Efficacy Is More Effective Than It Seems

• Published date: 01 August 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12323
• Author: Harold A. Pollack
• Date: 01 August 2017

POLICY ESSAY

DRUG MARKET INTERVENTION

Efficacy Is More Effective Than It Seems

Harold A. Pollack

University of Chicago

The Drug Market Intervention (DMI) has attracted considerable fanfare as a suc-

cessful strategy to reduce violence and social disorder associated with open-air

drug markets. In their current analysis, Jessica Saunders, Michael Robbins, and

Allison Ober (2017, this issue) provide a useful, although chastening, opportunity to take

stock in what DMI contributes to criminal justice and drug policy.

It is not surprising that DMI has attracted such public attention. The intervention

could boast of several elements that rightly commanded public attention. Its framers could

claim highly visible successes, most notably, in High Point, North Carolina. DMI is solidly

grounded in notions of focused deterrence and in the importance of police legitimacy in

producing and maintaining public safety.David Kennedy and other program leaders offered

a compelling articulation of DMI’s operating principles and goals (Kennedy and Wong,

2009). These captured the imagination of many citizens, policy makers, and members of

the law enforcement community (Moser, 2012).

At High Point, researchers identified sustained crime reductions over many years,

with little crime displacement to surrounding areas (Saunders et al., 2017). Although

the results of subsequent research indicated that crime reductions were somewhat more

modest than originally propounded (Cook, 2012, Corsaro, Hunt, Kroovand Hipple,

and McGarrell, 2012), High Point helped to establish the efficacy of DMI when

implemented well under favorable conditions. Promising replication/effectiveness re-

sults were also obtained in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Providence, Rhode Island;

Rockford, Illinois; and Nashville, Tennessee (Corsaro et al., 2012). How many other

localities pursued some version of DMI, perhaps less successfully, is unclear at this

writing.

In light of previous impressive results, it is of course disappointing to learn of the

decidedly mixed impact of DMI at the seven training sites in the third cohort of Bureau

of Justice Assistance (BJA)–trained field trials. (Saunders et al. [2017] remind us that the

Direct correspondence to Harold A. Pollack, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago. 969

East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637 (e-mail: haroldp@uchicago.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12323 C2017 American Society of Criminology 815

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 16 rIssue 3