Program Profile: Hot Spots Policing (Lowell, Mass.)

This is a crime-reduction strategy that uses a disorder-policing approach to improve physical and social order in high-crime locations in Lowell, Mass. This program is rated Effective. High-crime locations experienced statistically significant reductions in calls for service and in social and physical disorder, compared with control areas.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals

The Hot Spots Policing strategy was implemented in 2005 by the Lowell (Mass.) Police Department and was intended to improve social and physical order in high-crime areas in Lowell. By improving social order in high-crime areas, the strategy seeks to reduce disorder-related crime. The ultimate goal is to improve order in these specific areas to create broad crime-reduction results across the greater area.

Target Sites

The program concentrates on reducing disorder in locations in Lowell identified to have high levels of crime.

Program Components

The strategy includes the use of several techniques aimed to improve physical and social disorder in hot spots of crime. The program uses three approaches to reduce disorder-related crime, based on a general policing disorder strategy:

• Increased misdemeanor arrests. This component entails the use of aggressive order maintenance techniques by police, including increased arrests for public order violations. Some examples are making arrests for public drinking, arresting drug dealers, conducting “stop and frisks” of suspicious individuals, and conducting foot patrol in high-crime areas. This component is intended to take high-risk individuals off the street and to reduce disorder-related crime.
• Situational prevention strategies. This component entails a variety of measures broadly designed to improve physical and social disorder in target areas by police. This includes the installation of improved street lighting, implementation of video surveillance, dispersing groups of loiterers, performing code inspections, cleaning up vacant lots, razing abandoned buildings, and evicting problem residents. These activities are intended to go beyond simply arresting violators and to promote a generalized sense of order in problem areas. Such techniques require partnerships between and among police and city agencies, local business owners, and tenant associations.
• Social service actions. This component entails assistance from social service agencies to help police increase social order. This includes providing youth with recreational opportunities, working with local shelters to provide housing for homeless individuals, and connecting problem tenants to mental health services. These activities are intended to create opportunities for high-risk individuals in targeted locations to assist police efforts to promote social order.

Key Personnel

This strategy requires collaboration with many community agencies and businesses, as well as the assistance of geospatial analysts to identify hot spots of crime.

Program Theory

The strategy is based on the broken windows theory of crime, which postulates that crime is likely to flourish in areas with high levels of physical and social disorder. It entails the use of broken windows policing, also known as disorder policing, to produce a crime-reduction effect by improving order in problem areas. The program is based on the idea that, by reducing overall disorder, conditions will improve and crime will be reduced. The program uses a problem-oriented policing approach to concentrate specifically on the reduction of nuisance crime, in combination with a hot spots policing approach to target specific high-crime areas.

Study

Braga and Bond (2008) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of the Lowell, Mass., Hot Spots strategy on disorder-related crime. They used the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) model, a method often used in problem-oriented policing studies. During the scanning phase, crime and geospatial analysts identified high-crime locations in Lowell, using crime data in addition to qualitative data on perceptions of crime locations collected from police officers. Thirty-four hot spots were identified, which were matched into 17 pairs of blocks—with one member of each pair assigned to the treatment group and the other to the control group. During the analysis phase, hot spot areas were allocated to treatment or control groups using random assignment. The strategy was then implemented in the response period, with an intervention period spanning over 1 year, from Sept. 1, 2005, to Aug. 31, 2006. The assessment phase began during the intervention period, during which police departments were held accountable for successful implementation of the program’s activities. They held CompStat-like meetings to assess the progress in reducing crime and disorder problems by the program’s activities, and researchers attended the meetings. If results of these meetings indicated that desired effects were not being achieved, police captains emphasized the need for officers to work harder to implement disorder policing activities. Police departments were not informed of which areas were designated as treatment or control hot spot areas.

The main outcomes used in the evaluation were citizen calls for service and observed disorder, supplemented by an analysis of displacement/diffusion effects.

