun buyback programs. Gun

buyback programs seek to reduce gun violence by reducing

gun ownership. They typically offer money, goods, or

services in exchange for firearms, and they usually offer

amnesty and anonymity to those who exchange them.

While police may check whether a returned gun was used

in a crime, they do not use their findings to pursue the

person who returned it. Unfortunately, evaluations have

shown that gun buyback programs have no observable

effect on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates.51

They do not directly target guns that are highly likely to be

used in violence,52 and the characteristics of the guns

collected reveal little overlap between crime guns and

buyback guns.53 While gun buyback programs are not

effective in reducing serious gun crime, police departments

should not be discouraged from launching problemoriented attacks on the illegal sources of guns for

criminals.54 A thorough discussion of the prospects of

disrupting illegal gun markets is beyond the scope of this

guide. However, police departments interested in

addressing the illegal supply of guns to criminals should

consult the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives website, at www.atf.gov, and the Justice

Department's Project Safe Neighborhoods website, at

www.psn.gov.

Appendix 35

Appendix: Summary of Responses to

Gun Violence Among Serious Young

Offenders

The table below summarizes the responses to gun violence

among serious young offenders, the mechanism by which

they are intended to work, the conditions under which

they ought to work best, and some factors you should

consider before implementing a particular response. It is

critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances,

and that you can justify each response based on reliable

analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve

implementing several different responses. Law

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in

reducing or solving the problem.

1.

2.

19

20

Enlisting

community

support

Convening an

interagency

working group

Helps

community

members to view

police

enforcement

actions as

legitimate 

Combines the

resources of

multiple agencies

to address the

problem

...police inform

the community

that gun violence

is concentrated

among groups of

serious

offenders, and

that they will

focus their efforts

on them

...group

members'

agencies

coordinate their

efforts

Indiscriminate,

highly aggressive

law enforcement

can undermine

community

support

The group should

include members

from all relevant

local, state, and

federal criminal

justice agencies;

social services

personnel should

be included to

offer offenders

positive

alternatives to

their behavior

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Offender-Oriented Responses

General Requirements for a "Pulling Levers" Focused Deterrence Strategy
36 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

21

22

22

25

3.

4.

5.

6.

Placing

responsibility on

the working

group

Involving

researchers

Developing an

effective

communication

strategy

Targeting

intervention

Holds the group

accountable for

strategy

development and

implementation

Provides the

working group

with thorough

and reliable data

Warns potential

offenders about

the

consequences of

committing gun

crimes

Ensures that

enforcement is

focused on

chronic

offenders

...the group is

explicitly charged

with preventing

incidents

...researchers

provide both

background and

strategically

practical

information, and

evaluate

performance

...the message is

direct and

explicit,

conveying clear

cause and effect

...police can

differentiate

between

formerly and

currently active

offenders

This requires that

the group

members have a

proactive, rather

than reactive,

mindset

Researchers'

findings may be

helpful to other

jurisdictions

Nonviolent gangs

and groups should

be informed of

what is happening

to violent ones,

and why;

probation and

parole officers can

require those

under their

supervision to

attend forums,

and social service

providers and

community

members may be

able to persuade

gang members to

do so

Police must avoid

indiscriminately

selecting gangs,

groups, or

individuals for

intervention

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Key Elements of a "Pulling Levers" Focused Deterrence Strategy
Appendix 37

25

25

26

26

7.

8.

9.

10.

Sending the

initial message

Pulling all

available

enforcement

levers

Continuing

communication

Providing social

services and

opportunities

Lets violent

gangs and

groups know

that they are

under close

scrutiny

Provides a

variety of

opportunities for

criminal justice

intervention

Reinforces the

anti-gun violence

message

Diverts

offenders from a

violent lifestyle

...police

immediately

increase their

presence and

activities in areas

frequented by

the gangs and

groups

...interventions

are tailored to

the targeted

offenders'

behaviors

...police make it

clear to violent

gangs and

groups that they

are focusing on

them because of

their

involvement in

gun crime

...consequences

for continued

involvement in

gun violence are

severe enough to

compel offenders

to seek positive

alternatives

Social service

providers and

community

members should

let would-be

offenders know

they support the

police, and offer

help to those who

want it

Intervention

should be harsh

only to the extent

necessary to stop

gun crime

Police agencies

should be creative

in communicating

with offenders

(e.g., by

conducting forums

with them)

A variety of

options should be

available, such as

substance abuse

counseling, job

skills training, etc.

