January 11, 2018
Hot Spot Policing Focused on Guns Is Most Effective Strategy for Reducing Gun Violence in Baltimore, Study Finds
Other strategies, including most drug law enforcement practices, either had no effect or spurred more violent crime
A Baltimore program that assigns detectives to work in neighborhoods at high risk for gun violence was more effective at reducing gun violence in Baltimore than other initiatives, a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health finds. The so-called “hot spot” program, which focuses on individuals with a history of gun violence and curtailing illegal gun possession led to significant reductions in homicides and nonfatal shootings.
This finding is part of a new report, “Estimating the Effects of Law Enforcement and Public Health Interventions Intended to Reduce Gun Violence in Baltimore,” from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The report analyzes data from 2003 through 2017 to estimate the effects of law enforcement and public health interventions designed to reduce gun violence within high-crime areas in Baltimore.
The report found that the hot spot program focused on guns, which is run by the Baltimore Police Department’s Violent Crime Impact Section (VCIS), led to a 12 to 13 percent reduction in homicides and 18 to 20 percent fewer shootings in areas where it was implemented between 2007 and 2012. Somewhat similar efforts were mounted in 2013 but were not linked with reductions in gun violence. In contrast, other programs that saw a reduction in gun violence in the short term saw an eventual return to previous levels. However, while successful in reducing gun violence, the behavior of some VCIS officers generated complaints of abuse and costly lawsuits for the City.
“The reductions in shootings connected with Baltimore’s VCIS are consistent with the experiences of other cities that have used specialized police units targeting illegal gun possession in areas with the highest rates of shootings,” says Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Bloomberg School and the study’s lead author. “But it is important for these programs to be carried out in a manner that is legally justified, professional, and acceptable to the communities they serve with appropriate accountability.”
Webster also directs the Johns Hopkins-Baltimore Collaborative for Violence Reduction, which is assisting the Baltimore Police Department in the development of policies to improve the quality, acceptability and accountability of proactive gun law enforcement.
Baltimore has long been plagued by high rates of homicide, with guns playing an important role. The City has implemented a number of law enforcement and public health strategies designed to reduce shootings. In addition to hot spot policing targeting illegal guns, the report examined:
- Drug Law Enforcement: The study examined the impacts of increases or decreases in arrests for illegal drug possession and for illegal drug distribution, as well as the effects of major drug busts and crackdowns within communities where there is an active drug trade.
- Focused Deterrence or Group Violence Intervention: This program identifies individuals and groups tied to gun violence in areas with the highest rates of gun violence and offers support for targeted individuals to turn away from violence. Called Ceasefire (not to be confused with the grassroots movement Baltimore Ceasefire 365 that emerged in 2017), the goal of the program is to deter violence through direct communication with high-risk individuals in group and one-on-one meetings involving law enforcement leaders, social service providers, and community members impacted by violence.
- Safe Streets Baltimore: Safe Streets is a public health program that focuses on those at greatest risk for involvement in gun violence and uses credible messengers to keep their communities safe by serving as role models and mentors. Staff play important roles in mediating conflicts that have the potential to lead to shootings.
For their study, the researchers used data obtained from the Baltimore Police Department, Open Baltimore, a citywide public information database, and the Baltimore Health Department. Major drug busts were identified by systematic searches of news stories from local media outlets including the Baltimore Sun to estimate each intervention’s effects.
Contrary to the positive effects found for policing programs targeting guns and gun offenders, policing activities focused exclusively on drug offenses did not lead to lasting protective effects on homicides. In fact, the most direct measures of Baltimore Police Department’s drug law enforcement provide evidence that these arrests were more likely to spur more gun violence than to reduce it. Although surges in arrests for illegal drug distribution within an area may reduce violence for one or two months, there appears to be violence-generating effects up to a year after these surges in drug arrests. Higher numbers of shootings also tend to follow increases in arrests for illegal drug possession.
“The findings on drug arrests aren’t entirely surprising, as published evidence to date provides little evidence that common policing approaches to drug law enforcement are effective in reducing violent crime,” says Webster. “We did, however, find that major drug busts in Baltimore, that typically involve coordinated efforts with state and federal prosecutors and tend to target individuals and groups believed to be behind a lot of gun violence, were associated with a 25 percent reduction in shootings within the areas affected during the six months following the busts. This suggests that drug law enforcement is most effective in reducing gun violence when it is highly focused on the most violent individuals.”
The researchers found that the Ceasefire program was not associated with any change in the number of homicides and nonfatal shootings in the areas where the program was active.
Safe Streets Baltimore was associated with a 12 to 13 percent reduction in nonfatal shootings; however, the reduction was not significant. Site-specific analyses revealed that the site in Cherry Hill- a neighborhood in South Baltimore- led to a significant reduction (39 percent) in homicides. Earlier evaluations of the program revealed more robust program effects through 2013.
“The historic rates of gun violence that Baltimore has experienced during the past three years and the large number of these shootings in which perpetrators are not brought to justice likely leave Safe Streets workers with many more potentially lethal conflicts than they are able to manage with available resources,” said Webster. “I believe with increased commitment, resources and collaboration with other community organizations, these programs could produce the same kind of meaningful reductions in gun violence in Baltimore that they have produced in other cities.”
A copy of the report is available at www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/baltimore.pdf.
Estimating the Effects of Law Enforcement and Public Health Interventions Intended to Reduce Gun Violence in Baltimore was written by Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, Shani Buggs, MPH, and Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, MPH.
Funding for the research came from grants to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research from The Abell Foundation and The Annie E. Casey Foundation and to the Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
# # #
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research: Alicia Samuels at 914-720-4635 or email@example.com.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Barbara Benham 410-614-6029 or firstname.lastname@example.org.