Crime Prevention

Research Review

No. 7

Police Programs to Prevent Crime 

in Hot Spot Areas

Anthony A. Braga

Rutgers University and Harvard University

Andrew V. Papachristos

Yale University and Harvard University

David M. Hureau

Harvard University
ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3 

September 2012

Suggested citation: 

Braga, Anthony A., Andrew V. Papachristos, David M. Hureau. 2012. 

Police Programs to Prevent Crime in Hot Spot Areas. No. 7 of Crime 

Prevention Research Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, 

companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion 

of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the 

date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant 

flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity. 

The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group 

(www.campbellcollaboration.org/ccjg) is an international 

network of researchers that prepares, updates, and rapidly 

disseminates systematic reviews of high-quality research 

conducted worldwide on effective methods to reduce 

crime and delinquency and improve the quality of justice.
1

Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Identifying Evaluations of Hot Spots Policing Progams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Characteristics of Hot Spots Policing Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Effects of Hot Spots Policing Programs on Crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Conclusion and Policy Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendixes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Police officers have long recognized the 

importance of place in crime problems.
4

1 This publication briefly reviews 

the research on the crime control 

effectiveness of hot spots policing 

programs. Readers interested in a 

more detailed assessment of the crime 

prevention value of hot spots policing 

programs should acquire the full report 

(Braga et al. 2012) available online at 

the Campbell Crime and Justice Group 

website, www.campbellcollaboration.org.

Introduction

Hot spots policing1 has become a popular way for police departments to prevent crime. The Police 

Executive Research Forum (PERF 2008) surveyed 192 U.S. police departments and reported that 

nearly nine out of 10 agencies used hot spots policing strategies to deal with violent crime in their 

jurisdictions. An earlier Police Foundation report found that seven in 10 departments with more 

than 100 sworn officers reported using crime mapping to identify crime hot spots (Weisburd et 

al. 2003). Many police departments reported having the capability to manage and analyze crime 

data in sophisticated ways and, through management innovations such as Compstat, hold officers 

accountable for implementing problem-solving strategies to control hot spot locations (Weisburd 

et al. 2003). 

Recent research studies suggest focused police interventions, such as directed patrols, proactive 

arrests, and problem-oriented policing, can produce significant crime prevention gains at highcrime hot spots (see Braga 2008; Skogan and Frydl 2004; Weisburd and Eck 2004). Given the 

growing popularity of this approach to crime prevention, ongoing review of existing evaluations 

of hot spots policing programs can help police executives and policy makers understand “what 

works” in preventing crime in hot spot areas. 

Police officers have long recognized the importance of place in crime problems. They know the 

locations within their beats that tend to be trouble spots and are often very sensitive to signs of 

potential crimes. As Bittner (1970) suggests in his classic study of police work, some officers know 

“the shops, stores, warehouses, restaurants, hotels, schools, playgrounds, and other public places in 

such a way that they can recognize at a glance whether what is going on within them is within the 

range of normalcy.” The traditional response to such trouble spots typically included heightened 

levels of patrol and increased opportunistic arrests and investigations. Until recently, police crime 

prevention strategies did not focus systematically on crime hot spots and did not seek to address 

the underlying conditions that give rise to high-activity crime places.
5

Unlike most innovations in policing, the emergence of hot spots policing can be traced 

directly to developing computerized mapping and database technologies and emerging 

academic interest (Weisburd and Braga 2006). A number of research studies documented that 

crime is not spread evenly across city landscapes (see Pierce et al. 1988). Rather, crime clusters 

in very small places, or hot spots, generate a disproportionate amount of criminal events. For 

instance, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, only 3 percent of the city’s addresses accounted for 50 

percent of calls for service to the police (Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger 1989). Even within 

the most crime-ridden neighborhoods, crime clusters at a few discrete locations and other 

areas are relatively crime free (Weisburd and Green 1994). Research has also demonstrated 

that these high-activity crime places generate very stable concentrations of crime over long 

periods of time (Weisburd et al. 2004). For instance, in Boston, Massachusetts, only 5 percent 

of the city’s street block faces and street intersections were responsible for 74 percent of the 

city’s total shootings between 1980 and 2008 (Braga et al. 2010). The 60 most active locations 

experienced more than 1,000 shootings during the study time period.

A number of police policy makers and researchers have argued that many crime problems can 

be reduced more efficiently if police officers focused their attention to these deviant places 

(Braga and Weisburd 2010; Sherman and Weisburd 1995). The appeal of focusing limited 

resources on a small number of high-activity crime places is straightforward. If police can 

prevent crime at these hot spots, then they might be able to reduce total crime.

Identifying Evaluations of 

Hot Spots Policing Progams

Identified studies were further screened to ensure 

that rigorous evaluation designs...were used.
8

2 These evaluation designs permit 

the clearest assessments of “cause 

and effect” in determining whether 

hot spots policing programs prevent 

crime. These designs examine pre- and 

post-program measurements of crime 

outcomes in targeted locations relative 

to “control” locations. The control 

groups in the identified hot spots 

evaluations received routine levels of 

traditional police enforcement tactics.

