How Warren PD used focused deterrence to reduce domestic violence recidivism

• Case Study: The City of Warren Police Department launches Operation Cycle Break to proactively address domestic violence in the community
• Agency name: Warren Police Department
• Agency size: 265 employees, including 220 sworn officers
• Population served: Over 139,000+
• Operation start date: May 2025

Domestic violence as the primary driver of violent crime

At the beginning of 2025, and with a new police commissioner starting, we decided we would do a deep dive into our crime reports looking to identify what issues were driving violent crime. What we found was that the overwhelming majority of violent crime occurring in the city had a domestic violence nexus.

Specifically, we found that:

• From 2022-2024, 68% of the homicides that occurred in Warren were related to domestic violence.
• From 2022-2024, 50% of the aggravated / felony assaults involved domestic violence.
• From 2022-2024, our local District Court took in 1,174 cases of misdemeanor domestic violence and another 403 cases of domestic violence second and third offenses.
• Additionally, we learned that from 2023-2024, the Warren Police Department responded to 9,125 calls for domestic violence and spent over 7,350 hours resolving those calls.

Now knowing what the underlying issue was, we began examining our response model looking for ways to improve. We also recognized that we couldn’t do this alone and reached out to key community partners at the 37th District Court, Turning Point Macomb and Wayne State University to help develop a more holistic response to the problem.

The traditional response model

We knew starting off that our current model for responding to domestic violence was in line with current law enforcement best practices. [1] Our current model was that officers are dispatched to domestic violence calls promptly. Per policy, officers shall take a report and shall make an arrest if probable cause exists. Victims are provided with a victim’s rights card containing available resources in the area, including information for the detective bureau, filing charges and obtaining a personal protection order (PPO).

Reports are then forwarded to the detective bureau. Detectives are responsible for further investigation and follow up with the victim. If probable cause exists, detectives shall send a warrant request packet to the prosecutor’s office for review. If an arrest has been made, a detective attends the arraignment hearing to notify the arraigning judge of any requested bond conditions. If an arrest is made over the weekend, the offender is given an interim bond and advised that the court will contact them with their court date at a later time. The police department is then finished with the case unless contacted by the prosecutor to appear in court. The time between arrest and court date was currently anywhere between 2-3 weeks and several months.

We then began researching and evaluating how other agencies had successfully addressed violent crime problems in their communities, which led us to the idea of focused deterrence as a proven model that we believed would work for us if implemented properly.

Adopting a focused deterrence strategy

Focused deterrence is a crime control strategy that utilizes a tailored approach to deter specific criminal behavior through fear of consequences for engaging in that behavior while also providing incentives to stop engaging in that behavior. [2] This model was first used with great success by Boston PD in Operation Ceasefire to address youth gun violence, including a reported 63% reduction in youth homicides. [3]

The model was later applied to domestic violence by the High Point, NC Police Department, where it also saw great results. Notable for us was that High Point, NC is similar in size, crime rate and demographics to the City of Warren. Research into their approach showed that in the five years prior to implementation, they experienced 17 domestic homicides. After implementing their program, they experienced three domestic homicides in seven years. [4] Additionally, they estimated an approximately 20% drop in domestic calls for service since implementing a focused deterrence strategy. [4]

Achieving similar results in Warren would lead to a significant reduction in violence and resources allocated to address domestic problems in the city, not to mention the opportunity to change lives and break the cycle of abuse many of our citizens were finding themselves in. Additionally, we learned that academic research matched our own experiences: over half of offenders who had committed domestic violence had also committed violent crimes against people outside of the family. [5] The logical conclusion then is that focusing on domestic violence offenders will likely have an effect on non-domestic violent crime as well.

We identified three enhancements to add to our current response.

1. Adding Domestic Violence Lethality Assessments (DVLA) to identify high-risk cases

Lethality assessments are a tool that have been developed and used by other agencies to attempt to evaluate domestic violence victims who may be at a higher risk for lethality or further violence. One example of a risk factor would be strangulation, where research has shown that victims of non-fatal strangulation are at a seven times higher risk of homicide. [6] We developed a standardized questionnaire for officers to complete with victims that would help officers better understand the severity of the abuse.

Furthermore, research has also shown that the lethality assessment helps the victim realize the severity of the situation and encourages them to seek help. [7] Another benefit is that since many of these offenders are engaged in other criminal activity, the assessments can help to gather additional criminal intelligence. Since implementation, we’ve had several drug and gun seizures that originated from previously considered routine domestic violence calls.

