 Combining multiple spatial analysis methods offers more powerful intelligence for both immediate interventions and long-term strategy. Research from the Rutgers Center on Public Security finds that combining multiple spatial analysis methods offers more powerful intelligence for both immediate interventions and long-term strategy. Hotspot mapping, near repeat analysis, and environmental risk modeling each provide distinct insights:
There's three key findings from the research. First, crime clusters are not just functions of past incidents; they are deeply tied to environmental features like bus stops, schools, and nightlife venues. Second, near repeat events — where new crimes occur close in space and time to prior incidents — are influenced by both past crime and place-based risks. And finally, integrating analytic methods provides a composite risk picture that is more actionable (and predictive) than any single technique. Therefore, a 3-stage, integrated process for analyzing crime incident location data can produce layered insights for tactical response (prioritize deployments to emergent hot spots), temporal strategy (anticipate windows of elevated risk for repeat incidents), and strategic prevention (focus interventions on high-risk environments before crimes concentrate). Clear Takeaways
Repeating analytic processes that bring together diverse tools and techniques — from hotspot and near repeat analysis to risk terrain modeling — is the best approach to informing operations and driving meaningful action in public safety. Technology platforms like ActionHub by Simsi further support this by enabling analysts and practitioners to operationalize complex spatial insights into clear, actionable strategies that involve multiple agencies and partners who can focus their resources and expertise at key settings. Hot spots are one of the most influential and productive ideas in 21st century crime analysis. For police leaders, analysts, and public safety professionals, hot spot maps offer an immediate and compelling picture of where crime concentrates. They are practical, intuitive, and operationally useful. More importantly, hot spot analysis reflects one of the most consistently validated findings in criminology: crime is not randomly distributed across geography—it clusters in places. The value of hot spot mapping is not just that it helps agencies visualize crime. It helps people think spatially. It forces decision-makers to recognize that crime prevention is not only about offenders or victims—it is also about places, and the unique features of places that produce recurring crime patterns. In that sense, hot spot mapping has done more than improve crime analysis. It has elevated spatial awareness in policing. It has helped agencies shift away from generalized assumptions and toward focused place-based strategies. Hot spot policing has become a foundation for evidence-based practice precisely because it takes a complex problem and makes it immediately actionable. Crime hot spots are the "squeaky wheel" of crime problems. That is, they get the attention of local resources because it's an easy signal to tune-in to. But hot spots also invite an important follow-up question—one that many analysts and commanders ask instinctively as soon as they see the map: Why is this hot spot a hot spot? This is where the idea of spatial intelligence becomes essential, and where Risk Terrain Modeling (RTM) adds a powerful, complementary layer to hot spot analysis. Hot Spots Are More Than Clusters—They Are Spatial Signals Hot spots are often treated as the end product of crime analysis: the map shows the cluster, the cluster becomes the deployment target, and resources flow accordingly. But in practice, hot spots should be understood as spatial signals—visible indicators of deeper conditions shaping crime patterns. In other words, hot spots are not just places where crime is occurring. They are places where the environment is likely producing opportunities for crime. Hot spots persist not because offenders randomly return there, but because certain locations contain features, or elements, that make crime easier to commit, harder to detect, or more rewarding to repeat. These elements can include routine activity patterns, physical design characteristics, business activity, transportation access, guardianship levels, and other situational factors. When viewed through this lens, hot spot maps become more than tactical tools—they become starting points for deeper inquiry. Spatial Intelligence and the “Risky” Nature of Places Crime analysts have long recognized that the same types of locations appear again and again in hot spot maps. Certain environments—certain facilities, certain land uses, certain structural conditions—show up repeatedly in places where violence, property crime, or disorder concentrates. These are not random coincidences. They reflect a basic reality: some places are inherently riskier than others, not because they are “bad neighborhoods,” but because the environment creates situational opportunities for crime. This is where the logic of hot spot mapping naturally extends into the logic of Risk Terrain Modeling.
