Assessing the Practice of Hot Spots Policing

• Author: Christopher S. Koper
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986214525079
• Published date: 01 May 2014
• Date: 01 May 2014
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2014, Vol. 30(2) 123 –146

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986214525079

ccj.sagepub.com

Article

Assessing the Practice of

Hot Spots Policing: Survey

Results From a National

Convenience Sample of

Local Police Agencies

Christopher S. Koper1

Abstract

This study examined the practice of hot spots policing as reported by a convenience

sample of predominantly large municipal police agencies. Police commonly defined

hot spots in terms of micro places as well as larger areas, and they emphasized

short-term identification and responses to hot spots. Respondents identified problem

analysis/solving, targeting offenders, and directed patrol as the most common and

effective strategies for hot spots, but there was wide variation in their views of the

most effective strategies for different types of hot spots. Current practices could

arguably be improved through more a precise geographic focus, a greater emphasis on

chronic hot spots and their criminogenic features, and further research to determine

optimal strategies, dosages, and proactive uses of hot spots policing.

Keywords

hot spots policing, police survey, violence prevention

Introduction

“Hot spot” policing—that is, policing focused on small geographic places or areas

where crime is concentrated—has arguably been one of the most important policing

innovations of recent decades. The use of crime mapping to identify hot spots is now

common among police agencies (Burch, 2012; Reaves, 2010; Weisburd & Lum,

2005), and police cite hot spots enforcement as a leading approach to the reduction of

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher S. Koper, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, Department of Criminology, Law and

Society, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 6D12, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.

Email: ckoper2@gmu.edu

525079CCJXXX10.1177/1043986214525079Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeKoper

research-article2014

124 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 30(2)

violence and other crime problems (Police Executive Research Forum [PERF], 2007,

2008). There is also substantial consensus among researchers that hot spots policing is

effective in reducing crime and disorder (Braga, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2012; Lum,

Koper, & Telep, 2011; National Research Council [NRC], 2004; Weisburd, 2008).

However, little is known about the everyday practice of hot spots policing. For exam-

ple, how do police define hot spots and what types of strategies do they use at hot

spots? Moreover, do hot spots policing practices in the field align with best practices

as identified by research? To address these and other related issues, this article

describes and assesses the practice of hot spots policing as reported by a convenience

sample consisting primarily of large police agencies from throughout the United

States.

Background: Hot Spots and Hot Spot Policing

Police and researchers have long recognized that crime is commonly concentrated in

particular neighborhoods and administrative areas within a locality (e.g., Shaw &

McKay, 1942), and police have historically focused more of their attention on these

areas. However, advancements in information technology and geographic information

systems have enabled police and researchers to identify and focus more precisely on

the particular addresses, intersections, street blocks, and clusters of blocks that gener-

ate the most crime within these traditional areas of focus. Studies in several cities, for

example, have shown that approximately half of crime occurs at 5% or less of a city’s

addresses and intersections (e.g., Pierce, Spaar, & Briggs, 1988; Sherman, Gartin, &

Buerger, 1989; Weisburd, Bushway, Lum, & Yang, 2004) and that the concentration of

crime at these places tends to be stable over time (Braga, Papachristos, & Hureau,

2010; Weisburd et al., 2004; Weisburd, Morris, & Groff, 2009).

These locations, sometimes referred to as “micro” hot spots, are often nodes for

business, leisure, and/or travel activities, and they have features or facilities that create

criminal opportunities and facilitate offending (Eck & Weisburd, 1995). In the lan-

guage of routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), they are places that bring

together motivated offenders, suitable targets, and an absence of capable guardians.

Examples include locations with bars, convenience stores, parks, bus depots, apart-

ment buildings, parking lots, shopping centers, motels or hotels, adult businesses, and

the like (e.g., Braga et al., 1999; Sherman et al., 1989; also see Eck & Weisburd, 1995).

Focusing on hot spots has the potential to make police more effective and efficient

in a number of ways. For one, it concentrates their attention on the places where crime

is most likely to occur. Police can also arguably establish a more visible presence and

generate greater perceptual effects in the small space of a hot spot than over larger

areas like a patrol beat or an entire jurisdiction (e.g., Sherman & Weisburd, 1995).

Furthermore, officers can try to address the underlying conditions that contribute to

crime and disorder at these places through problem-solving efforts that may include

enforcement and investigative operations as well as prevention measures implemented

in cooperation with place managers (Eck, 1994) and other stakeholders (such as busi-

ness owners and managers, residents, and other government agencies) with interests in