2. Actively monitoring DV offenders to increase accountability

The basis of focused deterrence is that offenders make choices and that by sending a clear message that certain behavior will result in swift and certain consequences, while also providing resources for offenders who wish to improve themselves, [2] it encourages them to make better decisions. To achieve this, we developed a systematic means of monitoring offenders to ensure that they are being held accountable. This can be done easily with an online spreadsheet listing all domestic violence cases, including offender name, DVLA score and whether an arrest has been made. Every effort was made to arrest offenders, with an emphasis on more severe assaults, repeat offenders or those identified as high risk by the DVLA.

Once arrested, detectives meet with offenders directly to advise them that their behavior is unacceptable and will be monitored closely. Additionally, the department identified counseling services in the area that specialize in batterers intervention and offered those resources to offenders to encourage them to seek help. Offenders are advised verbally and in writing that help is available but that the community has a zero-tolerance policy toward domestic violence. The goal was to give offenders a choice between the “carrot” or the “stick.”

3. Randomized follow up with victims to close systemic gaps

Turning Point, the local domestic violence advocacy center in our area, recently conducted extensive interviews of domestic violence survivors. Results from that survey showed that 77% of the participants reported having “fallen through the cracks.” [8] Some common themes from the report are that victims felt it was important for the system to take the case seriously, to help connect victims to available resources, to provide the victim more information on what to expect and to hold offenders accountable. [8]

One way the department attempted to address these concerns is by conducting random follow ups with the victim three to 10 days after the incident. Before, our only face-to-face contact was the patrol officer at the original scene. Given that domestic violence is a traumatic event, it would be unreasonable to expect victims to have all the answers at that moment or even know what problems they need to address beyond the immediate safety concern.

By following up with them three to 10 days after the assault, they will no longer be in an acute state of trauma and thus in a better position to converse with the officers about available resources and what assistance the community can provide — and most importantly, what help the victim wants or needs to stop the cycle of abuse.

This also assists the investigation by confirming victim contact information, along with potential updates on the offender’s whereabouts or, in the case of offenders already arrested, whether any bond conditions had been violated since the arrest. This sends a clear message to victims that we are taking their case seriously and are committed to helping them.

Furthermore, by randomizing when we show up, it provides further deterrence to offenders who in the past would not have expected us to show up randomly after the original incident and now must be concerned about consequences for returning home or not complying with court orders. These follow ups are tracked as well to ensure completion and monitor success rate.

Early results and lessons learned

So far, we have seen promising results. In the first four months of Operation Cycle Break, we saw a 7% overall reduction in domestic violence. Even more satisfying was the 57% reduction in recidivism rate among domestic violence offenders.

Some things we’ve learned are that you have to accept ownership of the problem. It’s not victims’ job to reduce violence in the community — it’s the police’s. Their job is to do what’s best for them. The other thing we’ve learned is that many victims were not coming to court as a result of fixable logistical issues. Often, they weren’t receiving subpoenas or court notifications because they moved or changed phone numbers for a variety of reasons since the original incident. By following up with them later on, we were able to solve many of these issues and increase court participation.

Our final lesson learned was the importance of communication with victims. Many of these offenders are not going to prison and will be back in your community at some point. Furthermore, many of your victims do not want the offender in jail because they pay the bills, are a parent to their children or for whatever other reason they might have. Once we changed the conversation from jail to court-ordered counseling, many victims became more receptive to our help and coming to court. By focusing on the counseling and desire for the abuse to end rather than the punishment, we were able to change the conversation to solving the problem together.

References

1. Findlater JE, Kramp H, Wolfe EJ. (2011). The Michigan Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Violence Officer Manual (4th ed.). Lansing: Michigan State Police.
2. Corp R. (n.d.). Focused deterrence in depth. Better Policing Tool Kit.
3. Kennedy DM, Braga A, Piehl A, Waring E. (2001, September). Reducing gun violence: The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
4. National Network for Safe Communities. (n.d.). An approach to reducing intimate partner violence.
5. Ouellet F. (2021). Criminal careers of intimate partner abusers: Generalists or specialists? International Centre for Comparative Criminology.
6. Glass N, et al. (2008). Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women. Journal of Emergency Medicine.
7. Messing JT, Campbell J, Wilson J, Brown S, Pattchell B, Shall C. (2014). Police departments’ use of the lethality assessment: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Department of Justice.
8. Turning Point Macomb. (2025). Your voice has power: Survivor interviews & results. Clinton Township, MI.