Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 317–342 | Cite as

Hot spots policing and crime prevention: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Article

Abstract

Crime scholars and practitioners have argued that police actions should be focused on high-risk crime places rather than spread thinly across the urban landscape. This review examines five randomized controlled trials of the effects of concentrating police enforcement efforts on crime hot spots. The findings of these evaluations suggest that focused police actions can prevent crime and disorder in crime hot spots. A meta-analysis of the effect sizes from the five experiments reveals a statistically significant mean effect size for hot spots policing interventions; this suggests overall reductions in citizen calls for service in the treatment hot spots relative to the control hot spots. These studies also suggest that focused police actions at specific locations do not necessarily result in crime displacement. Although these evaluations reveal that these programs work in preventing crime, additional research is needed to unravel other important policy-relevant issues such as community reaction to focused police enforcement efforts.

Key words

crime prevention experiment hot spots meta-analysis police systematic review 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barr, R. & Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement, and deflection. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 12 (pp. 277–318). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berk, R., Smyth, G. & Sherman, L. (1988). When random assignment fails: Some lessons from the Minneapolis spouse abuse experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 4, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of the police in modern society. New York: Aronson.Google Scholar
  4. Braga, A. (1997). Solving violent crime problems: An evaluation of the Jersey City police department’s pilot program to control violent places. Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
  5. Braga, A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 104–125.Google Scholar
  6. Braga, A. (2002). Problem-oriented policing and crime prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  7. Braga, A., Weisburd, D., Waring, E., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W. & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37, 541–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brantingham, P. & Brantingham, P. (Eds.). (1991). Environmental criminology. 2nd edn. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buerger, M. (Ed). (1992). The crime prevention casebook: Securing high crime locations. Washington, DC: Crime Control Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Buerger, M. (1993). Convincing the recalcitrant: An examination of the Minneapolis RECAP experiment. Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
  11. Caeti, T. (1999). Houston’s targeted beat program: A quasi-experimental test of police patrol strategies. Ph.D. diss., Sam Houston State University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, R. V. & Felson, M. (Eds.). (1993). Routine activity and rational choice. Advances in criminological theory (vol. 5). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, R. V. & Harris, P. (1992). Auto theft and its prevention. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 16 (pp. 1–54). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, R. V. & Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observations on the reverse of displacement. Crime Prevention Studies 2, 165–184.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, L. & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44, 588–605.Google Scholar
  16. Criminal Justice Commission. (1998). Beenleigh calls for service project: Evaluation report. Brisbane, Queensland, AUS: Criminal Justice Commission.Google Scholar
  17. Cornish, D. & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory. Criminology 25, 933–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 95, 89–98.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Eck, J. (1993). The threat of crime displacement. Criminal Justice Abstracts 25, 527–546.Google Scholar
  20. Eck, J. (1997). Preventing crime at places. In University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (pp. 7-1–7-62). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  21. Eck, J. (2002). Preventing crime at places. In L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 241–294). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Eck, J. & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In J. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place (pp. 1–34). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  23. Farrington, D. & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 35–49.Google Scholar
  24. Green, L. (1996). Policing places with drug problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Greene, J. A. (1999). Zero tolerance: A case study of police practices and policies in New York City. Crime and Delinquency, 45 171–81.Google Scholar
  26. Hesseling, R. (1994). Displacement: A review of the empirical literature. Crime Prevention Studies 3, 197–230.Google Scholar
  27. Hawley, A. (1944). Ecology and human ecology. Social Forces 23, 398–405.Google Scholar
  28. Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of urban structure. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hope, T. (1994). Problem-oriented policing and drug market locations: Three case studies. Crime Prevention Studies 2, 5–32.Google Scholar
  30. Hunter, R. & Jeffrey, C.R. (1992). Preventing convenience store robbery through environmental design. In R. Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (pp. 194–204). Albany, New York: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  31. Kelling, G., Pate, A., Dickman, D. & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A technical report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Lipsey, M. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Applied social research methods series (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Pease, K. (1991). The Kirkholt project: Preventing burglary on a British public housing estate. Security Journal 2, 73–77.Google Scholar
  34. Pierce, G., Spaar, S. & Briggs, L. 1988. The character of police work: Strategic and tactical implications. Boston, MA: Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  35. Repetto, T. (1976). Crime prevention and the displacement phenomenon. Crime & Delinquency 22, 166–77.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Shadish, W., Robinson, L. & Lu, C. (2003). ES: Effect size calculator. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corp http://www.assess.com).
  38. Shaw, J. (1995). Community policing against guns: Public opinion of the Kansas City gun experiment. Justice Quarterly 12, 695–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shaw, C. & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sherman, L. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In M. Tonry & N.Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 12 (pp. 1–48). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sherman, L. (1997). Policing for crime prevention. In University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (pp. 8-1–8-58). Washington, District of Columbia: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  42. Sherman, L. (2002). Fair and effective policing. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 383–412). Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.Google Scholar
  43. Sherman, L. & Rogan, D. (1995a). Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: A randomized controlled experiment. Justice Quarterly 12, 755–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sherman, L. & Rogan, D. (1995b). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: “Hot spots” patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly 12, 673–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sherman, L. & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly 12, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sherman, L., Buerger, M. & Gartin, P. (1989a). Repeat call address policing: The Minneapolis RECAP experiment. Washington, District of Columbia: Crime Control Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Sherman, L., Gartin, P. & Buerger, M. (1989b). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skogan, W. & Hartnett, S. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Skogan, W. & Frydl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Taylor, R. & Gottfredson, S. (1986). Environment design, crime, and prevention: An examination of community dynamics. In A. J. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communities and crime (pp. 387–416). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Turner, H., Boruch, R., Petrosino, A., Lavenberg, J., DeMoya, D. & Rothstein, H. (2003). Populating an international web-based randomized trials register in social, behavioral, criminological, and education sciences. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tyler, T. (2000). Social justice: Outcomes and procedures. International Journal of Psychology 35, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tyler, T. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority groups members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19, 215–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Weisburd, D. (1997). Reorienting crime prevention research and policy: From causes of criminality to the context of crime. Research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  55. Weisburd, D. & Braga, A. (2003). Hot spots policing. In H. Kury & J. Obergfell-Fuchs (Eds.), Crime prevention: New approaches (pp. 337–354). Mainz, Germany: Weisser Ring.Google Scholar
  56. Weisburd, D. & Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593, 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisburd, D. & Green, L. (1994). Defining the street level drug market. In D. MacKenzie & C. Uchida (Eds.), Drugs and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives (pp. 61–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Weisburd, D. & Green, L. (1995a). Policing drug hot Spots: The Jersey City DMA experiment. Justice Quarterly 12, 711–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weisburd, D. & Green, L. (1995b). Measuring immediate spatial displacement: Methodological issues and problems. In J. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place (pp. 349–361). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  60. Weisburd, D., Sherman, L. & Petrosino, A. (1990). Registry of randomized experiments in criminal sanctions, 1950-1983. Los Altos, CA: Sociometrics Corporation, Data Holdings of the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  61. Weisburd, D., Maher, L. & Sherman, L. (1992). Contrasting crime general and crime specific theory: The case of hot spots of crime. Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 4 (pp. 45–69). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  62. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. & Perosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 50–70.Google Scholar
  63. Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S., McNally, A.M., Greenspan, R. & Willis, J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology and Public Policy 2, 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Werthman, C. & Piliavin, I. (1967). Gang members and the police. In D. Bordua (Ed.), The police: Six sociological essays (pp. 56–98). New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  65. Wilson, D. B. (2001). Meta-analytic methods for criminology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 71–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management of the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations