Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 519–545 | Cite as

Testing the “Law of Crime Concentration at Place” in a Suburban Setting: Implications for Research and Practice

Original Paper



To assess whether the “law of crime concentration at place” applies in a non-urban context. We test whether longitudinal trends in crime concentration, stability, and variability apply in a suburban setting.


We use group-based trajectory analysis to examine trends in recorded crime incidents on street segments in Brooklyn Park, a suburban city outside Minneapolis, Minnesota, over a 15-year period from 2000 to 2014.


Consistent with the law of crime concentration at place, crime in Brooklyn Park is highly concentrated at a small percentage of micro-places. Two percent of street segments produced 50 % of the crime over the study period and 0.4 % of segments produced 25 % of the crime. The patterns of concentration are highly stable over time. However, the concentration of crime is substantially higher and there is much less street-by-street variability in Brooklyn Park compared to urban areas.


We find strong support for the application of the law of crime concentration at place to a non-urban setting, suggesting that place-based policing approaches tested in cities can also be applied to suburbs. However, there are also important differences in the concentration and variability of crime hot spots in suburbs that require further examination. Our study is based on a single setting that may not be representative of other suburban and rural areas. Finally, the clustering of hot spots raises questions about the use of street segments to analyze crime at suburban micro-places.


Crime and place Hot spots Trajectory analysis Suburban crime Evidence-based policing 



This research is supported by Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant # 2013-DB-BX-0030 to Brooklyn Park Police Department and George Mason University. Points of view in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department of Justice. We are extremely grateful to the Brooklyn Park Police Department, particularly Chief Craig Enevoldsen, Inspector Bill Barritt, crime analyst Jody Murphy, and project coordinator Win Moua for providing the data used in this study and for their commitment and support to our collaboration. We also thank the Special Issue editors and three anonymous peer reviewers whose thoughtful and constructive feedback substantially improved this paper.

Supplementary material

10940_2016_9304_MOESM1_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 38 kb)


