Recent years have seen the growing popularity of hot spots policing in contemporary law enforcement efforts. Hot spots policing involves the concentration of limited police resources on some areas that generate the majority of crime or delinquency (Braga, 2006). Hot spots, therefore, are areas with higher than the average number of criminal events or risk of victimization (Battin, 2009). The goal of hot spot policing is to reduce the prevalence of particular crime or disorder problems within an area by focusing on the nature and setting of criminal events rather than on the profiles or motivations of offenders. This policy works on the premise that crimes are distributed unevenly across regions but tend to cluster in certain localities (Jacobson, 1999). If the level of crime in hot spots reduces, then the level of total crime in a state or country drops.
Hot spots policing functions by using computer technology to illustrate the emerging trends in criminal data. The three types of technologies used by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. include crime mapping, CompStat, and Geographical profiling. Crime mapping identifies crime clusters located in very distinct small places such as street blocks, addresses, alleys, or highways. For instance, about 5% of the addresses generated by computerized police databases in Minneapolis account for nearly 50% of calls made by citizens for police service in the state (Braga, 2006). The two categories of crime mapping include spatial analysis and spatial modeling. The former examines the spatial correlation between the data points of crimes in a given region (Battin, 2009). The police accomplish this process by overlaying several maps such as an unemployment map above a map showing drug offenses, to determine the appropriate variables that influence crime in an area. By identifying similar crime activity or offender demographics, the police can accurately label certain areas as hot spots. On the contrary, spatial modeling involves the input of crime data into an understandable computerized grid or template that can analyze multiple crime variables in real-time (Battin, 2009). This methodology facilitates the creation of geographical maps of an area based on particular types or patterns of crimes. CompStat technology applies intelligence to the mapping information by influencing enforcement management and standards of practice (Battin, 2009). The mapping information helps in deciding on the number of police officers and resources deployed to an area, and for what duration. Lastly, geographical profiling involves the use of existing crime data and demographics collected by various law enforcement agencies to create maps that predict the likelihood and prevalence of certain crime in specific areas (Battin, 2009). Crime prediction assists the police in making proactive arrests, hence reducing crime rates.
After identifying the hot spots, law enforcement then focuses on reducing the opportunities for crime using several techniques. First, they can increase the efforts involved in committing a crime using target hardening (e.g. installing fake coin rejecters in self-service stations) and access control (e.g. security guards or fenced yards) (Clarke, 1997 as cited in Jacobson, 1999). Second, they can increase the risks associated with crime through formal surveillance such as burglar alarms, and conduct entry/exit screening such as the baggage screening in airports for illegal drugs and ammunition. Third, the police can reduce the rewards associated with crime through property identification such as vehicle licensing, and removal of the crime target such as the use of removable car radios to deter car vandalism. Fourth, law enforcement agencies can remove the excuses for crime by controlling disinhibitors such as prescribing drinking-age laws or installing road signs for motorists (Clarke, 1997 as cited in Jacobson, 1999).
Several empirical and theoretical studies carried out in the past evaluated the effectiveness of hot spot policing in reducing crime. In one study, Braga (2006) reviewed nine such literature in a bid to consolidate the evidence to substantiate the efficacy of hot spot policing. Of the nine research selected, five were “randomized controlled experiments” while four were “non-equivalent quasi-experiments” (p. 630). The studies used measures such as arrest data, crime incident reports, citizen emergency calls for police service, victimization reports, interviews, police surveys, and social observation to assess the magnitude of the effect of hot spot policing interventions. The types of focused interventions observed in the study included directed patrols and arrests. From the findings, seven of the nine studies examined recorded notable reductions in the number of crime and disorder cases. A comparative analysis of the randomized experiments showed a “statistically significant mean effect sizes” that favor the use of hot spot policing in lowering the number of citizen calls for police service in treatment hot spots vis-à-vis the control areas (Braga, 2006, p. 635). Of the nine studies examines, five reported no substantial immediate displacement of crime activity following the introduction of focused hot spots intervention efforts by law enforcement agencies. Thus, the study reiterated the effectiveness of hot spot policing in combating crime and disorder.
However, the policy faces certain flaws that need to be addressed to achieve optimal benefits from its use. Firstly, it works best on some types crimes such as violent crime, drug offenses, and disorders (e.g. public intoxication) but fails in combating others such as property crimes (College of Policing, 2013). For example, drug traffickers tend to identify and monopolize certain areas where they base their illegal operations such as a poorly lit street near an abandoned building. Such crimes need stability for them to flourish, making hot spot policing effective in tackling them. Conversely, property crimes are widespread and may not necessarily target a certain area since such offenders need to find new properties to target. Secondly, displacement of crime is a real problem in hot spots because offenders move to neighboring areas where police intervention is less stringent. Thus, additional empirical research is necessary to establish the magnitude of such displacement. Thirdly, hot spot policing may result in cases of police misconduct and use of excessive force, thus negating the goal of the policy (College of Policing, 2013). When such abuses occur, the citizens themselves may be reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement agents by withholding tips on wanted criminals or impending criminal activities.
Law enforcement agencies can improve hot spot policing by compiling accurate and complete details of the calls made by citizens such as the exact addresses, street locations, and possible landmarks. A comprehensive police database is essential creating accurate crime maps and, therefore, designating precise areas as hot spots. Besides, the police will be able to allocate resources efficiently to these areas. The police department should also put in place appropriate checks and lines of accountability to monitor police conduct in the field. These controls should include customer care call-lines that receive complaints from citizens regarding the behavior of officers when dealing with both criminals and the community as a whole.
References
Battin, J. R. (2009). Is Hot Spot Policing Effective Empirically? Professional Issues in Criminal Justice, 4(2), 35-50. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/messages/downloadsexceeded.html
Braga, A. A. (2006). The Crime Prevention Value of Hot Spots Policing. Psicothema, 18(3), 630-637. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3263.pdf
Jacobson, J. (1999). Policing Drug Hot-Spots. Police Research Series Paper, 109, 1-35. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drugdealing_openair/PDFs/Jacobson_1999.pdf
