DOJ Seal
COPS Logo

Assaults in and Around Bars 2nd Edition


www.PopCenter.org 
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 
Got a Problem? Weve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site 
at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 
you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 
community, including: 

 Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 
 Interactive training exercises 
 Online access to research and police practices 
 Online problem analysis module. 

Designed for police and those who work with them to 
address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 
resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 


Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 
Problem-Specific Guides Series 
Guide No. 1 

Assaults in and 
Around Bars 

2nd Edition 

Michael S. Scott 
Kelly Dedel 

This project was supported by cooperative agreements 
#1999CKWXK004 and #2005CKWXK001 by the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 
The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 
necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department 
of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services 
should not be considered an endorsement thereof by the author(s) 
or the Justice Department. Rather, the references are illustrations to 
supplement discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 

August 2006 


About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 
how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 
and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 
and to improving the overall response to incidents, not 
to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 
Neither do they cover all of the technical details about 
how to implement specific responses. The guides are 
written for policeof whatever rank or assignmentwho 
must address the specific problem the guides cover. The 
guides will be most useful to officers who: 

 Understand basic problem-oriented policing 
principles and methods. The guides are not primers in 
problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the 
initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods 
to analyze the problem, and means to assess the results 
of a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 
to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 
problem they have already identified. (A companion series 
of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid in 
various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.) 
 Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 
complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to 
spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 
responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before 
responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is 
most likely to work in your community. You should not 
blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must 
decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation. 
What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what 
works in one place may not work everywhere. 


 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 
business. The guides describe responses that other police 
departments have used or that researchers have tested. 
While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 
your particular problem, they should help give a broader 
view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 
you cannot implement some of these responses in your 
jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when 
police have discovered a more effective response, they have 
succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving 
the response to the problem. (A companion series of 
Response Guides has been produced to help you understand 
how commonly-used police responses work on a variety of 
problems.) 
 Understand the value and the limits of research 
knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 
research is available to the police; for other problems, 
little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 
summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate 
the need for more research on that particular problem. 
Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to 
all the questions you might have about the problem. The 
research may help get you started in designing your own 
responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This 
will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 
problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, 
not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has 
every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so 
would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The 
references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 
on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of 
research on the subject. 


 Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions 
to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of 
the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently 
implement them in partnership with other responsible 
private and public bodies including other government 
agencies, non-governmental organizations, private businesses, 
public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. 
An effective problem-solver must know how to forge 
genuine partnerships with others and be prepared to invest 
considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 
Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in 
the community with whom police might work to improve 
the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis of 
problems often reveals that individuals and groups other 
than the police are in a stronger position to address problems 
and that police ought to shift some greater responsibility to 
them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 
Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further 
discussion of this topic. 

The COPS Office defines community policing as a policing 
philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 
strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 
and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 
police-community partnerships. These guides emphasize 
problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 
the context of addressing specific public safety problems. 
For the most part, the organizational strategies that can 
facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 
considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 
these guides. 

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 
practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 
Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 


Even though laws, customs and police practices vary 
from country to country, it is apparent that the police 
everywhere experience common problems. In a world that 
is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important 
that police be aware of research and successful practices 
beyond the borders of their own countries. 

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 
research literature and reported police practice and is 
anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 
executives and researchers prior to publication. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 
provide feedback on this guide and to report on your 
own agencys experiences dealing with a similar problem. 
Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem 
using responses not considered in these guides and your 
experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This 
information will be used to update the guides. If you wish 
to provide feedback and share your experiences it should 
be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 
visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 
www.popcenter.org. This web site offers free online access 
to: 

 the Problem-Specific Guides series 
 the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 
 instructional information about problem-oriented policing 
and related topics 
 an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise 
 an interactive Problem Analysis Module 
 a manual for crime analysts 
 online access to important police research and practices 
 information about problem-oriented policing conferences 
and award programs. 


Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 
Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 
Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 
While each guide has a primary author, other project 
team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 
reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 
recommending research and offering suggestions on 
matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 
comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 
Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 
John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 
(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 
(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 
Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 
Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 
on the guides format and style in the early stages of the 
project. 

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 
Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 
Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 
direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this 
guide. 


Contents 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series ..........................i

Acknowledgments ...................................................v

The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars ........................1 
Related Problems ..................................................3 
Factors Contributing to Aggression and Violence in Bars . . . . .  4 
Alcohol ...........................................................4 
Culture of Drinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 
Type of Establishment .............................................5 
Concentration of Bars .............................................5 
Bar Closing Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 
Aggressive Bouncers ...............................................6 
High Proportion of Young Male Strangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 
Price Discounting of Drinks .......................................7 
Continued Service to Drunken Patrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 
Crowding and Lack of Comfort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 
Competitive Situations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 
Low Ratio of Staff to Patrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Lack of Good Entertainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 
Unattractive Dcor and Dim Lighting. . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 
Tolerance for Disorderly Conduct.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 
Availability of Weapons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9 
Low Levels of Police Enforcement and Regulation ..................10 

Understanding Your Local Problem .................................11
Stakeholders .....................................................11
Asking the Right Questions .......................................12
Incident Characteristics .........................................12
Victims ..........................................................13
Offenders ........................................................13
Locations/Times ..................................................14
Bar Management Practices .........................................14
Regulations and Enforcement Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15


Measuring Your Effectiveness .....................................16
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars ..........17
General Requirements of an Effective Strategy ....................17
Specific Responses to Reduce Assaults ............................20
Reducing Alcohol Consumption .....................................21
Making Bars Safer ................................................24
Responses With Limited Effectiveness .............................29

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Assaults in and Around Bars . . 31
Endnotes .........................................................37
References .......................................................41
About the Authors ................................................55
Recommended Readings .............................................57
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police .........................61


The Problem of Assaults in and 
Around Bars 

This guide deals with the problem of assaults in and 
around bars. We know a lot about the risk factors for 
these assaults, and about effective responses to them. 
We know less about which particular responses are most 
effective in addressing specific aspects of the problem. 
Therefore, your challenge will be to conduct a good 
analysis of the local problem, guided by the information 
presented here, and put together the right combination of 
responses to address that problem. 

 The term bar refers to licensed 
liquor establishments that sell 
alcohol primarily for consumption 
on the premises. These include 
establishments variously known as 
nightclubs, pubs, taverns, lounges, 
hotels (in Australia), discotheques, 
or social clubs. The term assault 
refers to the full range of violent 
acts, from those that cause minor 
injury to those that cause death, 
and from consensual fights to 
unprovoked attacks. 

The guide begins by reviewing factors that increase the 
risks of assaults in and around bars. It then identifies a 
series of questions that might help you analyze your local 
problem of assaults in and around bars. Finally, it reviews 
responses to the problem, and what is known about them 
from evaluative research and police practice. 

The proliferation of bars in many communities has led 
to increases in assaults in and around the bars. While 
many, if not most, of these are alcohol-related, assaults 
also occur when neither the aggressors nor the victims 
have been drinking. Most assaults occur on weekend 
nights.1 The majority of assaults occur at a relatively small 
number of places.2,  Not all assaults involve a simple 
fistfight with a clear beginning and ending; instead, the 
incidents are often more ambiguous and complicated. 
For example, some are intermittent conflicts that flare 
up over time, some evolve into different incidents, and 
many involve participants who alternate between the roles 
of aggressor and peacemaker, often drawing additional 
people into the incident.3 Some involve lower levels of 


aggression (pushing, shoving), some involve more-severe 
violence (kicking, punching), and still others involve the 
use of weapons. Many of the injuries treated at hospitals, 
especially facial injuries, are related to assaults in and 
around bars. 

 For example, in Sydney, Australia, 
just 12 percent of bars accounted 
for almost 60 percent of assaults 
occurring in licensed drinking 
establishments (Briscoe and 
Donnelly 2001b). 

Those who fight in bars are not deterred by negative 
consequences (such as minor injuries, tension among 
friends, or trouble with the police), all of which tend to 
be delayed. The perceived rewards are more immediate 
and include feeling righteous about fighting for a worthy 
cause, increasing group cohesion among friends, getting 
attention, feeling powerful, and having entertaining stories 
to tell.4 Although some assault victims do something to 
precipitate the assault, many do not.5 Most are smaller 
than their attackers, are either alone or in a small group, 
and are drunk more often than their attackers.6 Attackers 
target victims who appear drunker than themselves.7 

Many assaults are not reported to the police by either bar 
staff or the victim. Bar owners have mixed incentives for 
reporting assaults to the police. On the one hand, they 
need police assistance to maintain orderly establishments, 
but on the other hand, they do not want official records 
to reflect negatively on their liquor licenses. Many fights 
and disputes that start inside a bar are forced outside 
by the staff so they do not appear to be connected with 
the bar. Victims often are drunk, are ashamed, and see 
themselves as partly responsible, and so do not report 
assaults. Other victims believe the incidents are too trivial 
to involve the police.8 Thus police records do not reflect 
the total amount of violence in and around bars. However, 
we underestimate the seriousness of the problem if we 
believe these assaults are just excessive exuberance by 
young men or just desserts for drunken troublemakers. 


In addition to generating police and community concerns 
for public safety, bar owners also bear the consequences 
of the problem in terms of damage to reputations, loss 
of future customers, staff reluctance to work, damage to 
property, reductions in profit, and, ultimately, potential 
loss of license.9 

Related Problems 

Assault is only one of many alcohol-and bar-related 
problems the police must address. Some of these issues 
are covered in other guides in this series. These related 
problems require their own analyses and responses: 

 assaults around bars motivated by racial, ethnic, sexual 
orientation, or other bias 
 binge drinking on college campuses 
 disorderly conduct of public inebriates who drink in 
bars (e.g., panhandling, public urination, harassment, 
intimidation, and passing out in public places) 
 drug dealing in bars 
 drunken driving by customers leaving bars 
 gambling in bars 
 illegal discrimination against bar patrons 
 prostitution in bars 
 sexual assaults in and around bars 
 underage drinking. 

 See Problem-Specific Guide 
No. 36, titled Drunk Driving. 

 See Problem-Specific Guide 
No. 27, titled Underage Drinking. 


Factors Contributing to Aggression and 
Violence in Bars 

Understanding the factors that are known to contribute 
to your problem will help you frame your own local 
analysis questions, determine good effectiveness 
measures, recognize key intervention points, and select an 
appropriate set of responses for your particular problem. 

Alcohol 

Drinking alcohol is the most obvious factor contributing 
to aggression and violence in bars, but the relationship 
is not as simple as it might seem. Alcohol contributes to 
violence by limiting drinkers perceived options during a 
conflict, heightening their emotionality, increasing their 
willingness to take risks, reducing their fear of sanctions, 
and impairing their ability to talk their way out of 
trouble.10 Many of the alcohol problems police deal with 
can be attributed to ordinary drinkers who go on binges, 
drink more than they usually do, or drink on an empty 
stomach. In general, those who drink excessively are more 
aggressive and also get injured more seriously than those 
who drink moderately or not at all.11 Moderate drinkers do 
not appear to be at significantly higher risk of injury than 
nondrinkers. 

