Predictable Policing: Measuring the Crime Control Benefits of Hotspots Policing at Bus Stops

Barak Ariel,Henry Partridge

doi:10.1007/s10940-016-9312-y

Abstract

ObjectivesA fairly robust body of evidence suggests that hotspots policing is an effective crime prevention strategy. In this paper, we present contradictory evidence of a backfiring effect.MethodsIn a randomized controlled trial, aimed at reducing crime and disorder, London’s ‘hottest’ 102 bus-stops were targeted. Double patrol teams of Metropolitan Police Service uniformed officers visited the stops three times per shift (12:00–20:00), 5-times per week, for a duration of 15 min, over a 6 month period. Crucially, officers arrived and departed the bus stop on a bus, with significantly less time spent outside the bus stop setting. Outcomes were measured in terms of victim-generated crimes reported to the police and bus driver incident reports (DIRs), within targeted and catchment areas. We used adjusted Poisson-regression models to compare differences in pre- and post-treatment measures of outcomes and estimated-marginal-means to illustrate the treatment effect.ResultsDIRs went down significantly by 37 % (p = 0.07) in the near vicinity of the bus stops (50 m), by 40 % in the 100 m catchment area (p = 0.04) and marginally and non-significantly in the farthest catchment (10 %; p = 0.66), compared to control conditions. However, victim-generated crimes—the primary outcome measured in previous experiments—increased by 25 % (p = 0.10) in the near vicinity, by 23 % (p = 0.08) and 11 % (p ≤ 0.001) within the 100–150 m catchment areas, respectively.ConclusionsThese findings illustrate the role of bounded-rationality in everyday policing: reductions in crime are predicated on an elevated perceived risk-of-apprehension. Previous studies focused on clusters of addresses or public facilities, with police moving freely and unpredictably within the boundaries of the hotspot, but the patrol areas of officers in this experiment were limited to bus stops so offenders could anticipate their movements. Hotspots policing therefore backfires when offenders can systematically and accurately predict the temporal and spatial pattern of long-term targeting at a single location.

Highlights

IntroductionA substantial body of research shows that crime occurs in certain places for a reason
Crime and PlaceA substantial body of research shows that crime occurs in certain places for a reason
Previous studies focused on clusters of addresses or public facilities, with police moving freely and unpredictably within the boundaries of the hotspot, but the patrol areas of officers in this experiment were limited to bus stops so offenders could anticipate their movements

Summary

Introduction

A substantial body of research shows that crime occurs in certain places for a reason This literature on ‘crime and place’ has gained a great deal of recognition in recent years (Weisburd et al 2009a, b). An overwhelming body of research shows the disproportionate concentration of criminal events at street segments, road intersections, city blocks or unique addresses—in virtually any given city in which crime data are collated (Weisburd et al 2009a, b, 2010; Weisburd 2015). This global evidence cuts across topographies, cities and urban structures (Sherman et al 2014; Weisburd and Amram 2014). With these spatial concentrations there are temporal concentrations in terms of times of the day, days of week and certain months of the year (Farrell and Pease 1994; Ratcliffe 2004; Johnson et al 2008; Townsley 2008)—which means that the more precise characterization of the phenomenon should be the ‘law of concentration of crime in place and time.’

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion