OnPolicing Blog

In recent decades, police scholars and practitioners have focused on the concentration of crime in specific locations, known as “hot spots.” Among police researchers, Weisburd (2015) has claimed that a “law of crime concentration” should become a key focus of research and inform crime reduction efforts. Many practitioners, in turn, have long sought to put “cops on dots” (Braga et al., 2019). Yet, hot spots policing has not been systematically adopted in policing, nor has it been consistently implemented (Braga & Schnell, 2018).

Agency surveys confirm varied implementation. A Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) survey found nine of ten agencies used hot spots enforcement; although, agencies defined hot spots in a variety of ways, including neighborhoods, patrol beats, or other large areas (PERF, 2008). The varied definitions of hot spots raise questions of how well hot spots policing efforts reflect evidence-based practice.

An earlier survey (Weisburd & Lum, 2005) of 125 agencies with at least 100 sworn officers found

• 78 (62%) claimed to be using computerized crime mapping, considered necessary for optimal hot spots policing
• 62 (50% of all agencies and 79% of those using computerized mapping) claimed to be conducting hot spots analysis
• 51 (41% of all agencies and 64% of those using computerized mapping) used hot spots policing as a patrol strategy.

More recently, Bureau of Justice Statistics data for 2020 show that 27 percent of U.S. law enforcement agencies use data for hot spots analysis, a prerequisite for hot spots policing, but such use is concentrated among larger agencies (Goodison & Brooks, 2023). All agencies serving populations of at least 250,000 reported using data for hot spots analysis, but only about half of those serving populations of 10,000 to 50,000 reported doing so, as did fewer than 10 percent of agencies serving populations of less than 2,500.

Small agencies may eschew using hot spots policing because they may not perceive the same crime concerns that larger jurisdictions do. Experience tells us that even the smallest jurisdictions are not immune to the law of crime concentration: hot spots in small jurisdictions may differ in size, volume, and frequency or severity of crime from those in large ones, but they still exist. Small agencies may believe they lack the data collection and analysis resources and capabilities to implement hot spots policing; yet, innovations such as hot spots policing may offer advantages over tactics currently in use (Rogers, 2003).

To our knowledge, there has not been a systematic examination of the diffusion of hot spots policing. Without understanding how diffusion may occur, hot spots policing may be perceived as a big-city solution to big-city crime problems, thus rendering it irrelevant for smaller agencies and communities. Previous research suggests that problem-oriented policing, regular systematic patrols, and positive community engagement—common practices across agencies of all sizes—can address hot spots wherever they occur (Braga et al., 2019; Koper et al., 2022). The experience of a Kansas department serving a jurisdiction of fewer than 100,000 residents shows how hot spots policing can be introduced and evolved to serve community needs.

How a Small Kansas Police Department Quietly Became a National Leader in Policing

The Riley County (Kansas) Police Department (RCPD) originated in 1974 with the merger of the Riley County Sheriff’s Office, the Manhattan City Police Department, and the Ogden Police Department. For decades, the RCPD followed a standard model of policing that relied on random patrols and rapid responses to calls for service.

By 2007, the agency had grown to 105 full-time officers serving about 71,000 residents. Most policing activity was in Manhattan, a 19-square-mile city with a population of about 55,000 and home to Kansas State University. By 2012, Manhattan accounted for 91 percent of the crime and disorder calls handled by the RCPD (Koper et al., 2021). Also in 2012, the RCPD promoted a new chief executive from within its ranks and made other significant changes to its upper-level management. The leadership changes helped reshape the department’s culture, operations, and ultimately, its impact on crime.

A Shift in Culture and a New Way of Thinking

Under its new leadership, the department began to prioritize ideas backed by evidence of leading criminologists, not just tradition. It leaned into two strategies with the strongest research support: hot spots policing and focused deterrence. To create an appropriate culture, the department put its evidence-based policing champion in charge of the patrol division, which was tasked with putting hot spots policing into action. And in a rare move for law enforcement, the chief executive opened the department’s data to outside researchers to assess what was working and what was not.

Initial Efforts and Adjustments

RCPD’s first attempt at hot spots policing focused on macro-level areas — larger sections of the city with high crime and call volumes. The data suggested these efforts made a real difference. Just as importantly, they helped officers believe in the approach. The validation from external researchers—who analyzed the data and showed the officers what was working—gave the effort credibility and led to its acceptance.