RTM treats geographic space as an intelligence system. It does not diminish the value of hot spot mapping; instead, it embraces it as a sign or symptom of the settings in need of attention and a spatial diagnosis. RTM is merely another tool in the toolkit to strengthen an analyst’s ability to interpret hot spots by identifying the environmental features that help generate them. (Below) Video shows FREE mapping tools in the ActionHub software From Hot Spot Mapping to Risk Terrain Modeling
Hot spot analysis is rooted in the distribution of crime incidents. RTM harnesses that foundation and shifts the analytic focus toward the environmental features that influence why crime is most likely to occur. RTM identifies and tests risk factors such as: liquor stores, bars and nightlife locations, abandoned or vacant properties, bus stops and transit hubsconvenience stores, motels, poorly maintained lots or alleys. These risk factors are mapped and analyzed in combination. RTM does not assume that a single feature explains crime patterns. Instead, it evaluates how multiple factors overlap and interact across geography to produce elevated risk. The result is a risk terrain map that highlights places where the environment is most conducive to crime—places that may align with existing hot spots, and sometimes places that have not yet become hot spots but may soon. This is a crucial point for practitioners: RTM can help identify emerging hot spots by identifying the risk context before crime patterns fully materialize. Hot Spots and Risk Terrains Work Best Together Hot spot mapping plus RTM equals strategic analysis. Hot spot mapping is excellent for:
RTM is excellent for:
In practice, these approaches strengthen one another. Hot spot maps show where crime is concentrated. Risk terrain maps explain the environmental backstory behind that concentration. Together, they transform “hot spot policing” into something more sustainable: hot spot prevention. Crime prevention is rarely achieved through enforcement alone. Many of the strongest interventions are rooted in place management: improving lighting, remediating abandoned properties, strengthening guardianship, regulating problematic facilities, and coordinating services. Hot spot mapping identifies where the problem is happening. RTM helps clarify what needs to change in the environment for the problem to stop happening. Turning Hot Spot Awareness into Spatial Intelligence Hot spot mapping has given policing and crime analysis a practical way to see that crime is concentrated and that place matters. Risk terrain modeling builds on that by diagnosing where else crime is most likely to happen and why. This is not a theoretical distinction. It is the difference between responding to crime concentrations and strategically reducing the environmental conditions that sustain them. In that way, RTM is best understood as deep dive into the hot spot philosophy—one that reveals crime patterns and the spatial intelligence behind the patterns. And when hot spot mapping and RTM are used together, cities are better equipped not only to respond to crime—but to prevent it. Modern policing is expected to be proactive rather than reactive. But being proactive requires more than good instincts or experience—it requires a structured way of identifying risk, interpreting intelligence, and coordinating effective responses.
That is why intelligence-led policing must be paired with a clear framework for decision-making. That is, a practical method for translating uncertainty, threat information, and analytical findings into operational strategies that can be implemented, evaluated, and improved over time. To address this need, Kennedy and Van Brunschot (2009) proposed a structured framework for incorporating risk into police decision-making in their book The Risk in Crime. It's the ACTION Risk Analysis Model. The name is intentional. Unlike acronyms that feel forced or detached from their purpose, ACTION reinforces what modern policing demands--a mindset of initiative, prevention, and measurable results. Why Risk Frameworks Matter in Modern Policing Police agencies face complex and evolving crime problems, often involving:
Risk-based decision-making helps agencies prioritize where attention is needed most. It strengthens accountability by clarifying why certain decisions are made, and it improves governance by ensuring that intelligence-led strategies are supported by consistent processes rather than informal judgment. The ACTION model provides a way to do this systematically. The Six Elements of the ACTION Risk Analysis Model The ACTION model is built around six core steps. Together, they guide agencies from assessment to analysis, from planning to organizational improvement, and from internal awareness to broader communication. A — Assess Vulnerabilities, Exposure, and Threats Effective policing begins with assessment. Before strategies are developed or resources are deployed, agencies must understand the nature of the risk environment. This stage focuses on four related components: 1. Uncertainty Uncertainty refers to what is not yet known—but must be clarified. Key questions include:
Outcome: A narrative that identifies what is known, what is unknown, and what can reasonably be predicted based on intelligence and past findings. 2. Exposure Exposure describes how crime affects communities and police resources. Key questions include:
Outcome: An analysis of active groups, past events, and an inventory of existing policies or interventions aimed at reducing exposure. 3. Vulnerability Vulnerability refers to weak points—targets, locations, systems, or behaviors—that increase the likelihood of harm. Key questions include:
