Focused deterrence can reduce crime: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi‐experiments

Abstract Research summary Crime and violence continue to be problems that plague urban areas across the United States and the globe. One key approach for responding to these problems is “focused deterrence” which includes programs that prevent criminal behavior by blending criminal justice, social service, and community‐based action. While previous systematic reviews have supported the crime control effectiveness of focused deterrence, prior reviews have not included randomized experimental evaluations which are generally recognized to provide stronger causal claims when implemented with fidelity. This updated review of 50 controlled evaluations benefits from the addition of 26 rigorous studies, of which 9 are randomized experimental field trials. This suggests the importance of reassessing the evidence and provides opportunities for additional moderator analyses of program impacts. The overall meta‐analysis suggested that focused deterrence was associated with a statistically significant 23% crime reduction in treatment groups relative to control groups. Meta‐analysis of the 9 randomized experiments suggested focused deterrence generated a smaller 16% crime reduction. Programs designed to reduce gang and group‐involved gun violence were associated with the largest crime reduction impacts. Studies that examined community outcomes generally observed positive impacts. Policy implications A much more rigorous scientific evidence base now exists to support the continued use of focused deterrence to control crime and violence. These analyses, which include randomized controlled trials, provide robust and consistent evidence that focused deterrence reduces crime. Moreover, preliminary results from a group of studies that measure community outcomes, suggest that community residents have positive perceptions of these programs. Program implementation remains challenging with studies noting persistent problems with treatment integrity and sustainability. Further research is also needed to clarify prevention mechanisms so key program activities can be better understood and enhanced.