Culture of Drinking 

Cultures that are more accepting of intoxication as an 
excuse for antisocial or aggressive behavior, and that relax 
the normal rules of society during drinking time, have 
higher levels of aggression and violence in and around 
bars.12 This tolerance for intoxication is often reflected 
in a societys laws related to legal defenses to crimes, and 


to the regulation of drinking and the alcohol industry. In 
some peer groups, intoxication is an accepted excuse for 
aggression and violence.13 

Type of Establishment 

Certain types of bars, such as dance clubs, have higher 
levels of reported violence.14 Neighborhood bars and 
social clubs have lower levels of reported violence, 
partly because patrons know one another well, and partly 
because they usually resolve conflicts privately. Restaurants 
that serve alcohol also have less violence. Bars that serve 
as pickup places, cater to prostitutes, traffic in drugs or 
stolen goods, or feature aggressive entertainment are at 
higher risk for violence. 

Concentration of Bars 

The evidence on the effect of bar concentration is mixed. 
Some bars attract crime, while others are merely affected 
by crime in the surrounding neighborhood. Blocks with 
bars have higher levels of reported crime than blocks 
with no bars.15 High concentrations of bars can increase 
barhopping, and if all bars close at the same time, the 
risks of conflicts on the street increase. But the mere fact 
that a neighborhood has a high concentration of bars 
does not necessarily mean there will be higher crime levels 
in the area.16 

Bar Closing Time 

Bars hours of operation contribute to the risk of 
violence in different ways. When all bars in a given area 
close at the same time, and large numbers of patrons 
exit simultaneously, crowds may linger on the sidewalk 


to wait for transportation or to order food from late-
night restaurants, and competition for these services can 
precipitate assaults. Moreover, large groups of patrons 
from incompatible social groups might come together, 
creating conflict.17 

Uniform mandatory closing hours also encourage some 
patrons to drink heavily just before closing, knowing 
they cannot legally buy another drink for the rest of the 
night. It is generally the case that bars with later closing 
hours experience more assaults than those with standard 
business hours, although additional research on the effects 
of later or staggered bar closing times is needed.18 

Aggressive Bouncers 

Some security staff see themselves as enforcers, rather 
than as protectors of customers safety.19 The more 
aggressively the security staff handles patrons, the more 
aggressively patrons respond. Many security employees 
and bouncers lack the skills to defuse violence. The 
presence of large, muscular men dressed in black, 
which is not uncommon for security staff, encourages 
confrontations with some patrons, while discouraging 
them with others. Bouncers very presence may 
subconsciously signal to some patrons that physical 
confrontation is an acceptable way to resolve disputes in 
that bar. Bouncers are implicated (whether justifiably so 
or not) in a significant proportion of assaults.20 However, 
victims of aggression by security staff may be hesitant to 
report the assault for several reasons: they may not have 
an accurate description of the bouncer involved, they may 
fear retaliation and being banned from the bar, or they 
may not want their own actions to be scrutinized.21 


High Proportion of Young Male Strangers 

The overwhelming majority of attackers and victims 
are young men (18 to 29 years old). Many young men 
gather and drink alcohol to establish machismo, bond 
with one another, and compete for womens attention.22 
Many incidents of bar aggression start when young men 
challenge one another.23 This is more likely to happen when 
they do not know each other. Overall, womens presence 
has a calming effect on mens behavior in crowded bars.24 

Price Discounting of Drinks 

Many bars offer discounted prices for drinks to attract 
patrons, but price discounting increases patrons 
intoxication levels and thereby increases the risks of 
aggression. 

Continued Service to Drunken Patrons 

Drinkers report that the most common reaction to their 
drunkenness in bars is continued alcohol service.25 In 
part, this occurs because staff have difficulty determining 
whether patrons are drunk, particularly when customers 
obtain drinks from several sources within the bar (e.g., 
bartenders, waitresses, and shot girls).26 Determining 
whether patrons are drunk is more difficult in overcrowded 
bars, as servers are under pressure to serve customers 
quickly. In addition, crowded venues are noisy, making it 
difficult for servers to hear verbal cues that would suggest 
drunkenness.27 Refusing service to drunken patrons often 
makes them angry. Bartenders and wait staff who do 
not want this aggression directed at them, and who also 
may not want to risk losing tips, often continue to serve 
obviously drunken patrons. 


Crowding and Lack of Comfort 

Poor ventilation, high noise levels, and lack of seating 
make bars uncomfortable. This discomfort increases the 
risks of aggression and violence.28 Crowding around the 
bar, in restrooms, on dance floors, around pool tables, and 
near phones creates the risk of accidental bumping and 
irritation, which can also start fights.29 

Kip Kellogg 

Image of students at bar
Crowding in bars creates the risk of accidental bumping and 
irritation, which can lead to assaults.

Competitive Situations 

The high emotions that arise during competition in 
barswhether patrons are watching sporting events on 
television or competing themselves in pool, darts, or other 
typical bar gamescan turn to anger and frustration.30 
Competitive drinking contests (e.g., chugging beer or 
rolling dice for drinks) contribute to excessive drinking. 
Sports bars may foster a macho atmosphere and may 
contribute to customers sense that aggression is an 
acceptable part of the social setting.31 Competition outside 
the barfor food service, public transportation, walking 
space, womens attention, and so forthcan similarly 
trigger violence. 


Low Ratio of Staff to Patrons 

Inadequate staffing increases the competition for service 
and the frustration of patrons, and reduces opportunities 
for staff to monitor excessive drinking and aggression.32 

Lack of Good Entertainment 

Entertained crowds are less hostile. Quality music (as 
defined by the patrons) is more important than the musics 
noise level.33,  

Unattractive Dcor and Dim Lighting 

Recognizing that attractiveness is highly subjective, 
obviously unattractive, poorly maintained, and dimly lit 
bars signal to patrons that the owners and managers have 
similarly low standards for behavior, and that they will 
likely tolerate aggression and violence.34 

Tolerance for Disorderly Conduct 

If the bar staff tolerates profanity and other disorderly 
conduct, it suggests to patrons that the staff will tolerate 
aggression and violence, as well.35 

Availability of Weapons 

Patrons can use bottles, glasses, pool cues, heavy ashtrays, 
and bar furniture as weapons. The more available and 
dangerous these items are, the more likely they will cause 
serious injury during fights and assaults. 

 Newspaper articles and reports 
from some police agencies suggest 
that certain forms of music, such 
as hip-hop, attract aggressive and 
violent crowds, but it is unlikely that 
the musical form itself generates 
aggression, at least not directly. 


 
Low Levels of Police Enforcement and Regulation 

Low levels of liquor-law enforcement and regulation 
reduce owners and managers incentives to adopt 
responsible practices. We do not know for certain what 
effect the deployment of off-duty police officers in and 
around bars has on assault rates. 

 Some police departments 
discourage or prohibit uniformed 
patrol officers from inspecting bars, 
while other departments encourage 
it and make it a key element of 
their efforts to control problems 
in and around bars. The Charlotte-
Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police 
Department successfully lobbied for 
legislative changes to allow police 
officers to inspect licensed premises.


Understanding Your Local Problem 

The information provided above is only a generalized 
description of the problem of assaults in and around bars. 
You must combine the basic facts with a more specific 
understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local 
problem helps in designing a more effective response 
strategy. 

Stakeholders 

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following 
groups have an interest in the assaults-in-and-around-bars 
problem and ought to be considered for the contribution 
they might make both to gathering information about the 
problem and to responding to it: 

 risk managers/liability insurance agents for bars 
 local liquor retailer associations 
 bank officials holding mortgages or business loans on bars 
 emergency medical personnel/treatment facilities 
 substance-abuse treatment organizations 
 neighborhood residents 
 other business owners 
 employees in the vicinity of bars. 

For further information on how police can work 
effectively with other stakeholders, see the Problem-
Solving Tools Guide titled Partnering With Businesses To 
Address Public Safety Problems. 



Asking the Right Questions 

The following are some critical questions you should ask 
in analyzing your particular problem of assaults in and 
around bars, even if the answers are not always readily 
available. Your answers to these and other questions will 
help you choose the most appropriate set of responses 
later on. The various entities with a stake in the problem 
and its solution will be helpful in collecting some of these 
data, as not all of the information will be readily available 
to police. 

 See Tierney and Hobbs (2003) for 
guidance on sharing responsibility 
for data collection among those 
concerned about assaults in and 
around bars. In addition, see 
Hopkins (2004) for an example of 
using the SARA model to analyze a 
local problem with assaults in bars.

Incident Characteristics 

 Is the problem primarily one of bar fights, public inebriates 
assaulting one another, strong-arm robberies, sexual 
assaults, bias-motivated assaults, or something else? 
 What precipitates the attacks (e.g., verbal exchanges/insults, 
threats, disagreements, long-standing disputes, or advances 
to girlfriends/boyfriends)? 
 Do the assaults stem from conflicts between individuals or 
between groups? If groups, are they criminal groups such 
as gangs? 
 Do the precipitating conflicts initiate in the bar or 
elsewhere? 
 How/why does verbal aggression escalate into physical 
assaults? 
 Is there a widespread perception that certain bars or 
entertainment districts are dangerous because of assaults? 
 What weapons, if any, do offenders use in assaults? Do 
either the offenders or the victims bring weapons to 
the bar, or do they convert items found in the bar into 
weapons? 


Victims 

 Who is assaulted? 
 Do victims report the assaults to the police? (Surveys 
of patrons and emergency room admissions may reveal 
unreported assaults.) If victims do not report their 
assaults, why not? What are the characteristics of victims 
who report compared with those who do not? 
 Are victims typically drunk? 
 Are victims alone or in groups? 
 Are victims members of any ethnic or other subcultural 
group? 
 Are many of the victims underage drinkers? 
 How serious are victims injuries? 
 Do victims typically instigate assaults? 
 Are there chronic assault victims? 
 Do victims typically know their assailants? 

Offenders 

 How old are offenders? Do they belong to any particular 
ethnic, occupational, recreational, or other group? 
 Are offenders alone or in groups? 
 Are there repeat offenders? Do they have prior criminal 
records for assault? 
 Are offenders typically known as troublemakers in bars? 
 Are offenders typically drunk? Do they get drunk in the 
same bar in or around which the assaults occur? 
 Are offenders themselves injured in the fights/assaults? 
How seriously? 
 Are offenders heavy drinkers? Do they have histories 
of alcohol-related problems (e.g., commitments to 
detoxification centers)? 

 A recent study of the problem of 
assaults in bars relied heavily on data 
collection from emergency room 
patients by nurses involved (Maguire 
and Nettleton 2003). 


