Program Profile: Hot Spots Policing (Jacksonville, FL)

This is a geographically focused policing strategy to reduce violent crime in high-crime areas using problem-oriented policing (POP) and saturation/directed patrols. The program is rated No Effects. While there were no statistically significant reductions in any violent or property crime in POP hot spots, or in any violence or property crime in directed patrol hot spots, there were statistically significant reductions in nondomestic violent crime in POP hot spots compared with control hot spots.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative 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 Jacksonville, FL, in 2007 as a response to escalating violent crime in the area. The city saw a dramatic increase in violent crime—homicide, in particular—between 2003 and 2008, leading the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) to develop the Hot Spots strategy as a solution. The strategy used a specialized geographic approach intended to concentrate police resources in well-defined “micro” hot spots of violence. The Hot Spot techniques were specifically intended to create reductions in violent crime.

Target Sites

The strategy specifically targeted “hot spot” areas in Jacksonville that suffered from high levels of violent crime. The hot spots were identified by conducting geographic analyses using data that were collected on crime in Jacksonville from 2006 through 2008.

Program Components

The strategy concentrated on the implementation of two proactive policing strategies in hot spots of crime: directed patrol and problem-oriented policing. Both approaches used a data-driven, tailored approach to aim police resources at reducing violence in high-crime areas. The JSO was divided into two separate divisions to implement each type of enforcement:

• Saturation/directed patrol. This technique is intended to prevent crime from occurring, through the use of intensive patrolling of specific areas by police at particular times. The approach entails the "saturation" of high-crime areas during times of day when crime is most likely to occur, which is intended to promote a deterrent effect. Officers assigned to saturation patrol are relieved from the duty of responding to calls for service and turn their attention to crime reduction in identified locations.
• Problem-oriented policing (POP). This technique involves the identification of a specific problematic issue in the community to concentrate police resources on developing a solution. The technique enables police officers to focus on reducing violent crime, using situational crime prevention measures, and places less emphasis on law enforcement’s response to crime. For this strategy, POP techniques were used to combat the issue of violence in high-crime locations; this consisted mainly of maintaining order in the community. Some examples of such measures are nuisance abatement, installation of improved street lighting, and improvement of security measures in the community. This strategy also included an emphasis on providing community services, such as citizen outreach and recreational opportunities for youths.

Key Personnel

The strategy requires collaboration between several divisions of the JSO—including the crime analysis unit, patrol officers, sergeants, and lieutenants—in addition to participation from the community.

Program Theory

The strategy is based on the idea that combating violent crime is possible by focusing on hot spots of crime—specific locations where violent crime is concentrated. This approach is based on the routine activities theory of crime (Cohen and Felson 1979), which postulates that crime occurs in the presence of a motivated individual, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. Thus, Hot Spots Policing uses a geographical approach to concentrate police attention in areas where violence is most likely to occur. This program used problem-oriented policing to concentrate on violent crime, in addition to saturation/directed patrol to deter violent offending in specific high-crime locations.

Study

The same study by Taylor, Koper, and Woods (2011b) evaluated the impact of the Hot Spots Policing saturation/directed patrol strategy on violent crime in Jacksonville, Fla. The same methodology as described in Study 1 (Taylor, Koper, and Woods 2011a) was used to identify locations with the highest levels of violent crime, to develop “hot spots” for the experiment, and to develop the saturation/directed patrol and POP efforts by separate divisions of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.

As mentioned above, each of the city’s 83 hot spots of violent crime was randomly assigned to either 1) POP (n = 22 hot spots), 2) saturation/directed patrol (n = 21 hot spots), or 3) the control condition (n = 40 hot spots). Saturation/directed patrol hot spots implemented intensive, focused patrol (overseen by a JSO sergeant) to create a heightened police presence in specific locations, for an average of 53 officer-hours per week. Hot spots in the control condition received standard police efforts with no additional resources. There were no statistically significant differences among the three study conditions based on either location type or size of hot spot, suggesting that the random assignment process created comparable intervention and control conditions. Each of these conditions was maintained for 90 days.

The experiment focused on changes in violent crime and serious property crime, using data from Part 1 of the UCR and local JSO data on 911 calls for service. Part 1 UCR offenses and calls-for-service data were divided into three measures, as in Study 1. The analytic methods were also the same as those described in Study 1. Multivariate models (including Poisson regression and negative binomial regression) were used to assess the effectiveness of the saturation/directed patrol intervention compared with the control condition on hot-spot crime rates 90 days post-intervention. No subgroup analysis was conducted; however, displacement and diffusion effects were also analyzed by 911 calls for service and UCR measures to supplement the analysis of intervention effects.

