DOJ Seal
COPS logo

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. 42 

Witness Intimidation 

Kelly Dedel 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 
#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 
are those of the author 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 of the product by the author or the U.S. Department 
of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 
discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 

July 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 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 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 Guide Series i


Acknowledgments v


The Problem of Witness Intimidation 1
What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover 1
General Description of the Problem 2
Factors Contributing to Witness Intimidation 6
Intimidators 6
Victims 7
Locations and Timing 9
Motivations 9

Understanding Your Local Problem 11 
Stakeholders 11 
Asking the Right Questions 11 
Incidents 12 
Intimidators 13 
Victims 13 
Locations/Times 14 
Motivations 14 
Current Responses 14 
Measuring Your Effectiveness 15 

Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 17 
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy 17 
Specific Responses to Reduce Witness Intimidation 21 
Protecting Witnesses 21 
Deterring Intimidators 29 
Responses With Limited Effectiveness 31 


Appendix: Summary of Responses to Witness Intimidation 33 
Endnotes 39 
References 43 
About the Author 49 
Recommended Readings 51 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 55 


The Problem of Witness Intimidation 

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover 

This guide begins by describing the problem of witness 
intimidation and reviewing the factors that increase its 
risks. It then identifies a series of questions that can help 
analyze local witness intimidation problems. Finally, it 
reviews responses to the problem of witness intimidation 
as identified through research and police practice. 

Witness intimidation is but one aspect of the larger set of 
problems related to protecting crime victims and witnesses 
from further harm. Related problems not directly 
addressed in this guide, each of which require separate 
analysis, include: 

 domestic violence 
 acquaintance rape 
 stalking 
 exploitation of trafficked women 
 gun violence among youthful offenders 
 gang-related crime 
 bullying in schools 
 drug trafficking 
 organized crime. 


Some of these related crime problems are covered in 
other guides in this series, all of which are listed at the 
end of this guide. 

Although the problem of witness intimidation has 
special significance for prosecutors, it also has important 
implications for police. This guide focuses on the issues 
and responses that are most relevant to police, although 
useful resources for prosecutors are highlighted where 
appropriate. 




Witness intimidation plays a role in many types of 
crime and is related to other problems that police 
encounter during the course of an investigation. 
Witness intimidation, however, is not the same as 
repeat victimization. Although in both cases the same 
offenders may be responsible for multiple events, their 
motives are different. In witness intimidation, the intent 
is to discourage the victim from reporting a crime to 
police or from cooperating with prosecutors, whereas 
in repeat victimization, the motive is often acquisitive. 
However, repeat victims may believe that their subsequent 
victimization was in retaliation for reporting the initial 
crime, even where intimidation was not the motive.1 

General Description of the Problem 

Citizens who witness or are victimized by crime are 
sometimes reluctant to report incidents to police or to 
assist in the prosecution of offenders. Such reluctance 
may be in response to a perceived or actual threat of 
retaliation by the offender or his or her associates, or may 
be the result of more generalized community norms that 
discourage residents from cooperating with police and 
prosecutors. In some communities, close ties between 
witnesses, offenders, and their families and friends may 
also deter witnesses from cooperating; these relationships 
can provide a vitally important context for understanding 
witness intimidation. Particularly in violent and gang-
related crime, the same individual may, at different times, 
be a victim, a witness, and an offender.2 Historically, 
witness intimidation is most closely associated with 
organized crime and domestic violence, but has recently 
thwarted efforts to investigate and prosecute drug, gang, 
violent, and other types of crime. 

 In this guide, the term witness 
is used to refer both to victims and 
to bystanders who could provide 
information to police. The term 
victim is used to denote the victim 
of the initial crime. 

 Witnesses refuse to cooperate 
with police for reasons that are not 
related to intimidation. For example, 
a general lack of trust in the police 
may deter some witnesses from 
cooperating. In addition, research 
has shown that a desire for privacy, 
a desire to protect the offender from 
criminal prosecution, emotional 
attachments, economic dependence, 
or a desire to protect children may 
also deter victims of domestic 
violence from cooperating with 
police (Felson et al. 2002).


Witness intimidation takes many forms, including: 

 implicit threats, looks, or gestures 
 explicit threats of violence 
 actual physical violence 
 property damage 
 other threats, such as challenges to child custody or 
immigration status. 

More specifically, offenders may: 

 confront witnesses verbally 
 send notes and letters 
 make nuisance phone calls 
 park or loiter outside the homes of witnesses 
 damage witnesses houses or property 
 threaten witnesses children, spouses, parents, or other 
family members 
 assault or even murder witnesses or their family members. 


Threats are much more common than actual physical 
violence and are in fact just as effective in deterring 
cooperation.3 Although some witnesses experience a single 
incident of intimidation, intimidation may also involve an 
escalating series of threats and actions that become more 
violent over time.4 Other witnesses do not experience 
intimidation directly, but rather believe that retaliation will 
occur if they cooperate with police. Either way, they are 
deterred from offering relevant information that might 
assist police and prosecutors. 

Particularly in communities dominated by gang and 
drug-related crime, residents have seen firsthand that 
offenders are capable of violence and brutality. Many 
also believe that offenders will return to the community 




after relatively brief periods of incarceration or will be 
able to arrange for intimidation by others while they 
themselves are incarcerated. The experience of violence 
in the community lends credibility to threats and creates 
a general sense of fear that discourages cooperation with 
police. 

National Public Radio 

Image of burned out house
Witness intimidation commonly takes two mutually-
reinforcing forms.5 

 
Case-specific intimidation involves threats or violence 
intended to discourage a particular person from 
providing information to police or from testifying in a 
specific case. 
 
Community-wide intimidation involves acts that are intended 
to create a general sense of fear and an attitude of 
non-cooperation with police and prosecutors within a 
particular community. 

 Drive-by shootings and other 
acts of blatant violence promote 
fear among residents, as do actions 
specifically warning residents not to 
cooperate with police. In 2004, gang 
members from Baltimore, Maryland 
appeared in a DVD entitled Stop 
Snitching, in which they threaten 
harm to those who cooperate 
with police. Stop Snitching tee shirts 
have also appeared in retail outlets 
nationwide (Butterfield 2005).


The prevalence of witness intimidation is difficult to 
quantify for many reasons. First, crime is underreported 
based upon a number of factors that have nothing to do 
with witness intimidation. Second, where intimidation is 


successful, victims and witnesses report neither the initial 
crime nor the intimidation.6 Third, although victimization 
surveys and interviews with witnesses whose cases go to 
court are helpful, they capture only a subset of the larger 
population of witnesses. They do not provide information 
on the experiences of the many witnesses who drop out 
of the process before a suspect is charged or a case goes 
to court.7 Finally, there has been no empirical research on 
the scope or specific characteristics of community-wide 
intimidation. 
 

 In 2004, only 50 percent of 
violent crimes and 39 percent of 
property crimes were reported 
to police; however, only a very 
small portion of victims surveyed 
indicated that intimidation was 
the reason they did not report the 
crime. Most often, victims did not 
report crime because they believed 
that the incident was too trivial to 
involve police or that the matter was 
personal (Karmen 2004; Catalano 
2005). 


That said, small-scale studies and surveys of police and 
prosecutors suggest that witness intimidation is pervasive 
and increasing. For example, a study of witnesses 
appearing in criminal courts in Bronx County, New York 
revealed that 36 percent of witnesses had been directly 
threatened; among those who had not been threatened 
directly, 57 percent feared reprisals.8 In the United 
Kingdom, a survey of witnesses appearing in court 
revealed that a majority had been affected by intimidation 
either through direct experience (53 percent) or because 
they feared intimidation (17 percent). Anecdotes and 
surveys of police and prosecutors suggest that witness 
intimidation is even more widespread.9 Prosecutors 
estimate that witness intimidation plays a role in 75 
to 100 percent of violent crime committed in gang-
dominated neighborhoods, although it may play less of a 
role in communities not dominated by gangs and drugs.10 
The increasing prevalence of witness intimidation is a 
reflection of the same social and psychological factors 
that have changed the nature of crime and offenders over 
the past two decades, including:11 

 a lack of respect for authority, particularly among juvenile 
offenders 
 the expectation that life will be brief or will be spent in 
prison 



 a sense of powerlessness that leads to gang formation 
 the availability of firearms and a willingness to use them 
 increased penalties that raise the stakes of prosecution. 


