CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Policing Practices and PerceptionsCrime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and Penology

Critic The limits of hot spots policing

Rosenbaum, Dennis P.·2006·Police Innovation
DOI 10.1017/cbo9780511489334.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction This author is a strong advocate of using sophisticated information technology and the latest research findings to guide decisionmaking in police organizations. Hence, this article begins with a brief acknowledgment of the potential benefits of hot spot policing in theory, followed by a serious critique. The thesis of this chapter is that, while the concept of hot spots policing is attractive, we should be disappointed in how scholars have narrowly defined it in theory and research and how police organizations have narrowly practiced it. This approach has failed to embody the fundamental principles of either problem-oriented policing or community policing, which many scholars believe represent the basic pillars of “good policing” in the twenty-first century. Acknowledging the benefits The concept of hot spots is indisputable as a criminological phenomenon and suggests the need for focused responses. From the very beginning of criminological inquiries in nineteenth century France, scholars noted that criminal activity is not randomly distributed, but rather varies by geographic area such as regions, states, and communities (see Eck and Weisburd 1995). More recent micro-level analyses have focused on sizable variations between and within urban neighborhoods. Hence, a sensible policy implication is to recommend the concentration of more resources in these high-crime areas, including police resources (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie et al . 1997). The most important question, however, is not whether we should assign more resources to problem areas, but rather, what resources should be deployed and how should they be deployed?

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511489334.013

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is strong concern that proactive policing at crime hot spots may lead to increased police abuses and negative community evaluations of the police.

    “However, there is at the same time strong concern that proactive policing at crime hot spots may lead to increased police abuses and negative community evaluations of the police (7, 8).”

    From Reforming the police through procedural justice training: A multicity randomized trial at crime hot spots (2022) · cites this paper as [7]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rosenbaum, D. P.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Rosenbaum, Dennis P.
Venue
Police Innovation
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2006-05-04
Pages
245-264
DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511489334.013
OpenAlex
W2125648770
Cited by
130
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
11.08
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 1237 d)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
hot spot policing, problem-oriented policing, community policing, police resource allocation, information technology in policing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review