Identifying Evaluations of Hot Spots Policing Programs

The effectiveness of focused police efforts to prevent crime in hot spot areas was examined 

by reviewing all available academic studies evaluating hot spots policing programs. To be 

eligible for this review, interventions used to control crime hot spots were limited to policeled crime control efforts. Suitable police crime control efforts included traditional tactics 

such as directed patrol and heightened levels of traffic enforcement as well as alternative 

strategies such as problem-oriented policing (Goldstein 1990). Eligible program evaluations 

were also limited to police programs that targeted small areas such as street corners, homes, 

apartment buildings, and subway stations. Police programs that focused on large areas, such 

as an entire neighborhood, were not considered. Identified studies were further screened 

to ensure that rigorous evaluation designs, such as randomized experiments and quasiexperiments, were used.2

Particular attention was paid to studies that measured crime displacement effects and diffusion 

of crime control benefit effects. Policing strategies that focused on specific locations have been 

criticized as resulting in displacement (see Reppetto 1976)—i.e., criminals at targeted locations 

would simply move around the corner to areas that were not protected by focused police 

attention. More recently, academics have observed that crime prevention programs sometimes 

result in the complete opposite of displacement—that crime control benefits can be greater 

than expected and “spill over” into places beyond the target areas (Clarke and Weisburd 1994). 

The review was not restricted to a specific time period, and relevant studies written in 

languages other than English were obtained and translated wherever possible. Eligible studies 

include published as well as unpublished works: journal articles, theses/dissertations, reports, 

books, book chapters, and conference papers. (For further details of the systematic search 

methodology, see Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 2012.) 

A total of 4,315 article summaries were reviewed for any suggestion of an evaluation of a hot 

spots policing program. Of the 4,315 summaries, 131 were selected for closer review, and the 

full-text reports, journal articles, and books for these evaluations were acquired and carefully 

assessed to determine whether the interventions involved focused police enforcement efforts at 

crime hot spots and whether the studies used rigorous evaluation designs. 
9

Using these methods, 19 hot spots policing evaluations were identified and included 

in this review: 

1. Minneapolis (MN) Repeat Call Address Policing (RECAP) program (Sherman, 

Buerger, and Gartin 1989)

2. New York (NY) Tactical Narcotics Teams (TNT) (Sviridoff et al. 1992)

3. St. Louis (MO) problem-oriented policing (POP) in three drug market locations 

(Hope 1994)

4. Minneapolis (MN) hot spots patrol program (Sherman and Weisburd 1995)

5. Jersey City (NJ) Drug Markets Analysis Program (DMAP) (Weisburd and Green 1995)

6. Kansas City (MO) crack house police raids program (Sherman and Rogan 1995a)

7. Kansas City (MO) gun project (Sherman and Rogan 1995b)

8. Beenleigh (AUS) calls for service project (CJC 1998)

9. Jersey City (NJ) POP at violent places project (Braga et al. 1999)

10. Houston (TX) targeted beat program (Caeti 1999)

11. Oakland (CA) Beat Health program (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl 2000)

12. Pittsburgh (PA) police raids at nuisance bars program (Cohen, Gorr, and Singh 2003)

13. Buenos Aires (ARG) police presence after terror attack study (DiTella 

and Schargrodsky 2004)

14. Philadelphia (PA) drug corners crackdowns program (Lawton, Taylor, and Luongo 2005)

15. Jersey City (NJ) displacement and diffusion study (Weisburd et al. 2006)

16. Lowell (MA) policing crime and disorder hot spots project (Braga and Bond 2008)

17. Jacksonville (FL) policing violent crime hot spots project (Taylor, Koper, and Woods 2011)

18. Philadelphia (PA) foot patrol program (Ratcliffe et al. 2011)

19. Boston (MA) Safe Street Teams (SST) program (Braga, Hureau, and Papachristos 2011)

Characteristics of Hot Spots 

Policing Programs

...the 19 identified studies provided 25 distinct tests of hot 

spots policing on crime.
12

Characteristics of Hot Spots Policing Programs

Seventeen of the 19 identified studies were conducted in the United States (see Appendix A 

on page 30). The “Beenleigh Calls for Service Project” (CJC 1998) evaluation was conducted 

in Australia, and an evaluation examining the crime control effects of increased police presence 

on blocks with Jewish centers after a terrorist attack was conducted in Buenos Aires, Argentina 

(DiTella and Schargrodsky 2004). Ten studies were completed in medium-sized cities with 

between 200,000 and 500,000 residents. Seven studies were completed in large cities with 

more than 500,000 residents, and two studies were completed in smaller cities with less 

than 200,000 residents. Four cities were the research sites for multiple hot spots policing 

evaluations: Jersey City was the site for three studies, while Minneapolis, Kansas City, and 

Philadelphia were the sites for two studies each.

In sum, the 19 identified studies provided 25 distinct tests of hot spots policing on crime. 

