Program Goals/Target Sites
The goal of the hot spots intervention, named the St. Louis County Hot Spots in Residential Areas (SCHIRA), was to improve citizen-officer interactions, specifically by improving citizen cooperation with police, police legitimacy, and procedural justice, and decreasing excessive use of force by officers. This intervention was implemented to examine and address some common criticisms of hot spots policing. Such policing practices have been criticized as having a negative impact on community outcomes such as citizen perceptions of police legitimacy and procedural justice. Because police resources are concentrated on a small geographic area rather than evenly distributed across a jurisdiction, the practice may be viewed as inequitable by community members (Kochel and Weisburd 2017). Thus, to help address such criticism, this program used two different hot spot policing strategies in targeted residential areas in St. Louis County, Missouri, that suffered from high levels of crime incidents: a problem-solving approach and a directed patrol.
Program Components
The two strategies applied in this intervention, though notably different in their components, are both comprised under the larger strategy of hot spots policing.
Problem Solving (PS): Officers engaging in PS used the problem-oriented policing SARA model, which includes the following four stages: Scanning, identifying and selecting a problem; Analysis, analyzing the problem; Response, responding to the problem; and Assessment, assessing the impact on the problem (Schmerler et al. 2006). Officers received three days of training in the PS strategy and the SARA model and were offered on-call consultation and a crime analyst. The analyst provided analyses of incidents and calls for service types and counts in each hot spot to the assigned officers and worked with officers on identifying and selecting a problem. Some examples included property crime, violent crime, and drug and gang problems. Officers were required to partner with at least one stakeholder and to link response strategies with what they learned about the conditions contributing to the problem. Some activities that the officers used to do this included door-to-door resident surveys, in- person and video observations of problem areas at different times of the day, and interviews with property managers and landlords. Officers then developed a response strategy, including educating residents about the problems and applying target-hardening strategies; securing vacant residences; removing abandoned vehicles, trash, and overgrowth; conducting intensive follow up with troubled juveniles; and increasing communication with a variety of agencies.
Directed Patrol (DP): Officers engaging in DP aimed to double the usual amount of time spent at their respective hot spots. Automated vehicle location (AVL) data was used to record time spent at each hot spot. Efforts were made to target “hot times” (i.e., times of increased criminal activity) by conducting 11- to 15-minute patrols each targeted hour. Officers were asked to make themselves visible in the hotspots and to record time spent and activities conducted, which they were free to determine. Some activities that officers conducted included roving or stationary patrols, completing reports, vehicle enforcement, foot patrols, pedestrian stops, conversing with residents, and sitting car to car.
Program Theory
The problem-solving approach is based on the routine activities theory, which requires that three elements be present at the same time and space for a crime to occur: 1) a motivated individual with criminal intentions and the ability to act, 2) a suitable victim, and 3) the absence of a capable person to stop the offense (Schmerler et al. 2006). Assigning officers to specific hot spots, as the PS approach did, limits opportunities for crimes to occur.
Directed patrol used a general deterrence theory by assigning more officers on the streets. Deterrence theory assumes that individuals consider the consequences of their actions and are also affected by consequences. Additionally, rational individuals weigh the cost and benefit of committing a crime (Paternoster 2010). Thus, individuals, in the face of increased police presence, would perceive an increased cost of offending (i.e., increased risk of being apprehended) and be deterred.