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations
38 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

11.

12.

13.

26

29

30

Searching for

and seizing

juveniles' guns

Enlisting

community

support

Training officers

in appropriate

search-andseizure

techniques

Reduces the

opportunities for

gun violence by

eliminating the

means

Helps

community

members to view

police

enforcement

actions as

legitimate 

Ensures that

officers conduct

only legally

warranted

searches and

seizures

...the affected

community

supports the

initiative;

parents/

guardians trust

police and

prosecutors to

keep their word

about criminal

prosecution, and

give signed

consent to

searches; and

police base

targeting on

reliable

intelligence

about juveniles'

gun involvement 

...police

managers meet

with community

members both

before and

during

interventions,

and demonstrate

effective

leadership and

supervision

...officers treat

those they stop

with respect, and

explain the

reasons for stops

This is promising,

but it has not yet

proved effective in

reducing gun

violence

Communities with

high rates of gun

violence tend to

support police

intervention

Street searches of

young male

minorities may be

viewed as police

harassment 

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Disarming Young Gun Offenders

Place-Oriented Responses

General Requirements for a Place-Oriented Enforcement Strategy
Appendix 39

14.

15.

16.

17.

30

31

31

33

Increasing gun

seizures

Increasing

contacts with

potential gun

offenders

Suppressing

gangs without

providing

programs and

services to

address the

social conditions

that contribute

to gang

affiliation

Implementing

gun buyback

programs

Reduces the

opportunities for

gun violence by

eliminating the

means

Subjects wouldbe offenders to

increased police

scrutiny

Reduces gun

violence by

identifying,

tracking, and

aggressively

enforcing laws

against known

violent gang

members 

Reduces the

availability of

guns that may be

used in violent

crimes by

reducing the

overall number

of guns in the

community

...police focus

on high-risk

places at highrisk times

...police increase

their visibility

and contact with

likely offenders

within very small

areas

...when based on

a thorough

understanding of

the nature of

gangs and gang

violence

problems in local

jurisdictions and

blended with

social

intervention,

opportunity

provision, and

community

mobilization

activities

Research has

shown that, in

some cases,

increases in gun

seizures in targeted

areas have resulted

in decreases in gun

crime there

Both traffic stops

and "stop and talk"

contacts may be

effective

Gangs and gang

problems usually

remain in the wake

of these intensive

operations;

suppression

programs may

have the perverse

effect of

strengthening gang

solidarity; gangs do

not consider police

threats to eliminate

them credible;

social intervention

and prevention

efforts are

necessary

complements to

suppression efforts

This has not

proved effective in

reducing gun

violence-it fails to

focus on the guns

most likely to be

used in violent

crimes

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Key Elements of a Place-Oriented Enforcement Strategy

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

Endnotes 41

Endnotes

1 Cook and Ludwig (2000).

2 Fox (1996).

3 Cook and Laub (1998).

4 Cook and Laub (2002).

5 Fox and Zawitz (2002).

6 Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga (1996a); Cohen and Tita (1999); Rosenfeld, Bray,

and Egley (1999); Blumstein and Cork (1996).

7 Braga (2003); Sherman (2001).

8 Moore and Tonry (1998).

9 Eck (2000); Felson and Clarke (1998).

10 Kennedy and Braga (1998).

11 Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga (1996a).

12 Klein (1995).

13 Braga, Kennedy, and Tita (2002).

14 Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga (1996a).

15 Kennedy and Braga (1998).

16 Tita, Riley, and Greenwood (2003).

17 Kennedy, Braga, and Piehl (1997).

18 Braga, Kennedy, and Tita (2002).

19 Howell and Decker (1999); Block and Block (1993).

20 Rich and Stone (1996).

21 Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga (1996a).

22 Block and Block (1993).

23 Tita, Riley, and Greenwood (2003).

24 Sherman and Rogan (1995).

25 Curry, Ball, and Fox (1994).

26 Kennedy, Braga, and Piehl (1997).

27 White et al. (2003).

28 White et al. (2003).

29 Braga, Kennedy, Waring, and Piehl (2001); Braga, Kennedy, Piehl, and Waring

(2001).

