This paper examines evidence-based strategies for reducing crime through hotspot policing and residual deterrence. Drawing on Koper's (1995) Minneapolis data, it analyzes how patrol duration — particularly 11 to 15 minutes — maximizes deterrence effects lasting up to 30 minutes after an officer leaves. The paper applies these findings to a fictional case study involving stalking complaints and luxury vehicle thefts in Heron City, recommending CompStat-driven hotspot targeting. A second section summarizes Stephens' (2010) framework for improving police-researcher collaboration, addressing communication, funding, risk management, operational constraints, community resistance, and research agenda development. Together, the two sections argue for proactive, place-based, data-driven policing supported by sustained academic partnerships.
The paper models applied synthesis: rather than simply reporting what studies found, it evaluates those findings against a practical scenario. The author explicitly tests whether the conditions of Koper's (1995) hotspot research — focused, proactive, and place-based — are met by the Heron City case, then extends that logic to CompStat recommendations. This technique shows readers how to use research literature as a decision-support framework rather than a passive reference.
The paper is organized into two linked modules. The first (approximately 600 words) reviews hotspot deterrence research and applies it to a case study involving stalking complaints and car thefts. The second (approximately 400 words) summarizes Stephens' (2010) six-point collaboration framework and briefly discusses its implications. Each module follows an introduction → evidence → application/discussion pattern, with a separate reference list concluding each section.
Reducing crime is a constant concern of law enforcement and community leaders. Police strategies for reducing crime rely heavily on deterrence, in the form of police patrols (Koper, 1995, p. 649–650). Research has shown that a police presence reminds offenders and potential offenders of the certainty of punishment, which is a more effective deterrent than the promised severity of a punishment. The findings from early studies on the effectiveness of police patrols as a crime deterrent were mixed, but with the publication of a well-controlled Kansas City study in 1986, the debate moved on to what factors influence the deterrence effect.
Of the variables found to influence criminal activity, geographic location stands out (Koper, 1995, p. 652). A study conducted in Minneapolis revealed that just 3.3% of the city's addresses and intersections accounted for over 50% of requests for police assistance. These "hotspots" for criminal activity included locations where serious crimes occurred, such as robbery, criminal sexual assault, and auto theft. By focusing preventive policing efforts on hotspots, deterrence would be predicted to have the greatest impact.
Another variable suspected of influencing the deterrence effect is disorder, in the form of behavior and the physical appearance of a location (Koper, 1995, p. 651). For example, broken windows, boarded-up buildings, and graffiti have been suggested to foster the perception of a lack of safety and high crime. Such locations are believed to encourage certain behaviors associated with disordered environments, such as vagrancy, panhandling, vandalism, drunkenness, drug use, and prostitution. When researchers examined robbery data for several neighborhoods, they found that disorder provided an indirect link between crime prevalence and economic and social decay.
The effectiveness of a police presence in reducing crime has been well established, but the variables that influence the magnitude of the effect are still being refined. Of primary concern is how long the effect lasts after police have left an area (Koper, 1995, p. 658). This "residual" deterrence effect is defined as criminal activity remaining below normal levels after police have departed. An initial analysis of the Minneapolis data revealed that disorder and criminal behavior decreased by 25% and 65%, respectively, immediately after police had left the area.
To further define the parameters of residual deterrence, Koper (1995) analyzed the Minneapolis data to determine what length of time a police presence had to persist in order to produce the maximum deterrence effect. Instances in which a disturbance elicited a police response were excluded from the data (Koper, 1995, p. 661). The average length of time that a police presence had to persist to produce the maximum residual deterrence effect was 14 to 15 minutes (Koper, 1995, p. 664). The effectiveness is quite substantial, reducing the probability of a disorder occurring to approximately 4% within 30 minutes of police departing the area.
When patrol time was grouped into intervals of 1 to 5 minutes, 6 to 10 minutes, 11 to 15 minutes, or 16 to 20 minutes, only a stay of 11 to 15 minutes produced a statistically significant (p < 0.01) residual deterrence effect (Koper, 1995, p. 663). The magnitude of the effect represented a 388% increase over the residual deterrence effect of a police drive-by (zero minutes). However, a 1 to 5-minute police presence produced a worse outcome compared to drive-bys, and the other time groups were not significantly different.
An interesting result from this study is that drive-bys alone are very effective in producing a residual deterrence effect. For example, 10 minutes after a drive-by, the probability that a disorder would occur is just 6.5%; at 30 minutes, that probability rises to 16%. Drive-bys are more effective than a police presence lasting 1 to 5 minutes and similarly effective to presences lasting 6 to 10 or 16 to 20 minutes.
Koper's (1995) research reveals how residual deterrence, caused by a police presence unrelated to a disturbance, can reduce the prevalence of disorder in crime hotspots. Disorder is used as an outcome measure in part because the number of crimes in the dataset was too few to provide sufficient statistical power, and because research findings have suggested that disorder provides a link between social and economic decay and criminal activity. Despite this limitation, the findings reveal that drive-bys and a police presence lasting between 11 and 15 minutes produce a significant residual deterrence effect lasting at least 30 minutes. Whether crime was displaced to another location could not be determined from this analysis.
Based on the conclusions drawn from a study examining the rigor and predictive potential of policing research, the focusing of police patrols on hotspots is one of the best-validated, evidence-based policing strategies in existence (Lunn, Koper, & Telep, 2011, p. 6–7). This conclusion is consistent with findings suggesting that policing strategies are most effective when they are focused, proactive, and place-based. The hotspot research was proactive because it relied on historical crime and disorder data to assess strategies designed to prevent future crime, and it was place-based because it focused on intersections or addresses as disorder and crime hotspots.
Taylor, B., Koper, C. S., & Woods, D. (2012). Combating vehicle theft in Arizona: A randomized experiment with license plate recognition technology. Criminal Justice Review, 37, 24–50.
Darrel Stephens (2010) offers what may be an uncommon but well-informed perspective on how police practitioners and researchers can come together to improve policing methods. In referencing MacDonald's "A Dialogue of the Deaf," Stephens emphasizes how far apart practitioners and researchers are in their respective perspectives on policing strategies. Much of the lack of understanding between these two groups, according to Stephens, is not due to disagreements about whether policing methods need improvement, but rather about what needs to be improved or changed. In other words, police culture and organizational inertia tend to resist changes to the basic assumptions underlying policing strategies, while researchers feel that there should be no sacred cows.
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.