Practice Profile: Hot Spots Policing

Evidence Rating for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Crime & Delinquency | Violent offenses

Crime & Delinquency | Property offenses

Crime & Delinquency | Public order offenses

Crime & Delinquency | Drug and alcohol offenses

Date: This profile was posted on September 09, 2013

Practice Goals

Used by the majority of U.S. police departments, hot spots policing strategies focus on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated (Braga et al. 2012). Although there is not a common definition for “hot spots,” they are generally thought of as “small places in which the occurrence of crime is so frequent that it is highly predictable, at least over a one year period.” (Sherman 1995, pg. 36). Through hot spots policing strategies, law enforcement agencies can focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. The appeal of focusing limited resources on a small number of high-activity crime areas is based on the belief that if crime can be prevented at these hot spots, then total crime across the city might also be reduced.

Target Areas

The units of analysis in hot spots policing vary in size. Hot spot areas can include very small units of analysis such as buildings or addresses, block faces, or street segments, or bigger units such as clusters of addresses, block faces, or street segments. There are also several crime mapping techniques that can be used to identify and test for crime hot spots using software packages such as ArcGIS. Hot spots can also be displayed in diverse formats, including point mapping and spatial ellipses. There is no set standard for identifying and defining crime hot spots; rather, a combination of technology and police officer or crime analyst experience/knowledge contribute to the mapping and targeting process (Eck, et al. 2005).

Practice Theory

Recent interest in hot spots policing is due in part to changes and innovations in policing that have occurred over the last three decades and the emergence of theoretical perspectives in criminology suggesting the importance of ‘place’ in understanding crime. The observation that the distribution of crime varies within neighborhoods and is not spread evenly across areas has existed for some time (Braga et al. 2012). However, with the emergence of powerful computer hardware and software capable of carrying out sophisticated spatial analyses, crime analysts in police departments are now able to identify and track spatial concentrations of crime. Moreover, police reforms like Compstat revealed the strong linkages between spatial analyses of crime patterns and police operations meant to disrupt those patterns. Criminologists have also relied on spatial analysis tools to point out that much of the crime in a community is committed in a small number of criminogenic places.

Three related theoretical perspectives influenced the study of place-based crime: rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke 1987), routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson 1979), and environmental criminology (Brantingham and Brantingham 1991). Rational choice theory assumes that people are self-interested and weigh the costs and benefits of offending before making the choice to offend. Routine activity theory suggests that crime is the convergence in time and space of a motivated person, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship. Environmental criminology is concerned with criminal events and the importance of the characteristics of the places where crime happens (as cited in Braga, 2007). Hot spots policing emerged, in part, from these criminological theories.

Practice Components

Hot spots policing relies primarily on highly focused, traditional law enforcement strategies. A visual representation of the relationship between the diversity of the hot spots policing approach and its level of focus compared to other policing strategies, such as community-oriented and problem-oriented policing, can be found in Weisburd and Eck (2004, pg. 45).

Hot spots policing can adopt a variety of strategies to control crime in problem areas, including order maintenance and drug enforcement crackdowns, increased gun searches and seizures, and zero-tolerance policing. These strategies can be categorized into two fundamentally different types of approaches (Braga, et al. 2012). The first approach, problem oriented policing, represents police-led efforts to change the underlying conditions at hot spots that lead to recurring crime problems. It requires police to look past traditional strategies and include other possible methods for addressing crime problems (Weisburd and Eck, 2004). The second approach relies primarily on traditional policing activities, such as vehicle patrols, foot patrols, or crackdowns concentrated at specific hot spots to prevent crime through general deterrence and increased risk of apprehension.

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types
Overall, aggregating the results from 35 independent tests, Braga and colleagues (2019) found an overall statistically significant weighted mean effect size of 0.109 in favor of hot spots policing. This means that the hot spots policing strategies were associated with reductions in overall crime relative to control areas.

Crime & Delinquency | Violent offenses
Aggregating the results of 44 independent tests, Braga and colleagues (2019) found an overall statistically significant weighted mean effect size of 0.102 in favor of hot spots policing. This means that hot spots policing strategies were associated with reductions in violent crime relative to control areas.

Crime & Delinquency | Property offenses
Aggregating the results of 26 independent tests, Braga and colleagues (2019) found an overall statistically significant weighted mean effect size of 0.124 in favor of hot spots policing. This means that hot spots policing strategies were associated with reductions in property crime relative to control areas.

Crime & Delinquency | Public order offenses
Aggregating the results of 15 independent tests, Braga and colleagues (2019) found an overall weighted mean effect size of 0.161 in favor of hot spots policing. This means that hot spots policing strategies were associated with statistically significant reductions in public order offenses relative to control areas.

Crime & Delinquency | Drug and alcohol offenses
Aggregating the results of 10 independent tests, Braga and colleagues (2019) found an overall statistically significant weighted mean effect size of 0.244 in favor of hot spots policing. This means that hot spots policing strategies were associated with reductions in drug and alcohol offenses relative to control areas.

Meta-Analysis Snapshot
	Literature Coverage Dates	Number of Studies	Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1	1989-2017	65	0

Meta Analysis 1

Braga and colleagues (2019) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of hot spots policing practices. The comprehensive search strategy for identifying studies of hot spots policing included a keyword search of online abstract and literature databases, a review of bibliographies of literature reviews and systematic reviews completed by the Campbell Collaboration, and additional searches for hot spots policing studies from the field.

