Problem-Oriented Guides for Pol

Problem-Specific Guides Ser

No. 

School Vandalism 

and Break-Ins 

by Kelly Dedel Johnson 

www.cops.usd
Center for Problem-Oriented Policin

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing websit

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

www.PopCenter.org 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 grea

resource in problem-oriented policing. 
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series 

Guide No. 35 

School Vandalism and 

Break-Ins 

Kelly Dedel Johnson 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2003CKWX0087 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the 

official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to 

specific companies, products, or services should not be 

considered an endorsement 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: 1-932582-51-7 

August 2005 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and 

to improving the overall response to incidents, not to 

investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The 

guides are written for police-of whatever rank or 

assignment-who 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 problemoriented 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. 
ii School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other 

police departments have used or that researchers have 

tested. While not all of these responses will be 

appropriate to your particular problem, they should help 

give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do. 

You may think you cannot implement some of these 

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In 

many places, when police have discovered a more 

effective response, they have succeeded in having laws 

and policies changed, improving the response to the 

problem. 

• Understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides 

illustrate the need for more research on that particular 

problem. Regardless, research has not provided 

definitive answers to all the questions you might have 

about the problem. The research may help get you 

started in designing your own responses, but it cannot 

tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on 

the particular nature of your local problem. In the 

interest of keeping the guides readable, not every piece 

of relevant research has been cited, nor has every point 

been attributed to its sources. To have done so would 

have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The 

references listed at the end of each guide are those 

drawn on most heavily; they are not a complete 

bibliography of research on the subject. 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

• 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 

entities including other government agencies, nongovernmental 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 entities in the 

community with whom police might work to improve 

the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis 

of problems often reveals that entities 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. 

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 problemsolving 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 policecommunity 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 
iv School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

the police everywhere experience common problems. In a 

world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own 

agency's experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your 

agency may have effectively addressed a problem using 

responses not considered in these guides and your 

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This 

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish 

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should 

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access 

to: 

• the Problem-Specific Guides series, 

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools 

series, 

• instructional information about problem-oriented 

policing and related topics, 

• an interactive training exercise, and 

• online access to important police research and practices. 
Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff 

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide 

by proposing text, recommending research and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The principal project team developing the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, 

University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, 

professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. 

Eck, professor of criminal justice, University of 

Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, clinical assistant professor, 

University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, 

police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm Weisel, 

director of police research, North Carolina State 

University. 

Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Suzanne Fregly edited the guide. Research for the guides 

was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers 

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members 

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 

departments who provided feedback on the guides’ format 

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the 

line police officers, police executives and researchers who 

peer reveiwed each guide. 

Contents 

Contents 

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

Acknowledements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 

The Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Factors Contributing to School Vandalism and Break-Ins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Offender Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Targets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

Specific Responses to School Vandalism and Break-Ins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

Changes to the Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

Offender-Focused Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

School Management Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Community-Focused Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to School Vandalism and Break-Ins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 
viii School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 
The Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

The Problem of School Vandalism and 

Break-Ins 

This guide addresses school vandalism and break-ins, 

describing the problem and reviewing the risk factors. It 

also discusses the associated problems of school burglaries 

and arson. The guide then identifies a series of questions 

to help you analyze your local problem. Finally, it reviews 

responses to the problem, and what is known about them 

from evaluative research and police practice. 

The term school vandalism refers to willful or malicious 

damage to school grounds and buildings or furnishings 

and equipment. Specific examples include glass breakage, 

graffiti, and general property destruction. The term school 

break-in refers to an unauthorized entry into a school 

building when the school is closed (e.g., after hours, on 

weekends, on school holidays). 

Related Problems 

School vandalism and break-ins are similar to vandalism 

and break-ins elsewhere, and some of the responses 

discussed here may be effective in other settings. However, 

schools are unique environments; the factors underlying 

school vandalism and break-ins differ from those 

underlying similar acts elsewhere, and therefore must be 

analyzed separately. Related problems not addressed in this 

guide include: 

• vandalism in non-school settings; 

• graffiti (see Guide No. 9 in this series); 

• arson; 

• school theft by students (e.g., of student backpacks and 

wallets); 
2 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

• school theft by staff (e.g., of equipment); 

• burglary of retail establishments (see Guide No. 15 in 

this series); and 

• burglary of single-family houses (see Guide No. 18 in 

this series). 