  1. Andresen MA (2006) Crime measures and the spatial analysis of criminal activity. British Journal of Criminology 46(2):258–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen MA, Linning SJ (2012) The (in)appropriateness of aggregating across crime types. Applied Geography 35(1–2):275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen MA, Malleson N (2011) Testing the stability of crime patterns: implications for theory and policy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48(1):58–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appleyard D (1981) Livable streets. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker RG (1968) Ecological psychology: concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Beavon DJK, Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1994) The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. In: Clarke RV (ed) Crime prevention studies. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 115–148Google Scholar
  7. Blokland AAJ, Nagin DS, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) Life span offending trajectories of a Dutch conviction cohort. Criminology 43(4):919–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD, Guerette RT, Summers L, Poynton S (2011) Spatial displacement and diffusion of benefits among geographically focused policing initiatives: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Experimental Criminology 7(4):347–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braga AA, Bond BJ (2008) Policing crime and disorder hot spots: a randomized controlled trial. Criminology 46(3):577–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braga AA, Clarke RV (2014) Explaining high-risk concentrations of crime in the city: social disorganization, crime opportunities, and important next steps. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51(4):480–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braga AA, Weisburd D, Waring EJ, Mazerolle LG, Spelman W, Gajewski F (1999) Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: a randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37(3):541–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM (2014) The effects of hot spots policing on crime: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Q 31(4):633–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1995) Criminality of place: crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 3(3):5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brower SM (1980) Territory in urban settings. In: Altman I, Werner CM (eds) Human behavior and environment: current theory and research. Plenum, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1987) Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychol Bull 101(1):147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioral research: application and data analysis methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Bursik RJ Jr (1988) Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: problems and prospects. Criminology 26(4):519–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bushway SD, Sweeten G, Nieuwbeerta P (2009) Measuring long term individual trajectories of offending using multiple methods. J Quant Criminol 25(3):259–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44(4):588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coulton CJ, Korbin J, Chan T, Su M (2001) Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. Am J Community Psychol 29(2):371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crow WJ, Bull JL (1975) Robbery deterrence: an applied behavioral science demonstration. Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, La Jolla, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Curman ASN, Andresen MA, Brantingham PJ (2015) Crime and place: a longitudinal examination of street segment patterns in Vancouver, BC. J Quant Criminol 31(1):127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dario LM, Morrow WJ, Wooditch A, Vickovic SG (2015) The point break effect: an examination of surf, crime, and transitory opportunities. Criminal Justice Studies 28(3):257–279Google Scholar
  24. Erosheva EA, Matsueda RL, Telesca D (2014) Breaking bad: two decades of life-course data analysis in criminology, developmental psychology, and beyond. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 1(1):301–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Felson M (1987) Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology 25(4):911–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Felson M, Boba R (2010) Crime and everyday life, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerell M (2015) Collective efficacy, neighborhood and geographical units of analysis: findings from a case study of Swedish residential neighborhoods. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 21(3):385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths E, Chavez JM (2004) Communities, street guns and homicide trajectories in Chicago, 1980–1995: merging methods for examining homicide trends across space and time. Criminology 42(4):941–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Groff ER, Weisburd D, Morris NA (2009) Where the action is at places: examining spatio-temporal patterns of juvenile crime at places using trajectory analysis and GIS. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. Springer, New York, NY, pp 61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Groff ER, Weisburd D, Yang S-M (2010) Is it important to examine crime trends at a local “micro” level? A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. J Quant Criminol 26(1):7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Groff ER, Ratcliffe JH, Haberman CP, Sorg ET, Joyce NM, Taylor RB (2015) Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia policing tactics experiment. Criminology 53(1):23–53Google Scholar
  32. Haviland AM, Nagin DS (2007) Using group-based trajectory modeling in conjunction with propensity scores to improve balance. Journal of Experimental Criminology 3(1):65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hibdon J (2011) What’s hot and what’s not: the effects of individual factors on the identification of hot and cool crime spots (PhD thesis). George Mason University, Department of Criminology, Law; Society, Fairfax, VAGoogle Scholar
  34. Hibdon J (2013) Crime hot spots in suburbia: a case study. American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  35. Hillier B (2004) Can streets be made safe? Urban Design International 9(1):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hinkle JC, Weisburd D, Famega C, Ready J (2013) The problem is not just sample size: the consequences of low base rates in policing experiments in smaller cities. Evaluation Review 37(3–4):213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  38. Jaitman L, Santos R, Santos RB (2015) Testing the suitability and accuracy of predictive policing in Latin America. American Society of Criminology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson SD (2010) A brief history of the analysis of crime concentration. European Journal of Applied Mathematics 21(4–5):349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2010) Permeability and burglary risk: are cul-de-sacs safer? J Quant Criminol 26(1):89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson SD, Lab SP, Bowers KJ (2008) Stable and fluid hotspots of crime: differentiation and identification. Built Environment 34(1):32–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones BL, Nagin DS (2007) Advances in group-based trajectory modeling and an SAS procedure for estimating them. Sociological Methods & Research 35(4):542–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones BL, Nagin DS (2013) A note on a Stata plugin for estimating group-based trajectory models. Sociological Methods & Research 42(4):608–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90(430):773–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kautt PM, Roncek DW (2007) Schools as criminal “hot spots”: primary, secondary, and beyond. Criminal Justice Review 32(4):339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kreuter F, Muthén B (2008) Analyzing criminal trajectory profiles: bridging multilevel and group-based approaches using growth mixture modeling. J Quant Criminol 24(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kubrin CE, Weitzer R (2003) New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(4):374–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuhns JB, Maguire ER, Cox SM (2007) Public-safety concerns among law enforcement agencies in suburban and rural America. Police Quarterly 10(4):429–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levin A, Rosenfeld R, Deckert M (2015) Here today, gone tomorrow? Probing the law of crime concentration (working paper). University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  50. Lum C (2009) Translating police research into practice. Police Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Lum C, Koper CS (2013) Evidence-based policing in smaller agencies: challenges, prospects, and opportunities. The Police Chief LXXX(4):42–47Google Scholar