Literature included in this meta-analysis was current through February 2017. Suitable police crime control efforts that met the criteria for inclusion encompassed traditional tactics such as 1) directed patrol and heightened levels of traffic enforcement, 2) applications of technology such as actively monitored closed circuit televisions and license plate readers to enhance police presence in high-crime places, and 3) alternative strategies such as problem-oriented policing. Eligible studies compared places that were exposed to hot spots policing interventions with places that were exposed to traditional policing services; the units of analysis were crime hot spots or high-activity crime “places.” These small units included specific locations, including stores, apartment buildings, clusters of addresses, street blocks, street segments, and street intersections. Studies included both randomized experiments and well-executed quasi-experiments. Studies measured the effects of hot spots policing on officially recorded levels of crime at places and reported on crime displacement and diffusion of crime benefits.

The final meta-analysis included 65 studies, taken from peer-reviewed journals, unpublished reports, published reports, and theses/dissertations. Of these, 37 used randomized experimental designs, and 38 used quasi-experimental designs. Most studies (n = 51) were conducted in the United States. Of the remaining studies, four were conducted in the United Kingdom, four were completed in Sweden, and one evaluation was conducted in each of the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Colombia, Denmark, India, and Trinidad & Tobago. Of the 65 studies, 27 were conducted in medium-sized cities with populations between 200,000 and 500,000, 25 were conducted in large cities with populations greater than 500,000, 12 were conducted in small cities with populations of less than 200,000, and one study was conducted in both a small and large city. Eleven of the 65 eligible studies evaluated more than one hot spot policing intervention and carried out these analyses as independent tests. Nine studies examined two separate hot spots policing interventions, and two studies examined three hot spots policing interventions.

The 65 studies provided 78 distinct experimental and quasi-experimental tests of the effects of hot spots policing on crime. One third (n = 27) focused on problem-oriented policing, and the remaining studies focused on increased foot or vehicle patrol (n = 31), drug enforcement operations (n = 6), offender-focused apprehension programs (n = 4), actively monitored CCTV with directed patrol (n = 3), and other kinds of increased enforcement activities (n = 7). Crime displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits were assessed for 46 of the 78 tests of hot spots policing. Most of the studies (62 of 65) were included in the meta-analysis; two studies did not report the necessary information to calculate effect sizes, and one study did not use appropriate statistical methods to estimate program effects. Of the 65 studies, effect sizes were calculated for 73 main effects tests and 40 displacement and diffusion tests.

Program effect sizes were weighted based on the variance of the effect size and the study sample size. The standard mean difference effect size was calculated for each program using a 95-percent confidence interval. The authors used a random effects model to estimate the overall mean effect size.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Braga, Anthony A. 2005. “Hot Spots Policing and Crime Prevention: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 1:317–42.

Braga, Anthony A. 2006. “The Crime Prevention Value of Hot Spots Policing.” Psicothema 18(3):630–37.

Braga, Anthony A. 2007. “The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 1. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/118/

Brantingham, Paul and Patricia Brantingham. (Eds). 1991. Environmental Criminology. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Cohen, L. and M. Felson, 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 44:588–605.

Cornish, D. and R. V. Clarke. 1987. “Understanding Crime Displacement: An Application of Rational Choice Theory.” Criminology 25:933–947.

Eck, John, Spencer Chainey, James G. Cameron, Michael Leitner, and Ronald E. Wilson. 2005. Mapping Crime: Understanding Hot Spots. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/209393.pdf

Taylor, Bruce, Christopher S. Koper, and Daniel J. Woods. 2011. “A Randomized Controlled Trial of Different Policing Strategies at Hot Spots of Violent Crime.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 7:149–81.

Weisburd, David and John E. Eck. 2004. “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593:42–65.

Sherman, Lawrence W. 1995. “Hot Spots of Crime and Criminal Careers of Places.” In John E. Eck and David Weisburd, (Eds.). Crime and Place. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 35-52.

Braga, Anthony A., Andrew V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau. 2012. “The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 8(1):1–96.

Date Modified: April 1, 2020

This practice review has been updated to reflect findings from a more recent meta-analysis. In 2013, the practice was reviewed with the meta-analysis by Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau (2012) and was rated Effective for reducing overall crime. In 2019, an updated version of the original meta-analysis was reviewed. With the inclusion of the new meta-analysis, the Effective rating for reducing overall crime was maintained. In addition, four new outcomes were added to the practice evidence base: violence, property, public order, and drug and alcohol offenses. All four outcomes were rated Promising, based on the results of the meta-analysis by Braga and colleagues (2019). See "Other Information" for more details.

Date Created: July 17, 2024

Rating Process

Learn how this and other practices are rated

Practice Snapshot

Setting (Delivery): High Crime Neighborhoods/Hot Spots

Practice Type: Community and Problem Oriented Policing, General deterrence, Hot Spots Policing, Violence Prevention

Unit of Analysis: Places

Practice Profile: Hot Spots Policing

Practice Summary

Practice Description

Practice Goals

Target Areas

Practice Theory

Practice Components

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

Meta-Analysis Methodology

Cost

Other Information

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

Additional References

Related Programs