hotspot
Foreign Related Literature and Studies
The Initial Hot spots Study
The initial hot spots study in Minneapolis suggested that increased police presence alone leads to some crime and disorder reduction (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). Officers in Minneapolis were not given specific instructions on what activities to engage in while present in hot spots. They simply were told to increase patrol time in the treatment hot spots, and the activities they engaged in ranged a good deal from more proactive problem solving efforts to simply sitting in the car parked in the center of a hot spot street segment. Despite the more 7 general approaches, the experiment still showed a significant crime control benefit. While the study did not include a systematic examination of officer activities in the hot spots, subsequent analyses by Koper (1995) do provide some insight into how much time officers should be spending in hot spots to maximize residual deterrence. Using survival analysis techniques, he found that each additional minute of time officers spent in a hot spot increased survival time by 23 percent. Survival time here refers to the amount of time after officers departed a hot spot before disorderly activity occurred. Ten minutes was a critical threshold; at that point the residual deterrence benefits were greater than an officer simply driving through the hot spot. The ideal deal time spent in the hot spot was 14 to 15 minutes; after about 15 minutes, there were diminishing returns and increased time did not lead to greater improvements in residual deterrence. This phenomenon is often referred to as the “Koper curve” as graphing the duration response curve shows the benefits of increased officer time spent in the hot spot until a plateau point is reached at around 15 minutes. As Koper notes
The Initial Hot spots Study
The initial hot spots study in Minneapolis suggested that increased police presence alone leads to some crime and disorder reduction (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). Officers in Minneapolis were not given specific instructions on what activities to engage in while present in hot spots. They simply were told to increase patrol time in the treatment hot spots, and the activities they engaged in ranged a good deal from more proactive problem solving efforts to simply sitting in the car parked in the center of a hot spot street segment. Despite the more 7 general approaches, the experiment still showed a significant crime control benefit. While the study did not include a systematic examination of officer activities in the hot spots, subsequent analyses by Koper (1995) do provide some insight into how much time officers should be spending in hot spots to maximize residual deterrence. Using survival analysis techniques, he found that each additional minute of time officers spent in a hot spot increased survival time by 23 percent. Survival time here refers to the amount of time after officers departed a hot spot before disorderly activity occurred. Ten minutes was a critical threshold; at that point the residual deterrence benefits were greater than an officer simply driving through the hot spot. The ideal deal time spent in the hot spot was 14 to 15 minutes; after about 15 minutes, there were diminishing returns and increased time did not lead to greater improvements in residual deterrence. This phenomenon is often referred to as the “Koper curve” as graphing the duration response curve shows the benefits of increased officer time spent in the hot spot until a plateau point is reached at around 15 minutes. As Koper notes