School break-ins typically fall into one of three categories: 

• Nuisance break-ins, in which youth break into a school 

building, seemingly as an end in itself. They cause little 

serious damage and usually take nothing of value. 

• Professional break-ins, in which offenders use a high level 

of skill to enter the school, break into storage rooms 

containing expensive equipment, and remove bulky 

items from the scene. They commit little incidental 

damage and may receive a lot of money for the stolen 

goods. 

• Malicious break-ins entail significant damage to the 

school's interior and may include arson. Offenders 

sometimes destroy rather than steal items of value.1 

While school vandalism and break-ins generally comprise 

many often-trivial incidents, in the aggregate, they pose a 

serious problem for schools and communities, and the 

police and fire departments charged with protecting them. 

Many school fires originate as arson or during an act of 

vandalism.2 Though less frequent than other types of 

school vandalism, arson has significant potential to harm 

students and staff. In the United Kingdom in 2000, 

approximately one-third of school arson fires occurred 

during school hours, when students were present, a 

significant proportional increase since 1990.3 

Over the past two decades, concerns about school 

violence, weapons, drugs, and gangs have eclipsed concern 
The Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

and discussion about school vandalism, its causes, and 

possible responses. However, even as concerns about 

student and staff safety from violence have become school 

administrators' top priority, vandalism and break-ins 

continue to occur regularly and to affect a significant 

proportion of U.S. schools. From 1996 to 1997, the 

incidence of murder, suicide, rape, assault with a weapon, 

and robbery at schools was very low.4 In contrast, over 

one-third of the nation's 84,000 public schools reported at 

least one incident of vandalism, totaling 99,000 separate 

incidents.5 

David Corbett 

Graffiti tagging and other forms of defacement often mark 

school buildings and grounds. 

These statistics likely fail to reveal the magnitude of the 

problem. While the U.S. Department of Education, major 

education associations, and national organizations regularly 

compile data on school-related violence, weapons, and 

gang activity, they do not do so regarding school 

vandalism and break-ins. One reason for this may be that 

schools define vandalism very differently—some include 

both intentional and accidental damage, some report only 

those incidents that result in an insurance claim, and some 

include only those incidents for which insurance does not 
4 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

cover the costs.6 School administrators may hesitate to 

report all cases of vandalism, break-ins, or arson because 

they view some as trivial, or because they fear it will 

reflect poorly on their management skills.7 Partially 

because of the failure to report, few perpetrators are 

apprehended, and even fewer are prosecuted.8 

The lack of consistency in reporting school vandalism and 

break-ins means that cost estimates are similarly imprecise. 

Vandalism costs are usually the result of numerous small 

incidents, rather than more-serious incidents. Various 

estimates reveal that the costs of school vandalism are 

both high and increasing.9 In 1970, costs of school 

vandalism in the United States were estimated at $200 

million, climbing to an estimated $600 million in 1990.10 

Not only does school vandalism have fiscal consequences 

associated with repairing or replacing damaged or stolen 

property and paying higher insurance premiums if schools 

are not self-insured, but it also takes its toll in terms of 

aspects such as difficulties in finding temporary 

accommodations and negative effects on student, staff, 

and community morale. 

Not all incidents of vandalism and break-ins have the 

same effect on the school environment. Again, two useful 

dimensions for understanding the problem's impact are the 

monetary cost (where the repair charges are high), and the 

social cost (where the event has a significant negative 

impact on student, staff, and community morale). Events 

with high monetary and social costs typically occur less 

frequently than those with low monetary and social costs.11 
The Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

High—Social Cost—Low 

Type I—High Social/High Monetary 

• Destruction of media center, computer 

lab 

• Destruction of school records 

• Vandalism resulting in school closure 

Type II—Low Social/High Monetary 

• Many broken windows 

• Cherry bomb(s) dropped in toilet(s) 

• Vandalism to vending machines 

Hig

h

—Mo

netary Cost—Low

Type III—High Social/Low Monetary 

• Hate-motivated graffiti 

• Gang-related graffiti 

• Killing of classroom animals 

Type IV—Low Social/Low Monetary 

• Turfed school grounds* 

• Tagger** or conventional graffiti 

• One broken window 

Type I—H gh So H gh M ne y

D ruc on of m di r,

Adapted from Vestermark and Blauvelt (1978) 

*Refers to damage to school grounds caused by vehicles being driven across lawns and fields 

leaving deep tread marks. 

