Skip to main content

A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime

Abstract

Focusing police efforts on “hot spots” has gained acceptance among researchers and practitioners. However, little rigorous evidence exists on the comparative effectiveness of different hot spots strategies. To address this gap, we randomly assigned 83 hot spots of violence in Jacksonville, Florida, to receive either a problem-oriented policing (POP) strategy, directed-saturation patrol, or a control condition for 90 days. We then examined crime in these areas during the intervention period and a 90-day post-intervention period. In sum, the use of POP was associated with a 33% reduction in “street violence” during the 90 days following the intervention. While not statistically significant, we also observed that POP was associated with other non-trivial reductions in violence and property crime during the post-intervention period. In contrast, we did not detect statistically significant crime reductions for the directed-saturation patrol group, though there were non-significant declines in crime in these areas during the intervention period. Tests for displacement or a diffusion of benefits provided indications that violence was displaced to areas near the POP locations, though some patterns in the data suggest this may have been due to the effects of POP on crime reporting by citizens in nearby areas. We conclude by discussing the study’s limitations and the implications of the findings for efforts to refine hot spots policing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Practitioners use the term hot spot somewhat more loosely, often referring to both small places and larger areas like neighborhoods and patrol beats (Koper 2008; also see Police Executive Research Forum 2008).

  2. 2.

    Though see Rosenbaum (2006) and Taylor (2009) for critiques of hot spots policing.

  3. 3.

    However, this does not tell us whether violent places are more likely to be clustered near one another, which is another important consideration (Groff et al. 2010).

  4. 4.

    As we discuss below, POP is a strategy that calls for police to analyze and address underlying issues that contribute to chronic crime and disorder problems.

  5. 5.

    To varying degrees, police conducted these three types of activities at all of the target hot spots. Hence, the comparisons between these categories were not based on experimental assignment.

  6. 6.

    More informal evidence on the most effective hot spots strategies comes from a recent survey with a national convenience sample of police agencies affiliated with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a membership organization for police chiefs and sheriffs in medium to large jurisdictions. Respondents indicated that the strategies they use most commonly and find most effective at violent crime hot spots include directed patrol, targeting known offenders, problem solving, and community partnerships (Koper 2008; also see Police Executive Research Forum 2008). As noted earlier, however, the respondents’ used the term hot spot in a broader sense than it is used here.

  7. 7.

    Note that our discussion focuses on directed patrol studies involving micro hot spots of the sort discussed previously. See Sherman et al. (2002), for example, for a review of the broader body of research on directed patrol.

  8. 8.

    The comparison areas also experienced a drop in violence that was two-thirds as large as that in the target locations, but this change was not statistically significant. The authors also examined changes in crime at the city level but found that the program effects were not large enough to produce a statistically significant reduction in violence for the city as a whole (438).

  9. 9.

    Results were overwhelmingly positive and showed much larger effects in 45 less rigorous POP studies examined by Weisburd et al. (2010).

  10. 10.

    Some might argue that hot spots policing, in any form, is a variety of POP in that it involves targeted responses based on crime analysis.

  11. 11.

    The length of the intervention period was reported in Braga (2007: 29).

  12. 12.

    U.S. Census (2006). July 1, 2006 estimates. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2006-01.xls.

  13. 13.

    U.S. Census (2008). Annual estimates of the population of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas:

    April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. US Census Bureau. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2008/CBSA-EST2008-01.xls.

  14. 14.

    Prior studies of hot spots policing have generally lacked specific information about officer-hours committed to the intervention, thus precluding contrasts between the intensity of those efforts and that in Jacksonville.

  15. 15.

    JSO used a mix of on-duty officers and officers on overtime.

  16. 16.

    This is based on 30 officers working the POP locations per day for a 10-h shift, 7 days a week.

  17. 17.

    We discussed the option of an “override process” as a safety valve for the JSO. That is, if a location is deemed by the Sheriff to require an intervention, then that place will receive it. Despite this option, no “overrides” were deemed necessary by the JSO.

  18. 18.

    This type of randomized block design, of allocating cases randomly within groups, minimizes the effects of variability on a study by ensuring that like cases will be compared with one another (see Fleis 1986; Lipsey 1990; Weisburd 1993).

  19. 19.

    It is worth noting that all three conditions (saturation, problem-solving, and the control group) received standard patrol services, except the control group received no other interventions beyond standard patrol services.

  20. 20.

    Based on collection of data at the area level, we did not have any missing data for these measures.

  21. 21.

    The control group hot spots were 40% residential, 37.5% business, and 22.5% mixed use. The saturation group hot spots were 24% residential, 29% business, and 47% mixed use. The POP hot spots were 36% residential, 27% business, and 37% mixed use.

  22. 22.

    The average size of the control, saturation, and POP spots were, respectively, .22 square miles, .23 square miles, and .28 square miles.

  23. 23.

    We did not use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression because of the limited distribution of our data (most hot spots had a few crimes occur and very few had more than ten occur), and the potential for violating the normality assumption of OLS regression. Also, in these types of cases OLS can yield negative predicted values and inefficient, inconsistent, and biased estimates (Long 1997).

