Program Profile: Effect of Hot Spots Policing Strategies on Citizen-Officer Interactions (St. Louis, Missouri)

This intervention used two hot spots policing strategies (problem solving and directed patrol) to improve citizens’ perceptions of police in St. Louis, Mo. The program is rated Ineffective. Although residents in both treatment groups reported a statistically significant increase in cooperation with the police, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the intervention had no significant impact on citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice, police legitimacy, or police abuse.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Sites

The goal of the hot spots intervention, named the St. Louis County Hot Spots in Residential Areas (SCHIRA), was to improve citizen-officer interactions, specifically by improving citizen cooperation with police, police legitimacy, and procedural justice, and decreasing excessive use of force by officers. This intervention was implemented to examine and address some common criticisms of hot spots policing. Such policing practices have been criticized as having a negative impact on community outcomes such as citizen perceptions of police legitimacy and procedural justice. Because police resources are concentrated on a small geographic area rather than evenly distributed across a jurisdiction, the practice may be viewed as inequitable by community members (Kochel and Weisburd 2017). Thus, to help address such criticism, this program used two different hot spot policing strategies in targeted residential areas in St. Louis County, Missouri, that suffered from high levels of crime incidents: a problem-solving approach and a directed patrol.

Program Components

The two strategies applied in this intervention, though notably different in their components, are both comprised under the larger strategy of hot spots policing.

Problem Solving (PS): Officers engaging in PS used the problem-oriented policing SARA model, which includes the following four stages: Scanning, identifying and selecting a problem; Analysis, analyzing the problem; Response, responding to the problem; and Assessment, assessing the impact on the problem (Schmerler et al. 2006). Officers received three days of training in the PS strategy and the SARA model and were offered on-call consultation and a crime analyst. The analyst provided analyses of incidents and calls for service types and counts in each hot spot to the assigned officers and worked with officers on identifying and selecting a problem. Some examples included property crime, violent crime, and drug and gang problems. Officers were required to partner with at least one stakeholder and to link response strategies with what they learned about the conditions contributing to the problem. Some activities that the officers used to do this included door-to-door resident surveys, in- person and video observations of problem areas at different times of the day, and interviews with property managers and landlords. Officers then developed a response strategy, including educating residents about the problems and applying target-hardening strategies; securing vacant residences; removing abandoned vehicles, trash, and overgrowth; conducting intensive follow up with troubled juveniles; and increasing communication with a variety of agencies.

Directed Patrol (DP): Officers engaging in DP aimed to double the usual amount of time spent at their respective hot spots. Automated vehicle location (AVL) data was used to record time spent at each hot spot. Efforts were made to target “hot times” (i.e., times of increased criminal activity) by conducting 11- to 15-minute patrols each targeted hour. Officers were asked to make themselves visible in the hotspots and to record time spent and activities conducted, which they were free to determine. Some activities that officers conducted included roving or stationary patrols, completing reports, vehicle enforcement, foot patrols, pedestrian stops, conversing with residents, and sitting car to car.

Program Theory

The problem-solving approach is based on the routine activities theory, which requires that three elements be present at the same time and space for a crime to occur: 1) a motivated individual with criminal intentions and the ability to act, 2) a suitable victim, and 3) the absence of a capable person to stop the offense (Schmerler et al. 2006). Assigning officers to specific hot spots, as the PS approach did, limits opportunities for crimes to occur.

Directed patrol used a general deterrence theory by assigning more officers on the streets. Deterrence theory assumes that individuals consider the consequences of their actions and are also affected by consequences. Additionally, rational individuals weigh the cost and benefit of committing a crime (Paternoster 2010). Thus, individuals, in the face of increased police presence, would perceive an increased cost of offending (i.e., increased risk of being apprehended) and be deterred.

Study

Kochel and Weisburd (2017) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of hot spots policing strategies on police-citizen interaction, specifically residents’ opinions of police. A total of 71 hot spots in St. Louis County, Missouri, were randomly assigned to receive one of three conditions: 1) problem solving (PS), 2) directed patrol (DP), or 3) standard policing practices. The PS treatment group included 20 hotspots where officers enacted the problem-oriented policing SARA model, the directed patrol treatment group included 20 hotspots, and the control group included 31 hotspots where officers were to continue policing activities as usual, which typically consisted of response calls and preventative patrols. A random sampling of St. Louis County hot spot residents were selected to participate in a panel survey before the intervention (Wave 1), immediately after the intervention (Wave 2), and 6 to 9 months after the intervention (Wave 3). The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the surveys that took place during Wave 3 (6 to 9 months following the intervention). Survey participants included those who answered the door at the residence.

The surveyed residents in the PS treatment group were mostly female (59 percent) and Black (84 percent), followed by 12 percent white, and 4 percent mixed race or other. The surveyed residents in the control group were mostly female (59 percent) and Black (72 percent), followed by 23 percent white, and 5 percent mixed race, other, or Hispanic. Statistically significant differences in demographic baseline characteristics (specifically home ownership, average time living at the address, and race) were controlled for in the model.

Surveyed residents in the DP treatment group were mostly female (57 percent) and Black (74 percent), followed by 21 percent white, and 5 percent mixed race, other, or Hispanic. The same control group described above was used. Surveyed residents in the control group were mostly female (59 percent) and Black (72 percent), followed by 23 percent white, and 5 percent mixed race, other, or Hispanic. Statistically significant differences in demographic baseline characteristics were controlled for in the model. The same statistical analysis techniques and outcome measures were also employed.

A multilevel mixed regression model measured the impact of each treatment condition on measures of resident satisfaction with police, including measures of procedural justice, police abuse, legitimacy, and cooperation. Specifically, the procedural justice outcome measured whether, according to resident surveys, police acted fairly, impartially, and respectfully. The police abuse outcome measured the perceived frequency of police abuse such as stopping people without reason, using excessive force, and insulting people. The legitimacy outcome measured whether police authority was considered valid and should be respected and adhered to. And the cooperation outcome measured whether residents were willing to cooperate with police by providing information and reporting crime and suspicious behavior. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Paternoster, Raymond. 2010. “How Much Do We Really Know About Criminal Deterrence.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 100(3): 765–824.

Schmerler, Karin, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart, and Meg Townsend. 2006. A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.