**Refers to high volume, non-gang graffiti, complex works of street art, and more isolated or 

spontaneous acts of graffiti. 

i cial/ i o tar 

• est ti e a cente com er 

• est ti c reco 

• a lism resulti n sc clos 

Type II—Low Social/High Monetary 

• Many broken windows 

• Cherry bomb(s) dropped in toilet(s) 

• Vandalism to vending machines 

h— 

netary ost—Low

i i l/ 

• - t r 

• -r r 

• l r 

i / 

•

• i l ti 

• i 

put

lab

D ruc on of s hool rds

V nda ng i hool ure

Hig Mo C

Type III—H gh Soc a Low Monetary

Hate motiva ed g affiti

Gang elated g affiti

Killing of c ass oom animals

Type IV—Low Soc al Low Monetary

Turfed school grounds*

Tagger** or convent ona graffi

One broken w ndow

Factors Contributing to School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will 

help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine 

good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, 

and select appropriate responses. 

Offender Characteristics 

Those who vandalize or break into schools are typically young 

and male, acting in small groups. Vandalism and break-ins are 

most common among junior high school students, and become 
6 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

less frequent as students reach high school.12 Those 

involved in school-related arson are more likely to be in 

high school.13 Many vandals have done poorly 

academically, and may have been truant, suspended, or 

expelled.14 As is typical of many adolescents, students 

who vandalize and break into schools have a poor 

understanding of their behavior's impact on others, and 

are more concerned with the consequences to 

themselves.15 Offenders are no more likely to be 

emotionally disturbed than their peers who do not engage 

in the behavior, nor are they any more critical of their 

classes, teachers, or school in general.16 

While the majority of students do not engage in 

vandalism, they do not generally harbor negative feelings 

toward those who do. In other words, "vandalism is a 

behavior that students can perform without the risk of 

condemnation by other students."17 Youth who lack fulltime parental supervision during after-school hours have 

been found to be more involved in all types of 

delinquency than students whose parents are home when 

they return from school.18 In 2002-2003, 25 percent of all 

school-aged children were left to care for themselves after 

school, including half of children in grades 9 through 12 

and one third of children in grades 6 though 8.19 

Though far less frequently, adults sometimes commit 

school vandalism and break-ins. Most often, they do so to 

steal high-value items (e.g., computers, televisions, 

cameras) and sell them on the street.20 Adults are far less 

likely to maliciously deface or destroy school property. 
The Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Motivations 

The typical observer may think school vandalism and 

break-ins are pointless, particularly when the offenders 

have focused on property destruction and have taken 

nothing of value. One can better understand the behavior 

when considering it in the context of adolescence, when 

peer influence is a particularly powerful motivator. Most 

delinquent acts are carried out by groups of youths, and 

vandalism is no exception. Participating in vandalism often 

helps a youth to maintain or enhance his or her status 

among peers.21 This status comes with little risk since, in 

contrast to playing a game or fighting, there are no 

winners or losers. 

Beyond peer influence, there are several other motivations 

for school vandalism: 

• Acquisitive vandalism is committed to obtain property or 

money. 

• Tactical vandalism is used to accomplish goals such as 

getting school cancelled. 

• Ideological vandalism is oriented toward a social or 

political cause or message, such as a protest against 

school rules. 

• Vindictive vandalism (such as setting fire to the principal's 

office after being punished) is done to get revenge. 

• Play vandalism occurs when youth intentionally damage 

property during the course of play. 

• Malicious vandalism is used to express rage or frustration. 

Because of its viciousness and apparent senselessness, 

people find this type particularly difficult to 

understand.22 
8 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

As schools have become increasingly technologically 

equipped, thefts of electronic and high-tech goods have 

become more common.23 Computers, VCRs, and DVD 

players are popular targets because they are relatively easy 

to resell. Students also steal more-mundane items such as 

food and school supplies, for their own use. 

In addition, youth may participate in school vandalism or 

break-ins in a quest for excitement.24 Some communities 

do not have constructive activities for youth during afterschool hours and in the summer. Without structured 

alternatives, youth create their own fun, which may result 

in relatively minor vandalism or major property damage to 

schools and school grounds. 

Times 

A high proportion of vandalism occurs, quite naturally, when 

schools are unoccupied-before and after school hours, on 

weekends, and during vacations-as well as later in the school 

week and later in the school year.25 Local factors, such as the 

community's use of school facilities after hours, may also 

determine when vandalism is most likely to occur in any one 

school. 

