Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T03:24:05.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Critic The limits of hot spots policing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

By
Dennis P. Rosenbaum
Edited by
David Weisburd  and
Anthony A. Braga
Dennis P. Rosenbaum
Affiliation:
Professor of Criminal Justice and Director of the Center for Research in Law and Justice University of Illinois
David Weisburd
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This author is a strong advocate of using sophisticated information technology and the latest research findings to guide decisionmaking in police organizations. Hence, this article begins with a brief acknowledgment of the potential benefits of hot spot policing in theory, followed by a serious critique. The thesis of this chapter is that, while the concept of hot spots policing is attractive, we should be disappointed in how scholars have narrowly defined it in theory and research and how police organizations have narrowly practiced it. This approach has failed to embody the fundamental principles of either problem-oriented policing or community policing, which many scholars believe represent the basic pillars of “good policing” in the twenty-first century.

Acknowledging the benefits

The concept of hot spots is indisputable as a criminological phenomenon and suggests the need for focused responses. From the very beginning of criminological inquiries in nineteenth century France, scholars noted that criminal activity is not randomly distributed, but rather varies by geographic area such as regions, states, and communities (see Eck and Weisburd 1995). More recent micro-level analyses have focused on sizable variations between and within urban neighborhoods. Hence, a sensible policy implication is to recommend the concentration of more resources in these high-crime areas, including police resources (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie et al. 1997). The most important question, however, is not whether we should assign more resources to problem areas, but rather, what resources should be deployed and how should they be deployed?