Study

Taylor, Koper, and Woods (2011a) conducted a randomized controlled trial to analyze the impact of the Hot Spots Policing strategies on violent crime in Jacksonville, Fla. The Study 1 review (Taylor, Koper, and Woods, 2011a) focused on changes in crime rates in hot spots that implemented problem-oriented policing (POP) compared with hot spots in the control condition. The Study 2 review (Taylor, Koper, and Woods, 2011b; described below) concentrated on changes in crime rates in hot spots that implemented saturation/directed patrols compared with hot spots in the control condition.

The methodology of the study was based on SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) model, which entailed scanning for problems, analysis of problems, development and implementation of responses, and a follow-up assessment of results. First, during the scanning phase, data were collected on crime in Jacksonville from 2006 through 2008. During the analysis phase, geographic analyses were conducted to identify locations with the highest levels of violent crime and to develop “hot spots” for the experiment. Based on the data analysis, 83 hot spots of violent crime were identified for inclusion in the experiment. A strategy was then developed during the response phase, which included the use of saturation/directed patrol and POP efforts by separate divisions of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO).

Each of the 83 hot spots was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: 1) POP, 2) saturation/directed patrol, or 3) a control condition. Twenty-two hot spots were assigned to the POP condition, where 60 officers and four crime analysts worked full-time, 7 days a week to explore the root causes of the violence and develop tailored strategies to improve order and reduce violent activity. Twenty-one hot spots were assigned to the saturation/directed patrol condition. Forty hot spots were assigned to the control condition, which received standard police efforts with no additional resources.

There were no statistically significant differences among the three study conditions based on either location type or size of hot spot, suggesting that the random assignment process created comparable intervention and control conditions. Each of these conditions was maintained for 90 days. For Study 1, analysis was then conducted to examine the effects of POP and saturation/directed patrol on crime rates in hot spots, compared with the control condition hot spots, 90 days following the intervention.

The experiment focused on changes in violent crime and serious property crime, using data from Part 1 of the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and local JSO data on 911 calls for service. For the Part 1 UCR offenses, the data were divided into three measures: 1) Part 1 UCR violent crime, which included all recorded incidents of aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery; 2) Part 1 UCR nondomestic violent crime, which included only violent crime that did not involve a domestic/intimate-partner relationship between the victim and the person who perpetrates the crime (this measure was used to analyze “street violence” in locations as separate from domestic disputes); and 3) Part 1 UCR property crime, which included all recorded incidents of serious property crime, including arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. A similar coding scheme was used for calls-for-service data (this measure was used to analyze displacement and diffusion effects).

Multivariate models (including Poisson regression and negative binomial regression) were used to assess the effectiveness of the POP intervention compared with the control condition on hot-spot crime rates 90 days post-intervention. No subgroup analysis was conducted. However, displacement and diffusion effects were also analyzed by 911 calls for service and UCR measures to supplement the analysis of intervention effects. To measure the potential effects of crime moving to nearby areas, or benefits spreading to nearby areas, the study authors counted offenses that took place beyond the 100-foot buffer around each hot spot but within 500 feet of the respective hot spot.

The problem-oriented policing strategy entailed the use of extra time and effort. Officers assigned to the problem-oriented policing division received 3 days of intensive training in problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing, which were taught by outside experts and Jacksonville (FL) Sheriff’s Office (JSO) staff. Overall, the JSO allocated 2,100 hours to the problem-oriented policing efforts, for an average of approximately 95 officer-hours per week, per hot spot (Taylor, Koper and Woods, 2011).

Displacement/Diffusion Effects

With regard to analyses of displacement or diffusion effects, Taylor, Koper, and Woods (2011a) found there were statistically significant increases in calls for service for all violence and nondomestic violence in areas adjacent to hot spots assigned to the problem-oriented policing condition, compared with areas adjacent to hot spots assigned to the control condition, 90 days after the intervention. However, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the crime outcomes based on UCR data in areas adjacent to hot spots assigned to the problem-oriented policing condition.

Diffusion/Displacement

Taylor, Koper, and Woods (2011b) found there were no statistically significant differences in calls for service or crime outcomes based on UCR data for all violence and nondomestic violence in areas adjacent to hot spots assigned to the saturation/directed patrol condition, compared with areas adjacent to hot spots assigned to the control condition.

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

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

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 No Effects 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

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