Targets 

Schools are prime targets for vandalism and break-ins for a 

number of reasons: 

• They have high concentrations of potential offenders in 

high-risk age groups. 
The Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

• They are easily accessible. 

• They are symbols of social order and middle-class values. 

• Some youth believe that public property belongs to no 

one, rather than to everyone. 

Some schools are much more crime-prone than others, and 

repeat victimization is common.26 A school's attractiveness as 

a vandalism target may also be related to its failure to meet 

some students' social, educational, and emotional needs; 

students may act out to express their displeasure or 

frustration.27 Schools with either an oppressive or a hands-off 

administrative style, or those characterized as impersonal, 

unresponsive, and non-participatory, suffer from higher levels 

of vandalism and break-ins.28 Conversely, in schools with 

lower vandalism rates, 

• parents support disciplinary policies; 

• students value teachers' opinions; 

• teachers do not express hostile or authoritarian attitudes 

toward students; 

• teachers do not use grades as a disciplinary tool; 

• teachers have informal, cooperative, and fair dealings with 

the principal; and 

• staff consistently and fairly enforce school rules.29 

Certain physical attributes of school buildings and grounds 

also affect their vulnerability to vandalism and break-ins. In 

general, large, modern, sprawling schools have higher rates of 

vandalism and break-ins than smaller, compact schools.30 The 

modern, sprawling schools have large buildings scattered 

across campus, rather than clustered together. A school's 

architectural characteristics may also influence the quality of 

administrative and teacher-student relationships that are 
10 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

developed, which can affect the school's vulnerability. 

Common vandalism locations and typical entry points include:31 

• partially hidden areas around buildings that are large enough 

for small groups of students to hang out in (which can give 

rise to graffiti, damaged trees and plants, and broken 

windows); 

• alcoves created by stairways adjacent to walls, depressed 

entrances, and delivery docks (which offer coverage for 

prying at windows, picking locks, and removing door hinges); 

• main entrances not secured by grills or gates when school is 

closed, and secondary entrances with removable exterior 

door hardware; 

• unsecured windows and skylights; 

• large, smooth, light-colored walls (which are prime graffiti 

targets); and 

• rooftops accessible from the ground, from nearby trees, or 

from other rooftops (which can allow access to damageable 

equipment and hardware). 

David Corbett 

Partially hidden entryways can provide 

opportunity for would-be vandals. 
The Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

David Corbett 

Rooftops that are accessible only from within the building 

provide a greater degree of security. 

Vandals damage schools that neglect grounds and building 

maintenance, those whose grounds have little aesthetic appeal, 

and those that do not appear to be occupied or looked after 

more often than they damage carefully tended and preserved 

schools.32 

Understanding Your Local Problem 

Understanding Your Local Problem 

The information provided above is only a generalized 

description of school vandalism and break-ins. You must 

combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of 

your local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will 

help you design a more effective response strategy. 

Asking the Right Questions 

The following are some critical questions you should ask in 

analyzing your particular problem of school vandalism and 

break-ins, even if the answers are not always readily available. 

Your answers to these and other questions will help you 

choose the most appropriate set of responses later on. 

Traditionally, schools have focused almost exclusively on 

maintenance records for information on vandalism levels. 

These records should contain specific information on the 

location, type, entry method, time, suspected perpetrators, and 

other details essential to developing informed responses. 

Further, schools should report all incidents of vandalism and 

burglary, no matter how trivial, so that an assessment of the 

impact on individual schools and entire districts can be done. 

New technology for mapping and analyzing incidents that 

occur in and around schools can reveal patterns and suggest 

possible reasons for them. The analysis should be as specific 

as possible to allow for precision in developing responses.

† 

You can get some of the answers needed to understand your 

local problem from school risk assessments the police and fire 

departments have done. These assessments are primarily 

concerned with a school's physical environment, building(s), 

grounds, policies, procedures, personnel, and technology, but 

also may address the social and academic environments 

† The School Crime Operation

Package (School COP) is a free 

software program for entering, 

mapping, and analyzing incident

that occur in and around school

Developed by Abt Associates un

a contract with the National 

Institute of Justice, the software 

available at 

http://www.schoolcopsoftware.