Most intimidation is neither violent nor life-threatening, 
but even a perception that reprisals are likely can be 
distressing and disruptive to witnesses.12 Experiencing 
intimidation reduces the likelihood that citizens will 
engage with the criminal justice system, both in the 
instant offense and in the future.13 Although the public 
tends to overestimate the actual risk of harm, its fear 
and the resulting reluctance to cooperate can have 
serious collateral consequences for the criminal justice 
system. Witness intimidation deprives investigators and 
prosecutors of critical evidence, often preventing suspects 
from being charged or causing cases to be abandoned 
or lost in court. In addition, witness intimidation lowers 
public confidence in the criminal justice system and 
creates the perception that the criminal justice system 
cannot protect the citizenry. As a result, police expend 
significant time and energy persuading witnesses to come 
forward; and when they do, police spend considerable 
energy reassuring and protecting them. 

Factors Contributing to Witness Intimidation 

Understanding the factors that contribute to the problem 
of witness intimidation will help to frame local analysis, to 
determine good effectiveness measures, to recognize key 
intervention points, and to select appropriate responses. 

Intimidators 

Intimidation is usually perpetrated by those involved 
in the original offense, although the original offenders 
friends, family members, and criminal associates may 


also threaten or harm witnesses.14 In gang-related crimes, 
friends, family members, and associates may be more 
likely to threaten and intimidate witnesses.15 In addition to 
gang and drug-related crimes, intimidation is particularly 
prevalent in cases involving domestic violence, bias crime, 
harassment, and sex offenses.16 In contrast, cases involving 
property crime, such as burglary or car theft, are rarely 
affected by intimidation.17 


Although intimidation is a key feature of gang and drug-
related violence, the offenders are not necessarily aligned 
with nationally affiliated gangs or large drug operations; 
members of loosely affiliated gangs and local dealers may 
also protect their interests through intimidation.18 Surveys 
suggest that offenders with a sophisticated understanding 
of the criminal justice system may be less willing to 
engage directly in intimidation and will either refrain from 
attempting to intimidate witnesses or will permit others to 
intimidate witnesses on their behalf.19 

Victims 

Victims of intimidation are not a homogeneous group. 
Although all citizens who agree to serve as witnesses need 
to be protected from reprisals, their vulnerability depends 
largely upon circumstance and may therefore change over 
time. Further, intimidation is not evenly distributed socially 
or geographically. People in certain locationsinner cities, 
densely populated areas, and communities where social 
cooperation is poorare more likely to suffer intimidation 
than are others.20 The characteristics of those likely to be 
victims of intimidation cluster around several criteria, many 
of which appear to be interdependent. 

 
Gender and age. Children and females may be at greater 
risk of intimidation than adults and males.21 


 
Relationship. Those with close ties to an offender 
are at a greater risk of intimidation.22 These ties can 
be romantic or familial; or the victim and offender 
may simply know each other from having mutual 
acquaintances or from living in the same neighborhood. 
Victims of domestic violence appear to be at an elevated 
risk for retaliation, especially where the victim lives with 
the offender, is economically dependent on the offender, 
or is compelled to remain in contact with the offender 
because of shared parenting responsibilities.23 

 
Proximity. Victims and witnesses who live in geographic 
proximity to offenders are at a greater risk of intimidation 
than those who live in different neighborhoods or 
communities.24 Surveys suggest that it is rare for an 
offender or his associates to leave their home community 
to intimidate a witness who lives in another area.25 

 
Immigration status. Recent or illegal immigrants 
may be at an increased risk of intimidation.26 In some 
Asian cultures, for example, intimidation is a key feature 
of gang-related extortion and gang members have a 
reputation for ruthlessness. Coupled with a fear of 
deportation and a lack of understanding of the role 
of police, such social experiences can lead to a greater 
susceptibility to threats and warnings not to cooperate 
with law enforcement. 

 
Criminal involvement. Victims and witnesses with 
criminal records, active warrants, or active parole and 
probation conditions may be particularly hesitant to 
provide information to police. In addition, witnesses 
who were also accomplices to the original offense may 
be choice targets for intimidation. And in inter-gang 
violence, where the roles of offender, victim, and witness 
are often interchangeable and revolving,27 victims and 
witnesses may not cooperate with police because they 
intend to retaliate against the original offender or because 
of peer group norms that discourage cooperation. 



Locations and Timing 

Many witnesses are intimidated long before they are 
asked to appear in court, most often by a community 
norm that discourages residents from cooperating with 
police. Most explicit acts of intimidation take place where 
police exert little control: at the witnesss home, while 
the witness is at school or at work, or while the witness 
is running errands or socializing in the neighborhood.28 
However, witnesses also report being intimidated at the 
scene of the crime, while at the police station making a 
statement or identifying a suspect, and sometimes while in 
the courthouse waiting to testify; some even report being 
intimidated while on the witness stand. The time between 
a suspects arrest and trial is the most dangerous; repeated 
and lengthy trial delays expand the opportunities available 
to a motivated intimidator.29 

Motivations 

Offenders attempt to intimidate victims and witnesses 
for a number of reasons. Gang members use intimidation 
to subdue challenges to their authority or to reclaim lost 
gang status.30 Gang members and other offenders use 
intimidation to avoid detection by police and to avoid 
conviction once they are arrested. Compared to the 
penalties for violent crime, penalties for intimidation are 
relatively light. As a result, offenders may feel they have 
little to lose and much to gain by avoiding conviction 
through intimidation.31 Finally, the use and increasing 
sophistication of DNA and other forensic testing mean 
that deterring witness cooperation may be one of the only 
ways left available to weaken the prosecutions case.32 


UnderstandingYour Local Problem 

The above information provides only a generalized 
description of the problem of witness intimidation. To 
combat witness intimidation effectively, you must combine 
the basic facts with a more specific understanding of 
your local problem. Only by carefully analyzing your local 
problem will you be able to design an effective remedial 
strategy. 

Stakeholders 

The following groups have an interest in the witness 
intimidation problem and ought to be considered for the 
contribution they might make to gathering information 
about the problem and responding to it: 

 victim-witness units 
 crime victim advocacy groups 
 prosecutors 
 defense attorneys 
 courts 
 witnesses families and friends 
 witnesses employers 
 public housing authorities or apartment complex 
managers. 


Asking the Right Questions 

Intimidation can occur at any time, from the point 
when a criminal incident first occurs to the moment the 
witness provides evidence in court; hence, it is essential 
to collaborate with prosecutors, victim advocates, and 
other stakeholders in analyzing and solving the problem. 
Because many witnesses drop out of the process before 
their cases go to court, it is essential to survey witnesses 



and victims at multiple points in the process so that 
their responses address all the reasons and issues that 
deter them from cooperating fully. Finally, police cannot 
respond effectively to a problem if they do not recognize 
its occurrence. Police awareness can be increased through 
training, shift briefings, and police newsletters.33 Guidance 
should be offered for spotting signs of intimidation; even 
something as simple as requiring officers taking statements 
or interviewing witnesses to ask about intimidation directly 
can be an effective analytical tool.34,  Unfortunately, 
training curricula regarding the warning signs and typical 
behaviors of those who have been intimidated are not well 
developed. 

 The Philadelphia District 
Attorneys Office, Victim Services 
Division, utilizes a short interview 
guide to collect relevant facts about 
intimidation. It includes questions 
about the intimidator, type of 
intimidating conduct, and the time 
and place that the intimidation 
occurred. A copy of the interview 
guide is available in Finn and Healey 
(1996). 


The following are some critical questions that you should 
ask in analyzing your local witness intimidation problem. 
Your answers to these and other questions will help you 
choose the most appropriate set of responses later on. 

