Problem-oriented policing has been suggested as a promising way to understand and prevent complex gang violence problems. A number of jurisdictions have been experimenting with new problem-oriented frameworks to understand and respond to gun violence among gang-involved offenders. These interventions are based on the "pulling levers" deterrence strategy that focuses criminal justice and social service attention on a small number of chronically offending gang members responsible for the bulk of urban gun violence problems. As part of the US Department of Justice-sponsored Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative, an interagency task force implemented a pulling levers strategy to prevent gang-related gun violence in Lowell, Massachusetts. Our impact evaluation suggests that the pulling levers strategy was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the monthly number of gun homicide and gun-aggravated assault incidents. A comparative analysis of gun homicide and gun-aggravated assault trends in Lowell relative to other major Massachusetts cities also supports a unique program effect associated with the pulling levers intervention.

No abstract

In a cross-sectional, panel study, we examined the relationship between state firearm laws and the extent of interstate transfer of guns, as measured by the percentage of crime guns recovered in a state and traced to an in-state source (as opposed to guns recovered in a state and traced to an out-of-state source). We used 2006-2016 data on state firearm laws obtained from a search of selected state statutes and 2006-2016 crime gun trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. We examined the relationship between state firearm laws and interstate transfer of guns using annual data from all 50 states during the period 2006-2016 and employing a two-way fixed effects model. The primary outcome variable was the percentage of crime guns recovered in a state that could be traced to an original point of purchase within that state as opposed to another state. The main exposure variables were eight specific state firearm laws pertaining to dealer licensing, sales restrictions, background checks, registration, prohibitors for firearm purchase, and straw purchase of guns. Four laws were independently associated with a significantly lower percentage of in-state guns: a waiting period for handgun purchase, permits required for firearm purchase, prohibition of firearm possession by people convicted of a violent misdemeanor, and a requirement for relinquishment of firearms when a person becomes disqualified from owning them. States with a higher number of gun laws had a lower percentage of traced guns to in-state dealers, with each increase of one in the total number of laws associated with a decrease of 1.6 percentage points in the proportion of recovered guns that were traced to an in-state as opposed to an out-of-state source. Based on an examination of the movement patterns of guns across states, the overall observed pattern of gun flow was out of states with weak gun laws and into states with strong gun laws. These findings indicate that certain state firearm laws are associated with a lower percentage of recovered crime guns being traced to an in-state source, suggesting reduced access to guns in states with those laws.

This article looks at the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and how they assess seven programs. It establishes that the PART does not adequately consider different program types and has characteristics that create a disconnection between this tool and the GPRA: It does not enter into dialogue with the GPRA regarding the choice of performance indicators; it evaluates programs through criteria that conflict with the programs' statutes or intent and penalizes programs for the degree of explicitness in their authorizing statutes; it uses standardized measures that sometimes overlook the intent of statutes or the discretionary nature of implementation; it employs a different level of analysis from the GPRA; it places a contradictory emphasis on the relationship between programs with similar goals; and it emphasizes different external factors influencing program performance. The article concludes with recommendations on how to improve the PART.