Locations/Times 

 In or around which bars are assaults concentrated? 
 Where, specifically, do assaults occur (e.g., inside/outside, 
restrooms, alleys, streets/sidewalks, parking lots, or around 
the bar)? 
 What is the nature of the surrounding neighborhood (e.g., 
entertainment district or primarily residential/commercial/ 
industrial)? 
 Are the bars on or near major roadways? 
 Do the people in or conditions of the bars themselves 
appear to generate the violence, or are bars merely affected 
by other conditions in the surrounding neighborhood? 
 When do assaults occur (e.g., closing time, happy hour, 
special events, or weekends)? 
 What public transportation is accessible after closing hours 
(e.g., buses, trains, or taxis)? 
 Is there a high concentration of bars in areas with high 
reported assault levels? 
 What are the lighting conditions both inside and outside 
bars? Do assaults occur in dark areas or areas not easily 
seen by passers-by? 
 Are there objects outside bars that offenders can readily 
use as weapons (e.g., loose stones or trash receptacles)? 

Bar Management Practices 

 What is the primary theme of a typical problem bar? 
 Does the bar serve food, or is it available nearby? 
 Does the bar offer discounted drinks? 
 What entertainment, if any, does the bar offer? Does the 
entertainment contribute to aggression? 
 Does the bar employ bouncers? If so, do they tend to be 
aggressive when dealing with troublesome patrons? Do bar 
managers conduct proper background checks on bouncers 
before hiring them? Are bar employees properly trained? 


 What is the ratio of bar employees to patrons? Is it 
sufficient to provide timely service and monitor patrons 
drinking and behavior? 
 Do bar employees call the police under appropriate 
circumstances? Do bar managers encourage or discourage 
police inspectional visits? 
 Are employees encouraged to push altercations out of the 
bar? 
 Are employees trained to recognize signs of drunkenness, 
to refuse service diplomatically, and to defuse aggression? 
Does management have written policies regarding these 
practices, expect employees to follow them, and support 
them when they do? 
 What conduct does the bar prohibit? Do employees 
effectively enforce those prohibitions? 
 Is the bar dcor attractive, and interior lighting adequate? 
 Does the bar commonly reach or exceed occupancy limits? 
 Do competitive events (e.g., playing pool, darts, rolling 
dice) lead to assaults? 
 Does the bar discourage barhopping (e.g., restrict reentry, 
charge entry fees, or prohibit carrying out drinks)? 
 Does the bar have items that patrons can readily use as 
weapons? 
 Does the physical setting (e.g., the presence of sharp-edged 
bar tops or glass) create risks of serious injuries? 

Regulation and Enforcement Practices 

 Do the police or liquor-license regulators routinely 
inspect bars for compliance with regulations? Do they 
inspect for serving practices and occupancy limits, in 
addition to technical license requirements? 
 Do the police or regulators take enforcement actions? 
 Do bar owners believe police will enforce laws? Do 
they perceive enforcement actions as fair? 


Measuring Your Effectiveness 

 
You should take measures of your problem before you 
implement responses, to determine how serious the 
problem is, and after you implement them, to determine 
whether they have been effective. Measurement allows 
you to determine to what degree your efforts have 
succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your 
responses if they are not producing the intended results. 
For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, 
see the Problem-Solving Tools guide, Assessing Responses 
to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. 
The following are potentially useful measures of the 
effectiveness of responses to assaults in and around bars: 

 reduced number of assaults 
 reduced calls for police service for fights and assaults 
(assuming you are confident that police are being called 
when appropriate) 
 reduced severity of injuries caused by assaults (it may be 
possible to reduce the degree of injury, even if the number 
of assaults does not decline) 
 increased reporting of assaults to police, if you suspect 
that many assaults are not being reported (you might 
compare emergency room records with police records) 
 fewer repeat victims and repeat offenders 
 greater perception of safety among bar patrons, 
neighboring merchants, and residents 
 increased profitability of bars with high assault rates (bars 
with high assault rates typically lose money). 

 See Graham (2000) for a model 
evaluation strategy for interventions 
to reduce harmful behavior by bar
patrons. 


Responses to the Problem of Assaults in 
and Around Bars 

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a 
better understanding of the factors that are contributing 
to the problem. Once you have analyzed your local 
problem and established a baseline for measuring 
effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to 
address the problem. The following response strategies 
provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your 
particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a 
variety of research studies and police reports. Several of 
these strategies may apply to your communitys particular 
problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local 
circumstances, and that you can justify each response 
based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective 
strategy will involve implementing several different 
responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom 
effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not 
limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully 
consider who else in your community shares responsibility 
for the problem and can help police better respond to it. 

General Requirements of an Effective Strategy 

1. Enlisting community support for addressing the 
problem. Broad-based coalitions that incorporate the 
interests of the community, the bars, and the government 
are recommended.36 A number of communities, 
including Vancouver (British Columbia) and Edmonton 
(Alberta) have organized bar watch or pub watch 
programs, while bars and police in a number of 
Australian communities have negotiated voluntary 
agreements (known as accords) to promote responsible bar 
management.37 These programs incorporate the interests 
of bar owners, community members, and government 


 

regulators, including the police. Members meet regularly 
to discuss incidents that have occurred in the local 
area, and to craft solutions. While recruiting members 
can be difficult, the key is to keep all parties motivated 
and actively involved for extended periods.38 All parties 
should come to accept ownership for the problem, 
and for responses to it. Strong leadership, active police 
involvement, and adequate funding are essential. 

 See Homel (2001) for a thorough 
discussion of the various types of 
community action projects, their core 
components, and their effectiveness. 

2. Implementing multifaceted, comprehensive strategies. 

Multifaceted, comprehensive strategies are more 
effective than those that address only one or a few of 
the conditions that increase the risks of aggression and 
violence. Any response strategy should address as many 
known risk factors as possible, rather than focusing on the 
contributions of alcohol alone. Some of the more critical 
factors include the practices of serving and patterns of 
consumption, the physical comfort of the environment, 
the overall permissiveness of the environment, and the 
availability of public transportation to disperse crowds 
once bars have closed.39,  

 The Derbyshire, England, 
Constabulary (2002) engaged local bar 
owners in a Safer Pubs and Clubs 
campaign whereby each owner agreed 
to enact a range of Safer by 
reforms, such as Safer by Dispersal, 
Safer by Design, Safer by Glass 
Management, Safer by Doorwatch, etc. 
The combination of responses led to 
significant reductions in violence in the 
targeted areas and improvements in job 
satisfaction among staff. 

3. Getting cooperation and support from bar owners 
and managers. It is important to secure the cooperation 
and involvement of all bars in the area to guard against 
merely moving the problem somewhere else, and against 
losing the support of owners who feel unfairly targeted.40 
Bar owners should agree in writing to codes of good 
practice, and establish ways to enforce them.41 Rogue bar 
owners can easily undermine these agreements by refusing 
to follow the codes of practice. This creates pressure 
on other operators to do likewise. You should apply 
basic preventive and enforcement measures to all bars, 
while applying some special preventive and enforcement 
measures at high-risk bars. It is critical that you 
acknowledge the legitimacy of bar owners profit motive. 


4. Informally monitoring bar policies and practices. You 
can use voluntary safety audits and risk assessments to 
identify high-risk locations and conditions.42 Monitoring 
systems should use data to measure effectiveness. Informal 
groups, rather than government officials, should oversee 
and monitor voluntary agreements among bars. However, 
informal police audits are an effective means of sharing 
knowledge and also carry the implied threat of sanctions, 
which can encourage compliance. For example, police can 
provide bar owners with information about disorderly 
events that occur following consumption on their 
premises. In addition, after an informal audit, police can 
provide tailored feedback reports using a harm-reduction, 
rather than a punitive, focus. 

5. Formally regulating and enforcing relevant liquor-
licensing laws. Voluntary agreements should be reinforced 
by formal regulation. Fair and well-enforced liquor-license 
regulation, with a graded system of penalties including 
warnings, modest fines, temporary license suspensions, 
and revocations, is key to ensuring responsible policies and 
practices.43,  Fair and consistent enforcement of liquor-
license laws by the police and liquor-licensing authorities 
is more effective than relying solely on more-expensive 
responsible-beverage-service training programs.44,  More 
intensive police inspections of licensed bars will also 
result in higher recorded crime rates, but this encourages 
bar owners to adhere to good management practices and 
to obey liquor laws. In many jurisdictions, however, the 
liquor-licensing authoritys resources are inadequate for 
enforcement. 

 For example, several jurisdictions use 
self-administered checklists to examine 
potential problem areas (entry, layout, 
closing time, rule-setting, etc.). Often 
working with a consultant, bar owners 
discuss their areas of vulnerability and 
craft reforms to minimize risk (Graham 
2000; Graham et al. 2004; Toomey et al. 

2001). 

 The New Zealand Police implemented 
a system of informal audits, feedback, 
and recommendations to reduce the risk 
factors present in local bars and clubs. 
After a three-month follow-up period, 
the participating bars saw a 15 percent 
decrease in alcohol-related incidents. 
Despite fears that police would judge 
the approach lacking in severity, two-
thirds of police considered the approach 
acceptable, and 92 percent of bar owners 
found the process to be both fair and 

useful (Wiggers et al. 2004). 

 Madison, Wisconsin adopted a point 
system in 1986 as the basis for sanctions 
against liquor licensees to remove some 
of the arbitrariness of the administrative 
process, and the police department 
developed methods for recording and 
reporting police activities at bars to the 
liquor-licensing authority. A key feature 
of the system is that reports of problems 
by the owners/managers to the police, 
and cooperation with the police, reflect 
favorably rather than negatively on the 
licensee. A police representative serves 
as a nonvoting member of the alcohol-
license review committee. By contrast, the 
Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department 
(2000) had to change city officials 
attitudes toward liquor-license regulation 
to close or improve control over problem 
bars. 

 In Sweden, a combination of 
responsible-beverage-service training 
and consistent liquor-law enforcement 
by police led to significant increases in 
the rate at which servers refused to serve 
intoxicated patrons (from 5 percent 
refusals to 70 percent refusals), and a 
significant decrease (29 percent) in the 
number of violent crimes occurring in 
or around participating bars (Wallin, 
Norstrom, and Andreasson 2003; Wallin, 
Gripenberg, and Andreasson 2005). 


Kip Kellogg 

Image of two police officers
Police inspections of bars and
enforcement of liquor laws encourages
bar owners to adhere to responsible
management practices.

Some communities use nuisance-abatement laws and 
conditional-use permits (business permits with special 
requirements and restrictions) to compel bar owners to 
establish and enforce responsible policies and practices 
that can reduce aggression and violence in and around the 
premises. 

 Fresno, California makes 
extensive use of conditional-
use permits to regulate liquor 
establishments. Sacramento, 
California, prepared a Model 
Conditional-Use Permit Ordinance 
for Retail Alcohol Outlets 
(Wittman 1997). The Hayward 
(California) Police Department 
helped private residents file a 
civil lawsuit against a problem 
bar, ultimately resulting in the 
revocation of its liquor license 
(Sampson and Scott 2000). 

