Hot Spots of Crime Are Not Just Hot Spots of Crime: Examining Health Outcomes at Street Segments

• Published date: 01 May 2019
• Author: David Weisburd,Clair White
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986219832132
• Date: 01 May 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219832132

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2019, Vol. 35(2) 142 –160

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986219832132

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Hot Spots of Crime Are Not

Just Hot Spots of Crime:

Examining Health Outcomes

at Street Segments

David Weisburd1,2 and Clair White3

Abstract

In this article, we seek to identify whether the relationship between health disparities

and crime occurs at a micro-geographic level. Do hot spot streets evidence much

higher levels of mental and physical illness than streets with little crime? Are residents

of crime hot spots more likely to have health problems that interfere with their

normal daily activities? To answer these questions, we draw upon a large National

Institutes of Health study of a sample of hot spots and non-hot spots in Baltimore,

Maryland. This is the first study we know of to report on this relationship, and

accordingly, we present unique descriptive data. Our findings show that both physical

and mental health problems are much more likely to be found on hot spot streets

than streets with little crime. This suggests that crime hot spots are not simply places

with high levels of crime, but also places that evidence more general disadvantage.

We argue that these findings have important policy implications for the targeting of

health services and for developing proactive prevention programs.

Keywords

crime hot spots, health problems, mental health, crime concentration

Traditionally, research and theory in criminology have focused on individuals and

communities (Nettler, 1978; Sherman, 1995). Over the last three decades, however,

criminologists have begun to explore crime at micro units of geography (Eck &

Weisburd, 1995; Sherman, Gartin, & Buerger, 1989). Although concern with the

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

2The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

3University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

Corresponding Author:

David Weisburd, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.

Email: dweisbur@gmu.edu

832132CCJXXX10.1177/1043986219832132Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeWeisburd and White

research-article2019

Weisburd and White 143

relationship between crime and place is not new and indeed goes back to the founding

generations of modern criminology (Guerry, 1833; Quetelet, 1831), the “micro”

approach to places suggested by recent theories has only begun to be examined by

criminologists. Places in this micro context are specific locations within the larger

social environments of communities and neighborhoods (Eck & Weisburd, 1995).

They are sometimes defined as buildings or addresses (e.g., see Green, 1996; Sherman

et al., 1989), sometimes as block faces or street segments (e.g., see Smith, Frazee, &

Davison, 2000; Taylor, 1997), and sometimes as clusters of addresses, block faces, or

street segments (see, for example, Sherman & Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd & Green,

1995; Weisburd, Groff, & Yang, 2012).

Perhaps the key finding in this area of study is that there is significant clustering of

crime at places, irrespective of the specific unit of analysis that is defined (e.g., see

Andresen & Malleson, 2011; Braga, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2014; Brantingham &

Brantingham, 1999; Crow & Bull, 1975; Curman, Andresen, & Brantingham, 2015;

Gill, Wooditch, & Weisburd, 2017; Haberman, Sorg, & Ratcliffe, 2017; Pierce, Spaar,

& Briggs, 1988; Roncek, 2000; Sherman et al., 1989; Weisburd, 2015; Weisburd &

Amram, 2014; Weisburd, Bernasco, & Bruinsma, 2009; Weisburd & Green, 1995;

Weisburd et al., 1992). Such concentrations have been found not only across time

within cities, but also across cities (Weisburd, 2015). Weisburd (2015) argued that the

consistency of such concentrations is so strong that they suggest a “law of crime con-

centration at places,” where in larger cities about 50% of crime is concentrated at 5%

of the streets and 25% of crime at just 1% of streets. This finding of strong concentra-

tions of crime at micro-geographic hot spots has become one of the key regularities of

research on crime at place (Telep & Weisburd, 2018).

Criminologists, however, have seldom examined the co-occurrence of other social

or health disadvantages at these crime hot spots. In the study of crime at larger geo-

graphic levels such as communities, such issues have been a key focus of study (see

Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Sampson, 2012; Shaw & McKay, 1942; Sullivan, 1989).

Researchers frequently talk about the “concentrated disadvantage” found in such

neighborhoods, recognizing that communities with high levels of crime are also com-

munities with many other related social problems such as disorder, weakened social

ties and informal social control, problems in adolescent development, and weak local

institutions (Elliott, Wilson, & Huinzinga, 1996; Hipp, 2010; Morenoff, Sampson, &

Raudenbush, 2001; Peterson, Krivo, & Harris, 2000; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls,

1997; Small & Newman, 2001).

High crime neighborhoods, typified by structural disadvantage and poverty also

suffer from high rates of health problems such as chronic diseases (Haan, Kaplan, &

Camacho, 1987), adverse mental health outcomes (Kim, 2008; Mair, Diez Roux, &

Galea, 2008; Ross, 2000; Truong & Ma, 2006; Zhang, Chen, McCubbin, McCubbin,

& Foley, 2011), asthma (Cagney & Browning, 2004), obesity and cardiovascular dis-

ease (Boardman, Saint Onge, Rogers & Denney, 2005; Browning, Cagney, & Iveniuk,

2012; Chaix, 2009; Chang, Hillier, & Mehta, 2009), substance use (Stockdale et al.,

2007), low infant birthweight (Ncube, Enquobahrie, Albert, Herrick, & Burke, 2016),

and higher mortality rates (Fang, Madhaven, Bosworth, & Alderman, 1998; Haan