Six studies tested multiple hot spots policing interventions: The Minneapolis RECAP study 

separately evaluated problem-oriented policing interventions at residential and commercial 

addresses. The Vera Institute of Justice separately evaluated the Tactical Narcotics Team 

intervention at hot spots areas via analyses in two separate New York Police Department 

precincts. The Houston targeted beat program evaluation separately tested the effects of 

problem-oriented policing, high-visibility patrol, and zero-tolerance policing on hot spots in 

targeted high-crime beats. The Jersey City displacement and diffusion study examined the 

impact of problem-oriented policing interventions on a prostitution hot spot and a drug crime 

hot spot in separate quasi-experiments. Finally, the Jacksonville policing violent crime hot 

spots experiment separately tested the effects of direct-saturation patrol and problem-oriented 

policing on violent street crime. 

Across the 25 tests in the 19 eligible hot spots policing studies, problem-oriented policing was 

evaluated in 13 of the tests, and increased traditional policing strategies were evaluated in 12. 

Increased traditional policing strategies included heightened levels of patrol (foot or car), drug 

enforcement operations, zero-tolerance policing, and increased gun searches and seizures in 

crime hot spots areas. 
Effects of Hot Spots Policing 

Programs on Crime

...hot spots policing generated positive crime 

control gains for a variety of crime types...
14

3 Meta-analysis is a technique used to 

investigate overall program effects 

associated with a selected set of studies 

(see Lipsey and Wilson 2001).

Effects of Hot Spots Policing Programs on Crime

Twenty of the hot spots policing evaluations concluded that hot spots policing programs 

generated significant crime control benefits in the treatment areas relative to the control areas 

(see Appendix B on page 32). Only five of the 25 tests of hot spots policing interventions did 

not report noteworthy crime control gains associated with the approach. These five were the 

Minneapolis RECAP at commercial addresses, the New York Tactical Narcotics Team in the 70th 

Precinct, the Beenleigh calls for service project, the Houston targeted beat program’s problemoriented policing intervention, and the Jacksonville direct-saturation patrol intervention. A 

meta-analysis of eligible hot spots policing evaluations revealed that these programs generated 

an overall statistically significant reduction in crime outcome measures (see Braga, Papachristos, 

and Hureau 2012).3 The analysis further revealed that hot spots policing generated positive crime 

control gains for a variety of crime types, including violent crime, property crime, drug offenses, 

and disorder offense outcomes.

The strongest crime control gains were reported in the Buenos Aires police presence study, 

the Jersey City displacement and diffusion study, and the Kansas City gun project. The 

Buenos Aires police presence after a terror attack study revealed a 75 percent reduction in 

motor vehicle theft at protected blocks (DiTella and Schargrodsky 2004). The Jersey City 

displacement and diffusion study reported a 58 percent reduction in drug crime events at 

the targeted drug hot spot and 45 percent reduction in prostitution events at the targeted 

prostitution hot spot (Weisburd et al. 2006). Proactive patrols that focused on firearm 

recoveries in the Kansas City gun project resulted in a 65 percent increase in gun seizures and 

a 49 percent decrease in gun crimes in the target beat area; gun seizures and gun crimes in the 

comparison beat area did not significantly change (Sherman and Rogan 1995b). The Kansas 

City crack house raids study reported the smallest crime control effect; treatment blocks 

experienced a modest reduction in total calls for service that rapidly decayed over a two week 

period when compared to control blocks (Sherman and Rogan 1995a).

While it is not possible to review the findings of all 25 tests here, a few evaluations deserve 

further mention to illustrate the positive benefits generated by hot spots policing programs. 

The Jersey City POP strategy resulted in significant reductions in total calls for service and 

total crime incidents, as well as varying reductions in all subcategories of crime types (Braga et 

al. 1999). Additional analyses of observation data collected over the course of the Jersey City 

POP evaluation revealed that social disorder (such as loiterers and public drinkers) and physical 

disorder (such as trash, graffiti, and vacant lots) was also significantly reduced. 
15

The Minneapolis hot spots patrol program revealed that roughly doubling the level of 

patrol in crime hot spots resulted in modest, but significant, reductions in total calls for 

service, ranging from 6 to 13 percent (Sherman and Weisburd 1995). Moreover, systematic 

observations of the hot spots documented that disorderly behavior in the targeted areas was 

also reduced (Sherman and Weisburd 1995). The Jersey City DMAP program found that 

problem-oriented police crackdowns followed by patrol maintenance resulted in significant 

reductions in disorder calls for service (Weisburd and Green 1995). Similarly, the St. Louis 

quasi-experiment found that the enforcement problem-oriented policing strategy was 

associated with varying degrees of reductions in total calls for service at all three highactivity drug locations; these reductions were greater than any reductions observed in other 

blocks and intersections in the surrounding areas (Hope 1994). 