Incidents 

 
What types of behaviors do victims and witnesses perceive 
as intimidating or threatening? 
 
What do offenders say to witnesses that creates a fear of 
retribution? 
 
How often are acts of intimidation violent? How often do 
they involve property damage? 
 
Are the family members of witnesses threatened or 
intimidated? 
 
What do witnesses believe will happen if they cooperate 
with police or prosecutors? 
 
Is there a general sense among community members 
that they should not cooperate with police? If so, what 
contributes to this attitude? 



 
In what proportion of reported crime does witness 
intimidation occur? What do these incidents have in 
common? Type of offense? Location? Offender profile? 
 
In what proportion of crimes is intimidation unreported? 
What accounts for the failure to report incidents of 
intimidation? 


Intimidators 

 
Which individuals act or speak in ways that witnesses 
perceive as threatening? Offenders? Their associates? 
Friends? Family members? 
 
After what types of crime does intimidation occur? 
 
What roles do gangs and drugs play in intimidation? 
 
Do the friends or family members of witnesses act or 
speak in ways that lead witnesses to not cooperate? 
 
Do offenders focus their intimidation efforts within 
their own communities or do they travel outside their 
communities to deter witnesses from cooperating? 


Victims 

 
What are the characteristics of those who are deterred 
from cooperating with police and prosecutors? Gender? 
Age? Race? Criminal history? Previous victimization? 
 
Why do some witnesses continue to cooperate with police 
and prosecutors, despite having been threatened? 
 
What do witnesses say it would take for them to testify 
despite any intimidation? 
 
Where do the victims of intimidation live and work in 
relation to the intimidators? 
 
What types of relationships do witnesses have with those 
who intimidate them? 
 
What roles do culture and immigration status play in 
intimidation? 



 
Were those who are intimidated involved in the 
commission of the original offense? Do they have a 
history of criminal activity with the intimidators? 
 
Why are those on parole or probation reluctant to 
cooperate with police and prosecutors? Are there 
specific violations that they are trying to conceal by not 
cooperating? 


Locations/Times 

 
Where do victims and witnesses feel most vulnerable to 
intimidation? Home? Work? School? Out and about in the 
community? At the precinct? In court? 
 
When do incidents of intimidation occur? At the scene? 
When witnesses provide statements at the precinct? When 
witnesses are asked to identify suspects? During the trial? 
After the trial is over? 


Motivations 

 
What reasons do intimidators give for their behavior? 
 
What do offenders indicate would deter them from trying 
to intimidate witnesses? 


Current Responses 

 
What has been done by police and prosecutors in the past 
to minimize case-specific intimidation? 
 
What has been done in the past by police and prosecutors 
to address community-wide intimidation? 
 
Have police or prosecutors inadvertently validated 
community perceptions or fears related to intimidation? 
If so, how? By losing a case where a witness testified? By 
eroding public trust during a police incident? By assisting 
in immigration enforcement in an ethnic neighborhood? 



 
What are the penalties for witness tampering or 
intimidation? Are intimidators aware of them? Are they 
sufficiently harsh? 
 
Which current responses focus on the victim or witness? 
Which focus on the offender and his or her family and 
associates? 
 
What are the strengths of current responses to the 
problem of intimidation? 
 
Are current responses sufficient to resolve the problem? 
If not, why not? 
 
What other agencies or organizations can play a role in 
a comprehensive response to the problem of witness 
intimidation? Do police and prosecutors have existing 
relationships with these agencies or organizations? 
 
What sources of funding are available to support the 
efforts of police and prosecutors in dealing with the 
problem of witness intimidation? 


Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement will allow you to determine the degree to 
which your efforts have succeeded and may also suggest 
how your responses can be modified to produce the 
intended results. In order to determine how serious 
the problem is, you should measure the extent of your 
problem before you implement responses; in that way, 
measuring the problem after responses have been 
implemented will allow you to determine whether your 
solutions have been effective. All measures should be 
implemented in both the target area and surrounding 
areas. (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.) 



The following are potentially useful measures of the 
effectiveness of responses to witness intimidation: 

 
reduced number of witnesses who experience threats or 
intimidation 
 
increased number of witnesses who provide information 
to police 
 
increased number of witnesses who provide statements to 
police 
 
increased number of witnesses who agree to testify in 
court 
 
increased proportion of convictions. 
The following may offer an indirect indication that the 
situation is improving: 


 
increased proportion of crimes reported to police 
 
increased number of witnesses who are aware of the 
protections that are available to them 
 
increased number of witnesses who report intimidation 
 
increased number of offenders who are charged with 
intimidation 
 
increased public confidence in the criminal justice system 
and its ability to protect the citizenry. 

 The Savannah Police Department 
established a witness protection 
program with the goal of reducing 
the number of intimidation 
incidents. The number of incidents 
initially increased because police 
began to ask all victims and 
witnesses if they felt afraid or had 
experienced intimidation, rather than 
relying on victims and witnesses to 
initiate the discussion (Goldkamp, 
Gottfredson and Moore 1999).



Responses to the Problem of Witness 
Intimidation 

Analyzing your local problem will give you a better 
understanding of the factors that contribute to it. Once 
you have analyzed your local problem and established a 
baseline for measuring effectiveness, you can consider 
possible responses to the problem. 

The following response strategies will provide a 
foundation for addressing your particular intimidation 
problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of 
studies and police reports. Several strategies may apply to 
your local problem. It is critical that you tailor responses 
to local circumstances and that you can justify each 
response based upon reliable analysis. In most cases, an 
effective strategy will involve several different responses. 
Because law enforcement alone is seldom effective in 
reducing or solving the problem, do not limit yourself 
to considering only what police can do; rather, carefully 
consider whether others in your community share 
responsibility for the problem and whether they can help 
respond to it. 

General Considerations for an Effective 
Response Strategy 

1. 
Forming multi-agency partnerships. The appropriate 
party to address the threat of witness intimidation may 
change as a case moves through the criminal justice 
system. For example, whereas police may be responsible 
for protecting or supporting witnesses at the outset of 
a case, the responsibility might shift to the prosecutor 
when the case goes to trial. And depending upon the 
type of protection required, other agencies may need to 
become involved as well. For example, public housing, 
public benefits, and social services agencies may all 



have a role to play where circumstances dictate that 
a witness should be relocated. Hence, planning and 
implementing a comprehensive program to prevent 
and address witness intimidation requires multiple 
actors: an organizing committee of administrators who 
are authorized to commit agency resources; a team to 
design program operations; a program administrator; 
case investigators; victim advocates; and police support. 
Unfortunately, shared responsibilities can also result in 
blurred accountability.35 For this reason, interagency 
agreements are sometimes needed to outline each 
agencys responsibilities, the services to be provided, the 
financial ramifications and obligations, and the parameters 
for allowable expenses and services.36 Not only do 
interagency agreements create accountability, but they 
also make service delivery more coordinated and efficient. 
Still, such agreements require significant levels of trust 
between agencies. 

 Finn and Healey (1996) offer 
comprehensive guidance for 
crafting cooperative agreements 
and designating functional roles for 
agency staff. 

2. 
Limiting liability. Some police agencies are hesitant 
to implement comprehensive witness security programs 
because they fear that recognizing witness intimidation 
will create liability in the event that the intimidation is 
successful and harm befalls the witness. Liability can be 
limited by in a number of ways, including: 

 
taking reports of intimidation seriously and engaging in 
the defined process for protecting witnesses 
 
promising only those security services that can 
reasonably be provided
 
documenting all offers of assistance and all efforts to 
protect witnesses, along with the acceptance or refusal 
of such assistance 
 
making sure that witnesses understand the 
circumstances under which protections will be 
withdrawn and documenting all decisions to withdraw 
security.37 



3. 
Strengthening ties between police and the 
community. Ideally, community residents will be 
committed to reporting crime and giving evidence 
in court; and in return, police will be committed to 
providing support, information, and protection to 
potential witnesses.38 Fostering cooperation on the 
part of reluctant witnesses is a natural extension of 
community policing and community prosecution, which 
focus on engaging residents in preventing and responding 
to crime.39 For example, mobile precincts can increase 
police visibility after a high-profile gang-related crime in 
an area where intimidation is likely to occur. Storefront 
precincts can increase the level of contact with residents 
and make it easier to provide encouragement and support. 
Community prosecutors can have a visible presence at 
crime scenes and can network with witnesses to build 
cases. Sensitivity to fear of intimidation can create trust 
and a sense that police recognize why some residents may 
be afraid to cooperate. 