30 McGarrell and Chermak (2003).

31 Braga, Kennedy, and Tita (2002).

32 Raphael and Ludwig (2003).
42 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

33 Kennedy, Braga, and Piehl (2001).

34 Kennedy (1997); Kennedy (1998).

35 Rosenfeld and Decker (1996).

36 Rosenfeld and Decker (1996).

37 Sherman and Rogan (1995).

38 McGarrell et al. (2001).

39 Cohen and Ludwig (2003).

40 See, for example, Braga et al. (1999).

41 Moore (1980); Kleck (1991).

42 Sherman and Rogan (1995).

43 McGarrell et al. (2001).

44 Raphael and Ludwig (2003).

45 Spergel (1995).

46 Klein (1993).

47 Klein (1993).

48 Klein (1993).

49 Spergel and Curry (1993).

50 Coleman, et al. (1999).

51 Callahan, Rivara, and Koepsell (1994); Reuter and Mouzos (2003).

52 Sherman (2001).

53 Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga (1996b).

54 Braga, Cook, Kennedy, and Moore (2002); U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms, and Explosives (2000).
References 43

References

Block, R., and C. Block (1993). Street Gang Crime in Chicago.

Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Blumstein, A., and D. Cork (1996). "Linking Gun

Availability to Youth Gun Violence." Law and

Contemporary Problems 59(1):5–24.

Braga, A. (2003). "Serious Youth Gun Offenders and the

Epidemic of Youth Violence in Boston." Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 19(1):33–54.

Braga, A., P. Cook, D. Kennedy, and M. Moore (2002).

"The Illegal Supply of Firearms." In M. Tonry (ed.),

Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 29. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Braga, A., D. Kennedy, A. Piehl, and E. Waring (2001).

"Measuring the Impact of Operation 

Ceasefire." In Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun

Project's Operation Ceasefire. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Braga, A., D. Kennedy, and G. Tita (2002). "New

Approaches to the Strategic Prevention of

Gang and Group-Involved Violence." In C. Huff (ed.),

Gangs in America. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Publications.

Braga, A., D. Kennedy, E. Waring, and A. Piehl (2001).

"Problem-Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth

Violence: An Evaluation of Boston's Operation

Ceasefire." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

38(3):195–225.
44 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Braga, A., D. Weisburd, E. Waring, L. Green Mazerolle,

and F. Gajewski (1999). "Problem-Oriented Policing in

Violent Crime Places: A Randomized Controlled

Experiment." Criminology 37(3):541–580.

Callahan, C., F. Rivara, and T. Koepsell (1994). "Money for

Guns: Evaluation of the Seattle Gun Buyback

Program." Public Health Reports 109:472–477.

Cohen, J., and J. Ludwig (2003). "Policing Crime Guns." In

J. Ludwig and P. Cook (eds.), Evaluating Gun Policy.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Cohen, J., and G. Tita (1999). "Diffusion in Homicide:

Exploring a General Method for Detecting Spatial

Diffusion Processes." Journal of Quantitative Criminology

15(4):451-494.

Coleman, V., W. Holton, K. Olson, S. Robinson, and J.

Stewart (1999). "Using Knowledge and Teamwork to

Reduce Crime." National Institute of Justice Journal

October: 16–23.

Cook, P., and J. Laub (2002). "After the Epidemic: Recent

Trends in Youth Violence in the United States." In M.

Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol.

29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(1998). "The Unprecedented Epidemic in Youth

Violence." In M. Tonry and M. Moore (eds.), Crime

and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 24. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Cook, P., and J. Ludwig (2000). Gun Violence: The Real Costs.

New York: Oxford University Press.
Appendix 45

Corbett, R. (2002). "Reinventing Probation and Reducing

Youth Violence." In G. Katzmann (ed.), Securing Our

Children's Future. Washington, D.C.: Brookings

Institution Press.

Curry, G., R. Ball, and R. Fox (1994). Gang Crime and Law

Enforcement Record-Keeping. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Eck, J. (2000). Problem-Oriented Policing and Its Problems: The

Means-Over-Ends Syndrome Strikes Back and the Return of

the Problem-Solver. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.