As described earlier, hot spots policing programs included in this review were characterized 

as two fundamentally different types of approaches to control problem places. Problemoriented policing programs represent police-led efforts to change the underlying conditions 

that cause hot spots to generate recurring crime problems (Goldstein 1990). The other hot 

spots policing interventions represent increased traditional policing activities concentrated 

at specific places to prevent crime through general deterrence and increased risk of 

apprehension. Meta-analysis was used to examine whether these different approaches 

generated similar effects on crime hot spots. The analysis revealed that problem-oriented 

policing interventions generated larger effects relative to increased policing interventions for 

all crime outcome categories. 

Only three hot spots policing studies considered whether the concentration of police 

enforcement efforts at particular places undermined police-community relations. The 

Kansas City gun quasi-experiment suggested that residents of areas subjected to hot spots 

policing welcome the concentration of police efforts in problem places (Shaw 1995). The 

Lowell policing crime and disorder hot spots experiment reported that community members 

in treated hot spot areas recognized the increased police presence and its desirable impacts 

on local disorder problems (Braga and Bond 2009). The Jersey City POP in violent places 

experiment also found that community members often perceived that the focused police 

attention improved disorder problems in the treatment hot spots without any negative 

impacts on their perceptions of the police (Braga 1997). 
16

4 The Weisburd et al. (2011) study did 

not evaluate the impact of these hot 

spots policing programs on official 

crime outcomes. Therefore, it was not 

included in our systematic review 

of the effects of hot spots policing 

programs on crime.

Moreover, in a recent randomized controlled trial explicitly designed to test the impacts 

of hot spots enforcement on community perceptions in three mid-sized California cities,4

Weisburd et al. (2011) did not find any evidence of “backfire effects” associated with a 

policing disorder intervention: the hot spots policing program delivered in this study had 

no significant impacts on fear of crime, police legitimacy, collective efficacy, or perceptions 

of crime or social disorder.

Displacement and Diffusion Effects

Seventeen of the 25 hot spots policing tests also included analyses to determine whether 

the hot spots policing intervention generated any immediate spatial crime displacement or 

diffusion of crime control benefits effects (see Appendix B on page 32). Prior to discussing 

the research findings, it must be noted that detecting displacement effects is very difficult, 

because the potential manifestations of displacement are quite diverse. As Barr and Pease 

(1990) suggest, “if, in truth, displacement is complete, some displaced crime will fall 

outside the areas and types of crime being studied or be so dispersed as to be masked 

by background variation.... No research study, however massive, is likely to resolve the 

issue.” Diffusion effects are likely to be as difficult to assess. All 17 studies were limited 

to examining immediate spatial displacement and diffusion effects—i.e., whether focused 

police efforts in targeted areas resulted in crime “moving around the corner” or whether 

these surrounding areas experienced unintended crime control benefits.

This review found that diffusion of crime control benefits effects were more likely to be 

observed than crime displacement. Eight tests reported significant diffusion effects, and six 

reported no crime displacement or diffusion effects. The eight tests that reported significant 

diffusion of crime control benefits effects were the Jersey City DMAP (Weisburd and 

Green 1995), Kansas City gun project (Sherman and Rogan 1995a), Houston targeted 

beat program (two tests: areas surrounding the zero-tolerance beats and problem-oriented 

policing beats; Caeti 1999), Oakland beat health study (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl 2000), 

Philadelphia drug corners crackdowns project (Lawton, Taylor, and Luongo 2005), and 

the Jersey City displacement and diffusion study (two tests: buffer zones surrounding the 

targeted prostitution hot spot and the targeted drug hot spots; Weisburd et al. 2006). 
17

Only three of the 17 studies reported substantial immediate spatial displacement of crime 

into areas surrounding the targeted locations. The tests that reported statistically significant 

crime displacement effects were in the St. Louis POP in three drug market locations study 

(Hope 1994), Jacksonville problem-oriented policing at violent crime hot spots evaluation 

(Taylor et al. 2011), and Philadelphia foot patrol evaluation (Ratcliffe et al. 2011). While 

the Philadelphia foot patrol study revealed displacement of violent crime, Ratcliffe et al. 

(2011) concluded that violent crime control gains in the treatment areas exceeded violent 

crime displacement into the surrounding areas.

Offenders interviewed in the Jersey City displacement and diffusion study described 

factors that inhibited spatial displacement, including the importance of familiar territory to 

offenders and the social organization of illicit activities at hot spots, which often precluded 

easy movement to other areas that offer crime opportunities. Prostitutes, for example, were 

found to work near their homes and described being uncomfortable in moving to other 

areas where different types of people worked and different types of clients were found. 

Prostitutes and drug dealers in the study described the importance of the familiarity of 

a place to their clients, and some offenders talked of the dangers of encroaching on the 

territories of offenders in other hot spots. 

Overall, a number of factors seemed to discourage spatial displacement in the study. 

Nonetheless, Weisburd et al. (2006) find that offenders will often try other modes of 

adaptation to police interventions, the most common being a change in methods of 

committing illegal acts. For example, prostitutes and drug dealers may begin to make 

appointments with their customers or move their activities indoors to avoid heightened police 

activities on the street. While the net gain in crime prevention may still be large for hot spots 

efforts, these findings suggest the importance of the continued investigation of possible nonspatial displacement (e.g., method displacement) outcomes in hot spots policing. 

