Longitudinal Study of Crime Hot Spots: Dynamics and Impact on Part 1 Violent Crime

Objectives: Design and estimate the impacts of a prevention program for part 1 violent crimes in micro-place crime hot spots. Methods: A longitudinal study of crime hot spots using 21 years of crime offense report data on part 1 violent crimes from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Based on kernel density smoothing for a definition of micro-place crime hot spots, we replicate past work on the existence of “chronic” hot spots, but then with such hot spots accounted for introduce “temporary” hot spots. Results: Chronic hot spots are good targets for prevention. They are easily identified and they tend to persist. Temporary hot spots, however, predominantly last only one month. Thus the common practice of identifying hot spots using a short time window of crime data and assuming that the resulting hot spots will persist is ineffective for temporary hot spots. Instead it is necessary to forecast the emergence of temporary hot spots to prevent their crimes. Over time chronic hot spots, while still important, have accounted for less crime while temporary hot spots have grown, accounting for a larger share. Chronic hot spots are relatively easy targets for police whereas temporary hot spots require forecasting methods not commonly in use by police. Conclusions: The paper estimates approximately a 10 to 20 percent reduction in part 1 violent crimes in Pittsburgh if the hot spot enforcement program proposed in this paper were implemented.

[1]  Jonathan P. Caulkins,et al.  Local Drug Markets' Response to Focused Police Enforcement , 1993, Oper. Res..

[2]  Lawrence E. Cohen,et al.  Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach , 1979 .

[3]  Wilpen L. Gorr,et al.  Empirical calibration of time series monitoring methods using receiver operating characteristic curves , 2009 .

[4]  Daniel S. Nagin,et al.  Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametric, group-based approach , 1999 .

[5]  Anthony A. Braga,et al.  Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment , 1999 .

[6]  Anthony A. Braga,et al.  Hot spots policing and crime prevention: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials , 2005 .

[7]  Terance D. Miethe.  CITIZEN-BASED CRIME CONTROL ACTIVITY AND VICTIMIZATION RISKS: AN EXAMINATION OF DISPLACEMENT AND FREE-RIDER EFFECTS* , 1991 .

[8]  Spencer Ch.  The Utility of Hotspot Mapping for Predicting Spatial Patterns of Crime , 2008 .

[9]  Wilpen L. Gorr,et al.  Leading Indicators and Spatial Interactions: A Crime‐Forecasting Model for Proactive Police Deployment , 2007 .

[10]  Elizabeth R. Groff,et al.  Hot Spots of Juvenile Crime: Findings From Seattle , 2011 .

[11]  M J Scherdin,et al.  The halo effect: psychological deterrence of electronic security systems , 1986 .

[12]  Ronald V. Clarke,et al.  Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps , 2005 .

[13]  S. Chainey,et al.  Mapping Crime: Understanding Hot Spots , 2014 .

[14]  Shane D. Johnson,et al.  Measuring the Geographical Displacement and Diffusion of Benefit Effects of Crime Prevention Activity , 2003 .

[15]  Patrick R. Gartin,et al.  Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place , 1989 .

[16]  H. D. McKay,et al.  Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas , 1943 .

[17]  Wilpen L. Gorr,et al.  Forecast accuracy measures for exception reporting using receiver operating characteristic curves , 2009 .

[18]  R. Dawes.  Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[19]  Lawrence W. Sherman,et al.  General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial , 1995 .

[20]  Bruce G. Taylor,et al.  A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime , 2011 .

[21]  Lawrence W. Sherman,et al.  Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: A randomized, controlled experiment , 1995 .

[22]  John E. Eck,et al.  DOES CRIME JUST MOVE AROUND THE CORNER? A CONTROLLED STUDY OF SPATIAL DISPLACEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF CRIME CONTROL BENEFITS* , 2006 .

[23]  J. Carter,et al.  The Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Police Patrol Effectiveness in Violent Crime Hotspots , 2012 .

[24]  C. F. Schmid,et al.  URBAN CRIME AREAS: PART I* , 1960 .

[25]  D. Weisburd,et al.  Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment , 1995 .

[26]  Daniel B. Neill,et al.  Expectation-based scan statistics for monitoring spatial time series data , 2009 .

[27]  Rene B.P. Hesseling,et al.  DISPLACEMENT: A REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE , 2006 .

[28]  Michael R. Gottfredson,et al.  A general theory of crime. , 1992 .

[29]  S. Bushway,et al.  Trajectories of Crime at Places: A Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of Seattle , 2004 .

[30]  Thomas A. Reppetto.  Crime Prevention and the Displacement Phenomenon , 1976 .

[31]  Ronald V. Clarke,et al.  DIFFUSION OF CRIME CONTROL BENEFITS: OBSERVATIONS ON THE REVERSE OF DISPLACEMENT , 2006 .

[32]  George L. Kelling,et al.  Fixing Broken Windows , 1995 .

[33]  William Spelman,et al.  CRIMINAL CAREERS OF PUBLIC PLACES , 1995 .

[34]  Patricia L. Brantingham,et al.  Mobility, Notoriety, and Crime: A Study in the Crime Patterns of Urban Nodal Points , 1981 .

[35]  Elizabeth R. Groff,et al.  The Criminology of Place: Street Segments and Our Understanding of the Crime Problem , 2012 .

[36]  Wilpen L. Gorr,et al.  Short-term forecasting of crime , 2003 .