Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 31–43 | Cite as

Understanding and Controlling Hot Spots of Crime: The Importance of Formal and Informal Social Controls

  • David Weisburd
  • Elizabeth R. Groff
  • Sue-Ming Yang
Article

Abstract

Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs that address opportunity or structural factors related to crime are usually delivered to entire cities, sections of cities or to specific neighborhoods, but our results indicate geographically targeting these programs to specific street segments may increase their efficacy. We link crime incidents to over 24,000 street segments (the two block faces on a street between two intersections) over a 16-year period, and identify distinct developmental patterns of crime at street segments using group-based trajectory analysis. One of these patterns, which we term chronic crime hot spots, includes just 1 % of street segments but is associated with 23 % of crime in the city during the study period. We then employ multinomial regression to identify the specific risk and protective factors that are associated with these crime hot spots. We find that both situational opportunities and social characteristics of places strongly distinguish chronic crime hot spots from areas with little crime. Our findings support recent efforts to decrease crime opportunities at crime hot spots through programs like hot spots policing, but they also suggest that social interventions directed at crime hot spots will be important if we are to do something about crime problems in the long run. We argue in concluding that micro level programs which focus crime prevention efforts on specific street segments have the potential to be less costly and more effective than those targeted at larger areas such as communities or neighborhoods.

Keywords

Crime prevention Street segments Social control Opportunity Hot spots 

Supplementary material

11121_2012_351_MOESM1_ESM.doc (502 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 501 kb)