Further research on community reactions to hot spots 

policing programs is still sorely needed.

Conclusion and Policy 

Implications
20

5 This study was not included in this 

systematic review because it did not 

evaluate the efficacy of the hot spots 

policing program on an official crime 

outcome.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

More than a decade has passed since the first iteration of a Campbell Collaboration systematic 

review on the effects of hot spots policing on crime was published (Braga 2001). The results of 

this more recent systematic review provide strong support for the basic conclusions of the original 

Campbell review: hot spots policing programs generate modest crime control gains and are likely 

to produce a diffusion of crime control benefits into areas immediately surrounding targeted highactivity crime places. 

This recent review also makes a new and important substantive contribution to crime control 

theory and practice by identifying problem-oriented policing as a preferable strategy for 

reducing crime in hot spot locations. Relative to simply increasing police visibility and making 

additional arrests in crime hot spots, problem-oriented interventions that attempted to alter place 

characteristics and dynamics seem to produce larger crime prevention benefits. 

The original Campbell review called for further research on community reactions to hot spots 

policing initiatives (Braga 2001). Unfortunately, this updated systematic review revealed that 

only four (Braga 1997; Braga and Bond 2009; Shaw 1995; Weisburd et al. 2011) evaluations 

considered the impacts of these police programs on community members as well as crime 

outcomes. In contrast to concerns that hot spots policing can easily become zero-tolerance 

and indiscriminate aggressive tactics can drive a wedge between the police and communities 

(Rosenbaum 2006; Tonry 2011), these three evaluations revealed that the community members 

had positive opinions and experiences when subjected to hot spots policing initiatives. Moreover, 

in a recent randomized controlled trial explicitly designed to test the impacts of hot spots 

enforcement on community perceptions in three mid-sized California cities,5

 Weisburd et 

al. (2011) did not find any evidence of “backfire effects” associated with a policing disorder 

intervention: the hot spots policing program delivered in this study had no significant impacts on 

fear of crime, police legitimacy, collective efficacy, or perceptions of crime or social disorder.

Further research on community reactions to hot spots policing programs is still sorely needed. 

Only two of the four evaluations described above (Braga and Bond 2009; Weisburd et al. 2011) 

represent new evaluations that were not included in the original Campbell review. It is important 

to note that these four evaluations interviewed or surveyed residents and business owners in hot 

spot areas and did not interview individuals arrested, detained, and/or interrogated as a result of 

these focused police actions. These individuals may have very different opinions and experiences 

when compared to community members who do not experience direct law enforcement actions. 
21

A recent evaluation of the adverse system side effects of Operation Sunrise, described here 

as the Philadelphia drug corners crackdown, found that the initiative strained the local 

judicial system by generating a high volume of arrests that resulted in a significant increase 

in fugitive defendants (Goldkamp and Vilcica 2008). Short-term crime gains produced by 

particular types of hot spots policing initiatives could undermine the long-term stability of 

specific neighborhoods through the increased involvement of mostly low-income minority 

men in the criminal justice system. 

The potential impacts of hot spots policing on police-community relations may depend in 

good part on the context of the hot spots affected and types of strategies used. An increased 

enforcement program to control a repeat shoplifting problem in a shopping mall, for 

instance, may be welcomed by store owners and legitimate customers alike. However, police 

actions that seek to prevent crime by changing places, such as problem-oriented policing 

interventions, seem better positioned to generate both crime control gains and positive 

community perceptions of the police relative to simply increasing police presence and 

arresting large numbers of offenders. Whatever the impacts, more needs to be known about 

the effects of hot spots policing approaches on the communities the police serve. Future 

evaluations of hot spots policing programs must make understanding these complex policecommunity dynamics a high priority.

In closing, none, surprisingly, of the 19 hot spots policing evaluations reviewed here 

conducted formal cost-benefit assessments. It is unfortunately rare for crime and justice 

program evaluations to include analyses of monetary costs of running a program relative to 

the benefits accrued by preventing crimes (Welsh and Farrington 2000). In fact, the only 

time monetary costs were explicitly mentioned was to acknowledge that additional patrols 

in hot spot areas were supported by the police department’s own overtime budget (see 

Taylor, Koper, and Woods 2011) or through external grant funds (see Sherman and Rogan 

1995b). Many of the evaluations implied that the hot spots interventions were supported 

via reallocating existing resources into the treatment areas without incurring any additional 

costs. Nevertheless, this policy impact of this body of research would be considerably 

strengthened if evaluations demonstrated that hot spots policing programs generated both 

crime control gains and monetary savings relative to traditional policing methods.

References
24

References

Barr, Robert, and Ken Pease. 1990. “Crime Placement, Displacement, and Deflection.” In Crime 

and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 12, ed. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press.

Bittner, Egon. 1970. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society. New York: Aronson.

Braga, Anthony 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.

———. 2001. “The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime.” Annals of the American Academy of 

Political and Social Science 578:104–25.