Efforts to develop trust and to communicate 
understanding can also be enhanced by outreach efforts 
designed to educate residents about witness intimidation 
and to provide information about related services. 
Outreach efforts should involve multiple agencies 
including police, prosecutors, housing and other social 
service agencies, federal law enforcement agencies, the 

U.S. Attorney, and victim advocacy groups.40 Because 
perceptions of the likelihood and severity of intimidation 
are often exaggerated, outreach is essential to minimize 
irrational fears and to provide reliable information.41 
Outreach efforts are also one of the only ways to reach 
witnesses whose fear prevents them from making any 
contact with the police at all. The most effective message 
is one that draws a connection between serving as a 
witness and preventing drug dealers and gang members 
from terrorizing communities.42 

 One police department avoids 
handing out official business cards 
at the scene. Instead, their cards 
read Dont talk to me here. Call 
me. and provide residents with a 
direct phone number to investigating 
officers (Finn and Healey 1996). 


Finally, outreach is particularly essential in Asian 
communities and in communities with recent or illegal 
immigrants.43 These residents may not be familiar 
with the criminal justice process and may need both 
information and encouragement to participate in it. 
Matching the cultural and linguistic skills of police and 
other outreach personnel to the target community can 
also encourage cooperation. 

4. 
Assessing the risk of intimidation. The level of 
intimidation experienced by a witness should dictate 
the type and intensity of services provided by police, 
prosecutors, and other agencies. Standardized risk 
assessments will ensure that these decisions are made 
consistently, objectively, and fairly. In the United 
Kingdom, classification as a vulnerable or intimidated 
witness is based upon a number of factors: characteristics 
of the witness, such as age, gender, and physical and 
mental condition; the nature of the original offense; the 
relationship between the witness and the offender; the 
nature of the evidence the witness is able to provide; the 
characteristics of the defendant, such as criminal history, 
access to firearms, and connections to criminal networks; 
and the nature of any direct threats.44 Assessments 
should be conducted periodically to determine whether 
the level of risk has increased or decreased and whether 
current protections are sufficient. Sharing the results of 
risk assessments will provide witnesses with a realistic 
understanding of potential dangers and allow them to 
make informed decisions about the types of protections 
they will commit to using.45 

While risk assessments are useful for allocating 
resources, they may inadvertently invalidate the fears 
and anxieties of witnesses who do not meet the criteria 


for more intensive forms of assistance.46 Further, most 
intimidation experiences are too complex for standardized 
risk assessment instruments to be useful.47


5. 
Choosing the best strategy. Criminal prosecutions 
typically serve several purposes: although they are 
intended to do justice in a particular crime, they often also 
serve as a means of addressing an underlying problem, 
such as drug dealing or gang activity. If there is reason 
to believe that witness intimidation might stymie criminal 
prosecutions, police should consider whether prosecutions 
requiring civilian witnesses are the best approach to 
dealing with a specific crime problem. Other approaches, 
such as civil remedies involving nuisance abatement or 
injunctions, can minimize the need to find individuals 
who are willing to testify in criminal court. 

Specific Responses to Reduce Witness Intimidation 

Protecting Witnesses 

6. 
Minimizing the risk of identification witnesses 
face when reporting crime or offering statements. 
Particularly in neighborhoods where community-
wide intimidation is a factor, residents may hesitate to 
cooperate with police at the scene of a crime because 
they fear being labeled as an informant or a rat. As a 
result, methods for reporting crime or offering witness 
statements that do not make cooperation obvious 
to observers are sometimes needed.48 For example, 
police can refrain from interviewing witnesses at the 
scene, choosing instead to visit them at their homes in 
plainclothes after activity on the street has diminished. 
House-to-house calls that disguise which residents are 
cooperating can also be helpful, although these additional 



visits increase police workloads. Some witnesses may be 
more comfortable meeting at the precinct or in a neutral 
place, such as a church or a school. 

7. 
Protecting the anonymity of witnesses. Given the risk 
of threats and intimidation, many witnesses do not want 
offenders to learn their identities or addresses. Practices 
such as broadcasting witness names and addresses over 
the police radio, asking witnesses to identify suspects out 
in the open, and revealing a witnesss identity to a suspect 
can all jeopardize witness safety. Limiting the information 
that is available about witnesses and taking other 
protective measures can effectively combat these issues. 
Protecting the anonymity of witnesses once a case goes 
to trial can be more problematic. Recent court cases 
have debated the balance between witness safety and a 
defendants Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination. 
To date, court opinions have emphasized the rights 
granted to defendants by the Sixth Amendment of the 
Constitution.49 However, numerous measures have been 
used effectively to limit opportunities for intimidation 
to occur in the courtroom. These include allowing the 
witness to give evidence via a closed circuit television link 
and using screens that allow the judge, jury, and attorneys 
to see the witness while at the same time shielding 
the witness from the defendant and members of the 
public.50 In some cases, the witnesss name and address 
are not read aloud in court, making it more difficult for a 
defendants fellow gang-members or criminal associates to 
target the witness.51 

 Crime prevention officers 
should be routinely involved in 
these activities. In addition, the 
Fresno District Attorneys Witness 
Intervention Team partnered with 
ADT Security Services to protect 
witnesses who chose not to relocate 
after experiencing intimidation. ADT 
provided free panic alarm technology 
in the witnesses homes to afford a 
greater sense of security (Goldkamp, 
Gottfredson and Moore 1999). 

8. 
Using alarms and other crime prevention devices. 
Intruder alarms, motion detectors, cameras, and outdoor 
lighting can be used to deter intimidators from targeting 
witnesses at home. Target hardening devices, such as 



deadbolt locks, window locks, window bars, grates, and 
pin locks on sliding doors can also make unauthorized 
entry more difficult. All of these measures can give 
intimidated witnesses a greater sense of security in their 
homes. 

When not at home, intimidated witnesses can be equipped 
with portable personal alarms. These pendant alarms 
can be linked to cellular networks so that they work in 
any location.52 Some models open a voice channel upon 
activation so that police can hear what is happening and 
can reassure the witness that assistance is on the way. 
Alarms are effective because they assure witnesses that 
intimidation efforts will receive a rapid response. And 
because they do not require a constant police presence, 
personal alarms are less costly than bodyguards, while still 
providing the same around the clock protection.53 

 The use of portable personal 
alarms has been shown to reduce 
victims levels of anxiety in domestic 
violence situations (Lloyd, Farrell 
and Pease 1999). 

9. 
Reducing the likelihood of contact between 
witnesses and offenders. Most often, acts of 
intimidation are committed at a witnesss home, 
workplace, or school, or during the normal course of the 
witnesss daily activities. Minimizing the opportunities 
and avenues by which witnesses come into contact with 
offenders can reduce the incidence of intimidation. For 
example, witnesses can alter their normal routines by 
varying the routes taken to work or school and making 
their schedules irregular and unpredictable. Because 
many witnesses receive nuisance calls or are contacted by 
telephone, obtaining an unlisted telephone number and 
using caller identification and call blocking can provide 
additional insulation from unwanted contact.54 

10. 
Transporting witnesses to and from work and school. 
Many witnesses feel vulnerable when traveling to and 
from work or school, or while attending to their business 





in the community. Police escorts during these times can 
deter offenders from making contact. However, such 
protection schemes consume significant police resources 
and may not be feasible for broad application. In addition, 
the presence of an escort may draw unwanted attention 
to the witness. Such intensive protection should be 
reserved for only those witnesses who are at a high risk 
of serious injury. 

11. Supporting witnesses. Over the past two decades, 
federal legislation has established a list of victims rights 
and defined a group of services that federal agencies 
must provide to crime victims. Most state and county 
prosecutors afford crime victims these same rights 
and services. Such programs can also be implemented 
by police departments. Departments that offer victim 
assistance services have found that witnesses are 
more willing to report crimes and to cooperate with 
prosecutors; in addition, such witnesses offer more 
effective testimony and also demonstrate improved 
recall.55 

 See U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of the Attorney General 
(2000) for a complete discussion 
of victim and witness assistance 
programs.

In general, such assistance programs encourage victims 
to cooperate in the criminal justice process and provide 
counseling and other services designed to address the 
emotional impact of victimization. Most offer emergency 
services, counseling, advocacy and support, claims 
assistance, and court-related services.56 Of particular 
benefit to police in cases involving intimidation, victim 
advocates typically provide: 

 
general information about the criminal justice system 
and what the witness can expect 
 
specific information regarding the suspects arrest 
status, bail, pretrial release, and court dates 
 
engagement with victims early in the case and ongoing 
contact throughout the case. 

 The Suffolk County, 
Massachusetts victim assistance 
program targets victims and 
witnesses in gang-related cases. 
Intensive personal contact was 
required; notices sent through the 
mail and occasional phone calls 
were not sufficient to allay fears or 
to sustain engagement (Johnson, 
Webster and Connors 1995). 



Some assistance programs provide 24-hour hotlines with 
staff trained to counsel victims and to refer emergency 
situations to police where appropriate.57 Some police 
hesitate to work closely with victim advocates, fearing that 
they will interfere with police procedures, create more 
work or stress, or will ask inappropriate questions that 
might compromise the integrity of an investigation.58 In 
the past two decades, however, research has shown that 
victim assistance programs produce a number of benefits 
to police, including reduced stress, faster return to patrol 
after responding to a crime scene, and additional and 
higher-quality evidence.59 In addition, victim advocates 
commonly handle all referrals for assistance and 
services, freeing police from this responsibility. Finally, 
advocates can calm victims and witnesses and address 
their emotional needs so that they are better prepared to 
provide accurate information.


However, overloading victim advocates is a key concern.60
Their services should be seen as a complement to, not 
a replacement for, support offered by police. In particular, 
police should offer reassurance, provide witnesses with 
cell phones or other direct contact numbers, and maintain 
ongoing contact to reassess the level of threat and to 
assuage any other concerns witnesses may have.


12. Keeping witnesses and defendants separated at the 
courthouse. Other than at home, witnesses are most 
often intimidated in the courthouse, both while waiting 
to testify and while in the courtroom giving testimony. 
Not only must witnesses endure a face-to-face encounter 
with the defendant, but they may also be apprehensive 
about contact with the defendants family and friends. 
Key danger areas include courthouse entrances, hallways, 
waiting areas, refreshment areas, and restrooms. Separate 
waiting rooms and entrances for witnesses and defendants 


can be useful. Some jurisdictions use an on-call system, in 
which witnesses are provided with pagers that summon 
them to the courthouse when they are needed to testify. 
This practice eliminates the need for witnesses to remain 
in the courthouse throughout the day, thereby reducing 
opportunities for intimidation to occur.61 


Many victim assistance programs provide escort services 
to and from court; in addition, advocates often remain 
with witnesses throughout the day and accompany them 
into public areas of the courthouse. This can be especially 
effective in gang-related cases, where fellow gang 
members may attend the trial in large numbers in order to 
show their solidarity with the defendant and to intimidate 
witnesses into withholding or changing their testimony. 
The use of video cameras at courtroom entrances can 
discourage such practices, as gang members on probation 
or parole may not want to risk being seen associating 
with other gang members, lest they violate the conditions 
of their supervision.62 Studies in the United Kingdom 
have found that courthouse-based efforts have effectively 
reduced the negative effects of intimidation.63 

13. Relocating witnesses. Because it is unusual for 
offenders to travel outside of their neighborhoods to 
intimidate witnesses, simply moving a witness to another 
location can effectively protect him or her from harm. 
Of course, the key to this strategy is to ensure that the 
new location remains confidential. Out of boredom, or 
because they are reluctant to sever ties with friends and 
family, the witnesses themselves may compromise the 
secrecy of their new locations. Further, many witnesses 
require support from numerous agencies, such as public 
housing and social services. The confidentiality of 
transactions made on their behalf should be assured in 
formal interagency agreements. 


Police and prosecutors consider relocation to be the most 
reliable method of protecting witnesses.64 However, it is 
costly, time consuming, and requires a significant level 
of cooperation, from both public agencies and witnesses 
themselves. Originally, the only type of relocation 
available was through the Federal Witness Security 
Program, which involved permanent relocation and 
complete identity changes for witnesses and their families. 
Since the inception of the federal program in 1970, less 
extravagant models have been established by state and 
local jurisdictions, requiring a less significant commitment 
of public resources and a less extreme commitment from 
witnesses. These three types are discussed below. 

a. 
Emergency relocation. When danger is imminent, 
witnesses can be quickly moved to a shelter, hotel, motel, 
or other facility. Witnesses are registered using false 
names and payment is made through an intermediary, 
not by the police or prosecutor.65 Witnesses can also be 
placed with family or friends in other communities or 
even out-of-state, usually for airfare or the price of a bus 
ticket. These placements usually only last for a few days 
or weeks, until the threat has passed or a more permanent 
solution is found. 

 A witness security program in 
Savannah, Georgia used housing at 
a nearby military base to provide a 
safe living environment for witnesses 
who had been threatened. Baltimore, 
Maryland established safe houses 
to provide emergency shelter to 
intimidated witnesses. However, 
when witnesses returned to their 
home communities, they often 
revealed the location of the safe 
house, compromising its security 
(Goldkamp, Gottfredson and Moore 
1999). 

b. 
Temporary or short-term relocation. It may be 
necessary to provide for extended periods of relocation 
when witnesses remain at risk for longer periods of 
time. Such short-term programs may be appropriate in 
jurisdictions where gangs are loosely organized, small, 
or poorly established.66 Witnesses can either be placed 
in rental units or with out-of-state friends or family 
until the trial is over. Housing witnesses with others can 
be cost-effective and also offers a source of emotional 
support that advocates and police cannot provide. These 
arrangements are most successful when police confirm 




that the sponsoring family is willing to house the witness, 
when the witness stays with someone unknown to the 
offender, when police in the receiving jurisdiction are 
notified, and when the witness is monitored regularly to 
ensure that she remains willing to testify.67 

Most short-term relocation programs cover the cost of 
relocating, such as rent, security deposit, and moving 
expenses, and also provide monthly subsidies for utilities, 
food, clothing, and other living expenses. Due to the 
expense involved, financial support is always time-limited, 
although a witness is usually free to stay in the new 
location if she so desires. The U.S. Attorney has access 
to the federal Emergency Witness Assistance Program, in 
which assistance is limited to only one month.68 

 The Illinois Gang Crime Witness 
Protection Program struggled to gain 
speedy approval for the outlay of 
funds. These delays contributed to the 
underutilization of the program, as 
local police and prosecutors could not 
take action without a commitment for 
reimbursement from the state. This 
situation improved once the process 
for distributing funds was streamlined 
(Bauer et al. 1997). 

Short-term relocation strategies are greatly enhanced 
by partnerships with federal and local public housing 
authorities. When a witness already resides in a public 
housing development, a rapid shift of residence can be 
made with few complications. It may also be beneficial 
to determine whether the witness is eligible for public 
housing or other forms of public assistance. The transfer 
of benefits to the new location can be cumbersome and 
time-consuming without proper interagency agreements. 

 It is important to understand 
the difference between the types of 
publicly assisted housing. Public 
housing refers to publicly-owned 
residential properties for eligible 
families at assisted rents that reflect 
the ability to pay. Section 8 housing 
refers to certificates and vouchers for 
federal rent subsidies that can be used 
to pay for a privately-owned house 
or apartment. Section 8 certificates 
are particularly useful because they 
allow for placement in a number of 
neighborhoods (Finn and Healey 1996). 

 Finn and Healey (1996) offer 
extensive guidance for working with 
public housing authorities, including 
HUD eligibility requirements, tips for 
overcoming waiting list barriers, using 
floating vouchers, and advocating with 
landlords. 

 In the late 1990s, Scotland-
Strathclyde established a witness 
protection program modeled after the 
Federal Witness Security Program. 
Effective elements of the program 
included collaborating with housing, 
social services, and health agencies; 
establishing direct links between 
administrators and those responsible 
for day-to-day operations; and hiring 
officers capable of working with a wide 
cross section of people with a range of 
domestic, financial, and welfare issues. 
For more information see Fyfe and 
McKay (1999) and Fyfe and McKay 
(2000a). 

c. 
Permanent relocation. The Federal Witness Security 
Program provides secret and permanent relocation 
of witnesses and their families to places of safety.  
Witnesses must change their identities, sever all contacts 
with friends and family, and agree to not return to their 
home communities. In exchange, the program provides 
safety and security, as well as start-up funding for housing 
and subsistence until the witness becomes self-supporting. 
State and local prosecutors can refer witnesses to the 
program and reimburse the federal government for the 


cost. Although the program reports high conviction 
rates and a good safety record, some significant issues 
must be considered. First, the psychological impact of
severing ties and taking on a new identity should not be 
ignored; participants report high levels of stress, anxiety, 
and depression.69 Second, the program only accepts 
those who provide significant testimony in major cases. 
Third, because these witnesses often have extensive 
criminal records themselves, they may pose a danger to 
the community of relocation.70 Finally, secret relocation 
creates obvious difficulties for child custody arrangements 
and debtors seeking repayment.71


Deterring Intimidators 

The responses discussed above address the symptoms 
of intimidation (i.e., protecting the intimidated) rather 
than the causes of intimidation (i.e., deterring the 
intimidators). By implementing responses that address a 
culture that tolerates intimidation, police and prosecutors 
can demonstrate their determination to hold intimidators 
accountable for their actions.72 The following responses 
focus on actions that can be taken in criminal court 
proceedings. 

14. Admonishing intimidators. When witnesses or victims 
tell police they are afraid or have experienced direct 
intimidation, police can visit the offender and his or 
her family and friends to caution them regarding their 
behavior and to explain the laws concerning witness 
intimidation and obstruction of justice. In court, judges 
should be vigilant about threatening gestures or actions 
and should admonish defendants or spectators who 
display such behaviors. Some jurisdictions educate judges 
about the types of courtroom intimidation that are 
exhibited by gang members, such as courtroom packing 


or wearing black.73 Although admonishments by police 
and judges are associated with a reduction in intimidation 
reported by witnesses, judicial warnings not to contact 
witnesses may have limited effectiveness in gang and 
drug-related cases.74 


15. Requesting high bail and no contact orders. In cases 
where the risk of intimidation is significant, prosecutors 
can seek high bail to keep defendants in jail and away 
from witnesses. Where this strategy is used, bond hearings 
cannot be a mere formality; witness statements and risk 
assessments should be prepared in advance and presented 
in court. Prosecutors should seek release conditions that 
forbid contact with witnesses and victims and make sure 
that the consequences for violating such conditions are 
clearly articulated. In some jurisdictions, prosecutors 
file multiple charges and request a separate bond for 
each; prosecutors may also file federal charges where 
appropriate.75 The effectiveness of this strategy is limited 
by several factors.76 

 
The time between the original offense and arrest leaves 
ample opportunity for intimidation to occur. 
 
Even if the defendant is incarcerated, his or her friends 
and family can still intimidate witnesses. 
 
Defendants may be able to contact witnesses by 
telephone, even while incarcerated.
 
Bond schedules are usually strict and intimidation 
charges usually only require a small amount to be 
posted. 
 
Incarcerating intimidators might not be possible in 
jurisdictions where jail crowding is a concern or where 
witness intimidation does not constitute an exception 
to population caps. 



16. 
Increasing penalties for intimidation. In many 
jurisdictions, witness intimidation is a misdemeanor that 
results in sentences concurrent with those for the original 
offense. Thus, offenders who are charged with a violent 
offense that carries a long sentence may feel they have 
little to lose by trying to deter witnesses from providing 
evidence. Making witness intimidation a felony-level 
offense, increasing maximum sentences, and requiring 
such sentences to be served consecutively might deter 
offenders from tampering with witnesses.77 

17. 
Prosecuting intimidators. The frequency with which 
offenders are charged with intimidation varies widely 
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.78 Prosecutors can 
demonstrate their intolerance of witness intimidation 
and their commitment to resident safety by vigorously 
prosecuting offenders who harass, threaten, injure, or 
otherwise intimidate or retaliate against witnesses. Witness 
intimidation may also be cause to revoke probation or 
parole. 


Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

18. 
Increasing patrols in a target area. If police are 
made aware of the addresses of witnesses who have 
experienced intimidation, they can increase the frequency 
of patrol in the surrounding neighborhood. Although 
the increased visibility may relieve anxiety, the chances of 
actually intervening in an incident are slim unless police 
are posted near the witnesses around the clock. Limited 
resources are better deployed using one of the more 
targeted measures discussed above. 
19. 
Compelling witnesses to testify. Most states have 
material witness laws that permit the arrest and detention 
of any person with knowledge of a crime who refuses 



to provide information in court.79 Witnesses who refuse 
to testify are subject to contempt actions and may 
be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.80 In theory, 
compelling witnesses to testify shifts the responsibility 
from the witness to the prosecutor and may therefore 
reduce the risk of intimidation and the level of anxiety 
experienced by the witness. However, others are still likely 
to believe that the witness has chosen to cooperate.81 
Although efforts to compel a witness to testify may 
provide him or her with needed confidence, threatening a 
witness with a contempt citation can also backfire, causing 
an already reluctant witness to develop a sudden and 
mysterious loss of memory. Because of concerns for the 
rights of victims and the lack of proof that compelling 
witnesses to testify is effective, this should be the option 
of last resort. 


