Hot-spot-based policing programs aim to deter crime through increased proactive patrols at high-crime locations. While most hot spot programs target easily identified chronic hot spots, we introduce models for predicting temporary hot spots to address effectiveness and equity objectives for crime prevention, and present findings from a crossover experiment evaluating application of hot spot predictions to prevent serious violent crime in Pittsburgh, PA. Over a 12-month experimental period, the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police assigned uniformed patrol officers to weekly predicted chronic and temporary hot spots of serious violent crimes comprising 0.5 percent of the city's area. We find statistically and practically significant reductions in serious violent crime counts within treatment hot spots as compared to control hot spots, with an overall reduction of 25.3 percent in the FBI-classified Part 1 Violent (P1V) crimes of homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and a 39.7 percent reduction of African-American and other non-white victims of P1V crimes. We find that temporary hot spots increase spatial dispersion of patrols and have a greater percentage reduction in P1V crimes than chronic hot spots but fewer total number of crimes prevented. Only foot patrols, not car patrols, had statistically significant crime reductions in hot spots. We find no evidence of crime displacement; instead, we find weakly statistically significant spillover of crime prevention benefits to adjacent areas. In addition, we find no evidence that the community-oriented hot spot patrols produced over-policing arrests of minority or other populations.