• Citizen calls for service. Calls for emergency service were used as official measures of crime, which were provided by the Lowell Police Department. Pretest and posttest data on nuisance crime in treatment and control areas was analyzed to determine whether there were any significant changes as a result of the Lowell strategy. Types of crimes were distributed in the form of rare event counts, including calls for assault, robbery, burglary/breaking and entering, larceny/theft, disorder/nuisance, and total calls for service. In order to supplement this analysis, a regression analysis was used to determine differential impacts of the three program components (misdemeanor arrests, situational prevention strategies, and social service strategies) on citizen calls for service in treatment and control areas.
• Observed disorder. Researchers made systematic social observations of evaluation areas in order to assess disorder, not knowing which were designated as treatment or control groups. They were driven by a plainclothes officer in an unmarked car and recorded observations from the “epicenter” of activity to gain the best perspective on activity in the area. Researchers distinguished observations between indicators of social disorder and indicators of physical disorder, and the data was coded and entered into a database for analysis. Social disorder was measured using observations of the number of people engaged in social incivilities, including loitering, public drinking, drug selling, and the presence of homeless people. Physical disorder was measured using photographs of areas taken by researchers. The pictures were analyzed for the presence of physical disorder, including street segments with trash; structures with graffiti; damaged structures; unkempt vacant lots; abandoned cars; and unsecured abandoned buildings.
• Displacement/diffusion effects. The potential displacement/diffusion effects of the strategy were analyzed in order to account for the possibility of crime moving to nearby areas, as well as for the possibility of benefits spreading to nearby areas. In order to measure these effects, a two-block catchment area was constructed around each of the 34 places. Displacement and diffusion effects were assessed by comparing citizen calls for service and reported crime incidents in the two-block catchment areas immediately surrounding the control and treatment groups for the 6-month preintervention and postintervention periods.

Subgroup Analysis

Braga and Bond (2008) found that the magnitude of effects was inconsistent across all categories of crime calls, but results indicate substantial reductions in calls in treatment places relative to calls in control places. Relative to control areas, in treatment areas there was a 14 percent reduction in disorder/nuisance calls, 41.8 percent reduction in robbery calls, 34.2 percent reduction in nondomestic assault calls, and a 35.5 percent reduction in burglary/breaking-and-entering calls (all statistically significant). However, there was a non-significant reduction in larceny/theft calls in treatment areas relative to control areas.

Diffusion and Displacement

Additionally, the researchers examined the effect the treatment had on the displacement or diffusion of crime. Displacement or diffusion refers to movement of crime from one area to another, such as from the treatment areas to the control areas. However, they found no statistically significant effects on displacement or diffusion in the control areas.

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

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

Schreiber, Sara. 2010. “Zone Defense: The Hopeful Case for ‘Broken Windows’ in Disordered Streets.” Law Enforcement Technology 37(3):24–28.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing strategies focus on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated. Through hot spots policing strategies, law enforcement agencies can focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. This practice is rated Effective for reducing overall crime and rated Promising for reducing violent, property, public order, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Evidence Ratings 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

Problem-Oriented Policing

These analytic methods are used by police to develop crime prevention and reduction strategies. The practice is rated Promising and led to a significant decline in crime and disorder.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement

This practice includes targeted-policing approaches for reducing drug and drug-related offenses. This practice is rated Promising in reducing reported, drug-related calls for services and offenses against persons. This practice is rated Ineffective in reducing reported property offenses, public order calls for service, and total offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Disorder Policing

This is a policing strategy to reduce crime and delinquency by focusing efforts on disorderly neighborhood conditions and minor crime offenses. This practice is rated Effective for reducing multiple types of crime and delinquency, and rated Promising for reducing specific types of crimes, including property, violent, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses

Geographically Focused Policing Initiatives

Geographically focused policing initiatives increase the presence and visibility of police officers at specific high-crime locations to significantly reduce crime and disorder. This practice is rated Promising for reducing crime in treatment areas relative to control areas.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?