Hot Spots Policing

• Author: Cody W. Telep,David Weisburd
• Published date: 01 May 2014
• Date: 01 May 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214525083
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2014, Vol. 30(2) 200 –220

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986214525083

ccj.sagepub.com

Article

Hot Spots Policing: What

We Know and What We

Need to Know

David Weisburd1,2 and Cody W. Telep3

Abstract

After reviewing the evidence regarding the general effectiveness of hot spots policing

(what we know), we focus on areas where new knowledge must be developed (what

we need to know). These include the importance of considering the impact of hot

spots approaches on non-spatial displacement; assessing what strategies are most

effective in addressing hot spots; examining how hot spots policing affects police

legitimacy; evaluating whether hot spots policing will be effective in smaller cities and

rural areas; investigating the long-term impacts of hot spots policing; and considering

whether the adoption of hot spots policing will reduce overall crime in a jurisdiction.

Keywords

displacement, hot spots policing, place-based policing, police legitimacy

Over the past two decades, a series of rigorous evaluations have suggested that police

can be effective in addressing crime and disorder when they focus in on small units of

geography with high rates of crime (see Braga, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2012, National

Research Council [NRC], 2004; Weisburd & Eck, 2004). These areas are typically

referred to as hot spots, and policing strategies and tactics focused on these areas are

usually referred to as hot spots policing or place-based policing. This place-based

focus stands in contrast to traditional notions of policing and crime prevention more

generally, which have often focused primarily on people (see Weisburd, 2008). Police,

of course, have never ignored geography entirely. Police beats, precincts, and districts

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

2Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

3Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

Corresponding Author:

David Weisburd, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University, 4400

University Drive MS 6D12, Fairfax, VA, USA.

Email: dweisbur@gmu.edu

525083CCJXXX10.1177/1043986214525083Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeWeisburd and Telep

research-article2014

Weisburd and Telep 201

determine the allocation of police resources and dictate how police respond to calls

and patrol the city. With place-based policing, however, the concern is with much

smaller units of geography than the police have typically focused on. Places here refer

to specific locations within the larger social environments of communities and neigh-

borhoods, such as addresses, street blocks, or small clusters of addresses or street

blocks. Crime prevention effectiveness is maximized when police focus their resources

on these micro-units of geography.

In this article, we focus on what we know and what we need to know about hot

spots policing. We do not survey basic research knowledge, which we also think

important for the long-term development of hot spots policing programs (e.g., see

Weisburd, Groff, & Yang, 2012; Weisburd, Lawton, & Ready, 2012). Rather, our inter-

est here is in key areas of hot spots policing practice that should be the focus of research

over the next decade. We begin below by giving a short definition of hot spots polic-

ing, and briefly reviewing the evidence regarding the general effectiveness of hot spots

policing. We then turn in more detail to areas where new knowledge must be devel-

oped. We argue that we know that hot spots policing does not lead inevitably to imme-

diate spatial displacement, though there is little evidence regarding other types of

displacement; that we have emerging evidence on which hot spots policing strategies

work best, but that there is still much to learn; that we do not know enough about the

impacts of hot spots policing on police legitimacy; that we know little about whether

hot spots policing will be effective in smaller cities and rural areas; that we need to

know more about the long-term impacts of hot spots policing; and that we need evi-

dence on whether the adoption of hot spots policing will reduce crime in a jurisdiction.

In conclusion, we discuss the importance of filling these gaps in knowledge, and the

need for policing research more generally to receive more realistic federal funding

levels if it is to provide real guidance for practice.

What Is Hot Spots Policing?

Hot spots policing, also sometimes referred to as place-based policing (see Weisburd,

2008), covers a range of police responses that all share in common a focus of resources

on the locations where crime is highly concentrated. Just as the definition of hot spots

varies across studies and contexts (from addresses to street segments to clusters of

street segments), so do the specific tactics police use to address high-crime places.

There is not one way to implement hot spots policing. As Weisburd (2008) notes,

approaches can range rather dramatically across interventions.

For example, the strategies of place-based policing can be as simple as drastically

increasing officer time spent at hot spots, as was the case in the Minneapolis, Minnesota,

Hot Spots Patrol Experiment (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). But place-based policing

can also take a much more complex approach to the amelioration of crime problems.

In the Jersey City, New Jersey, Drug Market Analysis Program Experiment (Weisburd

& Green, 1995), for example, a three-step program (including identifying and analyz-

ing problems, developing tailored responses, and maintaining crime control gains)

was used to reduce problems at drug hot spots. Also in Jersey City, a problem-oriented