The department, which had a single crime analyst at the time, then targeted areas where research indicated crime and traffic accidents overlapped by using high-visibility traffic stops as their primary tactic. Officers issued far more warnings than citations, and they handed out cards that explained the purpose of the program. While drivers did not complain, some local business owners did, leading to the abandonment of that particular initiative.

From Setback to Breakthrough

But rather than retreat from the overall effort, the RCPD leaned into its learning culture. Inspired by research in Sacramento, California (Telep, Mitchell, & Weisburd, 2014). The RCPD launched a micro-hot spots initiative later in 2012, focusing on high-risk street segments, specifically individual city blocks. The approach used crime analysis to identify and target micro-hot spot locations: regular, daily directed patrol visits following the Koper Curve Model of deterrence-oriented patrol, community engagement and problem-solving, and active tracking, management, and evaluation of police activities (Koper et al., 2021). The goal was not to show enforcement but guardianship.

Researchers at Kansas State University found statistically significant drops in both crime and calls for service in the targeted micro hot spots—without, as had occurred in Sacramento, the use of overtime (Hegarty, et al., 2014). Officers integrated these visits into their regular patrol routines, an expectation clearly communicated and closely monitored by agency leadership.

Tracking the Data: From Keywords to Precision

Initially, tracking those visits had been a challenge. Leadership was reluctant to create a new call-for-service category, or nature, in the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system for hot spots activity. When CAD was first implemented, the department intentionally limited the number of call types to preserve consistency in comparisons over time. This made sense from an analytical perspective but meant that officers had no official category for logging their time in hot spots.

Instead, officers were instructed to include specific keywords to facilitate the labeling of calls for analysis. It was a practical workaround, but an imperfect one. Inconsistent terminology, typos, and variations in how officers described their activities resulted in messy data, making it difficult to track visits accurately. Analysts were doing their best, but the lack of a standardized input limited the precision of the results — and, in turn, the ability to measure impact.

Recognizing these limitations, leadership revised their stance and added a call nature specifically for hot spots visits. This allowed the agency to track precise times and locations for hot spots visits, and thereby to measure the effectiveness of their work. Such measurement and the analysis it allowed was a significant contributor to the RCPD’s success.

The Long-Term Payoff

The strategy held strong in subsequent years. An analysis by researchers from George Mason University (Koper et al., 2021) found that the hot spots targeting helped reduce crime not just in the targeted blocks but across the entire city of Manhattan and into the 2020s. Overall, citywide calls decreased 12 percent for disorder, 18 percent for property crime, 41 percent for violent crime, and 14 percent for all crime and disorder calls. The RCPD achieved this with only a modest recalibration of everyday patrol, without requiring additional resources, overtime expenditures, or major reductions in policing outside hot spots (Koper et al., 2021).

The RCPD success was most notable for two reasons. First, no other study on hot spots policing had ever shown a citywide impact. Second, most evidence-based policing research is from big-city departments such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, or Chicago. The RCPD proved that a mid-sized agency with the right mindset, leadership, and partnerships could implement and sustain a successful evidence-based policing program. In doing so, it became a model for the smaller agencies that make up the backbone of American policing.

Why It Matters

The RCPD experience demonstrates how small departments can drive significant change through policing strategies that some may consider only applicable to larger agencies with vast resources. By embracing research, opening their data, and building a learning culture, the RCPD created and sustained a successful crime-fighting strategy. It succeeded not with more officers or bigger budgets, but by building the right culture, asking the right questions, and following through on the initiative.

The RCPD success also points to several other advantages of hot spots policing.

First, it is more affordable and can reduce the “social costs” (i.e., loss of community support) of more enforcement-oriented approaches.

Second, hot spots policing is not exceedingly difficult to implement. It does require analysis or assistance to identify hot spots. But once the hot spots are identified, an agency can address them through a variety of common approaches combined with close management, supervision, and monitoring.

Third, most agencies are likely familiar with hot spots policing, even if not using it. Small agencies may be able to leverage expertise from large agencies in their state or region.

Fourth, hot spots policing can be tested before being implemented agency-wide. As the RCPD experience shows, even implementation in a small area can have widespread impacts.

