A strategy that targets police and partner resources and activities to those places where crime is most concentrated.
Focus of the intervention
Hot spots policing is a strategy that involves the targeting of resources and activities to those places where crime is most concentrated. The strategy is based on the premise that crime and disorder is not evenly spread within neighbourhoods but clustered in small locations. Focusing resources and activities in hot spots aims to prevent crime in these specific areas and potentially, reduce overall crime levels in the wider geographic area.
Hot spots policing is not defined by specific interventions or tactics, but by whether activity is targeted to specific high crime locations. Activities could include directed police patrols, aggressive disorder enforcement (crackdowns) or problem-oriented policing (POP).
What research is this summary based on?
This updated crime reduction toolkit summary is based on the findings of two reviews.
The overall findings of this summary are taken from Review one, a systematic review and meta-analysis covering 65 primary studies, of which 62 contributed to a meta-analysis. Of the primary studies included in the review, 51 were based on evidence from the USA, four from the UK, four from Sweden and six from other countries (Argentina, Australia, Colombia, Denmark, India and Trinidad and Tobago). A range of crime outcome measures were used in the studies, including incident reports, emergency calls and arrests. Review one contributes to all sections of this summary.
Review two is a systematic review and meta-analysis drawing on the same data as Review one but using a different calculation of effect size. Based on 32 primary studies, all of which were included in a meta-analysis, the review focused specifically on the relationship between hot spots policing and violent crimes such as firearm crime and assault. Review two contributes to the Moderator and Economic cost sections.
Effect – how effective is it?
- The research suggests that hot spots policing has reduced crime overall.
The meta-analysis in Review one found that hot spots policing led to a small, statistically significant reduction in overall crime in areas that received hot spots policing, compared to those that received routine levels of traditional police crime prevention tactics.
These reductions were most evident for specific crime types including drug offences, disorder offences, property crime and violent crime.
The review also tested diffusion of benefits (crime reducing in neighbouring areas as well as in the hot spots) and displacement (crime moving to neighbouring areas). The meta-analysis found a small but statistically significant overall diffusion of benefits, with only one study reporting a statistically significant displacement effect.
When the authors compared the effect of taking a problem-oriented policing (POP) approach in hot spots (for example, in an area where there are high drug offences, police would intervene to attempt to address the conditions that led to the offending) to using more traditional policing techniques (for example, general deterrence or increased risk of arrest), they found that POP programmes were more effective.
When policing hot spots, taking a POP approach was also more likely to reduce crime in surrounding areas when compared to an increased use of traditional policing techniques.
Comparing research designs, randomised studies showed a smaller effect than quasi-experimental designs, but these were still statistically significant, showing a positive crime reduction effect.
How robust is the review evidence?
- The quality of review methods used to assess the impact of hot spots policing on crime was very strong.
Both reviews were sufficiently systematic that most forms of bias that could influence the study conclusions can be ruled out.
Review one had a well-designed search strategy which included unpublished literature and accounted for potential publication bias. Both reviews used appropriate statistical methods to calculate the effect sizes reported. There was sufficient consideration of multiple elements of validity.
Mechanism – how does it work?
- The quality of evidence in the reviews to assess how hot spots policing works was moderate.
Review one suggested several mechanisms by which hot spots might affect crime.
Two theoretical mechanisms were identified which support the effectiveness of hot spots policing: deterrence and crime opportunity reduction.
It is assumed that crime can be reduced more efficiently by concentrating resources and activities on high crime areas, discouraging offenders from taking advantage of crime opportunities concentrated in specific locations.
Several other theories also influence hot spots policing. Hot spots policing aims to disrupt offenders by ensuring that capable guardians (people or technology that deter offending, such as police officers or CCTV) are present in high crime areas, reducing opportunities and making the costs of committing crime outweigh the potential benefits. However, none of these potential mechanisms were empirically tested in the review.
Moderators – in which contexts does it work best?
- The quality of evidence in the reviews to assess the contexts where hot spots policing might work best was very strong.
There is evidence that the effectiveness of hot spots policing varies considerably by context.
The meta-analysis in Review two (using a different effect size calculation to Review one) found a 24% reduction in violent crime at treated hot spots compared with control locations. Effects were larger for strategies based upon problem-oriented policing (35% reduction) compared to traditional policing (16% reduction).
