Clarke–Eck Lens on Lowell Hot Spots Policing Outcome Studies

The answers to the weekly discussion questions must be substantial, meaning fully answering the question(s) with examples (qualitative) and writing at least 300 words (quantitative). Students are to respond substantively to at least two (2) other students using at least 200 words (excluding references, figures, illustrations, or other extraneous elements outside the main body of the discussion). All answers to the discussion questions and responses to other students are to be supported with at least one scholarly source, in addition to the assigned weekly readings. Each week, the professor may post a follow-up question on your discussion post. If so, you must reply to the professor’s question as one of your two reply posts. Lastly, a question must be posed to the course professor and peer(s) in your initial discussion board post. These responses are due by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of each week. APA 7th Edition guidelines are to be followed.
Question:
Go to the Office of Justice Programs (CrimeSolutions.gov) website and read the evaluation summary of 
Hot Spot Policing in Lowell, MA
. Apply relevant elements of Clarke and Eck’s framework (Tables 9.1 and 9.2) to this example. What are your conclusions?
Use assigned readings if needed 
Practical Program Evaluation for Criminal Justice.
Vito & Higgins (2014). Chapter 9

Piza, E. L., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Thomas, A. L. (2019). CCTV surveillance for crime prevention: A 40‐year systematic review with meta‐analysis. 
Criminology & Public Policy, 18(
1), 135-159.

Cooke, B. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2016). The effectiveness of dog-training programs in prison: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. 
The Prison Journal, 96
(6), 854-876.

Owens, E., Weisburd, D., Amendola, K. L., & Alpert, G. P. (2018). Can you build a better cop? Experimental evidence on supervision, training, and policing in the community. 
Criminology & Public Policy, 17
(1), 41-87.

Paper For Above Instructions

Clarke–Eck Lens on Lowell Hot Spots Policing Outcome Studies

The CrimeSolutions.gov evaluation of Hot Spots Policing in Lowell, Massachusetts offers a rich case study for applying Clarke and Eck’s crime analysis framework. At its core, the Lowell strategy was a disorder-focused, place-based intervention designed to improve physical and social order in high-crime micro-locations and thereby reduce crime. CrimeSolutions rates the program “Effective”, noting significant reductions in calls for service and both social and physical disorder compared with matched control areas.CrimeSolutions

Overview of the Lowell Hot Spots Program

In 2005, the Lowell Police Department identified 34 high-crime “hot spots,” matched them into 17 pairs, and randomly assigned one of each pair to treatment and the other to a control condition.CrimeSolutions+1 The intervention combined three main components:

• Increased misdemeanor enforcement (e.g., arrests for public drinking, drug dealing, and aggressive order maintenance).

• Situational crime prevention strategies (improved lighting, CCTV, cleaning vacant lots, razing abandoned buildings, code inspections, evictions of problem tenants).

• Social service actions (connecting people to housing, youth programs, and mental health services).CrimeSolutions+1

Braga and Bond’s randomized controlled trial found a roughly 20% reduction in total calls for service across the 17 treatment areas relative to controls, with particularly strong reductions in robbery, assault, burglary, and disorder calls, and no evidence of spatial displacement.CrimeSolutions+1 CrimeSolutions therefore classifies the program as an Effective crime-reduction strategy.CrimeSolutions

Clarke & Eck’s Framework: SARA and Situational Prevention

Clarke and Eck’s widely used framework blends problem-oriented policing (POP) with situational crime prevention (SCP). Two key elements are especially relevant:

1. SARA problem-solving process – Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment.Squarespace+1

2. Opportunity-reducing situational techniques – strategies to increase the effort and risks of offending, reduce rewards, reduce provocations, and remove excuses.Centurion University Courseware+1

SARA in Lowell

• Scanning: Crime analysts and officers identified micro-places with high levels of crime and disorder by combining GIS-based mapping with frontline perceptions.CrimeSolutions+1 This is classic Clarke–Eck scanning: defining a specific place-based problem, not a broad crime category.

• Analysis: Lowell’s team examined patterns of nuisance calls, environmental conditions (abandoned buildings, vacant lots), and social disorder (loitering, public drinking, open-air drug activity).CrimeSolutions+1 This aligns with the framework’s emphasis on opportunity structures (how place, targets, and offenders converge).

• Response: The three-pronged response (enforcement, situational changes, social services) matches Clarke and Eck’s recommendation to design tailored, multi-modal interventions rather than one-size-fits-all patrol increases.Squarespace+1

• Assessment: Lowell used pre–post comparisons of calls for service and systematic social observations, plus CompStat-style accountability meetings, to monitor and adjust strategy—exactly the kind of rigorous assessment Clarke and Eck call for.CrimeSolutions+1

Situational Techniques in Action

Clarke’s situational crime prevention framework stresses altering environments to reduce opportunities.Centurion University Courseware+1 The Lowell project illustrates several of these techniques:

• Increase the effort & risks of offending:

  • Better street lighting, CCTV cameras, and more foot patrols increase the perceived risk of detection.CrimeSolutions+1

  • Aggressive enforcement of public-order offenses and “stop and frisk” of suspicious persons raise the immediate risk for offenders.CrimeSolutions+1

