Focussed Deterrence
What is it?
Focused deterrence is an approach to violence reduction that was developed in Boston (USA) in the mid-1990s. It recognises that most serious violence is associated with a small group of people who are themselves very likely to be victims of violence, trauma, and extremely challenging circumstances. Their involvement in violence is often driven by exploitation, victimisation and self-protection. Some versions of focused deterrence, including the original “Boston Ceasefire” intervention of the 1990s, focus primarily on groups rather than individuals.
These approaches recognise that violence is often driven by conflict between groups. If two groups are engaged in violent conflict, focusing on the individuals who have committed violent crimes is unlikely to prevent future conflict between other members in the groups.
We have included a case study below to show how this has actually worked in Kent.
Focused deterrence usually includes a combination of the following steps:
- The approach begins by identifying a specific problem – such as knife crime, violent conflict between groups, or drug dealing – as the target for intervention. A dedicated project team is formed which includes the police and law enforcement, social services, and the local community.
- The team combines their knowledge of the selected crime problem and identifies the people involved.
- The team begin to directly and frequently communicate with the people involved in the crime problem. Programmes might start this communication at a ‘call-in’ meeting. The meeting often involves gathering together people from rival conflicting groups, the parents of victims of violence, police and other law enforcement agencies, social services, and community representatives. The team will emphasize that the affected community needs violence to stop and wants those involved to be safe. The team will offer help and access to positive opportunities and services, and make explicit the (sometimes new) consequences that will follow violence.
- The project team continue to develop relationships with the people targeted by the approach. This could involve members of the local community coming together to work out how best to provide support. Or the team could help participants with access to services like education, training, housing, healthcare, and treatment for substance misuse.
- If the people involved do not desist from violence, the project team could enforce sanctions. This could include increased police presence and surveillance, arrest and swift prosecution for minor offences, disruption of illegal money-making activity, or attention to driving transgressions or unpaid fines.
Focused deterrence attempts to identify the people most likely to be involved in violence and support them to desist. The age of the people involved depends on the context and the crime problem identified but projects have worked with children as young as 14 or 15.
For example, the average age of participants in a focused deterrence project in Glasgow was 16.
It combines several core strategies:
- Support. Help for people involved in violence to access positive support and social services.
- Community engagement. Engaging the wider community to communicate that they want violence to stop and those involved to be safe, provide support, and encourage reintegration in the community. Projects will often arrange engagement between the people who are the focus of the intervention and victims’ family members, reformed former group members, and faith leaders.
- Deterrence. Clear communication of the consequences of violence and swift and certain enforcement if violence occurs.
Different focused deterrence models vary in how much they emphasize different stages of this process. Models which emphasize enforcement might focus on using ‘call-in’ meetings to communicate the consequences of violence and taking swift action if the people involved do not desist. Other models might not use ‘call-in’ meetings at all, have minimal emphasis on enforcement, and instead emphasize developing relationships, rehabilitation and early intervention.
There are several potential explanations why focused deterrence could prevent serious crime and violence. The involvement of the community and social services could provide positive routes away from crime and violence. The potential for targeted, swift and certain sanctions might act as a deterrent. The people who are the focus of the approach might not understand the legal consequences of their actions – simply informing them of those realities might have an impact. Finally, collaboration between the community and police could develop relationships and legitimacy, improving the efficacy of future crime prevention activity.
Is it effective?
The research suggests that the average impact of focused deterrence on violent crime is likely to be high.
Our estimate is based on a review of 24 studies which suggests that, on average, focused deterrence strategies reduced crime by 33%. Many of the studies included in this review had a specific focus on violent crime as an outcome. The strongest crime reduction impacts were found in 12 studies on programmes designed to reduce serious violence generated by conflict between groups. Interventions targeting individuals and drug markets had smaller but still positive impacts.
On average, focused deterrence strategies reduced crime by 33%.
A Kent Case Study
In October 2023, a multi-agency panel, including the Violence Reduction Unit (VRU), Police and partners from across the Dover and Deal districts identified a group of young individuals engaged in low-level anti-social behaviour in Deal. This behaviour began to disrupt the local community, drawing attention on social media and causing concern among residents.
The panel consisted of the Violence Reduction Unit (VRU), British Transport Police (BTP), KCC Adolescent team, Kent Police Child-Centred Policing and Missing teams along with representatives from Dover District Council. We discussed the group’s activities, which led to the formal identification of the group as an emerging young street group.
Targeted Intervention Approach
The VRU carried out detailed mapping to assess the group, which enabled a targeted intervention strategy under a focused deterrence model. Each group member was given a high harm score, allowing Police and partner agencies to devise tailored approaches, such as daily home visits and engagement efforts.
Dover Community Safery Unit and Child Centred Police Team co-ordinated the initial disruption efforts, including issuing Focused Deterrence letters, Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABAs) and Community Protection Notices (CPNs). The complex adolescent harm meetings (CAHM) and district contextual safeguarding meetings enabled effective information sharing between agencies including local school, taking an educational lead in support.
The KCC Adolescent Response Team led the engagement individual home visits along with allocated social workers and early help support.
KCC Early Help arranged group sports diversions for the group and encouraged the use of the Sport Connect offer locally to encourage better community engagement from the group.
Cross-Agency Involvement and Enforcement
A key moment in the operation came when one pivotal group member, fitted with a GPS Buddi tag, was identified as travelling across districts, causing issues at various locations. This intelligence led to the involvement of BTP, and cross-border operations, focusing on the rail network. Two coordinated operations followed, with BTP issuing 15 penalties, seizing alcohol from young persons and locating a member of the group in possession of a bladed article.
Reassurance patrols were also conducted by Thanet Police Community Safety Unit and proactive enforcement measures such as stop searches and knife arches were deployed at key hotspots, including a local nightclub in Canterbury where the licencing officer also supported.
Community Engagement and Deterrence
While enforcement played a key role, the operation placed strong emphasis on diversion and engagement. The KCC family hub team, with support from the VRU, arranged extra sessions and visits to the Ben Kinsella exhibition to educate the group about the consequences of knife crime. Community conferencing and parental support groups were established to engage parents and encourage open dialogue, which has improved the group’s accountability.
The involvement of the Dover District Council’s ASB officer and local CCTV teams provided additional layers of support in identifying and managing the group’s activities, creating safer environments for the community. The licensing officers and transport services, including South Eastern Rail, played pivotal roles in managing risks associated with the group’s mobility.
Outcome and Conclusion
The collaborative efforts of all agencies have successfully reduced the group’s ASB, offending and significantly reduced high harm scores narrowing the focus to a small core group by July 2024. The use of intelligence, regular engagement, and coordinated enforcement has prevented further escalation. Only one individual now remains on a focus deterrence plan by October 2024.
The operation has been a model of how multi-agency collaboration, involving Police, youth services, local government, and transport authorities, can effectively manage and reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour in local communities.