When Review two measured spillover in relation to violent crime, there was no overall evidence of either displacement to nearby areas or diffusion of benefits.
Review two also showed that, in relation to violent crime, hot spots policing was most effective for violent firearm crimes (36% reduction), followed by assault (29% reduction) and robbery (20% reduction).
In relation to overall crime, Review one reported that hot spots policing was most effective in reducing drug offences, followed by disorder offences, property crime and then violent crime. All reported reductions were statistically significant.
Implementation – what can be said about implementing this initiative?
- The quality of evidence in the reviews to assess how to implement hot spots policing was low.
Review one contained limited information about how hot spots policing was implemented, and the specific activities undertaken as part of a hot spots policing strategy varied between primary studies.
Examples of some specific hot spots policing activities reported by Review one included:
- directed patrols
- proactive arrests
- heightened levels of traffic enforcement
- CCTV
- number plate readers
- problem-oriented policing
Most eligible hot spots policing studies seemed to implement the desired treatment successfully. However, a third of the studies (21 studies) did report some implementation issues that threatened the integrity and success of the projects. These included:
- disruption to the intervention due to staffing issues
- resistance from officers
- changes to computer systems and other technology failures
- lack of commitment to the problem-solving process
- lack of strict adherence to the target areas
- lack of support from other criminal justice partner agencies
The review largely focused on issues related to study implementation, as opposed to the implementation of hot spots policing.
Economic considerations – how much might it cost?
- The reviews provided insufficient evidence to assess how much hot spots policing costs.
Neither review undertook formal economic analysis but reported figures included primary studies or other sources of information.
Only one of the 65 evaluations included in Review one conducted cost-benefit analysis. An evaluation of Operation Style in Peterborough, England found that 21 more minutes of patrol by police community support officers (PCSOs) was linked to 85 to 360 fewer days of imprisonment in each targeted hot spot compared to control areas. This imprisonment reduction was associated with a saving of £5.60 to £23 for every £1 spent on PCSO patrol (Ariel and others, 2016).
In addition, Review two cited:
- a POP intervention at violent hot spots in Jersey City, New Jersey, USA, which prevented approximately 88 aggravated assault incidents and 100 robbery incidents, resulting in an estimated $14.4 million in cost savings in one year (Braga and others, 1999)
- a POP intervention at crime and disorder hotspots in Lowell, Massachusetts, USA which prevented 42 aggravated assault incidents and 9 robbery incidents, resulting in an estimated $4.3 million in cost savings in one year (Braga and Bond, 2008)
General considerations
- Hot spots policing is a strategy of focusing policing resources on concentrated areas of crime. Consideration needs to be given to the types of activities that are applied, and these should vary depending on the nature of the problem within the hot spot.
- The majority of primary studies included in both reviews were carried out in the USA, so some caution should be exercised when considering the generalisability of the findings to the UK context.
- Neither review undertook formal economic analysis of the costs and/or benefits of hot spots policing. While certain studies cited in the reviews have suggested savings, these must be interpreted with caution.
- There was limited evidence on the impact of hot spots policing on police relations with communities. The seven studies in Review one that did examine this issue found little evidence that hot spots policing programs result in negative impacts on police relations.
Summary
- Overall, the evidence suggests that hot spots policing has reduced crime.
Hot spots policing programmes that take a problem-oriented approach appear more effective than increased traditional policing (for example, increased patrols or enforcement).
The evidence suggested that hot spots policing was more effective for drug offences, disorder, property crime and violent crime.
Hot spots policing does not appear to displace crime into areas surrounding the target locations and can lead to a diffusion of benefits to the areas close to the hot spot.
Reviews
Review one
Reference
Braga AA and others. (2019) ‘Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime’, Campbell Systematic Reviews, volume 15, issue 3.
Review two
Reference
Turchan B and Braga AA. (2024). The effects of hot spots policing on violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, volume 79, article 102011.
Additional resources
Ariel B, Weinborn C and Sherman LW. (2016). 'Soft" policing at hot spots—do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial'. Journal of Experimental Criminology, volume 12, issue 3, pages 277–317.
Braga AA and others. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, volume 37, issue 3, pages 541–580.
Braga AA and Bond BJ. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, volume 46, issue 3, pages 577–608.