CJUS 801 Anticrime Program Part 2: Evaluation Strategy and Logic Model Using Focused Deterrence

CJUS 801 Anticrime/Prevention Program Part 2: Evaluation Strategy and Logic Model (Focused Deterrence Example)

Develop an evaluation strategy for a police or crime problem using Vito and Higgins’s planning evaluation strategy (Chapter 2). Using that strategy to frame the paper, establish goals, objectives and performance indicators grounded in a theory that underpins your program, with citations for the theories. For example, for violent crime you might use focused deterrence and model a program on Ceasefire or Pulling Levers, using the theory to drive treatment selection, clarify services and determine the variables to measure.

Include a logic model chart (an Excel spreadsheet is fine) following Vito and Higgins, Chapter 2, covering inputs, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes and external factors.

• 5–7 pages, excluding title page, abstract, references and logic model; current APA format.
• Five citations from peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly articles published within the last five years, and textbooks.

Original example for study purposes (about 1,460 words). Riverbend and all its figures are fictional. Follow the exact section headings your Vito and Higgins Chapter 2 framework uses, and add page numbers for textbook citations.

Introduction

Gun violence in American cities is highly concentrated: a small number of people, often members of street groups involved in ongoing disputes, account for a large share of shootings. In the fictional city of Riverbend (population 210,000), police data show 148 nonfatal and fatal shootings in the past year, and a problem analysis linked about 60% of them to members of 14 identifiable groups representing fewer than 400 people. This paper develops an evaluation strategy for a proposed focused deterrence program, Riverbend Ceasefire, using Vito and Higgins’s (2014) approach to planning a program evaluation: defining the problem, grounding the program in theory, setting goals, objectives and performance indicators, specifying the program’s operations and designing the process and impact evaluation. A logic model accompanies the paper.

Problem Definition and Needs Assessment

Vito and Higgins (2014) emphasize that evaluation planning begins with a clear statement of the problem and the target population. In Riverbend, shootings cluster in three neighborhoods and peak in summer evenings. Most victims and suspects are young men aged 16 to 30, many previously known to police. Retaliatory cycles between groups drive much of the violence. Community surveys show low trust in police in the affected neighborhoods, which reduces cooperation with investigations. The problem statement for the program is therefore: group-involved gun violence, driven by a small number of high-risk individuals in retaliatory disputes, in an environment of low police legitimacy.

Program Theory: Focused Deterrence

Focused deterrence, also called “pulling levers,” applies deterrence theory to a specific population. Classical deterrence theory holds that crime decreases when sanctions are certain, swift and severe; focused deterrence concentrates attention on the certainty and swiftness of consequences for a specific behavior, gun violence, among identified high-risk groups (Kennedy, 2011). The strategy communicates directly to group members that violence will trigger a coordinated response against the whole group, uses every available legal “lever” when violence occurs and offers social services and moral appeals from community members as an alternative path. Kennedy (2011) also stresses legitimacy: when offenders hear respected community voices reject violence and see law enforcement act fairly and predictably, compliance becomes more likely.

Evidence supports this theory. A Stockton, California, evaluation found that gang members who received focused deterrence treatment were less likely to be shot and reduced their violent offending relative to similar untreated members, with spillover benefits to their social networks (Braga et al., 2024). In Philadelphia, a stepped-wedge evaluation of the Group Violence Intervention found an average 38.6% weekly reduction in group member-involved shootings after treatment, even when large call-in meetings were replaced by individual custom notifications during COVID-19 (Moyer, 2023). A geographically focused deterrence program also reduced shots fired in the target area and improved residents’ reports of gang and gun violence relative to comparison areas (Kochel et al., 2022). Braga et al. (2024) caution that results depend on strategic management: planning, partner networks, accountability and ongoing problem analysis.

Goals, Objectives and Performance Indicators

Following Vito and Higgins (2014), goals are broad statements of intended change, objectives are specific and measurable and performance indicators are the variables used to judge progress.

Goal 1: Reduce group-involved gun violence in Riverbend.

• Objective 1.1: Reduce group member-involved shootings by 25% within 24 months of implementation compared with the baseline year.
• Objective 1.2: Reduce gun homicides citywide by 15% within 24 months.
• Indicators: monthly counts of fatal and nonfatal shootings, coded by group involvement; shots-fired calls for service; ShotSpotter-type alerts if available.

Goal 2: Change the behavior of high-risk individuals.

• Objective 2.1: Deliver the anti-violence message to at least 80% of identified high-risk group members within the first 12 months through call-ins or custom notifications.
• Objective 2.2: Enroll at least 40% of notified individuals in services (employment, education, mentoring, relocation or cognitive behavioral programming) within 12 months.
• Indicators: number notified, service referrals, enrollments and retention; rearrest and victimization rates of notified individuals compared with matched non-notified individuals.

Goal 3: Strengthen police legitimacy and community partnership.

• Objective 3.1: Increase the share of residents in target neighborhoods who agree that police treat people fairly by 10 percentage points within 24 months.
• Indicators: community survey results, number of community moral voice participants and meetings and complaints against police in target areas.