Felson, M., and R. Clarke (1998). Opportunity Makes the

Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Crime

Prevention and Detection Series, Paper 98. London:

Home Office.

Fox, J. (1996). Trends in Juvenile Violence: A Report to the

United States Attorney General on Current and Future Rates

of Juvenile Offending. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Fox, J., and M. Zawitz (2002). Homicide Trends in the United

States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Howell, J., and S. Decker (1999). The Gangs, Drugs, and

Violence Connection. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Kennedy, D. (1998). "Pulling Levers: Getting Deterrence

Right." National Institute of Justice Journal (July):2–8.
46 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

(1997). "Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, HighCrime Settings, and a Theory of Prevention."

Valparaiso University Law Review 31:449–484.

Kennedy, D., and A. Braga (1998). "Homicide in

Minneapolis: Research for Problem-Solving." 

Homicide Studies 2(3):263–290.

Kennedy, D., A. Braga, and A. Piehl (2001). "Developing

and Implementing Operation Ceasefire." In Reducing

Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice.

(1997). "The (Un)Known Universe: Mapping

Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston." In D. Weisburd

and J. McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime

Prevention. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Kennedy, D., A. Piehl, and A. Braga (1996a). "Youth

Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth

Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy." Law and

Contemporary Problems 59(1):147–196.

(1996b). "Gun Buybacks: Where Do We Stand and

Where Do We Go?" In M. Plotkin (ed.), Under Fire:

Gun Buybacks, Exchanges, and Amnesty Programs.

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Kleck, G. (1991). Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.

New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang: Its Nature,

Prevalence, and Control. New York: Oxford University

Press.
Appendix 47

(1993). "Attempting Gang Control by Suppression:

The Misuse of Deterrence Principles." Studies on Crime

and Crime Prevention 2:88–111.

McGarrell, E., and S. Chermak (2003). "Strategic

Approaches to Reducing Firearms Violence: Final

Report on the Indianapolis Violence Reduction

Partnership." Submitted to the U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice. East Lansing,

Mich.: Michigan State University, School of Criminal

Justice.

McGarrell, E., S. Chermak, A. Weiss, and J. Wilson (2001).

"Reducing Firearms Violence Through Directed Police

Patrol." Criminology & Public Policy 1:119–148.

Moore, M. (1980). "The Police and Weapons Offenses."

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science 455:92–109.

Moore, M., and M. Tonry (1998). "Youth Violence in

America." In M. Tonry and M. Moore (eds.), Crime and

Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 24. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Raphael, S., and J. Ludwig (2003). "Do Prison Sentence

Enhancements Reduce Gun Crime? The Case of

Project Exile." In J. Ludwig and P. Cook (eds.),

Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings

Institution Press.

Reuter, P., and J. Mouzos (2003). "Australia: A Massive

Buyback of Low-Risk Guns." In J. Ludwig and P.

Cook (eds.), Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, D.C.:

Brookings Institution Press.
48 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Rich, J., and D. Stone (1996). "The Experience of Violent

Injury for Young African-American Men: The

Meaning of Being a 'Sucker'." Journal of General Internal

Medicine 11:77–82.

Rosenfeld, R., T. Bray, and A. Egley (1999). "Facilitating

Violence: A Comparison of Gang-Motivated, GangAffiliated, and Nongang Youth Homicides." Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 15(4):495–516.

Rosenfeld, R., and S. Decker (1996). "Consent to Search

and Seize: Evaluating an Innovative Youth Firearms

Suppression Program." Law and Contemporary Problems

59(1):197–220.

Sherman, L. (2001). "Reducing Gun Violence: What

Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising." Criminal

Justice 1:11–25.

Sherman, L., and D. Rogan (1995). "Effects of Gun

Seizures on Gun Violence: 'Hot Spots' Patrol in

Kansas City." Justice Quarterly 12(4):673–694.

Spergel, I. (1995). The Youth Gang Problem: A Community

Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spergel, I., and G.D. Curry (1993). "The National Youth

Gang Survey: A Research and Development Process."

In A. Goldstein & C.R. Huff (eds.), Gang Intervention

Handbook. Champaign-Urbana, Ill.: Research Press.
Appendix 49

Tita, G., K. Riley, and P. Greenwood (2003). "From

Boston to Boyle Heights: The Process and Prospects

of a 'Pulling Levers' Strategy in a Los Angeles Barrio."