/index.htm. 
14 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

† Atkinson (2002) created a guide 

for fostering school partnerships 

with law enforcement, and for using 

the SARA model to analyze various 

crime problems affecting schools. 

Sample school assessments are 

provided by Schneider, Walker, and 

Sprague (2000), and in the National 

Crime Prevention Council’s (2003) 

School Safety and Security Toolkit, 

available at 

http://www.ncpc.org/cms/cmsupload/ncpc/files/BSSToolkit_Com 

plete.pdf. 

relevant to crime prevention.† Student and staff surveys are 

also useful for gaining insight into how the problem takes 

shape in your jurisdiction. 

Beyond the physical security that armed, uniformed school 

resource officers (SROs) can provide, they are also excellent 

sources of information about the size of, scope of, and 

current responses to the problem. Because SROs from 

different schools are well connected to each other, they bring 

a system-wide or regional perspective to the informationgathering process. 

Incidents 

• How many school vandalism incidents were reported to the 

police in the past year? How many weren't? Why weren't 

they? 

• How many school break-ins were reported to the police? 

How many weren't? Why weren't they? 

• How many school fires were reported to the police and fire 

departments? How many weren't? Why weren't they? 

• What were the repair and replacement costs for all 

incidents? 

• Were the costs generally spread out among many smaller 

incidents, or concentrated among a few larger incidents? 

Targets 

• How accessible are school grounds and buildings? What 

type of fencing exists? How visible are building entrances? 

• What, specifically, is being damaged? 

• What are the characteristics of the main entry points for 

unauthorized access to the school buildings? 

• What are the characteristics of the main areas of the 

school's interior that are damaged? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 

• What is being stolen during break-ins? From where in the 

school? Who has legitimate access to the area(s) when the 

incidents occur? 

• How are stolen goods being disposed of (sold for cash, 

traded for other goods, used by thieves)? 

• Where are most fires started? 

• What materials are used to start fires? Are materials 

obtained on-site or brought in from outside? Are 

accelerants used? 

Offenders 

• For what proportion of incidents are offenders 

apprehended? What are their characteristics (e.g., age, 

gender, grade, school of attendance)? What proportions 

are students versus non-students? 

• Do offenders operate alone or in groups? How active are 

they? Do they re-offend even after getting caught? 

• How do they travel to and from the school? 

• What reasons do students offer for why youth engage in 

school vandalism and break-ins? Do students view peers 

who engage in vandalism and break-ins negatively? If not, 

why? 

• What reasons do offenders give for their behavior? 

• How motivated to damage school property do offenders 

seem to be? How sophisticated are they? 

Times 

• At what times of the day do vandalism, break-ins, and 

arson occur? On what days of the week? At what times of 

the year? 

• Do these times correspond with other events? 

• Are incidents clustered in time, or spread over time? 
16 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Community Characteristics 

• What are the surrounding community's characteristics 

(e.g., isolated or active, commercial or residential)? 

• How concerned are community members about the 

problem? How willing are they to get involved in solving 

it? 

• What characterizes the media's coverage of the problem 

(if there is any)? 

• What types of community activities occur in the school(s) 

after hours? How is access to the rest of the building 

limited during these times? To what extent do vandalism 

incidents correspond with the activities? 

Current Responses 

• What are the current practices regarding surveillance 

(either electronic or human) of grounds and buildings 

after hours? 

• How are the school entrances secured after hours? How 

are windows secured? 

• What types of alarms, sensors, and security cameras are 

used? What building areas do they cover? 

• What valuable equipment does the school own? How is it 

stored? Who can access it, and how so? 

• How quickly is property damage repaired? 

• What are the schools' insurance arrangements? What 

actions, if any, have insurance loss-prevention agents 

recommended to school officials? 

• What school sanctions are used against apprehended 

offenders? What criminal justice sanctions are used? How 

do parents respond? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 

Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify 

your responses if they are not producing the intended results. 

You should take measures of your problem before you 

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem is, 

and after you implement them, to determine whether they have 

been effective. All measures should be taken in both the target 

area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed guidance on 

measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide to this series, 

Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police 

Problem-Solvers.) 

Regular monitoring is vital to developing a clear understanding 

of how each response affects school vandalism and break-ins. 

You should modify or discontinue ineffective responses. 