Appendix: Summary of Responses to 
Witness Intimidation 

The table below summarizes the responses to witness 
intimidation, the mechanisms by which they are intended 
to work, the conditions under which they should work 
best, and some factors that should be considered before 
a particular response is implemented. It is critical that 
responses are tailored to local circumstances and that each 
response can be justified based upon reliable analysis. In 
most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing 
several different responses, because law enforcement alone 
is seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy 
1. 17 Forming 
multi-agency 
partnerships 
Ensures that 
witnesses are 
protected 
throughout 
the process of 
reporting crime 
and testifying at 
trial 
... specific interagency 
agreements detail 
the roles and 
responsibilities of each 
agency 
Crafting formalized 
agreements takes time; 
agency staff must ensure 
the confidentiality 
of witnesses; shared 
responsibilities can result in 
blurred accountability for 
delivery of services 
2. 18 Limiting 
liability 
Document all 
measures taken 
on behalf of 
witnesses in 
case of legal 
challenges 
 reports of 
intimidation are 
taken seriously; 
absolute protection 
is not guaranteed; 
witnesses are involved 
in decisions about 
protective measures 
Despite the best efforts 
of police, witnesses may 
still be harmed, which 
can adversely affect future 
cooperation 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
3. 19 Strengthening 
ties between 
police and the 
community 
Encourages 
cooperation in 
criminal cases; 
increases police 
visibility, which 
can instill a 
greater sense 
of security in 
community 
residents 
 a connection 
is made between 
cooperation and a 
reduction in gang and 
drug-related violence; 
outreach efforts are 
specially tailored 
for Asian and other 
immigrant communities 
Outreach efforts require 
time and patience; rate of 
reported intimidation is 
likely to increase and will 
require additional resources; 
could inspire increased 
efforts from intimidators 
4. 20 Assessing 
the risk of 
intimidation 
Ensures that 
decisions about 
protective 
measures are 
consistent, fair, 
and objective 
 assessments are 
conducted periodically 
to determine if 
protective measures are 
sufficient; results of 
assessments are shared 
with witnesses 
Could marginalize witnesses 
who do not meet the 
criteria for more intensive 
modes of protection; 
standardized assessments 
may not capture case-
specific nuances 
5. 21 Choosing the 
best strategy 
Limits the 
situations in 
which witnesses 
need to appear in 
court 
 an array of options 
are available, including 
criminal prosecution 
and civil remedies 
Civil penalties may be too 
lenient, particularly when 
used in response to violent 
crime 
Protecting Witnesses 
6. 21 Minimizing 
the risk of 
identification 
witnesses 
face when 
reporting crime 
or offering 
statements 
Provides safe 
and confidential 
avenues for 
communication 
between 
residents and 
police 
 witnesses are 
provided with a choice 
of methods to report 
crime or to make 
statements 
Follow-up visits require 
additional police time; 
plainclothes officers may 
still be identifiable; some 
information may be lost 
if witnesses decide not to 
follow up with police 
7. 22 Protecting the 
identity of 
witnesses 
Prevents 
offenders from 
learning the 
names and 
addresses of 
witnesses 
 new procedures are 
developed that limit the 
types of information 
that are broadcast over 
police radios; balance is 
found between witness 
safety and the right of 
defendants to cross-
examine witnesses 
Witnesses cannot be 
guaranteed full anonymity 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
8. 22 Using 
alarms and 
other crime 
prevention 
devices 
Makes 
unauthorized 
entry into 
witnesses 
homes more 
 witnesses are trained 
to use devices properly; 
witnesses use the 
devices continuously 
Security devices can be 
costly; improper use may 
increase the rate of false 
alarms 
difficult and 
gives witnesses a 
greater sense of 
security; ensures 
that instances of 
intimidation will 
receive a rapid 
response 
9. 23 Reducing the 
likelihood 
of contact 
between 
Minimizes 
opportunities for 
intimidation 
 routines are 
varied; witnesses are 
committed to using 
avoidance tactics 
May be inconvenient for 
witnesses, resulting in lower 
compliance 
witnesses and 
offenders 
10. 23 Transporting 
witnesses to 
and from work, 
school, etc. 
Deters 
intimidators from 
making contact 
with witnesses 
because of 
the risk of 
 escort services are 
reserved for those at 
high risk of injury 
Escort schemes consume 
significant police resources 
and may not be feasible for 
broad application; presence 
of an escort may draw 
unwanted attention to the 
observation or witness 
intervention by 
escort 
11. 24 Supporting 
witnesses 
Addresses the 
emotional impact 
of victimization 
to make 
cooperation less 
daunting and to 
better prepare 
witnesses to 
 victim advocates 
have access to a wide 
range of services 
to address the 
constellation of witness 
needs; advocates are 
properly trained so 
that their actions do 
Victim advocates cannot 
be solely responsible for 
supporting all witnesses, lest 
they become overburdened 
provide accurate 
information 
not compromise the 
integrity of the case 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
12. 25 Keeping 
witnesses and 
defendants 
separated at the 
courthouse 
Reduces the 
opportunities 
for intimidation; 
deters criminal 
associates from 
attending trial 
and behaving in 
an intimidating 
fashion 
 witnesses are 
accompanied by an 
advocate or volunteer 
while they are on-call at 
the courthouse 
May be difficult to 
accomplish depending 
on the layout of the 
courthouse; one-to-one 
assistance can be difficult 
to implement if multiple 
witnesses require services 
on the same day 
13. 26 Relocating 
witnesses 
Removes 
witnesses from 
the danger area 
 costs are minimized 
by placing witnesses 
with friends or 
relatives; witnesses 
obey all rules regarding 
contact with their home 
communities; additional 
services are available 
to address witnesses 
emotional, financial, 
and domestic needs 
Witnesses may not be 
willing to obey program 
rules; location of 
new housing may be 
compromised; witnesses 
with criminal backgrounds 
may present a risk to 
public safety in their new 
communities; child custody 
and other legal issues must 
be managed; the emotional 
impact on witnesses can be 
severe 
Deterring Intimidators 
14. 29 Admonishing 
intimidators 
Deters 
intimidators by 
making them 
aware of the 
penalties for their 
actions 
 police confront 
intimidators and their 
families and associates; 
judges are informed 
of typical courtroom-
based intimidation 
tactics 
May have limited 
effectiveness in gang and 
drug-related cases 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
15. 30 Requesting 
high bail and 
no contact 
orders 
Reduces the 
opportunities 
for intimidators 
to confront 
witnesses in the 
community 
 victim impact 
statements are 
presented at bond 
hearing; release 
conditions and the 
consequences for their 
violation are clearly 
articulated 
Time between offense and 
arrest leaves ample time 
for intimidation to occur; 
friends and family may 
still intimidate witness; 
defendants may be able to 
contact witnesses by phone, 
even while incarcerated; bail 
for intimidation is typically 
low; jail crowding may 
prevent the incarceration of 
potential intimidators 
16. 31 Increasing 
penalties for 
intimidation 
Deters offenders 
by increasing risk 
 intimidation is a 
felony-level offense; 
sentences must be 
served consecutively 
Cases of intimidation are 
difficult to prove; no general 
deterrent effect 
17. 31 Prosecuting 
intimidators 
Deters offenders 
by increasing risk 
 intimidation is 
a consideration in 
revoking parole or 
probation 
Cases of intimidation can be 
difficult to prove 
Responses With Limited Effectiveness 
18. 31 Increasing 
patrol in target 
area 
Increases 
surveillance of 
danger area 
Consumes considerable 
resources; chances of 
actually intervening in an 
incident are slim 
19. 31 Compelling 
witnesses to 
testify 
Transfers 
responsibility for 
the decision to 
testify from the 
witness to the 
prosecutor 
May backfire and cause 
witnesses to claim they do 
not remember the events 
in question; may not 
eradicate the perception that 
witnesses are cooperating 
voluntarily 


Endnotes 

1. 
Maynard (1994). 
2. 
Johnson, Webster and Connors (1995). 
3. 
Finn and Healey (1996); Elliot (1998). 
4. 
Fyfe and McKay (2000a). 
5. 
Healey (1995). 
6. 
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Maynard (1994). 
7. 
Elliot (1998); Fyfe (2001). 
8. 
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990). 
9. 
Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996); Butterfield (2005). 
10. 
Healey (1995). 
11. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
12. 
Fyfe (2001). 
13. 
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Buzawa and Buzawa 
(1996); Comparet-Casani (2002). 
14. 
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Elliot (1998); Whitehead 
(2001); Hamlyn et al. (2004). 
15. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
16. 
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Burgess et al. (2003). 
17. 
Healey (1995). 
18. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
19. 
Healey (1995). 
20. 
Fyfe (2001); Burgess et al. (2003). 
21. 
Elliot (1998). 
22. 
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Healey (1995); Finn and 
Healey (1996); Elliot (1998). 
23. 
Buzawa and Buzawa (1996). 
24. 
Finn and Healey (1996); Elliot (1998). 
25. 
Healey (1995). 
26. 
Finn and Healey (1996); Davis and Henderson (2003). 
27. 
Institute for Law and Justice (1993); Johnson, Webster 
and Connors (1995). 
28. 
Connick and Davis (1983); Davis, Smith and Henley 
(1990); Fyfe and McKay (2000b). 
29. 
Finn and Healey (1996); Fyfe (2001); Whitehead (2001). 
30. 
Comparet-Casani (2002). 



