IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v8y2012i1p1-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hot spots policing effects on crime

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Braga
  • Andrew Papachristos
  • David Hureau

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of focusing police crime prevention efforts on crime ‘hot spots’, and whether focused police actions at specific locations result in crime displacement (i.e. crime moving around the corner) or diffusion (i.e. crime reduction in surrounding areas) of crime control benefits. The review includes 19 studies covering 25 cases. Seventeen of the studies were conducted in the USA. Investing police agencies' limited resources on hot spot policing in a small number of high‐activity crime places will prevent crime in these and surrounding areas, reducing total crime. Problem oriented policing approach allows for developing tailored responses to specific recurring problems in high activity crime spots. Implementing situational prevention strategies that reduce police reliance on aggressive enforcement strategies may also have positive benefits for police‐community relations. The reactions of local communities to hot spot policing must be considered. Residents may welcome efforts to reduce crime. But if policing programmes are seen as heavy‐handed, or focus too much on particular population groups, they may end up driving a wedge between the police and those they are trying to help. Abstract BACKGROUND In recent years, crime scholars and practitioners have pointed to the potential benefits of focusing crime prevention efforts on crime places. A number of studies suggest that there is significant clustering of crime in small places, or “hot spots,” that generate half of all criminal events. A number of researchers have argued that many crime problems can be reduced more efficiently if police officers focused their attention to these deviant places. The appeal of focusing limited resources on a small number of high‐activity crime places is straightforward. If we can prevent crime at these hot spots, then we might be able to reduce total crime. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of focused police crime prevention interventions at crime hot spots. The review also examined whether focused police actions at specific locations result in crime displacement (i.e., crime moving around the corner) or diffusion (i.e., crime reduction in surrounding areas) of crime control benefits. SEARCH STRATEGY A keyword search was performed on 15 online abstract databases. Bibliographies of past narrative and empirical reviews of literature that examined the effectiveness of police crime control programs were reviewed and forward searches for works that cited seminal hot spots policing studies were performed. Bibliographies of past completed Campbell systematic reviews of police crime prevention efforts and hand searches of leading journals in the field were performed. Experts in the field were consulted and relevant citations were obtained. SELECTION CRITERIA To be eligible for this review, interventions used to control crime hot spots were limited to police enforcement efforts. Suitable police enforcement efforts included traditional tactics such as directed patrol and heightened levels of traffic enforcement as well as alternative strategies such as aggressive disorder enforcement and problem‐oriented policing. Studies that used randomized controlled experimental or quasi‐experimental designs were selected. The units of analysis were limited to crime hot spots or high‐activity crime “places” rather than larger areas such as neighborhoods. The control group in each study received routine levels of traditional police enforcement tactics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 19 studies containing 25 tests of hot spots policing interventions were identified and full narratives of these studies were reported. Ten of the selected studies used randomized experimental designs and nine used quasi‐experimental designs. A formal meta‐analysis was conducted to determine the crime prevention effects in the eligible studies. Random effects models were used to calculate mean effect sizes. RESULTS 20 of 25 tests of hot spots policing interventions reported noteworthy crime and disorder reductions. The meta‐analysis of key reported outcome measures revealed a small statistically significant mean effect size favoring the effects of hot spots policing in reducing citizen calls for service in treatment places relative to control places. The effect was smaller for randomized designs but still statistically significant and positive. When displacement and diffusion effects were measured, unintended crime prevention benefits were associated with the hot spots AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The extant evaluation research provides fairly robust evidence that hot spots policing is an effective crime prevention strategy. The research also suggests that focusing police efforts on high‐activity crime places does not inevitably lead to crime displacement and crime control benefits may diffuse into the areas immediately surrounding the targeted locations.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Braga & Andrew Papachristos & David Hureau, 2012. "Hot spots policing effects on crime," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 1-96.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:8:y:2012:i:1:p:1-96
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2012.8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2012.8
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2012.8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Enzo Nussio & Ervyn Norza Céspedes, 2018. "Deterring delinquents with information. Evidence from a randomized poster campaign in Bogotá," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Bilach, Thomas J. & Roche, Sean Patrick & Wawro, Gregory J., 2020. "The Effects of the Summer All Out Foot Patrol Initiative in New York City: A Difference-in-Differences Approach," SocArXiv ep4fs, Center for Open Science.
    3. Brüderle, Mirjam Anna & Peters, Jörg & Roberts, Gareth, 2022. "Weather and crime: Cautious evidence from South Africa," Ruhr Economic Papers 940, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    4. Ciro Figueiredo & Caroline Mota, 2019. "Learning Preferences in a Spatial Multiple Criteria Decision Approach: An Application in Public Security Planning," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1403-1432, July.
    5. Anthony A. Braga & Robert Apel & Brandon C. Welsh, 2013. "The Spillover Effects of Focused Deterrence on Gang Violence," Evaluation Review, , vol. 37(3-4), pages 314-342, June.
    6. Joshua C. Hinkle & David Weisburd & Christine Famega & Justin Ready, 2013. "The Problem Is Not Just Sample Size," Evaluation Review, , vol. 37(3-4), pages 213-238, June.
    7. Christopher S. Koper & Cynthia Lum & Julie Hibdon, 2015. "The Uses and Impacts of Mobile Computing Technology in Hot Spots Policing," Evaluation Review, , vol. 39(6), pages 587-624, December.
    8. Ryan Copus & Hannah Laqueur, 2019. "Entertainment as Crime Prevention: Evidence From Chicago Sports Games," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(3), pages 344-370, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:8:y:2012:i:1:p:1-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.