Event- and response-level monitoring requires a quality 

information system that includes specific details about the acts, 

the perpetrators, and the contextual factors, as well as data on 

how and when the responses were implemented. 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to school vandalism and break-ins: 

• decreased number of incidents of vandalism directed at 

exterior of school buildings or grounds; 

• decreased number of incidents of vandalism directed at 

interior of school buildings; 

• decreased amount and/or value of equipment stolen; 

• decreased number of fires set intentionally; 

• decreased frequency of incidents of vandalism and breakins (e.g., from weekly to monthly); 
18 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

• decreased total costs of repairing damaged property and 

replacing stolen equipment; and 

• decreased insurance premiums (if applicable). 

Some additional measures that, while not directly indicating 

effectiveness, may suggest that the situation is improving 

include: 

• increased percentage of incidents reported to police; 

• decreased student tolerance regarding school vandalism 

and break-ins; 

• increased number of tips received from students and 

residents; 

• increased proportion of incidents for which offender is 

caught; and 

• increased amount of restitution ordered and paid. 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism 

and Break-Ins 

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a 

better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once 

you have analyzed your local problem and established a 

baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider 

possible responses to address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of 

ideas for addressing your particular problem. These 

strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and 

police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your 

community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses 

to local circumstances, and that you can justify each 

response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an 

effective strategy will involve implementing several different 

responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom 

effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit 

yourself to considering what police can do: give careful 

consideration to who else in your community shares 

responsibility for the problem and can help police better 

respond to it. 

General Considerations for an Effective Response 

Strategy 

1. Recognizing the person-environment interaction. 

School vandalism and break-ins are the combined results 

of the offenders' characteristics and those of the physical 

and social environment in which the behavior occurs. 

This means that responses must focus on both the 

person and the environment. Focusing on one but not on 

the other will prove ineffective.

† 

† In a project that applied situat

crime prevention to school 

vandalism in Manchester, Engla

the task force narrowly defined 

school vandalism as a “building 

security problem,” which led to 

selecting target-hardening measu

only, to the detriment of the 

initiative’s effectiveness (Barker 

Bridgeman 1994). 
20 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Physical measures to improve building security have 

great appeal. Their use is already widespread in many 

places, is easy to understand, and usually involves a one- † The Southampton (England) Safer time outlay of funds. In contrast, measures focused on Schools project employed a diverse 

range of responses to combat offenders, new administrative practices or policies, and 

problems with vandalism and community involvement appear to be more complex and burglary on school property. The 

responses included improvements to difficult to implement. It may be difficult to gain group 

the schools’ design and layout, consensus on more-complex responses; however, the 

student- and staff-focused awareness initiative's overall balance depends on it.33 

activities, and opportunities for 

community engagement. Over an 

18-month period, there was a 90 The large number of possible responses can be percent reduction in reported 

burglary and damage, and a 75 overwhelming. For this reason, they are categorized into 

percent reduction in damage-repair four main sections: those that impact the physical 

expenditures (Hampshire environment, those that impact the offender, those that 

Constabulary 2004). focus on school administrative practices, and those that 

enlist the community's help. The overall initiative should 

include a balance of responses in each category, and 

should use the most potent combinations.

† Finally, 

responses should be implemented with great sensitivity 

to the goal of creating schools that are inviting public 

institutions. The cumulative effect of multiple responses 

can make schools appear fortress-like. 

2. Establishing a task force. While police clearly have a 

role in preventing and responding to school vandalism 

and break-ins, these problems are shared by school 

administrators and community residents who, as 

taxpayers, indirectly pay for repairs and replacements. 

Task forces should include broad representation from all 

groups who can help to define the problem, particularly 

students, teachers, custodians, and school security 

officers, and those who will be instrumental in crafting 

and implementing responses, including local and districtlevel school administrators, counselors, architects, 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

security consultants, crime prevention officers, 

firefighters, maintenance contractors, and community 

representatives.

† It is vital that students be involved in 

the problem-solving effort, including school leaders and 

more-marginalized students.

†† A coordinator is often 

needed to organize the various stakeholders' efforts, and 

to ensure that all of the selected responses are 

implemented according to design.††† 

3. Using the media wisely. News stories, advertising, 

slogans, and posters are all effective ways to transmit 

information to the community about the impact of 

school vandalism and break-ins. Using student-based 

information sources, such as school newspapers, student 

councils, athletic events, and parent newsletters, can also 

help to ensure that the messages reach the intended 

audiences.34 However, there is a risk that media 

attention might promote the concept of achieving 

notoriety through high-profile crimes against school 

property.35 Thus, journalists should avoid 

sensationalizing the events, and focus instead on the 

resources being squandered and the loss experienced by 

students, as well as the consequences faced by offenders. 