In S. Decker (ed.), Policing Gangs and Youth Violence.

Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives (2000). Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal

Laws Against Firearms Traffickers. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives.

White, M., J. Fyfe, S. Campbell, and J. Goldkamp (2003).

"The Police Role in Preventing Homicide: Considering

the Impact of Problem-Oriented Policing on the

Prevalence of Murder." Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 40(2): 194–225.

Winship, C. and J. Berrien (1999). "Boston Cops and Black

Churches." The Public Interest, Summer: 52–68.

About the Author 51

About the Author

Anthony A. Braga is Senior Research Associate in the

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management of the

Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy at Harvard

University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. His

research focuses on working with criminal justice agencies to

develop crime prevention strategies to deal with urban

problems such as firearms violence, street-level drug markets,

and violent crime hot spots. He has served as a consultant on

these issues to the Rand Corporation; National Academy of

Sciences; U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Department of the

Treasury; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; Boston

Police Department; New York Police Department; and other

state and local law enforcement agencies. Dr. Braga was a key

member of the Boston Gun Project / Operation Ceasefire

working group that was responsible for reducing youth

homicide in Boston by almost two-thirds during the late

1990s. The Operation Ceasefire program has received

numerous prestigious awards including the International

Association of Chiefs of Police Webber-Seavey Award for

quality in law enforcement, the Police Executive Research

Forum Herman Goldstein Award recognizing excellence in

problem-oriented policing, and the Ford Foundation

Innovations in American Government Award. Dr. Braga has

also been involved in a number of other strategic crime

prevention programs such as the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, and Firearms Youth Crime Gun Interdiction

Initiative and the U.S. Department of Justice-sponsored

Strategic Alternatives to Community Safety Initiative and

Project Safe Neighborhoods. He received his M.P.A. from

Harvard University and his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from

Rutgers University.

Recommended Readings 53

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by

John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is

a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It

provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
54 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999

Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document

produced by the National Institute of Justice in

collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A

similar publication is available for the award winners from

subsequent years. The documents are also available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have

practical implications for the police in their efforts to

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 55

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime

Prevention, by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice

Press, 2003). Provides a through review of significant

policing research about problem places, high-activity

offenders, and repeat victims, with a focus on the

applicability of those findings to problem-oriented

policing. Explains how police departments can facilitate

problem-oriented policing by improving crime analysis,

measuring performance, and securing productive

partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the

problem-solving process, and provides examples of

effective problem-solving in one agency.
56 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for

police to analyzing problems within the context of

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains

many of the basics of research as it applies to police

management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
58 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003.

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A.

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns.

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

Problem-Solving Tools series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police (2004)

Problem-Specific Guides

Crimes Against Tourists

Disorder at Budget Motels

Domestic Violence

Mentally Ill Persons

Prescription Fraud

Robbery of Taxi Drivers

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses

Response Guides

Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime

Problem-Solving Tools

Repeat Victimization

Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 59

Future Guide Topics (2004)

Identity Theft 

School Break-Ins

Street Racing

Bomb Threats in Schools

Underage Drinking 

Open-Air Drug Markets

Sexual Activity in Public Places

Drunk Driving

Cruising

Bank Robbery

Other Related COPS Office Publications

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First

20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and

Michael S. Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and

Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the

Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety.

Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and

Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl.

2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998.

• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The

National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police

Foundation. 2002.
60 Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

• Call Management and Community Policing. Tom

McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell

and Barbara Webster. 2003.

• Crime Analysis in America. Timothy C. O’Shea and

Keith Nicholls. 2003.

• Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba. 2003.

• Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons

From a Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke

and Herman Goldstein. 2003.

• The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build,

Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Gwen O.

Briscoe, Anna T. Laszlo and Tammy A. Rinehart.

2001.

• The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan,

purchase and manage technology (successfully!).

Kelly J. Harris and William H. Romesburg. 2002.

• Theft From Cars in Center City Parking 

Facilities - A Case Study. Ronald V. Clarke and

Herman Goldstein. 2003.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call

the Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770

or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e01042199 Updated Date: March 29, 2004

ISBN: 1-932582-31-2