In This Article Hot Spots Policing

  • Introduction
  • Theory and Basis of Hot Spots Policing
  • Overview of Hot Spots Policing Innovation
  • Hot Spot Characteristics and Selection
  • Critiques of Hot Spots Policing
  • Researching Hot Spots Policing
  • Displacement and Diffusion
  • Data Sources

Criminology Hot Spots Policing
Tammy Kochel
  • LAST REVIEWED: 19 October 2018
  • LAST MODIFIED: 28 April 2016
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0178


Since the 1980s, the nature of policing has expanded beyond a person-focused approach to include a location-based approach. Recently developed policing strategies that are concerned with the geographic distribution and explanation of crime include hot spots policing and community policing, and oftentimes problem-oriented policing, broken windows policing, third-party policing, and focused deterrence strategies. Hot spots policing entails focusing police efforts at crime prevention in a very small geographic area where crime concentrates. This strategy is one of only a few policing strategies grounded in both theory and research. Crime concentrates at places even more than it concentrates in people. Research in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the 1980s demonstrated that 60 percent of the crime occurs at 6 percent of places (see Sherman, et al. 1989, cited under Theory and Basis of Hot Spots Policing). Place-based theories about routine activities and rational choice have led to deterrence-based strategies such as directed patrol, crackdowns, and other traditional approaches to hot spots policing, as well as more community-oriented, problem-solving, and situational crime prevention approaches at crime hot spots. Hot spots policing is one of few areas in criminal justice research that have been tested using randomized controlled trials, a gold standard for research. Several systematic reviews suggest that focusing police efforts in a small geographic area reduces crime. Furthermore, research on displacement and diffusion of benefits suggests that hot spots policing does not merely geographically displace crime. In fact, nearby places may experience a diffusion of crime benefits. Only a few studies have examined the noncrime impacts of hot spots policing, but these suggest that it does not harm public perceptions of police. Several data sources are available from past National Institute of Justice-funded studies on hot spots of crime and hot spots policing.

Theory and Basis of Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing is built upon theories about crime at places, treating a place (e.g., address, street segment, or other small geographic area) as the unit of analysis. This is explained in Sherman, et al. 1989, which provides the first application of theory to the spatial analysis of crime at places. Andresen and Malleson 2010 shows that crime concentrates and is stable at smaller units of analysis. Sherman 1995 even shows that places have criminal careers, much like offenders do. Eck and Weisburd 1995 discusses the three theories associated with crime and place: routine activity theory, rational choice theory, and crime pattern theory. Attempting to explain the concentration of crime at places, routine activity theory specifies that crime occurs when motivated offenders and suitable targets converge in time and space in the absence of capable guardians. There is an assumption that offenders apply rational choice in their decision making about crime. Crime pattern theory explains how the design of the environmental backdrop and movement of people throughout space contributes to increased risk for crime. Specific characteristics of places put them at greater risk for crime to occur. Clarke and Eck 2007 explain the 80/20 rule and risky places. Bowers 2014 shows that qualities of places may affect risk to specific facilities, but also nearby areas. Weisburd, et al. 1993 reviews the available literature as a basis of the specialization versus the generalization of crime at places. Technological advances in policing, coupled with theoretical advances, have been important to promoting the capacity for and adoption of hot spots policing, as Eck, et al. 2000 explains.

  • Andresen, M. A., and N. Malleson. 2010. Testing the stability of crime patterns: Implications for theory and policy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48.1: 58–82.

    DOI: 10.1177/0022427810384136E-mail Citation »

    Considers the impact of the choice of spatial unit. Empirical test of the stability of crime at street segments versus census tracks (proxy for neighborhood). Results from the smaller scale show that using larger units may conceal variation in crime within them.

  • Bowers, K. 2014. Risky facilities: Crime radiators or crime absorbers? A comparison of internal and external levels of theft. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 30:389–414.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10940-013-9208-zE-mail Citation »

    Discussion and empirical test (for theft) of risky facilities as crime radiators that promote crime within facilities as well as promote it in the nearby area. Data is from a metropolitan area of the United Kingdom.

  • Clarke, R. V. G., and J. E. Eck. 2007. Understanding risky facilities. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police: Problem Solving Series 6. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    E-mail Citation »

    Practitioner-oriented toolkit that defines risky facilities, applies the 80/20 rule, and explains the relevance to hot spots. Provides a guide to applying problem oriented policing at risky facilities.

  • Eck, J. E., and D. Weisburd. 1995. Crime places in crime theory. In Crime and place. Crime Prevention Studies 4. Edited by J. Eck and D. Weisburd, 1–33. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice.

    E-mail Citation »

    Applies rational choice, routine activity, and crime pattern theories to micro places. Summarizes research on crime at places, relating it back to the theories.

  • Eck, J. E., J. S. Gersh, and C. Taylor. 2000. Finding crime hot spots through repeat address mapping. In Analyzing crime patterns: Frontiers of practice. Edited by V. Goldsmith, P. G. McGuire, J. H. Mollenkopf, and T. A. Ross, 49–64. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    DOI: 10.4135/9781452220369.n5E-mail Citation »

    Outlines three hypotheses about how crime hot spots relate to the cloud of crime spaces around them and can create clusters of hot spots. Demonstrates repeat address mapping.

  • Sherman, L. W. 1995. Hot spots of crime and criminal careers of places. In Crime and place. Crime Prevention Studies 4. Edited by J. Eck and D. Weisburd, 35–52. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice.

    E-mail Citation »

    Introduces the concentration of crime at places and ties it to routine activity theory and situational crime prevention. Describes the criminal careers of places similar to criminal careers of persons, discussing onset, desistance, continuance, specialization, and desistance.

  • Sherman, L. W., P. R. Gartin, and M. E. Buerger. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27.1: 27–56.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00862.xE-mail Citation »

    Applies routine activity theory to places and presents spatial analysis of calls for service in Minneapolis to demonstrate that crime is concentrated at relatively few address hot spots.

  • Weisburd, D., L. Maher, L. Sherman, M. Buerger, E. Cohn, and A. Petrisino. 1993. Contrasting crime general and crime specific theory: The case of hot spots of crime. In New directions in criminological theory. Advances in Criminological Theory 4. Edited by F. Adler and W. S. Laufer, 45–70. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    E-mail Citation »

    Outlines important literature on crime and place. Discusses specialization of crime at hot spots versus crime generalization.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.

How to Subscribe

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.