Type
Chapter
Information
Police Innovation
Contrasting Perspectives
 , pp. 245 - 264
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Braga, A. A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. Annals of American Political and Social Science, 578, 104–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A. A., Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., and Waring, E. J. (2001). Reducing gun violence: The Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Braga, A., Weisburd, D., Waring, E., Green Mazerolle, L., Spelman, W., and Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37 (3), 541–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantingham, P. L. and Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In Clarke, R. V. and Felson, M. (eds.), Routine activity and rational choice. Advances in Criminological Theory, 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.Google Scholar
Bursik, R. J., Jr. and Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington.Google Scholar
Bushway, S. (1996). The impact of a criminal history record on access to legitimate employment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. H. John Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University.
Cohen, L. E. and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, D. and Clarke, R. V. (eds.) (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eck, J. E. and Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The new police order: Effectiveness, equity, and efficiency in community policing. In Rosenbaum, D. P. (ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 3–23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eck, J. E. and Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In Eck, J. E. and Weisburd, D. (eds.), Crime and place, crime prevention studies 4 (pp. 1–33). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Eck, J. E. and Wartell, J. (1996). Reducing crime and drug dealing by improving place management: A randomized experiment. Report to the San Diego Police Department. Washington, DC: Crime Control Institute.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Green, J. R. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure, and function of the police. In Horney, J., Martin, J., MacKenzie, D. L., Peterson, R., and Rosenbaum, D. P. (eds.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system, 3, Criminal Justice 2000 series. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Green-Mazerolle, L. and Roehl, J. (1998). Civil remedies and crime prevention. Munsey, NJ: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Hope, T. (1994). Problem-oriented policing and drug market locations: Three case studies. In Clarke, R. V. (ed.), Crime prevention studies, 2. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, R. J. (2002). The social ecology of police misconduct. Criminology, 40 (4), 867–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, D. (1993). Closing the market: Controlling the drug trade in Tampa, Florida. NIJ Program Focus. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Kleiman, M. (1988). Street-level drug enforcement: Examining the issues. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Klein, M. W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: An empirical test. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13, 47–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M. W. (1999). Attempting gang control by suppression: The misuse of deterrence principles. In Gaines, L. K. and Cordner, W. (eds.), Policing perspectives: An anthology (ch. 18, pp. 269–282). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.Google Scholar
Koper, C. (1995). Just enough police presence: Reducing crime and disorderly behavior by optimizing patrol time in crime hot spots. Unpublished paper.CrossRef
Maher, L. and Dixon, D. (2001). The cost of crackdowns: Policing Cabramatta's heroin market. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 13 (1), 5–22.Google Scholar
Mamalian, C. A. and LaVigne, N. G. (1999). The use of computerized mapping by law enforcement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Papachristos, A. V. (2003). The social structure of gang homicide in Chicago. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology, November 21, Denver, Colorado.
Pope, C., Lovell, R., and Hsia, H. M. (2003). Disproportionate minority confinement: A review of research literature from 1989 to 2001. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Potter, G., Gaines, L., and Holbrook, B. (1990). Blowing smoke: An evaluation of marijuana eradication in Kentucky. American Journal of Police, 9 (1), 97–116.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. P. (1993). Civil liberties and aggressive enforcement: Balancing the rights of individuals and society in the drug war. In Davis, R. C., Lurigio, A. J., and Rosenbaum, D. P. (eds.). Drugs and the community (pp. 55–82). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. P. (2002). Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: Theory, design and measurement issues. Crime Prevention Studies, 14, 171–225.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. P. (2004). Community policing and web-based communication: Addressing the new information imperative. In Fridell, L. A. and Wycoff, M. A. (eds.), Community policing: The past, present and future. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. P. and Lavrakas, P. J. (1995). Self-reports about place: The application of survey and interview methods to the study of small areas. In Eck, J. E. and Weisburd, D. (eds.), Crime and place: Crime prevention studies 4 (pp. 285–314). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. P., Lurigio, A. J., and Davis, R. C. (1998). The prevention of crime: Social and situational strategies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. P., Hawkins, D. F., Costello, S. K., Skogan, W. G., Roman Rivera, L., Vera, C., Rokita, R., Ring, M. K., Larson, T., and Munansangu, M. (2005). Race and police: A matter of public trust. Report to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.
Sampson, R. J. (2002). The community. In Wilson, J. Q. and Petersilia, J. (eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 225–252). Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., and Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuck, A. M. and Rosenbaum, D. P. (forthcoming). Promoting safe and healthy neighborhoods: What research tells us about intervention. In Fulbright-Anderson, K. (ed.), Community change: Theories, practices and evidence. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In Tonry, M. and Morris, N. (eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research, 12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (1997). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. E. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising (ch. 8). Report to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice (NCJ 165366).
Sherman, L. W. and Rogan, D. P. (1995a). Deterrent effects of police raids on crackdowns: A randomized, controlled experiment. Justice Quarterly 12 (4), 755–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W. and Rogan, D. P. (1995b). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: “Hot spots” patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly 12 (4), 673–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W. and Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “Hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly 12 (4), 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., and Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Report to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. (NCJ 165366).
Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G. (ed.). (2003). Community policing: Can it work?Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G. (In press). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G., Steiner, L., Hartnett, S. M., DuBois, J., Bennis, J., Rottinghaus, B., Kim, Young S., Van, K., and Rosenbaum, D. P. (2002). Community policing in Chicago, years eight and nine: An evaluation of Chicago's Alternative Policing Strategy and information technology initiative. Final report to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research. December.Google Scholar
Smith, M., Sviridoff, M., Sadd, S., Curtis, R., and Grinc, R. (1992). The neighborhood effects of street-level drug enforcement. Tactical Narcotics Teams in New York: An evaluation of TNT. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Spelman, W. (1995). Criminal careers of public places. In Eck, J. E. and Weisburd, D. (eds.) Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, 4 (pp. 115–144). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. B. (1998). Crime and small-scale places: What we know, what we can prevent, and what else we need to know. Crime and place: Plenary papers of the 1997 conference on criminal justice research and evaluation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. (NIJ 168618).Google Scholar
Tittle, C. R. and Paternoster, R. (2000). Social deviance and crime: An organizational and theoretical approach. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.Google Scholar
Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. P. (eds.). (1995). Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 19.Google Scholar
Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., and Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Trust and law-abiding behavior: Building better relationships between the police, the courts, and the minority community. Boston University Law Review 81, 361–406.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (In press). Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly.Google Scholar
Uchida, C., Forst, B., and Annan, S. (1992). Modern policing and the control of illegal drugs: Testing new strategies in two American cities. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D. and Eck, J. E. (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
Weisburd, D. and Green, L. (1995a). Measuring immediate spatial displacement: Methodological issues and problems. In Eck, J. E. and Weisburd, D. (eds.), Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, 4 (pp. 349–361). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D. and Green, L. (1995b). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12 (4), 711–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzer, R. and Tuch, S. A. (In press). Determinants of public satisfaction with the police. Police Quarterly.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. and Petersilia, J. (eds.). (2002). Crime: Public policies for crime control. Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar
Worden, R., Bynum, T., and Frank, J. (1994). Police crackdowns on drug abuse and trafficking. In McKenzie, D. and Uchida, C. (eds.), Drugs and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×