———. 2008. Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention. Second edition. Boulder, CO: 

Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Braga, Anthony A., and Brenda Bond. 2008. “Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A 

Randomized Controlled Trial.” Criminology 46:577–608.

———. 2009. “Community Perceptions of Police Crime Prevention Efforts: Using Interviews 

in Small Areas to Evaluate Crime Reduction Strategies.” In Evaluating Crime Reduction, eds. 

Johannes Knutsson and Nick Tilley. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Hureau, and Andrew V. Papachristos. 2011. “An Ex-Post-Facto 

Evaluation Framework for Place-Based Police Interventions.” Evaluation Review 35:592–626.

Braga, Anthony A., Andrew V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau. 2010. “The Concentration 

and Stability of Gun Violence at Micro Places in Boston, 1980–2008.” Journal of Quantitative 

Criminology 26: 33–53.

———. 2012. The Effects of Hot Spots Policing in Crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews.

Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd. 2010. Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and 

Effective Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.
25

Braga, Anthony A., David Weisburd, Elin Waring, Lorraine Green Mazerolle, William Spelman, 

and Francis Gajewski. 1999. “Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places: A 

Randomized Controlled Experiment.” Criminology 37: 541–80.

Caeti, Tory. 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.

CJC (Criminal Justice Commission). 1998. “Beenleigh Calls for Service Project: Evaluation 

Report.” Brisbane, Queensland, AUS: Criminal Justice Commission.

Clarke, Ronald V., and David Weisburd. 1994. “Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits: 

Observations on the Reverse of Displacement.” Crime Prevention Studies 2:165–84.

Cohen, Jacqueline, Wilpen Gorr, and Piyusha Singh. 2003. “Estimating Intervention Effects 

in Varying Risk Settings: Do Police Raids Reduce Illegal Drug Dealing at Nuisance Bars?” 

Criminology 41:257–292.

DiTella, Rafael, and Ernesto Schargrodsky. 2004. “Do Police Reduce Crime? Estimates Using 

the Allocation of Police Forces after a Terrorist Attack.” American Economic Review

94:115–133.

Goldkamp, John, and E. Rely Vilcica. 2008. “Targeted Enforcement and Adverse System Side 

Effects: The Generation of Fugitives in Philadelphia.” Criminology 46:371–410.

Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Hope, Timothy. 1994. “Problem-Oriented Policing and Drug Market Locations: Three Case 

Studies.” Crime Prevention Studies 2:5–32.

Lawton, Brian, Ralph Taylor, and Anthony Luongo. 2005. “Police Officers on Drug Corners 

in Philadelphia, Drug Crime, and Violent Crime: Intended, Diffusion, and Displacement 

Impacts.” Justice Quarterly 22:427–451.

Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. Applied Social Research 

Methods Series, Vol. 40. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26

Mazerolle, Lorraine, James Price, and Jan Roehl. 2000. “Civil Remedies and Drug Control: A 

Randomized Field Trial in Oakland, California.” Evaluation Review 24:212–241.

PERF (Police Executive Research Forum). 2008. Violent Crime in America: What We Know About 

Hot Spots Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Pierce, Glenn, Susan Spaar, and LeBaron Briggs. 1988. The Character of Police Work: Strategic 

and Tactical Implications. Boston, MA: Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern 

University.

Ratcliffe, Jerry, Travis Taniguchi, Elizabeth Groff, and Jennifer Wood. 2011. “The Philadelphia 

Foot Patrol Experiment: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Police Patrol Effectiveness in 

Violent Crime Hot Spots.” Criminology 49:795–831.

Reppetto, Thomas. 1976. “Crime Prevention and the Displacement Phenomenon.” Crime & 

Delinquency 22:166–77.

Rosenbaum, Dennis. 2006. “The Limits of Hot Spots Policing.” In Police Innovation: Contrasting 

Perspectives, eds. David Weisburd and Anthony A. Braga. New York: Cambridge University 

Press.

Shaw, James. 1995. “Community Policing Against Guns: Public Opinion of the Kansas City Gun 

Experiment.” Justice Quarterly 12:695–710.

Sherman, Lawrence, Michael Buerger, and Patrick Gartin. 1989. Repeat Call Address Policing: 

The Minneapolis RECAP Experiment (Final Report to the National Institute of Justice). 

Washington, D.C.: Crime Control Institute.

Sherman, Lawrence, Patrick Gartin, and Michael Buerger. 1989. “Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: 

Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place.” Criminology 27:27–56.

Sherman, Lawrence, and Dennis Rogan. 1995a. “Deterrent Effects of Police Raids on Crack 

Houses: A Randomized Controlled Experiment.” Justice Quarterly 12:755–82.

———. 1995b. “Effects of Gun Seizures on Gun Violence: ‘Hot Spots’ Patrol in Kansas City.” 

Justice Quarterly 12:673–694.
27

Sherman, Lawrence, and David Weisburd. 1995. “General Deterrent Effects of Police Patrol 

in Crime Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Justice Quarterly 12:625–48.

Skogan, Wesley, and Kathleen Frydl, eds. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The 

Evidence. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Sviridoff, Michele, Susan Sadd, Richard Curtis, and Randolph Grinc. 1992. The 

Neighborhood Effects of Street-Level Drug Enforcement: Tactical Narcotics Teams in New 

York. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Taylor, Bruce, Christopher Koper, and Daniel Woods. 2011. “A Randomized Controlled 

Trial of Different Policing Strategies at Hot Spots of Violent Crime.” Journal of 

Experimental Criminology 7:149–181.

Tonry, Michael. 2011. “Less Imprisonment is No Doubt a Good Thing: More Policing is 

Not.” Criminology & Public Policy 10:137–152.

Weisburd, David L., and Anthony A. Braga. 2006. “Hot Spots Policing as a Model for 

Police Innovation.” In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, eds. David L. Weisburd 

and Anthony A. Braga. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weisburd, David L., Shawn Bushway, Cynthia Lum, and Sue-Ming Yang. 2004. 

“Trajectories of Crime at Places: A Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of 

Seattle.” Criminology 42:283–321.

Weisburd, David, and John Eck. 2004. “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, 

and Fear?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593:42–65. 

Weisburd, David, and Lorraine Green. 1994. “Defining the Street Level Drug Market.” In 

Drugs and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives, eds. Doris L. MacKenzie and Craig 

Uchida. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

———. 1995. “Policing Drug Hot Spots: The Jersey City DMA Experiment.” Justice 

Quarterly 12:711–36.
28

Weisburd, David, Joshua Hinkle, Christine Famega, and Justin Ready. 2011. “The Possible 

‘Backfire” Effects of Broken Windows Policing at Crime Hot Spots: An Experimental 

Assessment of Impacts on Legitimacy, Fear and Collective Efficacy.” Journal of Experimental 

Criminology 7:297–320.

Weisburd, David, Stephen Mastrofski, Anne Marie McNally, Rosann Greenspan, and James 

Willis. 2003. “Reforming to Preserve: Compstat and Strategic Problem Solving in 

American Policing.” Criminology & Public Policy 2:421–456.

Weisburd, David, Laura Wyckoff, Justin Ready, John Eck, Joshua Hinkle, and Francis 

Gajewski. 2006. “Does Crime Just Move Around the Corner? A Controlled Study of 

Spatial Displacement and Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits.” Criminology 44:549–592.

Welsh, Brandon and David P. Farrington. 2000. “The Monetary Costs and Benefits of Crime 

Prevention Programs.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 27, ed. Michael 

Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Appendixes
30

Appendix A: Hot Spots Policing Programs

Study Program Elements

Minneapolis (MN) Repeat Call 

Policing

Sherman, Buerger, and Gartin 

(1989)

Problem-oriented policing interventions comprised of mostly traditional enforcement tactics with some 

situational responses

New York (NY) Tactical Narcotics 

Teams

Sviridoff et al. (1992)

Undercover and plainclothes police crackdown on street drug markets primarily using “buy and bust” 

operations

St. Louis (MO) POP in Three Drug 

Areas

Hope (1994)

Problem-oriented policing interventions comprised of mostly traditional enforcement tactics with some 

situational responses

Minneapolis (MN) Hot Spots

Sherman and Weisburd (1995)

Uniformed police patrol; experimental group, on average, experienced twice as much patrol presence

Jersey City (NJ) DMAP

Weisburd and Green (1995)

Well-planned crackdowns followed by preventive patrol to maintain crime control gains

Kansas City (MO) Crack House 

Raids

Sherman and Rogan (1995a)

Court-authorized raids on crack houses conducted by uniformed police officers

Kansas City (MO) Gun Project

Sherman and Rogan (1995b)

Intensive enforcement of laws against illegally carrying concealed firearms via safety frisks during traffic 

stops, plain view, and searches incident to arrest on other charges

Beenleigh (AUS) Calls for Service 

Project

Criminal Justice Commission (1998)

Problem-oriented policing interventions comprised of mostly traditional enforcement tactics with some 

situational responses

Houston (TX) Targeted Beat 

Program

Caeti (1999)

Patrol initiative designed to reduce index crimes in 7 beats:

•	 3 beats used high-visibility patrol at hot spots

•	 3 beats used zero-tolerance policing at hot spots

•	 1 beat used a problem-oriented policing approach comprised of mostly traditional tactics to control hot spots

Jersey City (NJ) POP at Violent 

Places

Braga et al. (1999)

Problem-oriented policing interventions comprised of mostly aggressive disorder enforcement tactics with 

some situational responses
31

Study Program Elements

Oakland (CA) Beat Health 

Program

Mazerolle et al. (2000)

Problem-oriented policing intervention that used civil remedies to alleviate drug and disorder problems at 

targeted properties

Pittsburgh (PA) Police Raids at 

Nuisance Bars

Cohen et al. (2003)

Raids by narcotics squad on nuisance bars to reduce drug selling in and around targeted bar