Fifth, hot spots policing is compatible with some organizational cultures and philosophies, although agencies should also be aware of potential incompatibilities. Most law enforcement agencies likely know of problem areas in their jurisdiction and understand how the presence of officers, contacts, community engagement, and problem-oriented policing can help address them. At the same time, agencies that measure performance by response and enforcement actions may find they need to change their measurements and incentives for officers in ways that can support hot spots policing. Hot spots policing may also benefit, as noted, from close tracking and monitoring as well as close supervision and management, which may require a shift in management practices for some agencies.

Altogether, the RCPD experience and other evidence on the practice of hot spots policing suggest three actions for further diffusing the practice. These are:

1. Promoting how agencies such as the RCPD have adapted and successfully implemented hot spots policing. The RCPD story highlights several important characteristics of hot spots policing that, if known, should increase the rate of adoption of the practice.
2. Demonstrating how hot spots policing is relevant, useful, beneficial, and adaptable to mid-size, smaller, and even rural agencies. Though much of the research on hot spots policing is focused on larger agencies, this is not because the strategy only works there but because of the availability of data for large jurisdictions.
3. Trying to reach, communicate with, and support small and mid-size agencies in adapting and implementing the approach. Federal funding has been instrumental in supporting this type of law enforcement, but typically favors proposals designed to reach the largest agencies, assuming the greatest impact there. This is inconsistent with diffusion of innovation research.

Virtually all U.S. policing agencies have a response-oriented patrol function deeply embedded within their organization. But much like NPI’s Kansas City (Mo.) Preventive Patrol Experiment, it (Kelling, et al., 1974) may be time to challenge the status quo in patrol. A varied and data-driven patrol design and function that relies on the law of crime concentration and proven strategies, such as hot spots policing, can be further optimized using appropriate and well-targeted tactics, along with highly accountable management and supervision, to prevent and reduce crime without the social costs associated with approaches oriented more toward enforcement. Knowing that this can be done without additional resources should make it clear that this is the way patrol services should work.

---

References

Anthony A. Braga, Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632 

Braga, A. A., & Schnell, C. (2018). Beyond Putting “Cops on Dots”: Applying Theory to Advance Police Responses to Crime Places. In Unraveling the Crime-Place Connection (1st ed., Vol. 22, pp. 261–288). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315148151-12

Braga, A. A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2019). Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3), e1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1046

Goodison, Ph.D., S. E. (2022). Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey, 2020 (Table 4) (LEMAS). Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/lpdp20_emb.pdf?utm_content=default&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Goodison, S. E., & Brooks, C. (2023). Local Police Departments, Procedures, Policies, and Technology, 2020 – Statistical Tables (Table 13) (No. NCJ 307405; p. Table 13). Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Hegarty, Williams, Stanton, & Chernoff (2014). Evidence-Based Policing at Work in Smaller Jurisdictions. Translational Criminology, Spring 2014 (6), 14-15, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy. https://cebcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/TC6-Spring2014.pdf

Kelling, G., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment. Washington, DC: National Policing Institute. https://www.policinginstitute.org/publication/the-kansas-city-preventive-patrol-experiment/

Koper, C. S., Lum, C., Wu, X., & Hegarty, T. (2021). The Long-Term and System-Level Impacts of Institutionalizing Hot Spot Policing in a Small City. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 1110–1128. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa096

Koper, C. S., Taylor, B. G., Liu, W., & Wu, X. (2022). Police Activities and Community Views of Police in Crime Hot Spots. Justice Quarterly, 39(7), 1400–1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2111325

PERF. (2008). Violent Crime in America, What We Know About Hot Spots Enforcement (Critical Issues in Policing). PERF. https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/violent%20crime%20in%20america%20-%20what%20we%20know%20about%20hot%20spots%20enforcement%202008.pdf

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). Free Press.

Telep, C. W., Mitchell, R. J., & Weisburd, D. (2014). How Much Time Should the Police Spend at Crime Hot Spots? Answers from a Police Agency Directed Randomized Field Trial in Sacramento, California. Justice Quarterly, 31(5), 905-933. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.710645

Weisburd, D. (2015). The Law of Crime Concentration and the Criminology of Place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070

Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The Diffusion of Computerized Crime Mapping in Policing: Linking Research and Practice. Police Practice and Research, 6(5), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614260500433004