31. 
Comparet-Casani (2002). 
32. 
Fyfe and McKay (2000a). 
33. 
Elliot (1998). 
34. 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of 
Crime (1998). 
35. 
Plotnikoff and Woolfson (1997). 
36. 
Healey (1995). 
37. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
38. 
Fyfe (2001). 
39. 
Tomz and McGillis (1997). 
40. 
Healey (1995). 
41. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
42. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
43. 
Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996). 
44. 
Elliot (1998); Fyfe and McKay (2000a). 
45. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
46. 
Fyfe (2001). 
47. 
Fyfe (2001). 
48. 
Elliot (1998); Finn and Healey (1996). 
49. 
Comparet-Casani (2002). 
50. 
Great Britain, Home Office (2001). 
51. 
Butterfield (2005). 
52. 
Lloyd, Farrell and Pease (1994). 
53. 
Elliot (1998). 
54. 
Gaines (2003). 
55. 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of 
Crime (1997). 
56. 
Finn and Lee (1985). 
57. 
Younger (1979); Healey (1995). 
58. 
Finn and Lee (1985). 
59. 
Tomz and McGillis (1997). 
60. 
Maynard (1994). 
61. 
Elliot (1998). 
62. 
Healey (1995). 
63. 
Hamlyn et al. (2004). 



64. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
65. 
Healey (1995). 
66. 
Fyfe and McKay (2000a); Fyfe (2001). 
67. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
68. 
Gaines (2003). 
69. 
Finn and Healey (1996); Gaines (2003); Kash (2004). 
70. 
Slate (1997). 
71. 
Slate (1997). 
72. 
Fyfe (2001). 
73. 
Healey (1995). 
74. 
Connick and Davis (1983); Hamlyn et al. (2004); Finn 
and Healey (1996). 
75. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
76. 
Maynard (1994); Finn and Healey (1996). 
77. 
Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996). 
78. 
Finn and Healey (1996). 
79. 
Studnicki and Apol (2002). 
80. 
Rogan (1999). 
81. 
Fyfe and Sheptycki (2005). 



References 

Bauer, R., C. Hasler, M. Myrent, R. Przybylski, G. Ramker 
and J. Travis (1997). An Evaluation of the Illinois State Police 
Gang Crime Witness Protection Program. Chicago: Illinois 
Criminal Justice Information Authority. 

Burgess, R., N. Abigail, M. Lacriarde and J. Hawkins (2003). 
Disrupting Crack Markets: A Practice Guide. London: Home 
Office, Drug Strategy Directorate. 

Butterfield, F. Guns and Jeers Used by Gangs to Buy 
Silence. New York Times, January 16, 2005. 

Buzawa, E., and C. Buzawa (eds.) (1996). Do Arrests and 
Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks (California): Sage. 

Catalano, S. (2004). Criminal Victimization, 2004. Washington, 
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Comparet-Casani, J. (2002). Balancing the Anonymity of 
Threatened Witnesses Versus a Defendants Right of 
Confrontation: The Waiver Doctrine After Alvarado. San 
Diego Law Review 39(4): 1165-1252. 

Connick, E., and R. Davis (1983). Examining the Problem 
of Witness Intimidation. Judicature 66(10): 439-447. 

Davis, R., and N. Henderson (2003). Willingness to Report 
Crimes: The Role of Ethnic Group Membership and 
Community Efficacy. Crime & Delinquency 49(4): 564-580. 

Davis, R., B. Smith and M. Henley (1990). Victim/Witness 
Intimidation in the Bronx Courts: How Common Is It, and What 
Are Its Consequences? New York: Victim Services Agency. 


Elliott, R. (1998). Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses: 
A Review of the Literature. In Speaking Up for Justice. 
London: Home Office. 

Felson, R., S. Messner, A. Hoskin and G. Deane (2002). 
"Reasons for Reporting and Not Reporting Domestic 
Violence to the Police." Criminology 40(3): 617-647. 

Finn, P., and K. Healey (1996). Preventing Gang and Drug-
Related Witness Intimidation. NIJ Issues and Practices Series. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice. 

Finn, P., and B. Lee (1985). Working With Victim/Witness 
Assistance Programs: Benefits for Law Enforcement. 
Police Chief 52(6): 54-57, 60. 

Fyfe, N. (2001). Protecting Intimidated Witnesses. Aldershot 
(United Kingdom), Burlington (Vermont): Ashgate. 

Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (1999). Making It Safe To Speak? A 
Study of Witness Intimidation and Protection in Strathclyde. 
Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Research Unit. 

Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (2000a). Police Protection of 
Intimidated Witnesses: A Study of the Strathclyde Police 
Witness Protection Programme. Policing and Society 10(3): 
277-299. 

Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (2000b). Witness Intimidation, 
Forced Migration and Resettlement: A British Case 
Study. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 
25(1): 77-90. 

Fyfe, N. and J. Sheptycki (2005). Facilitating Witness Cooperation 
in Organized Crime Cases: An International Review. London: 
Home Office. 


References 

Gaines, C. (2003). Witness Intimidation. United States 
Attorneys Bulletin 51(1): 5-10. 

Goldkamp, J., D. Gottfredson and J. Moore (1999). 
Implementing Local Criminal Justice Strategies: Developing 
Measures of Performance in 36 Bureau of Justice Assistance Open 
Solicitation Sites. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research 
Institute. 

Great Britain Home Office (2001). Early Special Measures 
Meetings Between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service and 
Meetings Between the Crown Prosecution Service and Vulnerable or 
Intimidated Witnesses: Practice Guide. London: Great Britain 
Home Office Communication Directorate. 

Hamlyn, B., A. Phelps, J. Turtle and G. Sattar (2004). Are 
Special Measures Working? Evidence From Surveys of Vulnerable 
and Intimidated Witnesses. Home Office Research Study, No. 

283. London: Home Office Research, Development and 
Statistics Directorate.


Healey, K. (1995). Victim and Witness Intimidation: New 
Developments and Emerging Responses. Research in Action 
Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of 
Justice. 

Institute for Law and Justice (1993). Gang Prosecution in the 
United States. Alexandria (Virginia): Institute for Law and 
Justice. 

Johnson, C., B. Webster and E. Connors (1995). Prosecuting 
Gangs: A National Assessment. NIJ Research in Brief 
Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of 
Justice. 


Karmen, A. (2004). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. 
5th ed. Belmont (California): Wadsworth/Thomson. 

Kash, D. (2004). Hiding in Plain Sight: A Peek into the 
Witness Security Program. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 
73(5): 25-32. 

Lloyd, S., G. Farrell and K. Pease (1994). Preventing Repeat 
Domestic Violence: A Demonstration Project on Merseyside. 
London: Home Office Police Research Group. 

Maynard, W. (1994). Witness Intimidation: Strategies for Prevention. 
Crime Detection and Prevention Series, No. 55. London: 
Home Office Police Research Group. 

Plotnikoff, J., and R. Woolfson (1997). Options for Improved 
Support for Victims and Other Witnesses Attending Magistrates 
Courts. Unpublished report. London: Home Office. 

Rogan, L. (1999). Price of Protecting Our Children: The 
Dilemma of Allowing Children to Testify as Key Witnesses 
to Gang Violence. Journal of Juvenile Law 20: 127-140. 

Slate, R. (1997). The Federal Witness Protection Program: Its 
Evolution and Continuing Growing Pains. Criminal Justice 
Ethics 16(2): 20-34. 

Studnicki, S., and J. Apol (2002). Witness Detention and 
Intimidation: The History and Future of Material Witness 
Law. St. Johns Law Review 76(3): 483-533. 

Tomz, J., and D. McGillis (1997). Serving Crime Victims and 
Witnesses, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Justice, National Institute of Justice. 


References 

U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General 
(2000). Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and 
Witness Assistance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Justice. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ 
publications/infores/agg2000. 
U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime 
(1997). Law Enforcements Promising Practices in the Treatment 
of Crime Victims: A Report to Promote the Development and 
Expansion of Victim-Oriented Policies and Practices in Law 
Enforcement Agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Justice. 
U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime 
(1998). New Directions From the Field: Victims Rights and 
Services for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Justice. 


Whitehead, E. (2001). Witness Satisfaction: Findings from the 
Witness Satisfaction Survey 2000. Home Office Research 
Study, No. 230. London: Home Office Research, 
Development and Statistics Directorate. 

Younger, E. (1979). The Neglected Problem of Witness 
Intimidation. Judges Journal 18(4):20-24. 


About the Author 

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. 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. 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 
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

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. 

e07063407 July 2006 
ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 


www.cops.usdoj.gov