References

  1. Baumer, E. P., Lauritsen, J. L., Rosenfeld, R., & Wright, R. (1998). The influence of crack cocaine on robbery, burglary, and homicide rates: A cross-city, longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 316–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, vol. 2 (pp. 115–148). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bernasco, W., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? British Journal of Criminology, 45, 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Policing problem places: Crime hot spots and effective prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice. Crime prevention studies, vol. 5 (pp. 259–294). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  6. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 19 (pp. 91–150). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (1993). Introduction: Criminology, routine activity, and rational choice. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice: Advances in criminological theory, vol. 5 (pp. 1–14). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, J. S. (1993). The rational reconstruction of society: 1992 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 58, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, S. (2002). A test for the effect of conformity on crime rate using voter turnout. The Sociological Quarterly, 43, 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connolly, S., O’Reilly, D., & Rosato, M. (2010). House value as an indicator of cumulative wealth is strongly related to morbidity and mortality risk in older people: A census-based cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Journal of Epidemiology, 39, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crewe, K. (2001). Linear parks and urban neighborhoods: A case study of the crime impact of the Boston south-west corridor. Journal of Urban Design, 6, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cromwell, P., Alexander, G., & Dotson, P. (2008). Crime and incivilities in libraries: Situational crime prevention strategies for thwarting biblio-bandits and problem patrons. Security Journal, 21, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cullen, F. T. (2010). Cloward, Richard A.: The theory of illegitimate means. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 167–170). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duffala, D. C. (1976). Convenience stores, armed robbery, and physical environmental features. American Behavioral Scientist, 20, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Durlauf, S., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 13–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eggleston, E. P., Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2004). Methodological sensitivities to latent class analysis of long-term criminal trajectories. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrington, D. P. (1998). Evaluating ‘Communities that Care’: Realistic scientific considerations. Evaluation, 4, 204–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2002). Improved street lighting and crime prevention. Justice Quarterly, 19, 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farrington, D. P., Ohlin, L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1986). Understanding and controlling crime. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Felson, M. (1986). Predicting crime potential at any point on the city map. In R. M. Figlio, S. Hakim, & G. F. Rengert (Eds.), Metropolitan crime patterns (pp. 127–136). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fitzpatrick, K., & LaGory, M. (2010). Unhealthy cities: Poverty, race, and place in America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Griffiths, E., & Chavez, J. M. (2004). Communities, street guns, and homicide trajectories in Chicago, 1980–1995: Merging methods for examining homicide trends across space and time. Criminology, 42, 941–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Groff, E. R., & McCord, E. S. (2012). The role of neighborhood parks as crime generators. Security Journal, 25, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Kaufman, R. L. (1996). Comparing effects in dichotomous logistic regression: A variety of standardized coefficients. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 90–109.Google Scholar
  30. Kelling, G. L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment. Washington: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Klinger, D., & Bridges, G. (1997). Measurement error in calls-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology, 35, 705–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurtz, E. M., Koons, B. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1998). Land use, physical deterioration, resident-based control, and calls for service on urban streetblocks. Justice Quarterly, 15, 121–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. LaVigne, N. G. (1994). Gasoline drive-offs: Designing a less convenient environment. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 2 (pp. 91–114). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  36. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagin, D. (2005). Group-based modeling of development over the life course. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagin, D. S., & Land, K. C. (1993). Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: Specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology, 31, 327–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nagin, D. S., & Odgers, C. L. (2010). Group-based trajectory modeling (nearly) two decades later. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 445–453.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. In W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.), Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through environmental design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pierce, G., Spaar, S., & Briggs, L. R. (1986). The character of police work: Strategic and tactical implications. Boston: Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  44. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Roman, C. G. (2002). Schools as generators of crime: Routine activities and the sociology of place. Unpublished dissertation. Washington, DC: American University.Google Scholar
  46. Roman, C. G. (2005). Routine activities of youth and neighborhood violence: Spatial modeling of place, time, and crime. In F. Wang (Ed.), Geographic information systems and crime analysis (pp. 293–310). Hershey: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roncek, D. W. (2000). Schools and crime. In V. Goldsmith, P. G. McGuire, J. H. Mollenkopf, & T. A. Ross (Eds.), Analyzing crime patterns: Frontiers of practice (pp. 153–165). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1993). Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, and community-level risk factors. In A. J. Reiss Jr. & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence, vol. 3. Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior (pp. 1–114). Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. The American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. A study of rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime ‘hot spots’: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  56. Skardhamar, T. (2010). Distinguishing facts and artifacts in group-based modeling. Criminology, 48, 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smargiassi, A., Berrada, K., Fortier, I., & Kosatsky, T. (2006). Traffic intensity, dwelling value, and hospital admissions for respiratory disease among the Montreal (Canada): A case–control analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 507–512.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Stark, R. (1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 909, 893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, R. B. (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, 113–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taylor, R. B. (1998). Crime and small-scale places: What we know, what we can prevent, and what else we need to know. In R. B. Taylor et al. (Eds.), Crime and place: Plenary papers of the 1997 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation (pp. 1–22). Washington: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  62. Taylor, R. B., Koons, B. A., Kurtz, E. M., Greene, J. R., & Perkins, D. D. (1995). Street blocks with more nonresidential land use have more physical deterioration: Evidence from Baltimore and Philadelphia. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thrasher, F. M. (1927 [1963]). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  64. Weisburd, D. (2002). From criminals to criminal contexts: Reorienting criminal justice research and policy. In E. Waring & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization, Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 10 (pp. 197–216). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  65. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1994). Defining the drug market: The case of the Jersey City DMA system. In D. L. MacKenzie & C. D. Uchida (Eds.), Drugs and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives (pp. 61–76). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Weisburd, D. L., 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, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weisburd, D., Lawton, B., & Ready, J. (2012). Staking out the next generation of studies of the criminology of place: Collecting prospective longitudinal data at crime hot spots. In R. Loeber & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The future of criminology (pp. 236–243). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Welsh, B. P., Sullivan, C. J., & Olds, D. L. (2010). When early crime prevention goes to scale: A new look at the evidence. Prevention Science, 11, 115–125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wicker, A. W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. In D. Stokels & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 613–653). New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  71. Wikström, P.-O. H., Ceccato, V., Hardie, B., & Treiber, K. (2010). Activity fields and the dynamics of crime. Advancing knowledge about the role of the environment in crime causation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. C. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Walter de Gruyster.Google Scholar
  73. Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology, 45, 771–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilcox, P., Quisenberry, N., Cabrera, D. T., & Jones, S. (2004). Busy places and broken windows? Toward defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Weisburd
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elizabeth R. Groff
    • 3
  • Sue-Ming Yang
    • 4
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.National Chung Cheng UniversityMinxiongTaiwan

Personalised recommendations