Crime Hot Spots

Academic interest in crime hot spots developed from research suggesting that micro-level variation in crime existed within communities. The observation that the distribution of crime varied within neighborhoods has existed for some time. However, due to limited analytical capacities, little empirical research examined this variance beyond the community level of analysis. With the advent of powerful computer systems and software packages in the late 1980s, two well-known studies—one by Glenn Pierce, Susan Spaar, and LeBaron Briggs in 1988 and the other by Lawrence Sherman, Patrick Gartin, and Michael Buerger in 1989—found that more than 60 percent of crimes were committed at a few small places within communities in Boston and Minneapolis, respectively. Even within the worst neighborhoods, Sherman et al. found that crime clusters at a few discrete “hot spot” locations, leaving blocks of areas relatively crime-free. Further, research by Ralph Taylor and Stephen Gottfredson revealed conclusive evidence that links this spatial variation to the physical and social characteristics of particular blocks and multiple dwellings within a neighborhood. Crime clustering at specific locations within specific neighborhoods has been reported in studies of a variety of crimes, including burglary, convenience store robberies, gun crimes, and drug selling.

The study of crime hot spots as a means to explain the variation of crime within communities, also known as the “criminology of place,” has developed from an interest in improving crime control policies. In their quest to develop more effective prevention strategies, police departments have increasingly focused their resources [Page 231]on controlling crime hot spots. When dealing with crime hot spots, the attributes of a place are viewed as key factors in explaining clusters of criminal events. For example, a poorly lit street corner with an abandoned building, located near a major thoroughfare, provides an ideal location for a drug market. The lack of proper lighting, an abundance of “stash” locations around the derelict property, a steady flow of potential customers on the thoroughfare, and a lack of defensive ownership (informal social control) at the place all generate an attractive opportunity for drug sellers. In many such cases, the police spend considerable time and effort arresting sellers without noticeably affecting the drug trade. The compelling criminal opportunities at the place attract sellers and buyers, and thus sustain the market. If the police want to disrupt the market, they should focus on the features of the place that causes the drug dealing to cluster at that particular location. This approach to focusing on the characteristics of crime hot spots is considered to be a radical departure from traditional criminological theories, which centered prevention efforts on the individual and ignored the importance of place (Sherman et al., 1989).