  24. 24.

    All count models were estimated using STATA 10.1 xt commands for cross-sectional time series data.

  25. 25.

    For example, when our outcome variable is police self-initiated activity, we have independent variables for police self-initiated activity the year before the intervention and police self-initiated activity during the 90-day period immediately before the experimental period.

  26. 26.

    For instance, when our outcome variable is calls-for-service 90 days after the treatment period we have an independent variable for calls-for-service during the 90-day experimental period.

  27. 27.

    Because some of our hot spots were in close proximity to one another, CFS/incidents could occur in the buffer zones of multiple hot spots. When this occurred, each individual CFS/incident was counted against each nearby hot spot. Approximately, one-third of the hot spots had overlap in their buffer zones, but the distribution of this overlap was approximately equally across the assigned treatments. We conducted some sensitivity analyses to determine if this double-counting unduly affected our results. First, we excluded two hot spots (both assigned to POP) that had near 50% overlap in their displacement counts and found our results did not change. Second, we constructed both a percent overlap indicator and a dichotomous overlap indicator to be included in separate analyses. Neither of these variables was significant nor had an appreciable effect on the assigned treatment estimates. Finally, we tested interaction terms between the above overlap variables and assigned treatment and found that these analyses also did not change our substantive conclusions about the impact of assigned treatment on our crime impact outcomes.

  28. 28.

    We thank an anonymous peer reviewer of an earlier version of this paper for this comment.

  29. 29.

    The average number of UCR non-domestic violent incidents in the POP locations was 2.9 during the post-intervention period (see Table 1). Our model implies that this represents a 33% reduction from what would have been expected without the intervention. From this, we estimate that the POP intervention prevented an average of roughly 1.4 crimes per hot spot, or about 31 crimes across the 22 POP locations.

  30. 30.

    Using GPOWER software (Erdfelder et al. 1996), we conducted a power test examining differences of means with an ANOVA test. Detecting a drop of approximately one-third in our violence measures (a “small” standardized effect size of 0.17 based on our sample sizes and standard deviations) with an alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power would require a total sample size of 339 cases. With our actual sample size (83 cases), we have an 80% chance of detecting a medium to large effect size of .35 with an alpha level of 0.05.

  31. 31.

    We calculated these effect sizes using data reported by Braga et al. (1999: 563). They also found significant reductions of 18 to 40% in property crime.

  32. 32.

    This notion is also consistent with the more general body of studies on directed patrol, many of which suggest that directed patrol is an effective strategy for reducing crime (e.g., see review in Sherman et al. 2002). Prior directed patrol studies have generally focused on well-defined but larger areas than those examined in this study. Hence, the strategy may be more optimal when officers can cover larger numbers of hot spots over somewhat larger areas.

References

  1. Armitage, P. (1996). The design and analysis for clinical trials. In S. Ghosh & C. R. Rao (Eds.), Design and analysis of experiments: Handbook of statistics (Vol. 13). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, T. E., & Wolfer, L. (2003). The crime triangle: Alcohol, drug use, and vandalism. Police Practice and Research, 4, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berk, R. A., Boruch, R. F., Chambers, D. L., Rossi, P. H., & Witte, A. D. (1985). Social policy experimentation: A position paper. Evaluation Review, 9, 387–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boruch, R. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: a practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boruch, R. F., McSweeny, A. J., & Soderstrom, E. J. (1978). Randomized field experiments for program planning, development, and evaluation. Evaluation Quarterly, 2, 655–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Braga, A.A. (2007). Effects of hot spots policing on crime. A Campbell Collaboration systematic review available at http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/reviews_crime_justice/index.php.

  7. Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46, 577–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2010). The concentration and stability of gun violence at micro places in Boston, 1980-2008. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2006). Problem-oriented policing: The disconnect between principles and practice. In D. L. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 133–154). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L., Waring, E. J., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. The American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. S. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clarke, R. V., & Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observations on the reverse of displacement. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 2). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rates: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cordner, G., & Biebel, E. P. (2005). Problem-oriented policing in practice. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 155–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dennis, M. L., & Boruch, R. F. (1989). Randomized experiments for planning and testing projects in developing countries: threshold conditions. Evaluation Review, 13, 292–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eck, J.E. (1994). Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing. Doctoral dissertation. College Park, MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland

  18. Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime hot spots: What they are, why we have them, and how to map them. In J. E. Eck, S. Chainey, J. G. Cameron, M. Leitner, & R. E. Wilson (Eds.), Mapping crime: Understanding hot spots (pp. 1–14). Washington: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eck, J. E. (2006). Science, values, and problem-oriented policing: Why problem-oriented policing? In D. L. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 117–132). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Eck, J. E., & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News. Washington: Police Executive Research Forum and the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eck, J., & Wartell, J. (1998). Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems: A randomized experiment. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies ((pp, Vol. 9, pp. 161–185). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place: crime prevention studies ((pp, Vol. 4, pp. 1–33). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press and the Police Executive Research Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fleis, J. L. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gabor, T., & Gottheil, E. (1984). Offender characteristics and spatial mobility: An empirical study and some policy implications. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26, 267–281.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gelber, R. D., & Zelen, M. (1986). Planning and reporting of clinical trials. In P. Calabresi, P. S. Schein, & S. A. Rosenberg (Eds.), Medical oncology (pp. 406–425). New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Groff, E. R., Weisburd, D., & Yang, S. (2010). Is it important to examine crime trends at a local ‘micro’ level? A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency April: 236-258

  30. Hickman, M. J., & Reaves, B. A. (2006). Local police departments, 2003. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Klinger, D. A., & Bridges, G. S. (1997). Measurement error in calls-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology, 35, 705–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Koper, C. S. (1995). Just enough police presence: Reducing crime and disorderly behavior by optimizing patrol time in crime hot spots. Justice Quarterly, 12, 649–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Koper, C. S. (2008). The varieties and effectiveness of hot spots policing: Results from a national survey. St. Louis: Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., & Luongo, A. J. (2005). Police officers on drug corners in Philadelphia, drug crime, and violent crime: Intended, diffusion, and displacement impacts. Justice Quarterly, 22, 427–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables (Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lum, C., Koper, C.S., & Telep. C.W. (2010). The evidence-based policing matrix. Manassas, VA: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University. http://gemini.gmu.edu/cebcp/Matrix.html

  39. Mastrofski, S. D., Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. A. (2009). Rethinking policing: The policy implications of hot spots of crime. In N. A. Frost, J. D. Freilich, & T. R. Clear (Eds.), Contemporary issues in criminal justice policy: Policy proposals from the American Society of Criminology Conference. Belmont: Wadsworth and Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mazerolle, L. G., Price, J. F., & Roehl, J. (2000). Civil remedies and drug control: A randomized field trial in Oakland, California. Evaluation Review, 24, 212–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mazerolle, L., Soole, D., & Rombouts, S. (2006). Street-level drug law enforcement: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 409–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press

  43. Patel, H. I. (1996). Clinical trials in drug development: Some statistical issues. In S. Ghosh & C. R. Rao (Eds.), Design and analysis of experiments: Handbook of statistics (Vol. 13). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pierce, G. L., Spaar, S., & Briggs, L. R. (1988). The character of police work: Strategic and tactical implications. Boston: Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Police Executive Research Forum. (2008). Violent crime in America: What we know about hot spots enforcement. Washington, D.C.: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Riecken, H. W., Boruch, R. F., Campbell, D. T., Caplan, N., Glennan, T. K., Pratt, J. W., et al. (1974). Social experimentation: A method for planning and evaluating social programs. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rosenbaum, D. P. (2006). The limits of hot spots policing. In D. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 245–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Scott, M.S. (2000). Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

  50. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp, Vol. 12, pp. 1–48). Chicago: The University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sherman, L. W., Buerger, M. E., Gartin, P. R., Dell’Erba, R., & Doi, D. (1989). Repeat call address policing: The Minneapolis RECAP experiment. Report to the National Institute of Justice. Washington: Crime Control Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sherman, L. W., Eck, J. E., Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 295–329). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sherman, L. W., & Rogan, D. P. (1995). Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: a randomized, controlled experiment. n, 12, 755–781.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Taylor, R. B. (2009). Hot spots do not exist, and four other fundamental concerns about hot spots policing. In N. A. Frost, J. D. Freilich, & T. R. Clear (Eds.), Contemporary issues in criminal justice policy: Policy proposals from the American Society of Criminology Conference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth and Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  58. U.S. Census (2006). July 1, 2006 estimates. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2006-01.xls.

  59. U.S. Census (2008). Annual estimates of the population of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas: April 1,2000 to July 1, 2008. US Census Bureau. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2008/CBSA-EST2008-01.xls.

  60. Weisburd, D. (2008). Place-based policing. Washington: Police Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Weisburd, D. (1993). Design sensitivity in criminal justice experiments. Crime and Justice, 17, 337–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 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, 283–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 593, 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: the Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in policing: linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 6, 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Weisburd, D., Morris, N., & Groff, E. R. (2009). Hot spots of juvenile crime: a longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Criminology and Public Policy, 9, 139–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office for its strong commitment to the research project throughout the organization including the crime analysis unit, managers Matt White and Jamie Rousch, the Operation Safe Street officers, and other JSO commanders. Also, we are very appreciative of former PERF research fellows Rachel Bambery of the New Zealand Police Service and Sergeant Jeff Egge of the Minneapolis Police Department for their assistance with different stages of the project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Taylor.

Additional information

This project was supported by contract number 9237-9107 awarded by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office to the Police Executive Research Forum through a Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice grant. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice or any other organization.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taylor, B., Koper, C.S. & Woods, D.J. A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. J Exp Criminol 7, 149–181 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9120-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Problem-oriented policing
  • Violent crime
  • Randomized experiment
  • Hot spots