Specific Responses To Reduce Assaults 

You will need to combine two groups of responses in any 
effective strategy: 

 responses to reduce how much alcohol patrons drink, thereby 
reducing aggression and vulnerability to assault 
 responses to make the bar safer, regardless of how much 
alcohol patrons drink. 


Reducing Alcohol Consumption 

6. Establishing responsible beverage service programs. 
Responsible beverage service training can be effective in 
reducing intoxication and assaults, especially where there 
is community support for these requirements and adequate 
enforcement of them.45 Responsible beverage service can 
be promoted through voluntary or mandatory training 
programs. Bar owners and managers, as well as serving 
staff, should receive training. These programs are effective 
in changing servers knowledge and attitudes, but do not 
affect how often they deny service to drunken customers, 
unless they are supported by regular monitoring and 
consistent sanctions for violations.46 

 As of 2000, at least 23 states 
had server-training legislation. In 
11 of these states, the laws provide 
incentives for establishments that 
provide training to their employees, 
while in the remaining 12 states, 
server training is mandatory (Mosher 
et al. 2002). 

https://smartserve.org 

Image of bar staff guidebook
Training and encouraging bar staff to serve 
responsibly and monitor patrons drinking can help 
reduce the risk of violence in the bar. 


Responsible beverage service programs include training 
bar staff to adopt responsible serving practices, 
and encouraging bar owners and managers to adopt 
responsible business practices and policies. The most 
common elements of these programs include the 
following: 

6a. Monitoring drinking to prevent drunkenness. In 
general, servers are not good at determining whether 
customers are drunk because the signs and signals used 
in that assessment are largely subjective (slurred speech, 
clumsiness, mood changes). The best estimator of a 
customers blood alcohol content is the number of 
drinks served, but given the size and layout of many 
bars, the amount of alcohol consumed is very difficult 
to track.47 Further, servers cannot know how much a 
customer has drunk before arriving, what or if he or 
she has eaten, or how long he or she intends to stay at 
the barall of which will affect the servers judgments 
about continued service.48 Training should focus on the 
most obvious and reliable indicators of drunkenness 
and improved communication among multiple servers to 
enable better monitoring. 

While it may take a long time for enforcement officials 
to witness bar staff serving drunken patrons, the benefits 
appear to be worth the costs.49 For the most part, it is 
still too easy for both drunken and underage drinkers to 
get served in bars.50 

6b. Promoting slower drinking rates. Several practices 
encourage patrons to drink quickly, such as announcing 
last call, having happy hours, serving multiple drinks at 
one time, and tolerating chugging contests and other 
drinking games. Eliminating these practices can slow the 
rate at which patrons feel compelled to drink. 


6c. Prohibiting underage drinking. This response 
prevents less physically and emotionally mature patrons 
from getting drunk. It is unclear, though, what effect 
allowing underage patrons into bars, even if they are not 
served alcohol, has on the assault problem. 

6d. Providing reduced-alcohol or nonalcoholic 
beverages. Offering reduced-alcohol or nonalcoholic 
beverages can lower patrons drunkenness level, 
patrons who might otherwise be potential assailants 
and/or victims. Regardless, the risk of injury from 
assault is reduced. There are virtually no drawbacks to 
this response as long as some patrons will drink these 
beverages. 

6e. Requiring or encouraging food service with alcohol 
service. Eating while drinking slows the rate of alcohol 
absorption into the bloodstream. Serving food also helps 
create an atmosphere that is not exclusively centered on 
alcohol consumption, and can attract a more diverse, and 
possibly less aggressive, clientele.51 

6f. 
Discouraging alcohol price discounts. Reducing the 
price of drinks during happy hours significantly increases 
consumption by both light and heavy drinkers.52 The 
competitive pressure to reduce drink prices actually 
threatens many bars profitability, so some owners 
actually appreciate restrictions on price discounting. 

7. Establishing and enforcing server liability laws. 

In many jurisdictions, alcohol servers and bar owners 
can be held legally liable either for the harm drunken 
patrons cause (through private civil suits) or for merely 
serving drunken people (through statute enforcement by 
the police or liquor-license regulators). Server liability 
laws alone have had mixed results as an incentive for 


bar owners to adopt and enforce responsible (beverage) 
service policies and practices.53 In particular, the relatively 
low enforcement rate, the owners profit motive, and the 
servers reliance on tips as income can decrease these laws 
deterrent effect.54 

 Erenberg and Hacker (1997) report 
that 36 states have some form of 
dram-shop liability law, and refer to 
the Model Alcoholic Beverage Retail 
Licensee Liability Act of 1985. 

8. Reducing the concentration and/or number of bars. 
There is growing evidence that the concentration of bars 
in an area is related to that areas crime levels and patterns, 
although the exact nature of the relationship is not yet 
clear.55 We cannot yet say how many bars in a small area 
are too many, but evidence does suggest there is such a 
threshold. Police agencies can support efforts to reduce 
the concentration or number of bars through zoning and 
liquor-license enforcement. 

Making Bars Safer 

9. Training staff to handle patrons nonviolently. Some 
assaults in bars have less to do with alcohol and more 
to do with unprofessional or unskilled staff. There are 
conflicting views about the effectiveness of employing 
security staff (bouncers and doormen) as a way to reduce 
assaults in and around bars.56 Well-trained bar staff 
can function as guardians (protecting victims), handlers 
(modifying behavior of offenders, particularly those who 
are regular customers), and place managers (exerting social 
control over people in places).57 However, they may react 
ineffectively to incidents or, at worst, may overreact or 
antagonize customers and precipitate an incident. 

Skill development programs to reduce aggression are often 
easier to market to bar owners than interventions focused 
on serving less alcohol.58 The programs are most effective 
when focused on portable skills using real-world scenarios, 
drawing on participants experience. The following 
particular techniques can defuse aggressive incidents:59 


 Remove the audience (get aggressors away from onlookers) 
 Employ calming strategies 
Verbal skills 
* Allow the aggressor to talk and express anger 
* Use role-appropriate language 
* Avoid hostile or angry remarks 
* Respond indirectly to hostile questions 
* Express an understanding of the aggressors mood 
Nonverbal skills 
* Increase the distance between oneself and the 
aggressor 
* Avoid sustained eye contact with the aggressor 
* Move slowly and avoid sudden movements 
* Maintain calm, relaxed facial expressions 
* Control the vocal signals of anxiety and stress 

 Employ control strategies 
* Clearly establish the situation requirements 
* Depersonalize the encounter 
* Emphasize ones role requirements 
* Encourage the aggressors decision-making 
* Offer the aggressor face-saving possibilities 

A number of communities require security staff to 
be trained, licensed, and registered, a measure several 
researchers endorse.60,  The United Kingdom uses door 
staff registration schemes extensively, requiring all door 
staff at bars to be trained and vetted. The many local 
variances in policy can be frustrating to those wishing to 
work in multiple jurisdictions.61 These schemes are most 
effective when staff receive individually numbered badges; 
registering agencies maintain a comprehensive name, 
photograph, and address register; and bars keep premise-
specific staff assignment logs.62 

 The San Diego (California) Police 
Departments In-House Security 
Training Program offers training 
courses for instructors from local 
venues who, once endorsed, teach 
and certify in-house security 
personnel. The program includes an 
evaluation component to determine 
reductions in the numbers of 
complaints, disturbances, violent 
incidents, and drug use; the quality 
of training content, delivery, and 
materials; and whether the program 
contributes to the ability to identify 
problematic security personnel (San 
Diego Police Department Vice Unit 
n.d.). 

 The United Kingdoms Private 
Security Act 2001 requires all private-
sector security staff to obtain an 
occupational license before working 
in the industry. This act supersedes 
all local door-staff registration 
schemes (Hobbs et al. 2003). 


 Increasing the availability of 
taxis and buses to patrons leaving 
nightclubs in Douglas, Isle of Man 
was an important dimension of a 
larger successful strategy to reduce 
violence and disorder around bars 
(Isle of Man Constabulary 2005). 

 The United Kingdoms Licensing 
Act 2003 eliminated mandatory 
pub closing hours. The new liquor-
licensing legislation gave police 
more authority to close rowdy 
pubs, allowed for lengthy bans 
of troublemakers and habitual 
drunkards from pubs, and allowed 
local authorities to impose 
environmental conditions on liquor 
licenses. Several organizations had 
strong concerns about the legislation 
(Civic Trust and the Institute of 
Alcohol Studies 2002; Roberts et al. 
2002; McNeil 2005). To date, the 
relaxed closing hours impact on the 
assault and disorder rates has not 
been evaluated. 

 A Grand Rapids, Iowa proposal 
would allow bars to stay open 
later, although they would still be 
required to stop serving alcohol at 
the usual time. The purpose of these 
extended hours would be to allow 
customers to cool down and sober 
up before leaving the bar (Ronco 
and Quisenberry 2005). In Australia, 
a group of local bars agreed to 
a patron lockout to reduce 
barhopping. Although bars remained 
open until 3 or 5 a.m., customers 
were not allowed to enter or reenter 
bars after 2 a.m. (University of 
Ballarat Center for Health Research 
and Practice 2004). 

10. 
Establishing adequate transportation. Adequate 
public transportation to and from bars, especially after 
closing hours, can reduce competition for transportation, 
more quickly clear the streets of drunken people, and 
reduce the hazards of drunken driving.63,  Separating taxi 
stands and bus stops from each other can reduce the size 
of groups congregating on the sidewalks.64
 
11. Relaxing or staggering bar closing times. Allowing 
bars to determine their own closing times or staggering 
the mandatory closing times results in fewer drunken 
people on the streets competing for food, transportation, 
and attention.65 In addition, more people are on the 
streets, though in lower concentrations, for longer 
periodsa factor that improves natural surveillance and 
makes people feel safer. However, it is also possible 
that staggered closing hours will increase barhopping, 
as patrons roam the streets looking for open bars. In 
addition, eliminating mandatory closing times could create 
an environment where alcohol is almost continuously 
available and could increase assault rates at venues with 
extended hours.66 So, while staggered closing times show 
promise in reducing assault levels, more evidence of its 
impact is needed. Changes to operating hours, alone, are 
unlikely to decrease the assault rates. The change must 
also be accompanied by high-quality efforts to control, 
manage, and regulate the properties.67 If this response is 
implemented, it should first be done in a controlled pilot 
effort to gauge the overall effect. 

12. Controlling bar entrances, exits, and immediate 
surroundings. In addition to employing bouncers or 
doormen, some bars install surveillance cameras at 
entrances and exits to discourage altercations. Prohibiting 
reentry after exit or charging reentry fees can discourage 


barhopping, which can reduce the risks of assaults among 
drunken patrons on the streets.68 Regulating parking 
outside bars is a way to control the movement of patrons 
and their vehicles, and enhancing lighting in alleys and 
parking lots improves natural surveillance. 