Outcome: A tactical assessment of protective strategies and the resources needed to mitigate harm. 4. Threat Threat assessment focuses on identifying specific actors or behaviors that represent immediate or emerging danger. Key questions include:
Outcome: Threat bulletins and recommendations for resource deployment and tactical decisions. C — Create Connections Through Analysis Assessment is not enough. Intelligence-led policing requires agencies to interpret information and make connections between patterns, causes, and consequences. This step involves:
Outcome: Actionable intelligence products such as:
This step is often where agencies begin shifting from “what happened” to “why it happened”—a critical move for long-term prevention. Understanding "why there?" is core to Risk Terrain Modeling (RTM) analysis. T — Task Strategies to Respond and Prevent Once risks are assessed and analyzed, agencies must define practical tasks that reduce harm. This stage focuses on three major categories:
This is where intelligence becomes operational. ActionHub is a primary software tool this type of strategic, coordinated response. Outcome: Programs and strategies that directly address identified vulnerabilities and threats, including:
I — Integrate Intelligence and Information Risk analysis is only as strong as the quality of information supporting it. Agencies must define what “intelligence” means operationally and ensure it is usable. Key questions include:
Outcome: Improved feedback loops, including:
This ensures intelligence is not simply collected—but actually used. O — Optimize and Refine the Organization Intelligence-led policing requires organizational structure that supports it. Agencies must ensure that reporting relationships, accountability mechanisms, and monitoring capacity align with risk-based decision-making. This includes:
Outcome: Organizational improvements such as:
N — Notify Others and Build Risk Awareness Risk reduction is not achieved in isolation. Communication—internally and externally—is a critical part of effective intelligence-led policing. This step includes:
Outcome: Tools and initiatives such as:
The open Learning Management System (LMS) built directly into ActionHub makes structured communication a form of professional development or continuing education training that can be asynchronous and managed across the agency for compliance. A Framework Designed for Real-World Policing The ACTION model is more than a conceptual tool. It is designed to support:
Most importantly, it helps agencies translate complex crime problems into structured responses. It provides a consistent process for asking the right questions, producing the right intelligence products, and implementing strategies that are measurable and defensible. Final Takeaway: Intelligence Becomes Useful When It Leads to ACTION Intelligence-led policing is not simply about collecting information. It is about using information to understand risk, reduce vulnerability, prevent harm, and coordinate meaningful intervention. The ACTION Risk Analysis Model offers a practical organizing device to guide police agencies through that process—from uncertainty and threat assessment to prevention, planning, and communication. In today’s policing environment, agencies need more than intelligence. They need a framework that turns intelligence into outcomes. They need ACTION. A recent study in the American Journal of Criminal Justice (open access) provides new evidence on how the public perceives “hot spots” policing — a highly used crime reduction strategy that focuses law enforcement resources on small geographic areas with persistent crime problems.
Although decades of research show that hot spots policing can reduce crime, public attitudes toward these strategies have been less well understood — especially how different types of information influence those attitudes. This study used a large preregistered survey experiment (N = 2,412) whereby respondents were randomly assigned to receive:
Findings suggest that public support for hot spots policing improves when crime reductions are clearly communicated alongside acknowledgement of community concerns. Why These Findings Matter for Policy and Practice: Hot spots policing is widespread — with estimates suggesting many departments now rely on this approach for resource allocation and public safety outcomes. This study highlights three practical insights that could help modify existing practices to better align them with operational needs and community expectations:
How It Connects to Broader Crime Prevention Strategy: A plethora of evidence makes it increasingly clear that hot spots policing is most effective when paired with community engagement and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Traditional enforcement-centric approaches can miss the nuanced ways communities interpret police activity; supplementing them with community-focused programming and broader place-based crime prevention resources helps:
To replicate and sustain evidence-based public safety strategies — where policing effectiveness and meaningful positive community engagement reinforce each other — policymakers and practitioners need supportive infrastructure. ActionHub, for example, is a powerful platform built by Simsi in partnership with Rutgers University and designed to:
Technology-enhanced practice makes community-focused and multi-stakeholder public safety not only more accessible, but more sustainable. Let’s invest in approaches that work — and in the tools that make them easier and more collaborative for everyone. |
|
RSS Feed
|
|
The official website of Risk Terrain Modeling (RTM) based out of Rutgers University and in partnership with Simsi
|