4. Setting priorities. It is impossible to address every 

vulnerability at a school. Examining the relationship 

between the monetary and social costs of specific 

instances of vandalism, burglary, or arson can be useful 

in setting strategic priorities among your responses. In 

general, protecting high-value items, administrative areas, 

computer and technology labs, computer system hubs, 

clinics, libraries, and band rooms will mitigate the risk of 

events with high financial and social costs.36 

† The National Crime Preventio

Council’s School Safety and Security 

Toolkit includes detailed informa

on forming an action team, 

identifying problems, and develo

action plans. The toolkit also 

includes sample surveys for pare

administrators, and students, as 

as a sample school-safety 

assessment. 

†† The Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

(N.C.) Police Department 

implemented a school safety 

program in which students were 

taught problem-solving skills an

applied them to a range of scho

safety issues. Teachers served as 

facilitators, and the school resou

officer served as an information 

source, offering expertise in dea

with crime and disorder. While n

of the projects dealt with vanda

specifically, one could apply the 

process to it (Kenney and Watso

1999). 

††† Though well-planned, an 

initiative to combat school 

vandalism in Manchester, Engla

suffered from the absence of 

someone to coordinate the over

implementation. Only 15 of 30 

targeted responses were 

implemented, which severely 

compromised the initiative’s 

effectiveness (Barker and Bridge

1994). 
22 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

5. Operating at the district level. Public schools are 

administered at a district level, and district administrators 

may hesitate to grant individual schools the autonomy to † There are numerous mechanical implement the suggested responses on their own. and electronic fixtures to deter 

unauthorized entry. See Schneider, Instead, districts may choose to resolve problems on a 

Walker, and Sprague (2000) for a large scale, while individual schools fine-tune responses description of the full array of 

options. to address their particular conditions. A district-wide 

approach may be more efficient than individual schools' 

efforts to address the problem. 

Specific Responses to School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Changes to the Physical Environment 

6. Controlling access to deter unauthorized entry. 

Gates, deadbolt locks on doors and windows, door and 

window shutters, and doors that open only from the 

inside are effective means of securing school buildings. 

Access can also be deterred by limiting the number of 

entry points in school buildings, and by planting thorny 

bushes and un-climbable trees near entry points. 

Movable gates can be used indoors to secure sections of 

the building, while also permitting community use of 

facilities after hours.

† Such measures can also delay 

intruders' efforts to get away. The potential effectiveness 

of this response decreases with inconsistent or improper 

use of the hardware. Some jurisdictions assign a teacher 

or other staff member to check all locks and gates at the 

end of each day.37 

Intruder alarms, motion sensors, heat sensors, and glassbreak sensors are useful for quickly detecting 

unauthorized entry. Because putting alarms and 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

David Corbett 

Barriers such as interior gates can help keep 

unauthorized persons out of areas vulnerable 

to theft or vandalism after hours. 

sensors throughout the school is likely to be costprohibitive, focusing on passageways to different parts of 

the building, and on areas where valuable equipment and 

records are stored, is most effective. Alarm signals 

should be sent to police, on-campus security posts, and 

the school principal.38 However, alarm systems are prone 

to high rates of false alarms, which not only cost the 

school if a fine is imposed, but also waste police 

resources. Faulty or inappropriately selected equipment, 

poor installation, and user error are the main causes of 

false alarms.39 

7. Posting warning signs. Access-control signs are an 

important part of "rule setting" in that they establish the 

types of activities prohibited both during and after 
24 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

school, and notify potential intruders that they are under 

surveillance. School territory and permitted uses can also 

be established through the strategic use of gardens, 

designated picnic areas, and student artwork.40 These 

features indicate that the school buildings and grounds 

are both cared for and controlled. 

David Corbett 

Signs clearly stating school procedure and policy 

can increase awareness of rules while removing 

ambiguity and ignorance as excuses for improper 

behavior. 

8. Storing valuables in secure areas. Storing high-value 

audio-visual equipment and computers in rooms 

equipped with high-quality locks, in the inner section of 

the building, makes them harder to access. Further, using 

carts to move expensive equipment to a central storage 

room can reduce the number of rooms that need to be 

secured. Bolting computers to lab and office desks makes 

their removal more difficult and time-consuming. 