13. Maintaining an attractive, comfortable, entertaining 
atmosphere in bars. Attractive, well-maintained bars 
suggest to patrons that the owners care about their 
property and will not tolerate disorderly and violent 
conduct that might destroy it.69 A comfortable and 
entertaining atmosphere reduces both frustration and 
boredom among patrons, which can reduce aggression 
levels. Lighting should not be so bright that it acts as an 
irritant, but also not so dim that it can conceal customers 
activities.70 An important environmental consideration is 
the crowding level. Police in some jurisdictions enforce 
occupancy limits (primarily adopted for fire safety) as a 
means to control the bar crowding that can lead to fights. 
Redesigning a bars interior to improve traffic flow and 
prevent congestion can reduce the opportunities for 
accidental bumps and drink spills that may escalate into 
fights.71 

Kip Kellogg 

Image of students at a bar
Occupancy limits should be enforced so 
that bar patrons do not feel crowded. 



14. Establishing and enforcing clear rules of conduct 
for bar patrons. Restrictions on swearing, sexual activity, 
prostitution, drug use and dealing, and rowdiness can 
reduce aggression. A more permissive atmosphere with 
little control over patrons behavior is associated with 
higher aggression levels.72 Raising the bar areas height is 
one way to improve servers capacity to monitor patrons 
behavior. 

15. Reducing potential weapons and other sources 
of injury. Drink glasses that shatter in small pieces 
when broken minimize the seriousness of injuries from 
assaults with glasses. They may also be cheaper and more 
durable than more dangerous glassware.73 Discouraging 
or prohibiting patrons from taking glass containers out 
of bars reduces the likelihood patrons will use them as 
weapons in street fights. Padded furniture or rounded 
corners on tables and bars can also reduce the risk of 
serious injury. Requiring identification to check out pool 
cues can enhance accountability for their proper use and 
reduce the likelihood patrons will use them as weapons. 

16. Communicating about incidents as they occur. Using 
handheld radios or cellular telephones, bar managers 
in a local area can pass on real-time information about 
problems, incidents, or patrons that may require a police 
response.74 Armed with this information, door staff at 
nearby clubs can help contain the incident and can deny 
entry to the patrons in question. Some bars include police 
directly in these communications. 

 The Merseyside Police (2000) in 
England coordinated a plan that 
promoted the use of toughened 
glass containers, added litter 
containers outside bars, and had bar 
staff and police discourage patrons 
from taking glass containers out 
of bars in downtown Liverpool. 
Serious assaults involving glass 
injuries in and around bars in the 
target area declined significantly. The 
police subsequently convinced the 
city council to authorize police to 
confiscate glass containers outside 
bars. The city of Savannah, Georgia 
allows patrons to take alcoholic 
beverages out of bars in the 
entertainment district, but requires 
that they be in plastic cups. Patrons 
use the so-called to-go cups 
extensively. 


17. Banning known troublemakers from bars. Banning 
known troublemakers from bars takes them out of 
situations where fights and assaults are likely to occur. 
Bar owners and the police should get legal guidance 
on the required process for banning people, the length 
of time such bans are effective, and the role police 
should play in enforcing the bans. For this response to 
be effective, the police and the bar management must 
cooperate to identifypreferably with a photograph 
those who have been banned. Some bars may be 
reluctant to enforce police-requested bans of their regular 
customers.75 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

18. Using extra police patrols in and around bars. Many 
police departments concentrate on the streets outside 
bars rather than the conditions inside bars. They do so 
by providing a heavy police presence outside bars and, in 
some instances, in the bars themselves, with regular on-
duty patrols through the bars or off-duty police officers 
working there. The main result seems to be an increase 
in the rates of reported and recorded offenses, if for no 
other reason than the police witness offenses that might 
otherwise go unreported.76,  Heavy police involvement 
through patrols and enforcement is not essential if there 
is sufficient community, peer, and regulatory pressure 
on licensees to manage bars responsibly. The police are 
neither able, nor fully authorized, to regulate every aspect 
of bar management, but they can encourage, support, and 
insist on responsible management policies and practices. 

 The city of Portland, Oregon 
explained the procedures for 
banning troublemakers from liquor 
establishments in a guidebook for 
liquor establishment owners and 
managers (Campbell Resources Inc. 
1991). The Madison (Wisconsin) 
Police Department uses what it calls 
an Unruly Patron Complaint. They 
remove unruly customers from bars 
and serve them a form telling them 
they are banned from entering the 
bar again due to their behavior. They 
file a report and give the bar a copy 
of the complaint, with the offenders 
name and information, and a case 
number. Should the patron return 
to the bar, the bar staff calls the 
police, who arrest the patron for 
trespassing. Madison police have 
found this tactic especially helpful 
in bars with a regular clientele who 
fear losing the privilege of going 
there. This tactic is also a common 
feature of PubWatch schemes in 
the United Kingdom (Pratten and 
Greig 2005). 

 The Arlington (Texas) Police 
Department (1997) helped 
one especially problematic bar 
develop a computer database to 
record all people ejected from or 
arrested at the bar, and to make 
this information available to door 
security staff. 

 One sensible response related 
to police enforcement is to pass 
legislation making public fighting 
an offense, as was done at the 
recommendation of the Edmonton 
(Alberta) Police in 1999. This allows 
police to arrest offenders even when 
they cannot establish the elements 
of assault and battery. 



19. Marketing responsible consumption and service 
practices. Efforts to reduce consumption by educating 
people about responsible drinking do not appear 
effective.77 In general, drinkers do not view messages 
about responsible drinking as relevant to their own 
experiences.78 Media messages to young audiences 
about the dangers of drinking are counteracted by news 
about the health benefits of drinking modest amounts of 
alcohol, and by alcohol industry promotions. While major 
alcohol manufacturers and distributors have toned down 
their marketing campaigns in recent years, promoting 
responsible drinking, local bars have filled the void in the 
competition to attract patrons.79,  Police can target their 
enforcement efforts toward irresponsible bar advertising. 

20. Prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol. 
Alcohol prohibition can be effective under certain 
conditions, such as in unique cultural contexts where 
there is widespread public support for it, or in isolated 
communities where there are no nearby jurisdictions 
where one can drink.80,  However, in most communities, 
prohibition is politically impractical and can create a new 
set of problems. For example, strict prohibition creates 
an illegal alcohol market, and violence is often used to 
enforce that market.81 

 The North American Partnership 
for Responsible Hospitality and 
the National Licensed Beverage 
Association set standards for 
responsible beverage service, 
even though they have little direct 
influence over individual licensed 
premises. Sources of U.S. alcohol 
industry advertising codes include 
the Beer Institute, the Wine Institute, 
and the Distilled Spirits Council of 
the United States. State and local 
laws, newspaper advertising policies, 
and college campus advertising 
policies may also govern alcohol 
marketing. 

 Barrow, Alaska, an isolated Arctic 
community, experienced dramatic 
decreases in alcohol-related assaults, 
as well as many other alcohol-related 
problems, when it banned the sale, 
possession, and consumption of 
alcohol (Sampson and Scott 2000). 
Some cities, such as Chicago, Illinois, 
have provisions allowing residents 
to vote to prohibit alcohol sales 
in specific areasin effect, to 
create dry zones within the larger 
community. 



Appendix: Summary of Responses to 
Assaults in and Around Bars 

The table below summarizes the responses to assaults 
in and around bars, the mechanism by which they are 
intended to work, the conditions under which they ought 
to work best, and some factors you should consider before 
implementing a particular response. It is critical that you 
tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can 
justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most 
cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing 
several different responses. Enforcement responses alone 
are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response
How It Works 
Works Best If 
Considerations 
General Requirements of an Effective Strategy 
1 17 
Enlisting 
community 
support for 
addressing the 
problem 
Establishes 
joint 
ownership of 
the problem 
there is 
sufficient public 
interest in and 
political support 
for addressing the 
problem 
Requires a high degree 
of project management 
to sustain coalitions 
over time 
2 18 
Implementing 
multifaceted, 
comprehensive 
strategies 
Addresses 
many of the 
known risk 
factors that 
contribute to 
assaults 
responses 
are properly 
implemented (in 
the right sequence 
and strength) 
Difficult to isolate 
the effect of specific 
interventions; requires a 
high degree of project 
management 
3 18 
Getting 
cooperation and 
support from 
bar owners and 
managers 
Prevents 
displacement 
of the 
problem; 
prevents 
perceptions 
of unfairness; 
addresses 
problems at 
lower-risk bars 
there are 
mechanisms 
to enforce 
agreements, 
and regulators 
acknowledge the 
legitimacy of 
owners profit 
motive 
Rogue operators can 
easily undermine 
cooperative agreements 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response 
How It Works 
Works Best If 
Considerations 
4 19 
Informally 
monitoring bar 
policies and 
practices 
Identifies 
high-risk 
locations and 
practices; 
enforces 
cooperative 
agreements; 
monitors 
progress and 
effectiveness 
participating bar 
owners cooperate 
and support the 
oversight system; 
constructive 
feedback is offered 
to participating bar 
owners, along with 
potential solutions 
Lacks the force of law; 
requires a high degree 
of project management 
5 19 
Formally 
regulating and 
enforcing relevant 
liquor-licensing 
laws 
Motivates 
owners/ 
managers 
to adopt 
and enforce 
responsible 
serving 
policies and 
practices 
done in 
conjunction with 
more cooperative 
and voluntary 
efforts, and 
enforcement is 
consistent, routine, 
and perceived to 
be fair 
Labor-intensive and 
costly; increases 
rates of detected and 
reported offenses 
Specific Responses To Reduce Assaults 
Reducing Alcohol Consumption 
6 21 
Establishing 
responsible-
beverage-service 
programs 
Addresses 
a range of 
risk factors, 
especially 
reducing 
drunkenness 
levels 
servers, 
managers, and 
owners are 
provided with 
concrete examples 
of responsible 
practices; 
combined with 
sanctions and 
enforcement 
Evidence of 
effectiveness is mixed; 
requires enforcement 
to be taken seriously; 
costly to establish 
6a 22 
Monitoring 
drinking 
to prevent 
drunkenness 
Reduces 
drunkenness 
levels 
servers know 
how to detect 
intoxication, they 
have sufficient 
incentives to 
stop serving, and 
there is adequate 
opportunity to 
monitor patrons 
Refusing service to 
intoxicated patrons can 
instigate aggression; 
difficult to monitor 
drinking in large bars 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response 
How It Works 
Works Best If 
Considerations 
6b 22 Promoting slower 
drinking rates 
Reduces 
drunkenness 
levels 
bars prohibit 
serving multiple 
drinks to a single
customer 
Runs counter to 
licensees short-term 
profit motive 
 
6c 23 
Prohibiting 
underage drinking 
Prevents 
drunkenness 
of vulnerable 
population 
jurisdiction has 
identification cards 
that are difficult to 
falsify 
Easy to provide false 
proof of age in some 
jurisdictions 
6d 23 
Providing 
reduced-alcohol
or nonalcoholic 
beverages 
Reduces 
drunkenness
levels 
patrons will 
drink reduced-
or nonalcoholic
beverages
Some bar owners may 
be reluctant to stock
reduced- or non-
alcoholic beverages,  
believing they are less 
profitable 
6e 23 
Requiring or 
encouraging 
food service with 
alcohol service 
Reduces 
drunkenness 
levels; attracts 
a more 
diverse, less 
aggressive 
clientele;
creates 
a calmer 
atmosphere
patrons will buy 
and eat food, and 
food service is 
adequate so as not 
to create additional
frustration and 
conflict
Increases costs to 
licensees, but does 
not necessarily reduce 
profitability  
6f 23 
Discouraging 
alcohol price 
discounts 
Reduces 
volume of 
consumption 
all bars are 
prohibited from 
discounting prices 
Easily undermined 
by the pressures of 
business competition; 
potential legal 
restrictions to price 
agreements 
7 23 
Establishing and 
enforcing server 
liability laws 
Provides 
incentives 
for servers 
to control 
excessive 
consumption 
there is 
sufficient 
community 
support for 
liability laws, and 
laws are enforced 
adequately 
Difficult to establish 
servers knowledge of 
drunkenness; judgments 
are rare 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response 
How It Works 
Works Best If 
Considerations 
8 24 
Reducing the 
concentration 
and/or number 
of bars 
Reduces 
barhopping; 
reduces the 
potential for 
conflicts at 
closing time 
the 
concentration and/ 
or number of bars 
is high 
Not conclusively 
proven effective at 
reducing violence levels 
 
Making Bars Safer 
9 24 
Training staff to 
handle patrons 
nonviolently 
Reduces levels 
of aggression; 
encourages 
staff to 
intervene 
before assaults 
occur 
there are high- 
quality training 
programs available; 
skill development 
is emphasized; 
real-world 
scenarios are used 
Increases costs to 
either licensees or 
local government to 
administer training; 
training is often of 
poor quality 
10 26 
Establishing 
adequate 
transportation 
Reduces 
numbers 
of drunken 
people on 
streets after 
closing hours; 
reduces 
competition 
for 
transportation
the 
transportation 
infrastructure is 
adequate to the 
demand 
May increase costs to 
local government  
11 26 
Relaxing or 
staggering bar 
closing times 
Reduces the 
concentration 
of drunken 
people on 
streets after 
closing hours 
there are 
multiple bars in 
the area, with large 
crowds 
Requires legislation 
to authorize; seems 
counterintuitive 
and therefore easily 
opposed 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response 
How It Works 
Works Best If 
Considerations 
12 26 
Controlling bar 
entrances, exits, 
and immediate 
surroundings 
Reduces the 
entry of 
underage, 
drunken, and 
belligerent 
patrons; 
reduces 
barhopping; 
controls
conflict at key 
locations 
the security staff 
is properly trained 
and nonaggressive, 
and patrons often 
get into conflicts 
in the alleys and 
parking lots 
outside bars 
May increase short-
term costs to licensees 
(for security staff, 
surveillance cameras, 
lighting)  
13 27 
Maintaining 
an attractive, 
comfortable,
entertaining 
atmosphere in 
bars 
Reduces the 
frustration 
and boredom
that can 
precipitate 
aggression  
bar owners are 
willing to invest in 
maintenance and
entertainment  
Increases short-term 
costs to licensees  
14 28 
Establishing and 
enforcing clear 
rules of conduct
for bar patrons 
Reduces the 
potential 
for conflicts
among 
patrons;
promotes 
a calmer 
atmosphere
bar owners 
have sufficient 
incentives to 
promote peaceful 
and legal conduct
May run counter to 
patrons expectations 
and desires 
15 28 
Reducing 
potential weapons 
and other sources 
of injury 
Reduces the 
likelihood 
and/or 
severity of 
injury 
bar owners 
know where to buy 
safer materials 
May increase short-
term costs to licensees 
16 28 
Communicating 
about incidents as 
they occur 
Permits early 
intervention 
in potentially 
violent 
situations 
all local bars 
participate; police 
are included 
Need to distinguish 
between incidents that 
require police response 
and those that do not 
 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response 
How It Works 
Works Best If 
Considerations 
17 29 
Banning known 
troublemakers 
from bars 
Removes high-
risk offenders 
from 
situations 
where 
altercations 
are likely 
police and 
bar management 
cooperate to 
identify banned 
patrons, and 
enforce the terms 
of the banishment 
Legal restrictions; may 
be difficult to ensure 
compliance from bar 
owners if regular 
customers are banned 
Responses With Limited Effectiveness 
18 29 
Using extra police 
patrols in and 
around bars 
Intended to 
deter assaults 
and allow 
police to 
intervene in 
disputes 
Little evidence in the 
research that extra 
police presence is 
effective or efficient 
19 30 
Marketing 
responsible 
consumption and 
service practices 
Intended 
to heighten 
general 
awareness 
of the 
problem and 
discourage 
excessive 
consumption 
Excessive-consumption- 
warning campaigns do 
not appear effective; 
irresponsible marketing 
can be used to identify 
high-risk bars 
20 30 
Prohibiting 
the sale and 
consumption of 
alcohol 
Reduces 
consumption 
Difficult to obtain 
widespread public 
support; reduces the 
positive effects of 
social drinking; creates 
illegal and potentially 
violent black markets 


Endnotes 

1 Budd (2003); Finney (2004). 

2 Forsyth, Cloonan, and Barr (2005); Briscoe and 
Donnelly (2001b). 

3 Graham and Wells (2001). 

4 Graham and Wells (2003). 

5 Homel and Tomsen (1991). 

6 Stockwell (1997), citing Homel et al. (1992); Homel 
and Clark (1994).
 
7 Parks and Zetes-Zanatta (1999), citing Homel, 
Tomsen, and Thommeny (1992). 

8 Budd (2003). 

9 Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). 

10 Engineer et al. (2003). 

11 Graham, Schmidt, and Gillis (1996); Richardson and 
Budd (2003). 

12 Graham, Schmidt, and Gillis (1996); Pernanen (1998); 
Marsh and Kibby (1992); Homel and Clark (1994). 

13 Richardson et al. (2003); Engineer et al. (2003). 

14 Block and Block (1995). 

15 Zhu, Gorman, and Horel (2004); Lipton and 
Gruenewald (2002); Reid, Hughey, and Peterson 
(2003). 

16 Block and Block (1995). 

17 Berkley and Thayer (2000). 

18 Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b); Chikritzhs and 
Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant (2005). 

19 Graham et al. (2005). 

20 Tomsen, Homel, and Thomenny (1991); Tomsen 
(2005); Macintyre and Homel (1997); Stockwell (1997); 
Homel and Clark (1994). 

21 Lister et al. (2000). 

22 Marsh and Kibby (1992). 

23 Tomsen (2005); Graham and Wells (2001). 

24 Macintyre and Homel (1997). 


25 Donnelly and Briscoe (2003). 

26 Roberts (2002). 

27 Doherty and Roche (2003). 

28 Graham et al. (1980); Quigley, Leonard, and Collins 
(2003). 

29 Macintyre and Homel (1997). 

30 Graham et al. (1980). 

31 Graham, West, and Wells (2000). 

32 Doherty and Roche (2003). 

33 Graham and Homel (1997). 

34 Graham et al. (1980). 

35 Graham et al. (1980); Graham, West, and Wells (2000). 

36 Homel (1998); Wittman (1997); Homel et al. (1997); 
Deehan (1999); Erenberg and Hacker (1997); Calgary 
Police Service (1994). 

37 Pratten and Bailey (2005); Deehan (2004); Graham 
(2000); Stockwell (1997); Felson et al. (1997). 

38 Graham (2000). 

39 Homel et al. (2004). 

40 Roberts (2002). 

41 Homel et al. (1997); Graham (2000). 

42 Homel et al. (1997). 

43 Stockwell (2001). 

44 Holder et al. (1997). 

45 Stockwell (1997); Homel and Clark (1994); Erenberg 
and Hacker (1997); Saltz (1997). 

46 Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003); Graham 
(2000); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a); Briscoe and 
Donnelly (2001b). 

47 Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003). 

48 Sloan et al. (2000). 

49 McKnight and Streff (1994). 

50 Stockwell (1997); Donnelly and Briscoe (2003). 

51 Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999); Marsh and 
Kibby (1992). 

52 Single (1988). 

53 Saltz (1997). 


54 Liang, Sloan, and Stout (2004); Sloan et al. (2000). 

55 Stockwell (1997); Block and Block (1995); Saville 
(1996). 

56 Wells, Graham, and West (1998); Graham and Homel 
(1997); Deehan (1999); Homel and Clark (1994); 
Marsh and Kibby (1992). 

57 Fox and Sobol (2000); Graham et al. (2004). 

58 Graham et al. (2004). 

59 Marsh and Kibby (1992). 

60 Deehan (1999); Homel and Clark (1994); Marsh and 
Kibby (1992). 

61 Hobbs et al. (2003). 

62 Lister et al. (2000). 

63 Greater London Authority (2002). 

64 Roberts (2004). 

65 Marsh and Kibby (1992); Deehan (1999); Lovatt 
(1994); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a). 

66 Chikritzhs and Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant 
(2005). 

67 Roberts et al. (2002). 

68 Felson et al. (1997). 

69 Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999). 

70 Doherty and Roche (2003). 

71 Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). 

72 Marsh and Kibby (1992); Graham and Homel (1997); 
Deehan (2004,1999). 

73 Shepherd, Huggert, and Kidner (1993); Deehan (1999). 

74 Great Britain Home Office (2004); Roberts (2004). 

75 Roberts (2002). 

76 Burns and Coumarelos (1993); Pernanen (1998); 
Stockwell (2001). 

77 Single (1988). 

78 Tomsen (2005). 

79 Erenberg and Hacker (1997). 

80 Wood and Gruenewald (2004). 

81 Pernanen (1998). 


References 

Arlington Police Department (1997). Taming the Cowboys: 
Arlington Police Reduce Calls for Service From Local 
Nightclub. Problem-Solving Quarterly 10(3) (Fall):12. 
Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). Managing and Designing 
Out Crime and Disorder at Licensed Premises: A Guide for Licensees. 
Portishead (England): Avon and Somerset Constabulary. 

Berkley, B., and J. Thayer (2000). Policing Entertainment 
Districts. Policing 23(4):466491. 

Block, R., and C. Block (1995). Space, Place, and Crime: Hot-
Spot Areas and Hot Places of Liquor-Related Crime. In J. 
Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.), Crime and Place. Crime Prevention 
Studies, Vol. 4. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press; 
and Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Briscoe, S., and N. Donnelly (2001a). Temporal and Regional 
Aspects of Alcohol-Related Violence and Disorder. Alcohol Studies 
Bulletin, No. 1. Sydney (Australia): New South Wales Bureau 
of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug 
Research Institute of Curtin University. 

 (2001b). Assaults on Licensed Premises in Inner-Urban 
Areas. Alcohol Studies Bulletin, No. 2. Sydney (Australia): New 
South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and 
the National Drug Research Institute of Curtin University. 

Budd, T. (2003). Alcohol-Related Assault: Findings From 
the British Crime Survey. Home Office Online Report 35/03. 
London: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 
Directorate. 


Burns, E., M. Nusbaumer, and D. Reiling (2003). Think 
Theyre Drunk? Alcohol Servers and the Identification of 
Intoxication. Journal of Drug Education 33(2):177186. 

Burns, L., and C. Coumarelos (1993). Policing Pubs: Evaluation 
of a Licensing Enforcement Strategy. Sydney (Australia): New 
South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 

Calgary Police Service (1994). Police Lead Effort To 
Improve Safety of Popular Nightspot. Electric Avenue 
The Place To Go. Problem-Solving Quarterly 7(3/4) 
(Fall):1,68. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research 
Forum. 

Campbell Resources Inc. (1991). Alcohol and Problem Customers. 
Controlling Drug Activity and Other Illegal Behavior in Taverns 
and Retail Liquor Outlets: What Owners and Managers Need To 
Know. Portland (Oregon): City of Portland. 

Chikritzhs, T., and T. Stockwell (2002). The Impact of Later 
Trading Hours for Australian Public Houses (Hotels) on 
Levels of Violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(5):591 
599. 

Civic Trust and The Institute of Alcohol Studies (2002). Open 
All Hours? A Report on Licensing Deregulation by the Open All 
Hours? Campaign. London: Civic Trust and the Institute of 
Alcohol Studies. 

Deehan, A. (2004). The Prevention of Alcohol-Related 
Crime: Operationalising Situational and Environmental 
Strategies. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An 
International Journal 6(1):4352. 


References 

 (1999). Alcohol and Crime: Taking Stock. Crime 
Reduction Research Series, Paper 3. London: Great Britain 
Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. 

Derbyshire Constabulary (2002). Peaks and Dales Safer 
Pubs and Clubs. Submission for the Tilley Award for 
Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Doherty, S., and A. Roche (2003). Alcohol and Licensed Premises: 
Best Practice in Policing. Payneham (Australia): Australasian 
Center for Policing Research. 

Donnelly, N., and S. Briscoe (2003). Signs of Intoxication 
and Server Intervention Among 1839-Year-Olds Drinking 
at Licensed Premises in New South Wales, Australia. 
Addiction 98(9):12871295. 

Engineer, R., A. Phillips, J. Thompson, and J. Nicholls (2003). 
Drunk and Disorderly: A Qualitative Study of Binge Drinking 
Among 18-to 24-Year-Olds. Home Office Research Study, 
No. 262. London: Great Britain Home Office Research, 
Development, and Statistics Directorate. 

Erenberg, D., and G. Hacker (1997). Last Call for High-Risk 
Bar Promotions That Target College Students: A Community 
Action Guide. Washington, D.C.: Center for Science in the 
Public Interest. www.health.org/pubs/lastcall/index. 

Felson, M., R. Berends, B. Richardson, and A. Veno (1997). 
Reducing Pub Hopping and Related Crime. In R. Homel 
(ed.), Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, 
and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New 
York): Criminal Justice Press. 


Finney, A. (2004). Violence in the Nighttime Economy: Key Findings 
From the Research. Home Office Findings, No. 214. London: Great 
Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 
Directorate. 

Forsyth, A., M. Cloonan, and J. Barr (2005). Factors Associated 
With Alcohol-Related Problems Within Licensed Premises. 
Report to the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Glasgow, 
Scotland: Glasgow Center for the Study of Violence, Glasgow 
Caledonia University; and Center for Research Development in 
Adult and Lifelong Learning, University of Glasgow. 

Fox, J., and J. Sobol (2000). Drinking Patterns, Social 
Interaction, and Barroom Behavior: A Routine-Activities 
Approach. Deviant Behavior 21(5):429450. 

Graham, K. (2000). Preventive Interventions for On-Premise 
Drinking: A Promising But Underresearched Area of 
Prevention. Contemporary Drug Problems 27(3):593668. 

Graham, K., S. Bernards, D. Osgood, R. Homel, and J. Purcell 
(2005). Guardians and Handlers: The Role of Bar Staff in 
Preventing and Managing Aggression. Addiction 100(6):755 
766. 

Graham, K., and R. Homel (1997). Creating Safer Bars. In M. 
Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell (eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the 
Harm: What Works? London and New York: Free Association 
Books. 

Graham, K., D. Osgood, E. Zibrowski, J. Purcell, L. Gliksman, 
K. Leonard, K. Pernanen, R. Saltz, and T. Toomey (2004). 
The Effect of the Safer Bars Program on Physical Aggression 
in Bars: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Drug and 
Alcohol Review 23(1):3141. 

 

Graham, K., L. Rocque, R. Yetman, T. Ross, and E. Guistra 
(1980). Aggression and Barroom Environments. Journal 
of Studies on Alcohol 41(3):277292. 

Graham, K., G. Schmidt, and K. Gillis (1996). 
Circumstances When Drinking Leads to Aggression: 
An Overview of Research Findings. Contemporary Drug 
Problems 23(3):493557. 

Graham, K., and S. Wells (2003). Somebodys Gonna Get 
Their Head Kicked in Tonight! Aggression Among Young 
Males in BarsA Question of Values? British Journal of 
Criminology 43(3):546566. 

 (2001). Aggression Among Young Adults in the 
Social Context of the Bar. Addiction Research & Theory 
9(3):193219. 

Graham, K., P. West, and S. Wells (2000). Evaluating 
Theories of Alcohol-Related Aggression Using 
Observations of Young Adults in Bars. Addiction 
95(6):847863. 

Great Britain Home Office (2004). Violent Crime: Tackling 
Violent Crime in the Nighttime Economy. London: Police 
Standards Unit and Crime Directorate. 

Greater London Authority (2002). Late-Night London: Planning 
and Managing the Late-Night Economy. SDS Technical Report 
Six. London: Greater London Authority. 

Green Bay Police Department (2000). Street Sweeping, 
Broadway Style. In Police Executive Research Forum, 
National Institute of Justice and Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, Excellence in Problem-Oriented 
Policing: The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 


Hobbs, D., P. Haedfield, S. Lister, and S. Winlow (2003). 
Bouncers: Violence and Governance in the Nighttime Economy. 
Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 

Holder, H., R. Saltz, J. Grube, R. Voas, P. Gruenewald, and 

A. Treno (1997). A Community Prevention Trial To 
Reduce Alcohol-Involved Accidental Injury and Death: 
Overview. Addiction 92(Supplement 2):S155S171. 

Homel, R. (2001). Preventing Violence: A Review of the Literature 
on Violence and Violence Prevention. A Report Prepared for 
the Crime Prevention Division of the NSW Attorney Generals 
Department. Sydney (Australia): NSW Department of the 
Attorney General. 

 (1998). Policing Alcohol Problems. In T. 
OConnor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented 
Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP 
Work. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Homel, R., R. Carvolth, M. Hauritz, G. McIlwain, and R. 
Teague (2004). Making Licensed Venues Safer for Patrols: 
What Environmental Factors Should Be the Focus of 
Interventions? Drug and Alcohol Review 23(1):1929. 

Homel, R., and J. Clark (1994). The Prediction and 
Prevention of Violence in Pubs and Clubs. In R. Clarke 
(ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3. Monsey (New York): 
Criminal Justice Press. 

Homel, R., M. Hauritz, R. Wortley, G. McIlwain, and R. 
Carvolth (1997). Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime 
Through Community Action: The Surfers-Paradise Safety 
Action Project. In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: 
Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention 
Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. 

 

Homel, R., and S. Tomsen (1991). Pubs and Violence. 
Current Affairs Bulletin 68(7):2027. 

Homel, R., S. Tomsen, and J. Thommeny (1992). Public 
Drinking and Violence: Not Just an Alcohol Problem. 
Journal of Drug Issues 22(3):679697. 

Hopkins, M. (2004). Targeting Hotspots of Alcohol-Related 
Town Center Violence: A Nottinghamshire Case Study. 
Security Journal 17(4):5366. 

Isle of Man Constabulary (2005). Project Centurion: 
Reducing Crime and Disorder on Douglas Promenade. 
Submission to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence 
in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Liang, L., F. Sloan, and E. Stout (2004). Precaution, 
Compensation, and Threats of Sanction: The Case of 
Alcohol Servers. International Review of Law and Economics 
21(1):4969. 

Lipton, R., and P. Gruenewald (2002). The Spatial Dynamics 
of Violence and Alcohol Outlets. Journal of Studies on 
Alcohol 63(2):187195. 

Lister, S., D. Hobbs, S. Hall, and S. Winlow (2000). Violence 
in the Nighttime Economy: Bouncers: The Reporting, 
Recording, and Prosecution of Assaults. Policing and Society 
10(4):383402. 

Lovatt, A. (1994). The More the Merrier: A Manchester 
Experiment Suggests That Abandoning Traditional 
Licensing Hours Reduces Crime and Rowdyism. Policing 
10(4):268275. 


Macintyre, S., and R. Homel (1997). Danger on the 
Dance Floor: A Study of Interior Design, Crowding, and 
Aggression in Nightclubs. In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for 
Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime 
Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal 
Justice Press. 

Maguire, M., and H. Nettleton (2003). Reducing Alcohol-Related 
Violence and Disorder: An Evaluation of the TASC Project. 
Home Office Research Study, No. 265. London: Great Britain 
Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 
Directorate. 

Marsh, P., and K. Kibby (1992). Drinking and Public Disorder. 
London: Alden Press, Oxford. 

McKnight, A., and F. Streff (1994). The Effect of 
Enforcement Upon Service of Alcohol to Intoxicated 
Patrons of Bars and Restaurants. Accident Analysis and 
Prevention 26(1):7988. 

McNeill, A. (2005). Occasional Paper: Crime and Disorder, 
Binge Drinking, and the Licensing Act 2003. London: 
Institute for Alcohol Studies. 

Merseyside Police (2000). Operation Crystal and the 
24-Hour City. Submission for the Tilley Award for 
Problem-Oriented Policing. www.popcenter.org/library/ 
tilley/2001/01-49(W-cdrc).pdf. 

Mosher, J., T. Toomey, C. Good, E. Harwood, and A. 
Wagenaar (2002). State Laws Mandating or Promoting 
Training Programs for Alcohol Servers and Establishment 
Managers: An Assessment of Statutory and Administrative 
Procedures. Journal of Public Health Policy 23(1):90113. 

 

Parks, K., and L. Zetes-Zanatta (1999). Womens Bar-
Related Victimization: Refining and Testing a Conceptual 
Model. Aggressive Behavior 25(5):349364. 

Pernanen, K. (1998). Prevention of Alcohol-Related 
Violence. Contemporary Drug Problems 25(3):477509. 

Plant, E., and M. Plant (2005). A Leap in the Dark? 
Lessons for the United Kingdom From Past Extensions 
of Bar Opening Hours. International Journal of Drug Policy 
16(6):363368. 

Pratten, J., and N. Bailey (2005). Pubwatch: Questions on 
Its Validity and a Police Response. International Journal of 
Contemporary Hospitality Management 17(4):359364. 

Pratten, J., and B. Greig (2005). Can Pubwatch Address 
the Problems of Binge Drinking? A Case Study From the 
Northwest of England. International Journal of Contemporary 
Hospitality Management 17(3):252260. 

Quigley, B., K. Leonard, and R. Collins (2003). 
Characteristics of Violent Bars and Bar Patrons. Journal 
of Studies on Alcohol 64(6):765772. 

Reid, R., J. Hughey, and N. Peterson (2003). Generalizing 
the Alcohol OutletAssaultive Violence Link: Evidence 
From a U.S. Midwestern City. Substance Use & Misuse 
38(14):19711982. 

Richardson, A., and T. Budd (2003). Young Adults, Alcohol, 
Crime, and Disorder. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 
13(1):516. 


Richardson, A., T. Budd, R. Engineer, A. Phillips, J. 
Thompson, and J. Nicholls (2003). Drinking, Crime, and 
Disorder. Home Office Findings, No. 185. London: Great 
Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 
Directorate. 

Roberts, J. (2002). Serving Up Trouble in the Barroom 
Environment. Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, School of 
Criminal Justice. 

Roberts, M. (2004). Good Practice in Managing the Evening and 
Late-Night Economy: A Literature Review From an Environmental 
Perspective. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 

Roberts, M., C. Turner, S. Greenfield, G. Osborn, N. Bailey, 
and T. Edmundson (2002). Licensing Reform: A Cross-Cultural 
Comparison of Rights, Responsibilities, and Regulation. London: 
Central Cities Institute, University of Westminster. 

Ronco, E., and D. Quisenberry (2005). Bar Patrons Could 
Get Extra Time To Sober Up. The Grand Rapids Press, July 
1, p. A1. 

Saltz, R. (1997). Prevention Where Alcohol Is Sold and 
Consumed: Server Intervention and Responsible Beverage 
Service. In M. Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell (eds.), 
Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm: What Works? London and 
New York: Free Association Books. 

Sampson, R., and M. Scott (eds.) (2000). Tackling Crime and 
Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (2000). 

San Diego Police Department Vice Unit (n.d.). In-House 
Security Program: Instructor Course. San Diego: San Diego 
Police Department. 


Saville, G. (1996). Searching for a Neighborhoods Crime 
Threshold. Subject to Debate 10(10):1,7. Washington, D.C.: 
Police Executive Research Forum. 

Shepherd, J., R. Huggert, and G. Kidner (1993). Impact 
Resistance of Bar Glasses. The Journal of Trauma 
35(6):936938. 

Single, E. (1988). The Availability Theory of Alcohol-
Related Problems. In C. Chaudron and D. Wilkinson 
(eds.), Theories on Alcoholism. Toronto: Addiction Research 
Foundation. 

Sloan, F., E. Stout, K. Whetten-Goldstein, and L. Liang 
(2000). Drinkers, Drivers, and Bartenders: Balancing Private 
Choices and Public Accountability. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press. 

Stockwell, T. (2001). Responsible Alcohol Service: Lessons 
From Evaluations of Server Training and Policing 
Initiatives. Drug and Alcohol Review 20(3):257265. 

 (1997). Regulation of the Licensed Drinking 
Environment: A Major Opportunity for Crime 
Prevention. In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: 
Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention 
Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. 

Tierney, J., and D. Hobbs (2003). Alcohol-Related Crime and 
Disorder Data: Guidance for Local Partnerships. Home 
Office Online Report 08/03. London: Home Office Research, 
Development, and Statistics Directorate. 


Tomsen, S. (2005). Boozers and Bouncers: Masculine 
Conflict, Disengagement, and the Contemporary 
Governance of Drinking-Related Violence and Disorder. 
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 38(3):283 
297. 

Tomsen, S., R. Homel, and J. Thommeny (1991). The 
Causes of Public Violence: Situational Versus Other 
Factors in Drinking-Related Assaults. In D. Chappell, 
P. Grabosky, and H. Strang (eds.), Australian Violence: 
Contemporary Perspectives. Canberra: Australian Institute of 
Criminology. 

Toomey, T., A. Wagenaar, J. Gehan, G. Kilian, D. Murray, and 
C. Perry (2001). Project ARM: Alcohol Risk Management 
To Prevent Sales to Underage and Intoxicated Patrons. 
Health Education & Behavior 28(2):186199. 

University of Ballarat Center for Health Research and 
Practice (2004). Operation Link: Be Safe Late Program: A 
Partnership Approach to Responsible Patrol Management at 
Nightclubs to Reduce the Occurrence of Alcohol-Related Crime, 
Disorder, and Nuisance Within the Central Business District of the 
City of Ballarat. Mt. Helen, Victoria (Australia): University 
of Ballarat. 

Wallin, E., J. Gripenberg, and S. Andreasson (2005). 
Overserving at Licensed Premises in Stockholm: Effects 
of a Community Action Program. Journal of Studies on 
Alcohol 66(6):806814. 

Wallin, E., T. Norstrom, and S. Andreasson (2003). Alcohol 
Prevention Targeting Licensed Premises: A Study of 
Effects on Violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64(2):270 
277. 


Wells, S., K. Graham, and P. West (1998). The Good, 
the Bad, and the Ugly: Responses by Security Staff to 
Aggressive Incidents in Public Drinking Settings. Journal 
of Drug Issues 28(4):817836. 

Wiggers, J., M. Jauncey, R. Considine, J. Daly, M. Kingsland, 
K. Purss, S. Burrows, C. Nicholas, and R. Waites (2004). 
Strategies and Outcomes in Translating Alcohol Harm- 
Reduction Research Into Practice: The Alcohol Linking 
Program. Drug and Alcohol Review 23(3):355364. 

Wittman, F. (1997). Local Control To Prevent Problems 
of Alcohol Availability: Experience in California 
Communities. In M. Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell 
(eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm: What Works? London 
and New York: Free Association Books. 

Wood, D., and P. Gruenewald (2004). Alcohol Availability, 
Police Presence, and Violence in Isolated Alaskan Villages. 
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of 
Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas. 

Zhu, L., D. Gorman, and S. Horel (2004). Alcohol Outlet 
Density and Violence: A Geospatial Analysis. Alcohol & 
Alcoholism 39(4):369375. 


About the Authors 

Michael S. Scott 

Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for Problem-
Oriented Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was formerly 
chief of police in Lauderhill (Florida); served in various civilian 
administrative positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce 
(Florida), and New York City police departments; and was a 
police officer in the Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department. 
Scott developed training programs in problem-oriented policing 
at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). He was the 
1996 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation and 
leadership in policing. He is a judge for the Herman Goldstein 
Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott holds 
a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelors degree 
from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 


Kelly Dedel 

Kelly Dedel is the director of One in 37 Research, Inc., a 
criminal justice consulting firm based in Portland, Oregon. 
As a consultant to federal, state, and local agencies, she 
contributes to research on the juvenile and criminal justice 
systems by 1) developing written tools to enhance practice 
or inform public policy; 2) conducting investigations of 
confinement conditions in juvenile correctional facilities; 
and 3) undertaking rigorous evaluations of various juvenile 
and criminal justice programs to assess their effectiveness. 
She has provided evaluation-related technical assistance to 
more than 60 jurisdictions nationwide for the Bureau of 
Justice Assistance. In this capacity, she has worked with a 
broad range of criminal justice programs implemented by 
police, prosecutors, public defenders, juvenile detention and 
confinement facilities, local jails, community corrections, 
and prisons. She consults with the Justice Department as 
a monitor/investigator of civil rights violations in juvenile 
correctional facilities, most often in the areas of education 
and protection from harm. Among her other research 
interests are prisoner reentry, risk assessment and offender 
classification, and juveniles in adult correctional facilities. 
Before working as a consultant, she was a founder and 
senior research scientist at The Institute on Crime, Justice, 
and Corrections at The George Washington University, 
and a senior research associate at the National Council on 
Crime and Delinquency. Dedel received bachelors degrees 
in psychology and criminal justice from the University of 
Richmond, and a doctorate in clinical psychology from the 
Center for Psychological Studies, in Berkeley, California. 


Recommended Readings 

 A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 
Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 
guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 
to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 
public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 
provides guidance on whether and how to conduct cost-
effective surveys. 
 Assessing Responses to Problems: An 
Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, 
by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 
is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 
It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 
problem-oriented policing efforts. 

 Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 
(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 
accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 
pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 
document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 
 Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 
(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 
volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 
opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 
initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 


 Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 
1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 
document produced by the National Institute of Justice 
in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 
provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 
annual award program that recognizes exemplary problem-
oriented responses to various community problems. A 
similar publication is available for the award winners from 
subsequent years. The documents are also available at 
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. 
 Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 
Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 
Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 
describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 
or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 
England and Wales. 
 Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 
for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 
Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 
1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 
theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 
have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 
prevent crime. 
 Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 
Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 
analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 
can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 
policing practices. 


 Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 
(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 
Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 
policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 
how a police agency can implement the concept. 
 Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 
by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 
Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 
about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 
victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 
to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 
departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 
improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 
securing productive partnerships. 
 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 
First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 
Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 
developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 
future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 
is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
 Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 
Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 
(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 
rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 
problem-solving process, and provides examples of 
effective problem-solving in one agency. 


 Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 
Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 
Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj. 
gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 
basic information on the SARA model and detailed 
suggestions about the problem-solving process. 
 Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 
Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 
(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 
methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 
20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 
 Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety 
Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by 
Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
2000) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case 
studies of effective police problem-solving on 18 types of 
crime and disorder problems. 
 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 
for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 
police to analyzing problems within the context of 
problem-oriented policing. 
 Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 
Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 
LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 
many of the basics of research as it applies to police 
management and problem-solving. 


Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and 
Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 
2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 
3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 
4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 
Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 
5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 
6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 
7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 
8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 
9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 
10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 
Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 
11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 
12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 
13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 
14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 
15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 
16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. 
Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 
17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 
18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 
2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 
19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 
20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 
Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 


21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 
ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 
22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 
23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 
Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 
24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 
25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 
26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 
2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 
27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 
28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 
29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 
30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 
31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 
Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 
32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 
33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 
34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 
35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7 
36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 
Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 
37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8 
38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 
2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2 
39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 
2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6 
40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 
ISBN: 1-932582-63-0 


41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 
and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7 
42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 
ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 

Response Guides series: 

 The Benefits and Consequences of Police 
Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 
 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 
You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 
 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. 
Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5 
 Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 
Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 
2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 
 Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 
2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

 Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 
Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 
 Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 
Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 
 Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 
Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5 
 Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 
Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 


Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 
Domestic Violence 
Bank Robbery 
Drive-by Shootings 
Disorder at Day Laborer Sites 
Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 
Traffic Congestion Around Schools 
Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses 
Robbery of Convenience Stores 
Theft from Cars on Streets 

Problem-Solving Tools 
Risky Facilities 
Implementing Responses to Problems 
Designing a Problem Analysis System 

Response Guides 
Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 
Problem Solving 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 
Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 
the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 
COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 


For More InForMatIon: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

e08064507 Updated: August 16, 2006 
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2