• Reduce rewards:

  • Cleaning up lots, securing buildings, and razing abandoned structures remove “safe” places to offend and stash contraband.CrimeSolutions+1

• Reduce provocations & remove excuses:

  • Social service referrals (housing, mental health, youth recreation) help defuse the social conditions that provoke disorder and give residents and officers a non-enforcement script (“we can connect you to services”) rather than only “move along or be arrested.”CrimeSolutions+1

In mediation analyses, situational strategies in Lowell generated the largest crime-prevention gains, with misdemeanor enforcement providing additional—though smaller—benefits, and social services having weaker direct effects on crime but important legitimacy and welfare implications.cebcp.org+1

Linking Lowell to the Broader Evidence Base

Clarke and Eck argue that good crime analysis plus tailored situational responses should outperform generic patrol or reactive enforcement.Squarespace+1 The Lowell findings echo a wider body of research:

• A systematic review of hot spots policing shows that concentrating police at small high-crime places tends to reduce crime without consistent displacement.PMC

• The Lowell strategy is embedded in this evidence: CrimeSolutions rates both “Hot Spots Policing (Lowell, Mass.)” and hot-spots policing more generally as Effective for reducing multiple crime types.CrimeSolutions+1

• Piza and colleagues’ 40-year meta-analysis of CCTV surveillance finds modest but significant reductions in crime, especially in car parks, reinforcing the value of targeted situational technologies like those used in Lowell.Office of Justice Programs+1

Clarke & Eck’s framework also stresses careful evaluation and theory-driven planning, themes central to Vito and Higgins’s text on practical program evaluation. They argue that high-quality outcome and process evaluations are essential for judging whether a criminal justice program is worth the investment.ScienceDirect+1 The Lowell experiment, with random assignment, clearly specified outcomes, and analysis of displacement, is a textbook example of the model they advocate.

Even studies outside traditional police work support the value of structured, evidence-based interventions. For example:

• Prison dog-training programs show positive effects on behavior and recidivism when rigorously evaluated.SAGE Journals+1

• Procedural justice training for officers—“Can You Build a Better Cop?”—demonstrates that targeted supervision and training can reduce arrests and use of force while maintaining engagement.Wiley Online Library+1

Together with Lowell, these studies suggest that clear program theory + focused intervention + robust evaluation is a transferable recipe across very different criminal justice settings.

Conclusions Applying Clarke & Eck to Lowell

Using Clarke and Eck’s framework, several conclusions emerge about the Lowell hot spots policing program:

1. Strong fit with problem-oriented policing (POP):
   Lowell followed SARA closely—scanning for micro-places, analyzing local opportunity structures, crafting situational and enforcement responses, and rigorously assessing outcomes.

2. High alignment with situational crime prevention:
   The intervention systematically altered the physical and social environment—lighting, surveillance, code enforcement, and social services—to increase perceived risks and effort while reducing rewards for offending.

3. Evidence of effectiveness and limited unintended harm:
   Significant reductions in calls for service and disorder, coupled with no detected displacement, match Clarke and Eck’s expectation of diffusion of benefits when hot spots are treated smartly rather than simply flooded with random patrol.Squarespace+1

4. Need for balance and legitimacy:
   Clarke and Eck warn against over-reliance on punitive measures. The broader literature on disorder policing and officer training shows that legitimacy, procedural justice, and community collaboration are crucial for sustainable impacts and trust.Crime and Justice Policy Lab+1 Lowell’s inclusion of social services and environmental fixes helps mitigate concerns that disorder policing can drift into over-policing.

Overall, applying Clarke and Eck’s framework suggests that Lowell’s hot spots program is a model of analytically driven, situationally focused policing that delivers measurable crime reductions while providing important lessons about implementation, evaluation, and the need for balanced strategies.

---

Question for peers and professor:
Given the evidence from Lowell and other hot-spots studies, how should agencies decide the right balance between situational/environmental changes, enforcement, and community-oriented or social-service components when designing their own hot-spots interventions?

---

References (APA 7th ed.)

Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46(3), 577–607.Wiley Online Library+1

Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2019). Hot spots policing of small geographic areas: Effects on crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 293–315.PMC

Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C., & Schnell, C. (2024). Disorder policing to reduce crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 23(2), 1–32.Crime and Justice Policy Lab

Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Criminal Justice Press.Centurion University Courseware+1

Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.COPS Portal+1

Cooke, B. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2016). The effectiveness of dog-training programs in prison: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. The Prison Journal, 96(6), 854–876.SAGE Journals+1

Office of Justice Programs. (2011). Program profile: Hot Spots Policing (Lowell, Mass.). CrimeSolutions.gov.CrimeSolutions+1

Owens, E., Weisburd, D., Amendola, K. L., & Alpert, G. P. (2018). Can you build a better cop? Experimental evidence on supervision, training, and policing in the community. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 41–87.Wiley Online Library+1

Piza, E. L., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Thomas, A. L. (2019). CCTV surveillance for crime prevention: A 40-year systematic review with meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 135–159.Office of Justice Programs+1

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Routledge.