Program Operations

The theory drives the program’s treatments and services:

1. Problem analysis: a working group of police analysts, probation and street outreach workers maps groups, conflicts and active disputes every two weeks.
2. Communication: quarterly call-in meetings and individual custom notifications deliver a three-part message from law enforcement, community members and service providers.
3. Enforcement: when a group commits a shooting after notification, partners apply coordinated, lawful levers, such as warrant service, probation and parole enforcement and federal prosecution of gun cases, focused on that group.
4. Services: a case manager connects participants to employment, education, behavioral health and relocation assistance within 72 hours of request.
5. Community moral voice: faith leaders, victims’ family members and former group members participate in meetings and street outreach.

Evaluation Design

Process evaluation. The process evaluation will assess fidelity: whether the program was delivered as designed. Measures include the number of call-ins and notifications, the time from a shooting to a coordinated enforcement response, the proportion of service requests filled within 72 hours and partner meeting attendance. Fidelity matters because evaluations suggest that weak implementation erodes focused deterrence effects (Braga et al., 2024).

Impact evaluation. Because random assignment of groups is not feasible, the impact evaluation will use a quasi-experimental design. At the group level, notified groups will be compared with similar groups in neighboring cities or with groups notified later in a stepped-wedge rollout, similar to the Philadelphia design (Moyer, 2023). At the city level, an interrupted time series analysis of monthly shootings will compare 36 months before and 24 months after implementation, with comparison cities to control for regional trends. At the individual level, propensity score matching will compare notified individuals with similar non-notified individuals on rearrest and victimization.

Data sources and threats to validity. Data will come from police records, probation, hospital trauma registries, service provider records and community surveys. Threats include regression to the mean after an unusually violent year, displacement of violence to other areas, citywide trends such as those seen during and after COVID-19 and changes in reporting practices. Using multiple data sources and comparison areas will help address these threats.

Stakeholders and Data Collection Plan

Vito and Higgins (2014) note that evaluation planning must account for stakeholders, because programs are shaped by the interests of sponsors, administrators, staff and the community. Key stakeholders for Riverbend Ceasefire include the mayor’s office and city council, which fund the program; the police department, prosecutors and probation, which deliver enforcement; service providers and outreach workers; residents of the target neighborhoods; and the program’s participants. An advisory board with representatives of each group will review the evaluation plan, help interpret findings and ensure that results are shared publicly in an accessible form.

Data collection will follow a schedule tied to each indicator. Shooting and homicide data will be extracted monthly from the police records management system and verified against hospital trauma registry data to reduce reporting bias. The program coordinator will maintain a participant database recording notification dates, service referrals, enrollments and exits. Fidelity checklists will be completed after each call-in or custom notification, and partner meeting minutes will document problem-analysis activities and enforcement responses. Community surveys will be conducted at baseline and at 12 and 24 months using address-based sampling in target and comparison neighborhoods. All individual-level data will be stored securely, and participant identities will be protected in reports.

The evaluation must also address ethical concerns. Focused deterrence involves intensified enforcement against identified individuals, so the evaluation will monitor for unintended consequences, such as increased stops or complaints in target neighborhoods, and will examine whether services are offered equitably. Measuring dosage, meaning how much of the program each group or individual receives, will help determine whether stronger implementation produces stronger results, as the Philadelphia evaluation suggested (Moyer, 2023).

Logic Model Summary

The accompanying logic model links inputs (funding, police analysts, prosecutors, probation, outreach workers, case managers and community partners) to activities (problem analysis, call-ins and notifications, coordinated enforcement and services), outputs (number notified, enforcement actions and service enrollments), short-term outcomes (awareness of the message, reduced retaliatory disputes and increased service participation), long-term outcomes (sustained reductions in shootings and homicides and improved police legitimacy) and external factors (economic conditions, gun availability, policy changes, public health emergencies and staff turnover).

Conclusion

Riverbend Ceasefire translates focused deterrence theory into a program with specific goals, measurable objectives and indicators tied directly to the theory’s mechanisms: certain and swift consequences, credible alternatives and legitimacy. Following Vito and Higgins’s planning strategy ensures that the program is evaluated for both fidelity and impact, so city leaders can determine not only whether violence declined but why.

References

Braga, A. A., MacDonald, J. M., Douglas, S., Wade, B., & Struhl, B. (2024). Focused deterrence, strategic management, and effective gun violence prevention. Criminology & Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12682

Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Don’t shoot: One man, a street fellowship, and the end of violence in inner-city America. Bloomsbury.

Kochel, T. R., Nouri, S., & Samadi, S. Y. (2022). Impact of focused deterrence on lived experiences with gangs and gun violence: Extending effects beyond officially recorded crime. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 33(5), 507–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211063812

Moyer, R. A. (2023). Assessing the effects of the Group Violence Intervention on firearm violence in Philadelphia. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09601-w

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Routledge.

More model assignments posted today

• Leadership models in an educational setting
• Final clinical reflection (DFC)
• VTE prevention teaching handout
• HSCI 705 research ethics paper
• Modified working definition of family
• Initial working definition of family
• Two areas of life: mindfulness and strengths
• Special education lesson plan unit
• Global dynamics presentation