  52. Lum C, Koper CS, Telep CW (2011) The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology 7(1):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mastrofski SD, Parks RB, McCluskey JD (2010) Systematic social observation in criminology. In: Piquero AR, Weisburd D (eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer, New York, NY, pp 225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mazeika DM, Kumar S (2016) Do crime hot spots exist in developing countries? Evidence from India. J Quant Criminol. doi: 10.1007/s10940-016-9280-2 Google Scholar
  55. McArdle JJ, Epstein D (1987) Latent growth curves within developmental structural equation models. Child Dev 58(1):110–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Muthén BO (1989) Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika 54(4):557–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nagin DS (1999) Analyzing developmental trajectories: a semiparametric, group-based approach. Psychol Methods 4(2):139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nagin DS (2005) Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nagin DS, Land KC (1993) Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology 31(3):327–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nagin DS, Odgers CL (2010) Group-based trajectory modeling (nearly) two decades later. J Quant Criminol 26(4):445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nagin DS, Tremblay RE (2001) Analyzing developmental trajectories of distinct but related behaviors: a group-based method. Psychol Methods 6(1):18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nagin DS, Farrington DP, Moffitt TE (1995) Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology 33(1):111–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pierce GL, Spaar S, Briggs LR (1988) The character of police work: strategic and tactical implications. Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  64. Raftery AE (1995) Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociol Methodol 25:111–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ratcliffe JH (2004) Geocoding crime and a first estimate of a minimum acceptable hit rate. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 18(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ratcliffe JH, Taniguchi T, Groff ER, Wood JD (2011) The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: a randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology 49(3):795–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reaves BA (2015) Local police departments, 2013: personnel, policies, and practices (No. NCJ 248677). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  68. Rojek J, Smith HP, Alpert GP (2012) The prevalence and characteristics of police practitioner–researcher partnerships. Police Quarterly 15(3):241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roncek DW, Maier PA (1991) Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots”. Criminology 29(4):725–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94(4):774–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (1999) Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. Am J Sociol 105(3):603–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277(5328):918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Santos RB (2013) Crime analysis with crime mapping, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  74. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 6(2):461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sherman LW (1987) Repeat calls to the police in Minneapolis. Crime Control Institute, Washington, DC  Google Scholar
  76. Sherman LW, Weisburd D (1995) General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: a randomized, controlled trial. Justice Q 12(4):625–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sherman LW, Gartin PR, Buerger ME (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27(1):27–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Skogan WG, Frydl K (eds) (2004) Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith WR, Frazee SG, Davison EL (2000) Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology 38(2):489–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Steenbeek W, Weisburd D (2015) Where the action is in crime? An examination of variability of crime across different spatial units in The Hague, 2001–2009. J Quant Criminol. doi: 10.1007/s10940-015-9276-3 Google Scholar
  81. Taylor RB (1997) Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods: ecology, microecology, and the systemic model of social disorganization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34(1):113–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Taylor RB, Gottfredson SD, Brower S (1984) Block crime and fear: defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21(4):303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Telep CW, Lum C (2014) The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: an examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly 17(4):359–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Telep CW, Mitchell RJ, Weisburd D (2014) How much time should the police spend at crime hot spots? Answers from a police agency directed randomized field trial in Sacramento. California. Justice Quarterly 31(5):905–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Unger DG, Wandersman A (1983) Neighboring and its role in block organizations: an exploratory report. Am J Community Psychol 11(3):291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Weisburd D (2012) Bringing social context back into the equation: the importance of social characteristics of places in the prevention of crime. Criminology & Public Policy 11(2):317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Weisburd D (2015) The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology 53(2):133–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Weisburd D, Amram S (2014) The law of concentrations of crime at place: the case of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Police Practice and Research 15(2):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weisburd D, Eck JE (2004) What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 593(1):42–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weisburd D, Green L (1995) Policing drug hot spots: the Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Q 12(4):711–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang S-M (2004) Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42(2):283–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Weisburd D, Wyckoff LA, Ready J, Eck JE, Hinkle JC, Gajewski F (2006) Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology 44(3):549–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weisburd D, Morris NA, Groff ER (2009) Hot spots of juvenile crime: a longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington. J Quant Criminol 25(4):443–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang S-M (2012) The criminology of place: street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weisburd D, Davis M, Gill C (2015) Increasing collective efficacy and social capital at crime hot spots: new crime control tools for police. Policing 9(3):265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Weisburd D, Wooditch A, Weisburd S, Yang S-M (2016) Do stop, question, and frisk practices deter crime? Evidence at microunits of space and time. Criminol Public Policy 15(1):31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weisburd D, Eck JE, Braga AA, Telep CW, Cave B, Bowers KJ, Bruinsma GJN, Gill C, Groff ER, Hibdon J, Hinkle JC, Johnson SD, Lawton B, Lum C, Ratcliffe JH, Rengert G, Taniguchi T, Yang S-M (2016) Place matters: criminology for the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Weisheit RA, Falcone DN, Wells LE (2006) Crime and policing in rural and small-town America, 3rd edn. Waveland Press, Long Grove, ILGoogle Scholar
  99. Wheeler AP, Worden RE, McLean SJ (2015) Replicating group-based trajectory models of crime at micro-places in Albany, NY. J Quant Criminol. doi: 10.1007/s10940-015-9268-3 Google Scholar
  100. Wicker AW (1987) Behavior settings reconsidered: temporal stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. In: Stokols D, Altman I (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, NY, pp 613–653Google Scholar
  101. Yang S-M (2010) Assessing the spatial–temporal relationship between disorder and violence. J Quant Criminol 26(1):139–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte Gill
    • 1
  • Alese Wooditch
    • 2
  • David Weisburd
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal JusticeTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Criminology, Faculty of LawHebrew University JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations