DOJ seal
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services US Department of Justice Logo
No. 9

Graffiti

by

Deborah Lamm Weisel

www.cops.usdoj.gov


PopCenter logoCenter for Problem-Oriented Policing

Got a Problem? Weve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 
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.

www.PopCenter.org


Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 9

Graffiti

Deborah Lamm Weisel

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #99-CK-WX-
K004 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.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 
1-932582-08-8

August 2004


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. 
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.

 
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 other community agencies 
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 entities. 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. 

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.

 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 
provide feedback on this guide and to report on your 
own agency's 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 or via the COPS website at www.cops.usdoj.
gov. This website 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 training exercise

 online access to important police research and practices.



Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 
collaborative effort. 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 principal project team developing the guide series 
comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, 
University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, 
professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. 
Eck, associate professor of criminal justice, University of 
Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, clinical assistant professor, 
University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, 
police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm 
Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State 
University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw 
the project for the COPS Office. Suzanne Fregly edited 
the guides. Research for the guides was conducted at the 
Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 
direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members 
of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 
departments who provided feedback on the guides' format 
and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the 
line police officers, police executives and researchers who 
peer reviewed each guide.



contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series.i 

Acknowledgments.v

The Problem of Graffiti.1

Related Problems.3

Factors Contributing to Graffiti.3

Types of Graffiti .3

Common Targets and Locations of Graffiti.4

Motives of Offenders .7

Characteristics and Patterns of Graffiti Offenders.10

Understanding Your Local Problem.13

Asking Key Questions About Graffiti.13

Victims.13

Amount of Graffiti.13

Types of Graffiti.14

Locations/Times.14

Offenders .15

Measuring Your Effectiveness.16

Responses to the Problem of Graffiti.19

Reducing Rewards to Offenders.20

Increasing the Risk of Detection.25

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending.28

Responses With Limited Effectiveness.31


Appendix: Summary of Responses to Graffiti.37

Endnotes.41

References.43

About the Author.47

Recommended Readings.49

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police.53



The Problem of Graffiti

This guide addresses effective responses to the problem of 
graffitithe wide range of markings, etchings and paintings 
that deface public or private property. In recent decades, 
graffiti has become an extensive problem, spreading from the 
largest cities to other locales. Despite the common association 
of graffiti with gangs, graffiti is widely found in jurisdictions 
of all sizes, and graffiti offenders are by no means limited to 
gangs.

 Although graffiti is also found 
within public or private property 
(such as in schools), this guide 
primarily addresses graffiti in places 
open to public view.

Because of its rising prevalence in many areasand the high 
costs typically associated with cleanup and prevention
graffiti is often viewed as a persistent, if not an intractable, 
problem. Few graffiti offenders are apprehended, and some 
change their methods and locations in response to possible 
apprehension and cleanups. 

As with most forms of vandalism, graffiti is not routinely 
reported to police. Many people think that graffiti is not a 
police or "real crime" problem, or that the police can do little 
about it. Because graffiti is not routinely reported to police 
or other agencies, its true scope is unknown. But graffiti 
has become a major concern, and the mass media, including 
movies and websites glamorizing or promoting graffiti as an 
acceptable form of urban street art, have contributed to its 
spread.

Although graffiti is a common problem, its intensity varies 
substantially from place to place. While a single incident of 
graffiti does not seem serious, graffiti has a serious cumulative 
effect; its initial appearance in a location appears to attract 
more graffiti. Local graffiti patterns appear to emerge over 
time, thus graffiti takes distinctive forms, is found in different 


locations, and may be associated with varying motives of 
graffiti offenders. These varying attributes offer important 
clues to the control and prevention of graffiti.

For many people, graffiti's presence suggests the government's 
failure to protect citizens and control lawbreakers. There are 
huge public costs associated with graffiti; an estimated $12 
billion a year is spent cleaning up graffiti in the United States. 
Graffiti contributes to lost revenue associated with reduced 
ridership on transit systems, reduced retail sales and declines 
in property value. In addition, graffiti generates the perception 
of blight and heightens fear of gang activity.

 

Image of graffiti on side of a railroad bridge
Kip Kellogg
Graffiti offenders risk injury by placing graffiti 
on places such as this railroad bridge spanning 
a river.


Related Problems

Graffiti is not an isolated problem. It is often related to other 
crime and disorder problems, including:

 public disorder, such as littering, public urination and 
loitering

 shoplifting of materials needed for graffiti, such as paint 
and markers1 

 gangs and gang violence, as gang graffiti conveys threats 
and identifies turf boundaries

 property destruction, such as broken windows or slashed 
bus or train seats. 

Factors Contributing to Graffiti

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

Types of Graffiti

There are different types of graffiti. The major types include:

 gang graffiti, often used by gangs to mark turf or convey 
threats of violence, and sometimes copycat graffiti, which 
mimics gang graffiti 

 tagger graffiti, ranging from high-volume simple hits to 
complex street art 

 conventional graffiti, often isolated or spontaneous acts 
of "youthful exuberance," but sometimes malicious or 
vindictive 

 ideological graffiti, such as political or hate graffiti, which 
conveys political messages or racial, religious or ethnic slurs.

 


In areas where graffiti is prevalent, gang and tagger graffiti are 
the most common types found. While other forms of graffiti 
may be troublesome, they typically are not as widespread. The 
proportion of graffiti attributable to differing motives varies 
widely from one jurisdiction to another. The major types of 
graffiti are discussed later.

 A count in a San Diego area with 
a lot of graffiti showed that about 
50 percent was gang graffiti, 40 
percent was tagger graffiti, and 10 
percent was non-group graffiti (San 
Diego Police Department 2000). 
In nearby Chula Vista (California), 
only 19 percent of graffiti was 
gang-related (Chula Vista Police 
Department 1999). Although the 
counting methods likely differ, 
these proportions suggest how the 
breakdown of types of graffiti varies 
from one jurisdiction to another. 

Common Targets and Locations of Graffiti

Graffiti typically is placed on public property, or private 
property adjacent to public space. It is commonly found in 
transportation systemson inner and outer sides of trains, 
subways and buses, and in transit stations and shelters. It is 
also commonly found on vehicles; walls facing streets; street, 
freeway and traffic signs; statues and monuments; and bridges. 
In addition, it appears on vending machines, park benches, 

 

Image of graffiti
Bob Morris
Gang graffiti marks territory and conveys 
threats.


utility poles, utility boxes, billboards, trees, streets, sidewalks, 
parking garages, schools, business and residence walls, garages, 
fences, and sheds. In short, graffiti appears almost any place 
open to public view.

Graffiti tends to recur in some locations. In fact, areas where 
graffiti has been painted overespecially with contrasting 
colorsmay be a magnet to be revandalized. Some offenders 
are highly tenaciousconducting a psychological battle with 
authorities or owners for their claim over an area or specific 
location. Such tenacity appears to be related to an escalating 
defiance of authority. 

Graffiti locations are often characterized by the absence of 
anyone with direct responsibility for the area. This includes 
public areas, schools, vacant buildings,2 and buildings with 
absentee landlords. Offenders also target locations with poor 
lighting and little oversight by police or security personnel. 

 

 Most sources suggest that paint-
over colors should closely match, 
rather than contrast with, the base. 
Contrasting paint-overs are presumed 
to attract or challenge graffiti 
offenders to repaint their graffiti; the 
painted-over area provides a canvass 
to frame the new graffiti. 

 

Kip Kellogg
Picture of Graffiti on side of railroad car
Graffiti is commonly found in transportation 
systems, such as on the side of this railroad car.


Some targets and locations appear particularly vulnerable to 
graffiti:

 easy-to-reach targets, such as signs 

 particularly hard-to-reach locations, such as freeway 
overpasses 

 highly visible locations, such as building walls 

 locations where a wall or fence is the primary security, and 
where there are few windows, employees or passersby

 locations where oversight is cyclical during the day or week, 
or where people are intimidated by graffiti offenders

 mobile targets, such as trains or buses, which generate wide 
exposure for the graffiti

 places where gang members congregatetaverns, bowling 
alleys, convenience store parking lots, and residential 
developments with many children or youth. 

In addition, two types of surfaces attract graffiti: 

 

 Light-colored surfaces. Dark surfaces do not generally 
attract as much graffiti, but can be marred with light-
colored paint.

Kip Kellogg

Picture of Graffiti on hard to reach places
Graffiti often appears in hard-to-reach yet highly visible 
locations, such as on the upper-story windows of this warehouse.


 Large and plain surfaces. Surfaces without windows or doors 
may be appealing for large-scale projects. Smooth surfaces 
especially attract offenders who use felt-tip markers. 

Motives of Offenders

While making graffiti does not offer material reward to 
offenders, contrary to public opinion, it does have meaning. 
Rather than being a senseless destruction of property, graffiti 
fulfills certain psychological needs, including providing 
excitement and action, a sense of control, and an element of 
risk. The different types of graffiti are associated with different 
motives, although these drives may overlap. Distinguishing 
between types of graffiti and associated motives is a critical 
step for developing an effective response.

 
 The description of types of graffiti 
and motives of graffiti offenders 
draws from broader typologies and 
motives associated with vandalism. 
See, for example, Coffield (1991) and 
Cohen (1973).

Historically, much conventional graffiti has represented a 
youthful "rite of passage"part of a phase of experimental 
behavior. Such graffiti is usually spontaneous and not malicious 
in nature; indeed, spontaneous graffiti has often been 
characterized as play, adventure or exuberance. Spontaneous 
graffiti may reflect local traditions and appear on "fair targets" 
such as abandoned buildings or schools. Communities have 
often tolerated such graffiti.

The motives for some types of conventional graffiti may 
include anger and hostility toward society, and the vandalism 
thus fulfills some personal psychological need.3 The graffiti 
may arise from boredom, despair, resentment, failure, and/or 
frustration, in which case it may be vindictive or malicious. 

A related type of graffiti is ideological. Ideological graffiti 
expresses hostility or a grievanceoften quite explicitly. Such 
graffiti is usually easily identified by its content, reflecting 


a political, religious, ethnic, or other bias. Offenders may 
strategically target certain locations to further the message.

In contrast to conventional and ideological graffiti, the 
primary motive for gang graffiti is tactical; the graffiti serves 
as a public form of communicationto mark turf, convey 
threats or boast of achievements.4 

Some tagger graffiti may involve creative expression, 
providing a source of great pride in the creation of complex 
works of art. Most taggers seek notoriety and recognition 
of their graffitithey attach status to having their work seen. 
Thus, prolonged visibility due to the sheer volume, scale and 
complexity of the graffiti, and placement of the graffiti 
in hard-to-reach places or in transit systems, enhance the 
vandal's satisfaction.5 Because recognition is important, the 
tagger tends to express the same motifthe graffiti's style 
and content are replicated over and over again, becoming the 
tagger's unique signature. 

Participation in graffiti is often inadvertently encouraged 
through police contacts, media attention and public 
recognition of it through advertising or art displaysall can 
serve to enhance the offender's reputation or notoriety.6 
 

 This includes complex, artistic 
graffiti known as masterpieces.

 Taggers in California used 
climbing equipment to tag freeway 
overpasses, knowing their tags 
would be highly visible for extended 
periods, until the road was shut 
down for paint-overs (Beatty 1990). 
Hard-to-reach places also provide an 
element of danger of apprehension 
or physical risk, contributing to the 
vandal's reputation.



Types of Graffiti and Associated Motives

 Copycat graffiti looks like 
gang graffiti, and may be the 
work of gang wanna-bes or 
youths seeking excitement.

 Offenders commonly 
use numbers as code in 
gang graffiti. A number may 
represent the corresponding 
position in the alphabet (e.g., 13 
= M, for the Mexican Mafia), 
or represent a penal or police 
radio code.

 Stylized alphabets include 
bubble letters, block letters, 
backwards letters, and Old 
English script.

 Tagbangers, a derivative 
of tagging crews and gangs, are 
characterized by competition 
with other crews. Thus crossed-
out tags are features of their 
graffiti.

 The single-line writing 
of a name is usually known as a 
tag, while slightly more complex 
tags, including those with two 
colors or bubble letters, are 
known as throw-ups.

Type of Graffiti Features 
Motives

Mark turf 

Threaten violence

Boast of achievements

Honor the slain

Insult/taunt other gangs

Notoriety or prestige

Defiance of authority

Artistic

Prestige or recognition

Play

Rite of passage 

Excitement

Impulsive

Anger

Boredom

Resentment

Failure

Despair

Anger

Hate

Political

Hostility

Defiance

Gang

Common Tagger

Artistic Tagger

Conventional Graffiti: 
Spontaneous

Conventional Graffiti: 
Malicious or Vindictive

Ideological

Gang name or symbol, including hand 
signs

Gang member name(s) or nickname(s), 
or sometimes a roll-call listing of 
members

Numbers 

Distinctive, stylized alphabets 

Key visible locations

Enemy names and symbols, or allies' 
names

High-volume, accessible locations

High-visibility, hard-to-reach locations

May be stylized but simple name or 
nickname tag or symbols 

Tenacious (keep retagging)

Colorful and complex pictures known 
as masterpieces or pieces

Sporadic episodes or isolated incidents

Sporadic, isolated or systematic 
incidents

Offensive content or symbols

Racial, ethnic or religious slurs 

Specific targets, such as synagogues

Highly legible

Slogans


Characteristics and Patterns of Graffiti Offenders

Graffiti offenders are typically young and male. In one study, 
most offenders were ages 15 to 23; many of the offenders 
were students. Offenders may typically be male, inner-city 
blacks and Latinos, but female, as well as white and Asian, 
participation is growing.7 The profile clearly does not apply 
in some places where the population is predominantly white. 
Tagging is not restricted by class lines.

In Sydney, Australia, graffiti offenders, while mostly boys, 
include girls; offenders are typically ages 13 to 17.8 In San 
Diego, all the taggers identified within a two-mile area were 
male, and 72 percent were 16 or younger.9 

Graffiti offenders typically operate in groups, with perhaps 
15 to 20 percent operating alone.10 In addition to the 
varying motives for differing types of graffiti, peer pressure, 
boredom, lack of supervision, lack of activities, low academic 
achievement, and youth unemployment contribute to 
participation in graffiti. 

Bob Morris
Picture of gang member related to graffiti tagging
Young male gang members may engage in a substantial 
amount of graffiti.


Graffiti offenders often use spray paint, although they may 
also produce graffiti with large markers or by etching, the 
latter especially on glass surfaces. Spray paint is widely 
available, easily concealed, easily and quickly used on a variety 
of surfaces, available in different colors with different nozzles 
to change line widthsthese factors make spray paint suitable 
for a range of offenders. 

The making of graffiti is characterized by anonymityhence 
relative safety from detection and apprehension. Most 
offenders work quickly, when few people are around. Graffiti 
predominantly occurs late on weekend nights, though there is 
little systematic evidence about this. In British transit studies, 
graffiti incidents typically occurred in off-peak or non-rush 
hours.11 In Bridgeport, Connecticut, graffiti incidents were 
concentrated from 5 p.m. to 4 a.m. Thursdays through 
Sundays.12 A San Diego study showed that routes leading 
away from schools were hit more frequently, suggesting a 
concentration in after-school hours Monday through Friday. 
Offenders tagged school walls daily.13 

There is widespread concern that participation in graffiti may 
be an initial or gateway offense from which offenders may 
graduate to more sophisticated or harmful crimes. Graffiti is 
sometimes associated with truancy, and can involve drug and/
or alcohol use. Graffiti offenders who operate as members of 
gangs or crews may also engage in fighting. 

 Other tools for graffiti include 
shoe polish, rocks, razors, glass 
cutters, and glass etching fluid. Glass 
etching fluids include acids, such 
as Etch Bath and Armour Etch, 
developed as hobby products for 
decorating glass. Vandals squirt or 
rub the acids onto glass. 

 Vandals may adapt or modify 
tools and practices to cleaning 
methods. In New York City, when 
transit system personnel used paint 
solvents to remove graffiti, offenders 
adapted by spraying a surface with 
epoxy, writing their graffiti and then 
coating the surface with shellac, 
which proved very difficult to 
remove. 



Understanding Your Local Problem

You must combine the basic facts provided above with a 
more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing 
the local problem helps in designing a more effective response 
strategy.

Asking Key Questions About Graffiti

The following are some critical questions you should ask 
in analyzing your particular problem of graffiti, even if the 
answers are not always readily available. If you fail to answer 
these questions, you may select the wrong response.

Victims

 Whom does the graffiti directly victimize (e.g., homeowners, 
apartment managers, business owners, transit systems, 
utilities, public works, others)?

 Whom does the graffiti indirectly affect (e.g., people who see 
the graffiti)? How fearful are these people? What activities 
does graffiti affect (e.g., shopping, use of recreational areas 
and public transit)? (Community or other surveys may be 
necessary to answer these questions.)

Amount of Graffiti

 How much graffiti is there? (Visual surveys are necessary to 
answer questions about the amount of graffiti.)

 How many individual tags or separate pieces of graffiti are 
there? 

 How big is the graffiti (e.g., in square feet)?

 How many graffiti locations are there?

 How many graffiti-related calls for service, incident reports 
or hotline reports are there?


Types of Graffiti

 Are there different types of graffiti? How many of each 
type?

 What are the content and unique characteristics of the 
graffiti? (Some agencies photograph or videotape graffiti to 
create an intelligence database noting key characteristics, to 
link graffiti to chronic offenders.) 

 What appear to be the motives for the graffiti? 

 Is the graffiti simple or complex? Small or large? Single-
colored or multicolored? 

 Is the graffiti isolated or grouped?

 What do offenders use to make the graffiti (e.g., spray paint, 
marking pens, etching devices)?

Locations/Times

 Where does the graffiti occur? (Maps of graffiti can be 
particularly illuminating, revealing its distribution across a 
large area. See Figure 1.)

 What are the specific locations where the graffiti occurs 
(e.g., addresses or, more precisely, Global Positioning 
System locations for sites without addresses, such as in 
parks or along railroad tracks)?

 How close is the graffiti to graffiti-generators such as 
schools?

 What are the characteristics of the locations in which 
graffiti is prevalent? Are the locations residences, schools? 
Are they close to storeswhat type, with what hoursor bus 
stopswhat running times?

 What are the characteristics of graffiti targets? Are the 
targets signs, walls, fences, buses, trains?

 What are the physical environment's characteristics, 
including lighting, access, roads, surface types, and other 
relevant factors?

 When does the graffiti occur? Time of day? (using last 
known graffiti-free time)? Day of week?

 Do the peak times correspond with other events?

 See Otto, Maly and Schismenos 
(2000) for more information about 
this technology, as used in Akron, 
Ohio.

 Maps of graffiti have been used 
to map gang violence and gang 
territory. See, for example, Kennedy, 
Braga and Piehl (1997).


Offenders

 What are the offenders' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, 
student)?

 Where do the offenders live, go to school or work? How 
do these locations correspond to graffiti locations and/or 
police contacts? 

 What is the pattern of offending? For example, is the graffiti 
spontaneous or planned, intermittent or regular?

 What are the offenders' motives? (Offenders can be 
interviewed to collect this information. Undercover 
investigations, stings, surveillance, and graffiti content 
analysis can reveal more about offenders' practices.)

 Are offenders lone operators or part of a group?

 Does drug and/or alcohol use contribute to graffiti? 

 Is graffiti associated with other violations, such as truancy?

San Diego Police Department
map showing locations of graffiti"TAGGER" 
Calls for Service in Central 
Jan 1 through Jun 30, 2000
Fig. 1. Map showing locations of graffiti.

 Photographs of offenders and 
their address information can also be 
linked to maps.

 Police in some cities have posed 
as film crews, interviewing taggers 
about their practices.


Measuring Your Effectiveness

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. 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. All measures should be taken in both 
the target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed 
guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide 
to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 
Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

Research shows that graffiti can be substantially reduced, and 
sometimes eliminated. The following are potentially useful 
measures of the effectiveness of responses to graffiti. To 
track possible displacement, such measures should be routine:

 amount or size of graffiti 

 number and type of graffiti locations

 content and type of graffiti

 length of time graffiti-prone surfaces stay clean

 public fear and perceptions about the amount of graffiti 
(may be assessed through surveys of citizens, changes in use 
of public space and transit systems, changes in retail sales, 
and other indirect measures).

Some jurisdictions track the numbers of arrests made, gallons 
of paint applied or square feet covered, amount of graffiti 
removed, or money spent on graffiti eradication;14 these 
measures indicate how much effort has been put into the 
anti-graffiti initiative, but they do not tell you if the amount or 
nature of graffiti has changed in any way. You should choose 
measures based on the responses chosen; for example, if 

 Because many anti-graffiti 
strategies are quite expensive, a 
cost-benefit analysis will provide 
a baseline measure of benefits 
associated with specific costs of 
different strategies. 


paint sales are limited, you should place more emphasis on 
tracking the type of graffiti tool used. Tools do change; for 
example, some offenders have begun using glass etching fluid.

It is widely believed that graffiti is easily displaced, but 
evidence of such displacement is scant. The notion that 
graffiti is an intractable problem that is easily displaced has 
been fueled by haphazard and piecemeal crime prevention 
measures.15 Useful measures of graffiti will assess the extent 
to which graffiti is reduced or moved to different locations, or 
reflect a change in offenders' tactics. While graffiti offenders 
can be persistent and adaptive, there is no reason to assume 
that displacement will be complete; indeed, successful 
responses may have a widespread effect.

 The response to graffiti in the 
New York subway system resulted in 
some reported displacement to buses, 
garbage trucks, walls, and other 
objects in the city (Butterfield 1988; 
Coffield 1991).



Responses to the Problem of Graffiti

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better 
understanding of the factors contributing to it. 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 
community's 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: give careful consideration to who else in 
your community shares responsibility for the problem and can 
help police better respond to it. 

Graffiti is not solely a police problem. The police role should 
be one of support and assistance. Effective responses to 
graffiti may combine management practices, design and 
maintenance, and involve the general public, individual 
victims, criminal justice officials such as prosecutors 
and judges, and others. Responses to graffiti should be 
comprehensive and coordinated, while costs and available 
resources should be carefully evaluated. 


Responses to graffiti must be thorough and consistent, as 
some offenders may be highly opportunistic, adaptive and 
tenacious. Responses should include ways to monitor graffiti 
and address changes in time, location and methods of 
applying it. 

Reducing Rewards to Offenders

Rapid identification and removal of graffiti has been shown 
to reduce its occurrence. This approach directly addresses 
the motives of many offenders by reducing the notoriety 
associated with graffiti's visibility. The two-step process 
involves routine monitoring to quickly spot graffiti, and rapid 
removal of the graffiti. In New York's successful approach 
to transit graffiti, it was initially removed within two hours of 
identification. In St. Petersburg, Florida, business owners are 
required to remove graffiti within 48 hours.16 

1. Detecting graffiti rapidly and routinely. There are two 
primary ways to gather information about the incidence and 
location of graffiti: systematic monitoring of graffiti-prone 
locations, and increased reporting. Both are used to rapidly 
detect graffiti incidents; document the location and time of 
occurrences, and content of graffiti; and to trigger responses.

 
Monitoring graffiti-prone locations routinely. Quick 
detection of graffiti provides better information for 
developing effective interventions. A graffiti database can 
be used to track incidents and illuminate patterns, identify 
chronic offenders and/or interpret gang activities or plans 
encoded in graffiti. Monitoring may include documenting 
graffiti through photographs or video. In some places, 
graffiti provides a barometer of gang activity and relations 
between gangs.

 This "law of diminishing 
vandalism" is that persistence in 
cleaning up pays off. See Sloan-
Howitt and Kelling (1990); Scott 
(1989); Cheetham (1994); Clarke 
(1978); and Governing (1994).

 If graffiti cannot be removed 
quickly, trains are taken out of 
service. For train stations, graffiti is 
removed within 72 hours. Similar 
quick cleanups have occurred in 
Philadelphia (Scott 1989). In London, 
graffiti is cleaned from large stations 
within 24 hours.


Addressing Transit Graffiti in New York City

The experiences of the New York City Transit System illustrate varying 
approaches to graffiti. Graffiti began to appear on subway trains in the 1960s; 
by 1970, it was a huge problem. The public was fearful, and ridership on trains 
declined. 

The motive for the graffiti was "getting up" and getting noticed; there were 
no indications the graffiti was gang-related. Instead, the graffitists or taggers 
sought to build their reputation through the sheer quantity of their graffiti. 
As competition among them increased, they distinguished themselves through 
writing style, embellishment, graffiti size, and locationeither in unusual spots 
or in previously unmarked spots. One prolific vandal produced 10,000 graffiti 
markings.

Despite the severity of its ongoing fiscal crisis, New York City adopted a variety 
of anti-graffiti strategies in the 1970s: punishing offenders by making them 
clean up trains marked with graffiti; using fencing with razor wires to protect 
the vast train yards; and developing materials to ease graffiti removal, materials 
that were later found to be environmentally hazardous. The methods all failed to 
substantially reduce the amount of graffiti.

In 1984, the city adopted a system to monitor trains and clean those marked 
with graffiti within two hours; otherwise, they took the cars out of service. They 
also began to store clean trains in highly secure yards that featured 24-hour-a-
day work crews, enhanced lighting, routine fence maintenance, and undercover 
police. The initiative focused on the most problematic times, locations and 
train lines; initially, all trains were monitored, but random checks were later 
successfully used to maintain clean trains. In addition, repeat offenders were 
targeted for parental contact and enhanced penalties.

In contrast to the earlier initiatives, this anti-graffiti effort began with a handful 
of trains (those detected with graffiti) and built up to cover the entire system. 
Importantly, rather than focusing on using the criminal justice system, this 
approach addressed the offenders' underlying motives. Immediately removing 
graffiti-marked trains from service severely limited the vandals' exposure.


To monitor graffiti-prone locations, Phoenix has used night 
vision and digital cameras, while Philadelphia and Sydney have 
used closed-circuit television (CCTV). In Philadelphia and 
on Los Angeles buses, plainclothes officers have monitored 
graffiti. In other jurisdictions, Neighborhood Watch and 
other groups systematically monitor graffiti. In Lakewood, 
Colorado, citizens' academy graduates take graffiti reports, 
photograph graffiti and monitor graffiti locations. In New 
South Wales, "graffiti spotters" have this role. Employees such 
as bus drivers or maintenance workers can immediately report 
vandalism through two-way radio.

 

 Increasing reporting of graffiti and offenders. 
Anonymous graffiti hotlines, some operating 24 hours a day, 
collect information about graffiti incidents. Communities 
have also used cell phone reporting, voice mail, emergency 
cell service, and connection to neighborhood watch groups.

Some jurisdictions pay graffiti reporters' cell phone charges. 
In London, people can use free telephones in transit 
stations to report offenses. In other jurisdictions, transit 
riders are encouraged to report graffiti and offenders. 
Numerous jurisdictions offer a cash reward of $200 to 
$1,000 if a tip leads to a conviction. 

In some jurisdictions, graffiti reports may be suppressed 
due to concerns about retaliation by gang members or 
taggers. Widespread public participation in both open and 
anonymous reporting usually addresses these concerns, but 
police should be aware of this potential problem.

2. Removing graffiti rapidly. One of the most promising 
responses to graffiti is consistently getting rid of it, and 
doing so quickly. The removal process may vary substantially 
depending on the type of graffiti tool and the type of material 

 Police usually encourage citizens 
to call 911 regarding graffiti in 
progress; they discourage citizens 
from confronting offenders. Citizens 
can report graffiti not in progress to 
hotlines.


vandalized. Many of the methods are time-consuming and 
can be quite expensive, so a jurisdiction must be able to tap 
sufficient resources to fully implement this approach. Some 
types of cleanupincluding paint-oversmay be affected by 
cold or wet weather. Removal may be time-targeted, such 
as during predawn hours, to further reduce exposure. Rapid 
removal is key, and many jurisdictions try to remove graffiti 
within 24 to 48 hours; in some obscure locations, such as 
drainage ditches, graffiti may be removed less quickly.

There are four major types of removal or cover-ups:

 Painting over graffiti. Painting over graffiti appears to 
be the most common and relatively cheapest method of 
removing it. Although paint-overs can be expensive if 
recurring, the approach is widely accessible, and usually 
requires no special skills or technology. Some cities provide 
recycled paints for free; some cities have cleanups funded 
by contributions; and in some cities, businesses donate 
paint. Property owners victimized by graffiti offenders often 
supply their own paint. They can match chips of paint at 
home supply stores. Once they make a paint match, they 
should keep a supply of the paint readily available. In areas 
with heavy graffiti, property owners can unify colors (e.g., 
of alley walls and fences) to make routine paint-overs easier. 
Painting over graffiti may require the use of a sealer to 
prevent bleeding through.

 Removing graffiti chemically. There are a variety of 
chemical removal products available, but care should be 
taken in selecting one. The use of some removal products 
on certain porous surfaces may create a shadow of the 
graffiti. Paint companies sometimes donate paint-removal 
supplies. 

 The type of surface graffiti is 
placed on is a major factor because 
graffiti-removal products may 
damage some surfaces. The type 
of marking agent is also a factor: 
some paints are reversible. There 
is a wide range of graffiti removal 
products available, including chemical 
sprays, aerosols, gels, and poultices. 
Cleaners are either alkaline or acidic; 
the latter can damage masonry, 
and neutralizing techniques must 
be incorporated when using either. 
Physical removal methods include 
low- and high-pressure water 
cleaning, often with detergents, and 
sandblasting. Physical removal is 
more expensive, and is typically used 
for large areas where other methods 
have failed. 


 Cleaning graffiti off. Depending on the surface and 
marking agent, many surfaces can be cleaned of graffiti. 
Methods include sandblasting with high-pressure hot-water 
jetsand sometimes baking sodato remove graffiti from 
cement and other unpainted surfaces, although this, too, can 
be expensive and leave a shadow. Lasers to remove graffiti 
are becoming available.

 Replacing signs, materials and other items vandalized. 
Replacement is appropriate for materials from which graffiti 
cannot be painted over, chemically removed or cleaned.

The source of labor for removing graffiti may vary. Cleanup 
squads may consist of volunteers, employees or adjudicated 
offenders. Graffiti removal may be coercive. A large number 
of jurisdictions hold the property owner responsible for 
graffiti removal. Sanctioning victims requires that they clean 
graffiti up quickly or get fined.17 Citizens may get paint or 
physical assistance from volunteers, if needed. Cities can use 
nuisance ordinances, zoning codes or graffiti ordinances to 
force owners to clean up quickly, which may be necessary for 
absentee owners. Alternatively, some cities clean up graffiti 
and then bill the owner. Some cities do the first cleanup 
for free; the owner then has responsibility for subsequent 
cleanups. 

Numerous jurisdictions use graffiti removal as a court-
ordered sanction for offenders and other misdemeanants. In 
some jurisdictions, such sanctions require victim restitution, 
reflecting a restorative justice approach.


Increasing the Risk of Detection

Because graffiti offenders usually operate in darkness, where 
there is little chance of being seen, few are apprehended. 
Increasing the likelihood of their being detected increases the 
risk of apprehension.

3. Increasing natural observation of graffiti-prone 
locations. The likelihood of detecting offenders can be 
increased by installing, upgrading or maintaining lighting. 
(While most offenders operate in the dark, additional lighting 
may actually attract graffiti in some isolated or remote 
locations. An alternative is to install motion-activated lighting, 
which may signal unauthorized property use.) In addition, 
shrubbery or trees that conceal areas can be removed. Sight 
lines can be improved where vision is obscured in other ways. 

Other methods to increase observation involve design, such 
as eliminating blind spots of underpasses, or park paths, 
installing windows or building parking lots within view of 
residences and designing spacious areas with good visibility.

4. Increasing formal observation of graffiti-prone 
locations. Observation of graffiti-prone locations can be 
improved systematically through use of police, security 
personnel, Neighborhood Watch, and employees with 
other primary duties (such as bus drivers, ticket agents, 
newsstand staff, lobby concierges, and on-site/residential 
property managers). Such observation may include the use of 
uniformed or undercover personnel or covert surveillance, 
and may target fixed locations or mobile locations such as 
buses and trains.


5. Increasing electronic security. Formal observation 
of graffiti-prone locations can be carried out via electronic 
methods. CCTV has shown promising evidence of reducing 
vandalism, including graffiti.18 CCTV is widely used to 
deter potential offenders, apprehend offenders in the act or 
after the fact, and provide evidence in prosecutions. There 
are substantial up-front and operating costs to CCTV, and 
decisions must be made as to whether cameras will be actively 
or passively monitored, or activated by motion detectors. 
If CCTV is to be used for evidence, good picture quality, 
adequate lighting and follow-up investigation are necessary. 
If CCTV is to be used to apprehend offenders in progress, 
it must be actively monitored. Signs warning of CCTV are 
often posted to discourage offenders; such deterrence may 
contribute to graffiti's spread to other locations. There is also 
evidence that CCTV's crime prevention benefits may spread 
to other locations.

CCTV will not be effective everywhere, but can be adapted. 
For example, video surveillance with infrared technology 
has been used on buses, while electronic surveillance robots 
monitor CCTV screens in some jurisdictions, and emit 
warning alarms. Portable CCTV can also be used, and dummy 
CCTV has been effectively used to supplement the real thing. 
Other types of electronic security include infrared beams, 
which are used around trains in London.

Use of CCTV may result in reduced vigilance, as electronic 
surveillance may create a false sense of security. But the 
presence of CCTV may also reassure citizens, and public 
support for it is often high. 


6. Conducting publicity campaigns. On their own, 
publicity campaigns are of limited effectiveness. However, 
many publicity efforts are combined with other strategies. 
A number of publicity campaigns can be described as 
beautification efforts, consisting of community cleanup days 
to eliminate graffiti, litter and other signs of disorder. In many 
jurisdictions, these cleanup days require volunteers, but some 
may involve court-adjudicated offenders who are working off 
community service time. In contrast to the systematic graffiti 
removal described above, publicity campaigns are usually one-
time or episodic cleanups of specific areas.

An extension of the cleanup programs are ownership 
initiatives such as Adopt-a-Block, Adopt-a-Bus, Adopt-
a-Station, or other efforts to maintain the "cared for" 
environment in public areas. Some of the adoption schemes 
involve painting murals on transit shelters, invoking a 
presumed conscience that deters graffiti offenders from 
marring others' artistic endeavors. It is assumed that graffiti 
is easier to detect where no other graffiti exists, and cleaned 
areas invoke a sense of ownership and responsibility among 
users of the areas. 

Other publicity efforts include posters to publicize anti-graffiti 
efforts, public service announcements, flyers, brochures, and 
the like. Publicity campaigns often include information on the 
harms of graffiti, the costs of graffiti, how to detect a graffiti 
offender, and how to report graffiti. This educational effort 
is often targeted at parents, schools, businesses, civic groups, 
transit system users, and/or the general public. Publicity 
and educational campaigns have been shown to be effective 
in reducing graffiti when used to publicize surveillance of 
vandalized buses; the effects even extended beyond the crime 
prevention targets.19 


Publicity campaigns often discourage the use of graffiti in 
advertising and art exhibits, as well as media coverage of 
graffiti, recognizing that such attention serves to further 
contribute to the notoriety graffiti offenders seek. Care is 
taken to avoid glorifying graffiti, and generating more of it as 
a result.

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending

7. Vandal-proofing graffiti-prone locations. Graffiti 
offenders can be thwarted by vandal-proofing vulnerable 
surfaces in vulnerable areas, a process that often involves 
modifying surface textures. Anti-graffiti coverings and 
surfaces make surfaces easy to clean, difficult to write on, or 
both. There are six primary types: 

 Paint-like products such as polyurethane-based coatings are 
resistant to graffiti and easy to clean. These are suitable for 
steel, concrete and brickwork. Sealers on concrete prevent 
absorption.

 Wash-off coatingsknown as sacrificial coatingsare wax or 
silicon applications on walls or buildings. When hot water 
is applied, these coatings break down, allowing graffiti to be 
washed off. 

 Textured surfaces are not attractive targets for graffiti, as 
they obscure legibility. Such surfaces are particularly difficult 
for offenders to draw on or paint. Such surfaces include 
deeply grooved surfaces and rough surfaces such as 
exposed rock, rough cement and dimpled stainless steel, like 
that used in London telephone kiosks.

 Dark or colorful surfaces make graffiti less visible, thus 
deterring offenders. Dark surfaces are more difficult to 
mark up, although light paint can be used. Colorful or busy 
surfaces, such as advertisements on the sides of buses, 
deflect graffiti.20 Flecked or spotted wall surfaces also mask 
graffiti.

 Some of these products may 
produce toxic fumes in case of fire. 

 These coatings must be reapplied; 
the surface dissolves when graffiti is 
cleaned off.

 These surfaces are harder to 
mark, but are difficult to clean.


 Non-solid surfaces, such as open-grill storefront security 
screens rather than solid panels, may deflect graffiti.

 Easily cleaned materials may be installed in highly 
vulnerable areas. These include vitreous-enamel panels or 
glazed ceramic tiles from which graffiti washes off; wired 
glass that can be cleaned with scrapers; polyester film over 
glass; plastic laminates, which make for easier cleaning; and 
signs with surfaces resistant to marker pens and spray paint.

Some materials cannot be effectively protected from graffiti. 
Graffiti-prone surfaces can be replaced with standard-sized, 
inexpensive materials. These include transparent, replaceable 
glass or polycarbonate panels in bus shelters, and replaceable 
polycarbonate covering signs.

8. Controlling access to graffiti-prone locations. 
Controlling access to graffiti-prone locations physically bars 
offenders from vulnerable areas. Means of access control 
include:

 graffiti hoods to buffer freeway signs

 metal baffles on sign poles, which work like squirrel baffles 
on bird feeders

 walls, fences, locked alleys, barriers, chasms, and rails, 
sometimes supplemented by barbed wire 

 recessed walls 

 dense or thorny plants, or climbing vines

 razor wire or jagged metal wrapped around sign poles.

In some cases, signs have been moved out of reach of 
vandals, while bus stops and other frequently vandalized 
targets have been relocated.

 These washable walls are used in 
larger London train stations.

 The alternative, polycarbonate 
surfaces become hazy.

 Some of these measures impose 
social costs by making areas look 
like war zones. Access controls with 
forbidding appearances may be better 
left to isolated areas.


Environmental design to limit access to graffiti surfaces can 
best be incorporated into planning and construction, but may 
also be adapted to existing structures. An example of effective 
environmental design is the recessed walls of the Washington, 
D.C., metro system; subway walls are physically separated 
from the public. 

Police or security patrols, guards and dogs may supplement 
access control. Access to residential or commercial properties 
may be restricted to those with resident or employee 
identification cards, while visitor access may be controlled 
through entry phones. 

Much like environmental design, situational design reduces 
the opportunity for graffiti. The absence of toilets, seating, 
fast food, and lockers in transit stations effectively discourages 
potential offenders from loitering. In Hong Kong, a limited 
life to transit tickets encourages people to quickly move 
through stations before their tickets expire, thus discouraging 
loitering. In Washington, D.C., the subway system generally 
closes at midnight on weekdays and somewhat later on 
weekends, thus limiting opportunities for vandalism. Since 
graffiti often takes place late at night, limiting hours reduces 
opportunities for vandalism at times when there are typically 
few other riders or employees to deter the offender or witness 
the offense.

9. Focusing on chronic offenders. Approaches that focus 
exclusively on enforcement to control offenders have had 
little effect on the amount of graffiti.21 Apprehending and 
prosecuting graffiti offenders is difficult. Graffiti is not 
routinely reported to police, it is difficult to catch offenders 


in the act, and may be impossible to find witnesses or 
tangible evidence of graffiti offenses. In addition, police have 
competing priorities, and sanctions against offenders are often 
weak, consisting of community service and fines.

Some graffiti offenders are prolific; a small group typically 
accounts for a large portion of all offenses. Efforts that focus 
on chronic offenders show promise. Chronic offenders can 
be identified through graffiti investigations. Since offenders 
tend to replicate their graffiti, it has unique characteristics, like 
a signature, and different incidents or tags can be linked to a 
single offender. Some taggers practice their tags in notebooks 
or take photographs to document their efforts; these may be 
used as evidence to link offenders to graffiti incidents. 

Some police conduct surveillance of known offenders and/
or high-risk hot spots, collaborate with schools to detect 
offenders, and monitor chronic offenders, particularly those 
on probation. Police may use extensive intelligence databases 
to record information about graffiti content, locations and 
offenders. Such databases may include photographs or video 
of graffiti, mug shots of offenders, and maps of graffiti 
locations.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

Numerous responses have been incorporated into efforts 
to control graffiti. Most have not been carefully evaluated, 
and are thus of unknown effectiveness. Any response can 
be effective if it increases the difficulties of offending and 
reduces the rewards for it. Many responses, however, are quite 
difficult to enforce. 


10. Controlling graffiti tools. A number of jurisdictions 
have tried to control the tools used for graffiti. Boston 
and other cities have banned the sale of large, wide-tipped 
markers. In addition, bans on spray paint sales to minors have 
been widely used in recent years. Some jurisdictions require 
stores to be licensed for and to limit spray paint sales, and 
require buyers to furnish their name and address. In some 
jurisdictions, juvenile possession of spray paint or large, 
indelible markers without supervision is a misdemeanor.

Efforts have been made to reduce shoplifting of spray paint 
by placing stock away from exits and removing it from open 
displays. Instead, stock is often stored behind counters, in 
storerooms or in locked display cases. Some jurisdictions 
require stores to place markers in full view of clerks. Industry 
efforts have also been made to regulate graffiti tools. Spray 
valves can be modified, and restricted-use caps limited, so that 
offenders cannot change caps. Some jurisdictions encourage 
proper disposal of contractor painting materials so that 
graffiti offenders cannot access them.

While there have been no evaluations of efforts that limit 
graffiti tools, enforcing local ordinances that do so can be 
difficult. Although restrictions on possession of supplies may 
provide an additional enforcement tool, graffiti offenders 
are rarely apprehended. In many tagging groups, one person 
carries the graffiti supplies, making it more difficult to obtain 
the evidence that may be necessary for a conviction.

11. Channeling behavior into more acceptable activities. 
A lot of anti-graffiti efforts have involved designating 
particular areas or locations as legitimate places for graffiti. 
Graffiti walls or boards are often obtained through 
contributions from businesses. While artists may have to have 
a painting permit to participate, paint for such projects is 
often contributed.

 Chicago has had such a ban since 
1980.

 Graffiti offenders prefer 
interchangeable caps, allowing them 
to combine thick and thin lines. 
Wide caps or other caps from oven 
cleaners or spray starch are especially 
desirable.

 Nugent (1998) describes a 
graffiti wall in Washington, D.C.'s 
Lafayette Park; Coffield (1991) notes 
the painting of a Southampton, 
England, garage.


Similarly, some jurisdictions have commissioned murals to 
cover up graffiti or improve the community's appearance. 
These murals are often located where graffiti has posed a 
problem. Graffiti offenders appear to respect the artwork 
on such murals, but the surfaces can be protected with anti-
graffiti coating. Murals and walls showcase artists' work and 
may reduce incentives to vandalize. Similar initiatives to divert 
offenders have included art classes or programs for reformed 
offenders, some of which involve a contract or pledge not 
to produce further graffiti. These efforts may be effective in 
reducing the amount of graffiti in specific locations.

12. Providing alternative activities and services. A 
variety of programs have been developed to address the 
needs of graffiti offenders who are bored, unsupervised or 
unemployed. These programs include mentoring, job training, 
counseling, tutoring, and family services. Many of these 
programs focus on building pride and self-esteem. Some help 
youth to leave gangs. Others provide alternative activities, 
such as sports. 

13. Involving youth in developing programs. Youth are 
often involved in anti-graffiti efforts to increase their sense 
of ownership. In Denmark, youth were involved in selecting 
the design and colors of buses and bus platforms. Officials 
there also engage in "alternative conflict solving," and 
meet monthly with youth to address hostility and improve 
communication with those who are disaffected. Anti-graffiti 
posters for publicity campaigns are designed through student 
competitions, and peer pressure is used to discourage graffiti.


Some anti-graffiti programs involve educating youth about the 
harms and costs of graffiti. The youth-targeted message that 
graffiti is uncool is conveyed through subway and bus posters, 
and television and radio commercials. Sports figures may 
endorse the message to add potency to it. 

In some cases, former graffiti offenders create murals 
with anti-graffiti messages, give public talks, counsel other 
offenders, and organize graffiti cleanups. 

14. Expanding applicable laws. A wide variety of laws 
have been passed in cities and counties across the United 
States, providing police and prosecutors with additional 
tools to charge and punish offenders. In some cases, existing 
ordinances or statutes have been applied in new ways, 
including enforcing civil trespassing laws; applying nuisance 
abatement, which can force gangs to clean up graffiti; labeling 
gangs as unincorporated associations, to pursue criminal 
conspiracy charges; applying civil injunctions requiring 
offenders to stay away from certain areas; enforcing anti-
loitering ordinances; and applying sanctions that enhance 
dispositions or sentences for gang members. In addition, 
many jurisdictions routinely use criminal mischief, malicious 
mischief, property destruction, vandalism, and criminal 
trespass statutes or ordinances in charging graffiti offenders.

15. Holding parents accountable. In some communities, 
efforts are made to educate parents in recognizing signs of 
graffiti offending. Parents are held accountable for juvenile 
offenders' actions, and may be sanctioned with fines, cleanup 
costs and even jail for failure to control or supervise their 
children. Structured juvenile diversion programs may involve 
parents in meeting conditions imposed on offenders. 


16. Increasing sanctions for offenders. Across the United 
States, jurisdictions have increased the sanctions against 
graffiti offenders. Some sanctions are targeted specifically 
at juveniles. For example, California suspends or defers the 
award of driver's licenses for one year; offenders can do 
community service to reduce the suspension time.

Many jurisdictions use graffiti cleanup for community service 
to avoid adjudication, as a condition of probation, or as 
part of a disposition or sentence. Some communities have 
restorative justice initiatives in which face-to-face victim-
offender reconciliation occurs, a contract is signed, and 
offenders pay restitution. 

In some jurisdictions, students are suspended or expelled 
from school for graffiti offenses. A large number of 
jurisdictions have involved courts in treating graffiti incidents 
seriously, systematically imposing fines, community service 
and even jail time on chronic offenders.

17. Applying new technologies. A wide range of new anti-
graffiti technologies have not been tested, used extensively or 
evaluated. Some may be effective in specific settings under 
certain conditions. 

New anti-graffiti technologies include the following:

 Listening devices positioned at chronic graffiti locations. 
The devices detect sounds such as spraying of paint cans, 
alerting police to offenses. 

 Motion detectors combined with sprinkler systems. Caltrans 
used this technology in Orange County, California, but 
offenders broke off sprinkler heads. 

 Lasers for graffiti removal.


Since developing or purchasing new technologies may be 
quite costly for most jurisdictions, such responses should 
be carefully evaluated first. New technologies to respond to 
graffiti will likely continue to become available. 

18. Establishing juvenile curfews. Juvenile curfews have 
been widely adopted in the United States to address a variety 
of juvenile crime. For the most part, tenacious offenders can 
avoid detection, and police agencies must invest a substantial 
amount of effort to enforce curfews. While curfews may 
have some benefits in very narrowly defined situations, their 
contribution to graffiti reduction are unlikely to be substantial.

19. Warning offenders. Many jurisdictions warn graffiti 
offenders about the costs of being apprehended. Sydney 
found that warnings of dire consequences do not work, 
and media attention glorifies and reinforces graffiti.22 Most 
warnings are intended to increase the perception of risk 
of detection and apprehension. Offenders, however, tend 
to accurately perceive that risks of apprehension are fairly 
low. Some warnings relate to increased sanctions for graffiti 
offenses. If offenders do not believe the risk of apprehension 
is high, they are unlikely to be concerned about the penalties 
for offending. Warnings directed at chronic offenders may be 
more effective than general warnings. 

 In some limited studies of 
bathroom graffiti (Mueller et al. 2000; 
Watson 1996), posting signs warning 
of sanctions, containing positive 
messages appealing to altruism, or 
conveying neutral messages"Please 
do not write on these walls"resulted 
in a decline in graffiti. 


37

Appendix

Summary of Responses to Graffiti

The table below summarizes the responses to graffiti, 
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. Law 
enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing 
or solving the problem.

Response 
No.

Page No.

Response

Works 
Best If

How It 
Works

Considerations

Reducing Rewards to Offenders

1. 20
Detecting graffiti 
rapidly and 
routinely

Permits rapid 
removal

locations 
are regularly 
monitored

Requires 
commitment and 
resourcesefforts 
should not 
be piecemeal; 
can involve 
employees, police, 
citizens, hotlines, 
and other means

2. 22
Removing graffiti 
rapidly

Reduces time 
graffiti is visible, 
thus thwarting 
offenders' 
objective of 
having graffiti be 
widely seen

removal is 
very quick and 
consistent 

Removal may 
be expensive, 
difficult and/or 
coercive (e.g., 
victims, as well as 
offenders, may be 
sanctioned)

Increasing the Risk of Detection
3. 25
Increasing natural 
observation of 
graffiti-prone 
locations

Increases risk of 
detection

graffiti occurs 
in low-visibility 
places 

Efforts to 
improve lighting, 
reduce shrubbery 
and improve 
sight lines are 
most effective if 
the area is not 
isolated for long 



Response No.

Page No.

Response

How It Works

Works Best If

Considerations

4.25
Increasing formal 
observation of 
graffiti-prone 
locations

Increases risk 
of detection; 
information can 
aid investigations

there are high-
risk hot spots

Can use undercover 
personnel, other 
employees and 
electronic means; 
easily available; can 
be used on transit 
systems

5.26
Increasing 
electronic security

Increases risk of 
detection

offenders are 
targeting large 
areas such as 
transit lots 

Can be cost-
effective; 
information can aid 
investigations 

6.27
Conducting 
publicity 
campaigns

Increases risk of 
detection

information 
is widely 
disseminated, and 
risk of detection 
increases

May contribute to 
increased graffiti 
reports and extend 
deterrent effect

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending
7.28
Vandal-proofing 
graffiti-prone 
locations

Increases 
difficulty of 
applying graffiti 
(may also 
decrease graffiti 
visibility, reducing 
motives); some 
methods facilitate 
removal

there are 
chronic graffiti 
locations 

Can be expensive if 
done retroactively; 
offenders may 
change their 
methods or targets; 
may stimulate and 
challenge offenders; 
some measures, 
such as using 
grooved, slanted 
or heavily textured 
walls, or otherwise 
unappealing graffiti 
surfaces, can be 
very effective; may 
be unsightly

8.29

Controlling access 
to graffiti-prone 
locations 

Makes it more 
difficult to access 
or vandalize 
properties

property or 
operations can 
support design 
changes

May be expensive, 
but very effective; 
may best be 
incorporated into 
construction and 
planning designs; 
most effective if 
behavior is also 
regulated, such 
as in apartment 
complexes or transit 
stations



Response 
No.

Page No.

Response

How It 
Works

Works 
Best If

Considerations

9.30
Focusing on 
chronic offenders

Increases risk 
of detection of 
prolific graffiti 
offenders

there is a small 
group of chronic 
offenders

Requires offender 
identification and 
follow-up

Responses with Limited Effectiveness
10.32
Controlling 
graffiti tools 

Makes it more 
difficult for 
offenders to get 
paint or markers

offenders are 
easily deterred, 
and merchants 
comply

Difficult to 
enforce; offenders 
can seek tools 
elsewhere; tools 
are easily accessed, 
transported and 
hidden

11.32
Channeling 
behavior into 
more acceptable 
activities 

Intended to 
provide creative 
outlets

offenders 
are artistically 
motivated

Graffiti boards and 
walls can be placed 
in highly visible 
locations; they 
appear to attract 
little vandalism; they 
may not attract the 
target group

12.33
Providing 
alternative 
activities and 
services

Intended 
to engage 
and provide 
supervision to 
youth 

.offenders are 
jobless, bored or 
unsupervised 

Difficult to identify 
and involve chronic 
offenders; programs 
may be expensive

13.33
Involving youth 
in developing 
programs

Intended to 
tap offenders' 
consciences and 
create ownership

offenders 
are not highly 
invested in the 
graffiti lifestyle

Little deterrent 
effect for chronic 
offenders

14.34
Expanding 
applicable laws 

Increases threat 
of punishment to 
deter offenders

laws target 
particular 
problems

Can be time-
consuming; 
offenders believe 
they won't get 
caught, so they 
don't worry about 
punishment

15.34
Holding parents 
accountable

Involves parents 
in controlling 
offenders' 
behavior

.offenders are 
juveniles

Offenders can often 
hide behavior from 
parents; parents 
may have little 
control



Response No.

Page No.

Response

How It 
Works

Works 
Best If

Considerations

16.35
Increasing 
sanctions for 
offenders

Raises the risks 
associated with 
graffiti

combined with 
investigative
enforcement 
activities

Because 
apprehension 
of offenders is 
low, may have 
little deterrent 
effect; sanctions 
should be applied 
systematically; 
requires 
collaboration with 
prosecutors and 
judges; can consist 
of fines, community 
service or loss of 
driver's license

17.35
Applying new 
technologies

Reduces motives, 
deflects or 
diverts offenders, 
or increases 
detection

the technology 
fits the problem

May be expensive 
and require 
substantial 
adaptation or 
experimentation

18.36
Establishing 
juvenile curfews

Increases the risk 
of detection for 
certain offenders

graffiti typically 
occurs late 
at night, and 
offenders are 
juveniles

Difficult to enforce

19.36
Warning 
offenders

Intended to 
increase fear of 
detection

detection is 
increased, and 
consequences are 
unpleasant

Apprehension of 
offenders is low; 
warnings of dire 
consequences may 
not be effective


Endnotes

10 Castleman (1982); Sloan-Howitt and Kelling (1990).

20 Coffield (1991).

30 Wilson (1988).

40 Ley and Cybrinsky (1974); Klein (1995).

50 Coffield (1991).

60 Gomez (1993); Ferrell (1995).

70 Gomez (1993).

80 Wilson (1987).

90 San Diego Police Department (2000).

10 Clarke (1978); Coffield (1991).

11 Wilson (1987).

12 Bridgeport Police Department (1999). 

13 San Diego Police Department (2000).

14 Sampson and Scott (2000).

15 Wilson (1988).

16 Governing (1994).

17 Nugent (1998).

18 Poyner (1988); Tilley (1998).

19 Poyner (1988).

20 Eastel and Wilson (1991).

21 Gomez (1993).

22 Wilson (1988).


43

References

Beatty, J. (1990). "Zap! You've Been Tagged!" Time, Sept. 10, 
p. 43.

Bridgeport Police Department (1999). Problem-Solving 
Partnership Grant Progress Report to the Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services (August). Bridgeport (Connecticut): 
Bridgeport Police Department.

Butterfield, F. (1988). "On New York Walls, the Fading of 
Graffiti." New York Times, May 6, p. B1.

Castleman, C. (1982). Subway Graffiti in New York. London: 
MIT Press.

Cheetham, D. (1994). Dealing With VandalismA Guide to 
the Control of Vandalism. London: Construction Industry 
Research and Information Association.

Chula Vista Police Department (1999). City of Chula Vista 
Recent Graffiti Trends. Chula Vista (California): Chula Vista 
Police Department.

Clarke, R. (ed.) (1978). Tackling Vandalism. Home Office 
Research Study, No. 47. London: Her Majesty's Stationery 
Office.

Coffield, F. (1991). Vandalism and Graffiti: The State of the Art. 
London: Calhouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Cohen, S. (1973). "Property Destruction: Motives and 
Meanings." In C. Ward (ed.), Vandalism. London: The 
Architectural Press.


Eastel, P., and P. Wilson (1991). Preventing Crime on Transport: 
Rail, Buses, Taxis, Planes. Canberra: Australian Institute of 
Criminology. 

Ferrell, J. (1995). "Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control and 
Resistance." Youth and Society 27(1):7389.

Gomez, M. (1993). "The Writing on Our Walls: Finding 
Solutions Through Distinguishing Graffiti Art From 
Graffiti Vandalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law 
Reform 26(3):633708.

Governing (1994). "Graffiti." August, p. 42.

Kennedy, D. (1997). "Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, 
High-Crime Settings and a Theory of Prevention." 
Valparaiso University Law Review 31:449483.

Kennedy, D., A. Braga and A. Piehl (1997). "(Un)Known 
Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston." 
In D. Weisburd and T. McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and 
Crime Prevention. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice 
Press.

Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford 
University Press.

Ley, D., and R. Cybrinsky (1974). "Urban Graffiti As 
Territorial Markers." Annals of the Association of American 
Geographers 64:491501.

Mueller, M., J. Moore, A. Doggett, and D. Tingstrom 
(2000). "The Effectiveness of Contingency-Specific 
and Contingency-Nonspecific Prompts in Controlling 
Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 
33(1):8992.


Nugent, H. (1998). "Gang Graffiti." Addressing Community Gang 
Problems: A Practical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 
Justice Assistance.

Otto, A., K. Maly and D. Schismenos (2000). "Cracking Down 
on Gangs With GIS." In N. La Vigne and J. Wartell (eds.), 
Successful Crime Mapping Case Studies, Vol. 2. Washington, 
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Poyner, B. (1988). "Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism." 
Journal of Security Administration 11:4451.

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

San Diego Police Department (2000). "Mid-City Graffiti 
Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 
Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Scott, D. (1989). "Graffiti Wipeout." FBI Law Enforcement 
Bulletin (December):1014.

Sloan-Howitt, M., and G. Kelling (1990). "Subway Graffiti in 
New York City: 'Getting Up' vs. 'Meaning It and Cleaning 
It.'" Security Journal 1(3):131136.

Tilley, N. (1998). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of CCTV 
Schemes." In C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong 
(eds.), Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. 
Brookfield (Vermont): Ashgate Publishing Co.


Watson, S. (1996). "A Prompt Plus Delayed Contingency 
Procedure for Reducing Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of 
Applied Behavior Analysis 29(1):121124.

Wilson, P. (1988). "Preventing Vandalism and Graffiti." Journal 
of Security Administration 11(2):2835.

 
(1987). "Research Brief No. 6: Graffiti and 
Vandalism on Public Transport." Trends and Issues. 
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.


About the Author

Deborah Lamm Weisel

Deborah Lamm Weisel is an assistant research professor 
and the director of police research in the Department of 
Political Science and Public Administration at North Carolina 
State University. Her portfolio includes research on police 
responses to crime problems such as gangs, street drugs and 
graffiti, as well as community policing, safety and security in 
public housing, and repeat victimization from burglary and 
robbery. Her work has been published in Justice Quarterly, 
Public Management, the NIJ Journal, and the American Journal of 
Police. She holds a doctorate in political science/public policy 
analysis from the University of Illinois at Chicago.



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. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

 
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 Drug Labs. 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. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8


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

 
Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 
Problems. 
Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 
2005. ISBN: 
1-932582-55-X

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: 1932582-49-5

 
Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 
Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Domestic Violence

Mentally Ill Persons

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses

Bank Robbery

Witness Intimidation

Drive-by Shootings

The Exploitation of Trafficked Women

Problem with Day Laborer Sites


Child Pornography on the Internet

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

Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems

Risky Facilities

Implementing Responses to Problems

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Response Guides

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Video Surveillance of Public Places

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


DOJ seal
For More Information:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770
Visit COPS Office at the address listed below.

e07042448 
Updated Date: February 23, 2006

ISBN:1-932582-08-8

www.cops.usdoj.gov