Buenos Aires (ARG) Police 

Presence after Terrorist Attack

DiTella and Schargrodsky (2004)

Increased police presence at Jewish centers in three neighborhoods

Philadelphia (PA) Drug Corners 

Crackdowns

Lawton et al. (2005)

Police crackdown that stationed officers at high-activity drug locations

Jersey City (NJ) Displacement and 

Diffusion Study

Weisburd et al. (2006)

Problem-oriented policing interventions comprised of mostly traditional enforcement tactics with some 

situational responses

Lowell (MA) Policing Crime and 

Disorder Hot Spots Project

Braga and Bond (2008)

Problem-oriented policing interventions comprised of mostly disorder reduction tactics with some situational 

responses

Jacksonville (FL) Policing Violent 

Crime Hot Spots Program

Taylor et al. (2011)

Two interventions tested: problem-oriented policing and direct-saturation patrol

Philadelphia (PA) Foot Patrol 

Program

Ratcliffe et al. (2011)

Foot patrol in violent crime hot spots

Boston (MA) Safe Street Teams

Braga et al. (2011)

Problem-oriented policing interventions comprised of disorder reduction initiatives and limited situational 

responses

Source: Adapted from Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 2012
32

Appendix B: Results of Hot Spots Policing Evaluations

Study Crime Outcomes Displacement / Diffusion

Minneapolis (MN) RECAP

Sherman, Buerger, and Gartin (1989)

For commercial addresses, no effect

For residential addresses, reductions in calls for service

Not measured

New York (NY) Tactical Narcotics 

Teams

Sviridoff et al. (1992)

In the 70th precinct, no effect 

In the 67th precinct, reductions in assault incidents

Not measured

St. Louis (MO) POP in Three Drug 

Areas

Hope (1994)

Varying reductions in total calls in all three drug 

locations

Significant displacement in one location

Minneapolis (MN) Hot Spots

Sherman and Weisburd (1995)

Reductions in total citizen calls for service Not measured

Jersey City (NJ) DMAP

Weisburd and Green (1995)

Reductions in citizen calls for disorder offenses Little evidence of displacement; analyses suggest 

modest diffusion of crime control benefits

Kansas City (MO) Crack House Raids

Sherman and Rogan (1995a)

Modest decreases in citizen calls and offense reports 

that decayed in two weeks

Not measured

Kansas City (MO) Gun Project

Sherman and Rogan (1995b)

Increase in guns seized by the police followed by 

decrease in gun crimes

No significant crime displacement; diffusion effects 

reported

Beenleigh (AUS) Calls for Service 

Project

Criminal Justice Commission (1998)

No noteworthy differences in total number of calls 

between Beenleigh and Brown Plains areas

Noteworthy reductions in calls reported in majority of 

case studies

Not measured

Houston (TX) Targeted Beat 

Program

Caeti (1999)

Significant crime reductions for aggregated targeted 

beats

Mixed results for specific beats

No evidence of displacement

Diffusion effects reported

Jersey City (NJ) POP at Violent 

Places

Braga et al. (1999)

Reductions in total calls for service and total crime 

incidents

Varying reductions for all subcategories of crime

Little evidence of immediate spatial displacement 

Possible diffusion of crime control benefits

Oakland (CA) Beat Health Program

Mazerolle et al. (2000)

Reductions in drug calls for service Diffusion of crime control benefits reported
33

Study Crime Outcomes Displacement / Diffusion

Pittsburgh (PA) Police Raids at 

Nuisance Bars

Cohen et al. (2003)

Reductions in drug calls in bars that disappeared when 

program ceased

Not measured

Buenos Aires (ARG) Police Presence 

after Terrorist Attack

DiTella and Schargrodsky (2004)

Large reduction in motor vehicle theft incidents No crime displacement or diffusion of crime control 

benefits reported

Philadelphia (PA) Drug Corners 

Crackdowns

Lawton et al. (2005)

Reductions in drug crime and violent crime incidents Diffusion of benefits for violent crime incidents; 

mixed results for drug crime incidents

Jersey City (NJ) Displacement and 

Diffusion Study

Weisburd et al. (2006)

Reductions in prostitution and drug events Diffusion of crime control benefits reported

Lowell (MA) Policing Crime and 

Disorder Hot Spots Project

Braga and Bond (2008)

Reductions in total calls for service Mild diffusion of crime control benefits reported

Jacksonville (FL) Policing Violent 

Crime Hot Spots Program

Taylor et al. (2011)

Reduction in street violence incidents due to problemoriented policing strategy

No crime control gains from direct-saturation patrol 

Some evidence of crime displacement

Philadelphia (PA) Foot Patrol 

Program

Ratcliffe et al. (2011)

Reduction in street violent crime incidents Some crime displacement noted, but these effects 

were not larger than the benefits reported in hot spots

Boston (MA) Safe Street Teams

Braga et al. (2011)

Reductions in violent crime incidents No crime displacement or diffusion of crime control 

benefits reported

Source: Adapted from Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 2012




U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

September 2012

e041218459

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3