Equipping storage areas with smoke detectors linked to 

the fire department ensures a quick response in case of 

fire. Removing signs indicating the location of expensive 

equipment (e.g., A-V STORAGE ROOM or 

COMPUTER LAB) is also advisable.41 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

David Corbett 

† Your police department may h

an Operation ID program for 

inscribing equipment. The prog

is usually free, the inscription is 

visible but not unattractive, and 

police keep records of the 

identification numbers. 

Consolidating valuable equipment in a secure 

area when not in use is an effective method of 

preventing theft. 

9. Reducing the availability of combustibles. Most arson 

fires are started with materials found on-site.42 For this 

reason, indoor and outdoor trash cans should be emptied 

regularly, and any flammable chemicals in science labs 

and maintenance storage areas should always be properly 

secured. 

10. Inscribing valuables with identifying marks. It is 

harder to sell stolen goods that have permanent 

identifying marks on them. Engraving, stenciling, or 

using permanent marker to imprint the school's name, 

logo, or seal on all computers, televisions, VCRs, DVD 

players, cameras, etc., can deter intruders who intend to 

sell the equipment.† 

11. Adjusting indoor or outdoor lighting. There is no 

consensus on whether well-lit school campuses and 

building interiors or "dark" campuses are superior in 

terms of crime prevention. Obviously, lighting 

adjustments alone are not effective deterrents, but in 
26 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

† The International Dark-Sky 

Association (1997) offers 

suggestions for defining “lights out” 

policies and guidelines for 

implementing the practice. The San 

Diego school system saw a 33 

percent reduction in property crime 

over a two-year period and saved 

more than $1 million in electricity 

costs after establishing such a policy 

(Patterson 1996). 

†† See Goldstein (1996) and 

Schneider, Walker, and Sprague 

(2000) for more detailed information 

on using target-hardening devices at 

schools. 

††† Zeisel (1976) recommends 

involving students in the care of 

school buildings and grounds, and 

engaging them in ongoing, active 

projects. Further, motivating 

marginalized students, in addition to 

school leaders, can help to deter all 

students from future vandalism. 

combination with other responses, both approaches have 

shown positive results. Well-lit campuses and buildings 

make suspicious activity more visible to observers, and 

also may offer some protection to custodial staff and 

others who may legitimately be on campus after dark.43 

On the other hand, a "lights out" policy makes it more 

difficult for potential intruders to manipulate locks and 

hinges at entry points, and if intruders do enter the 

building, observers can easily spot any lights that should 

not be on. Not only have some schools benefited from 

decreased vandalism-related costs, but they have also 

realized significant energy savings.44,† 

12. Obstructing vandals through physical barriers. 

Target-hardening measures such as using stronger 

finishes and materials, or placing objects out of reach or 

in an enclosure, make it harder to damage property.45 

These can also include toughened glass or glass 

substitutes, fire-retardant paint, graffiti-repellent paint or 

coatings, concrete or steel outdoor furniture, 

tamperproof hardware out of reach from the ground, 

and door hinges with non-removable pins.

†† Computer 

labs and classes that use expensive equipment may be 

located on the second floor to impede access and 

removal.46 

13. Repairing damage quickly and improving the 

appearance of school grounds. Clean, well-maintained 

buildings free of debris or garbage and with attractively 

landscaped grounds are less at risk for vandalism and 

break-ins.47 Consistent maintenance may serve as an 

"occupation proxy," giving the appearance that the 

school is under steady surveillance by those concerned 

about keeping it safe.48 Thus, it follows that any damage 

incurred, either through vandalism or normal wear and 

tear, should be repaired quickly.††† 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

David Corbett 

Prompt removal of graffiti denies graffiti artists the 

satisfaction of seeing their handiwork and, in the case of 

gang-related graffiti, the likelihood of retaliatory tagging. 

14. Removing ground-floor glass windows and other 

vandalism targets. Vandalism to building exteriors can 

be thwarted by removing hardware fixtures and altering 

surfaces that are easily vandalized. Smooth, uniform 

surfaces are attractive graffiti targets, but can be 

protected by applying textured or patterned surfaces.49 

Offender-Focused Responses 

15. Increasing the frequency of security-staff patrols. 

Increasing the frequency with which security staff patrol 

school grounds and buildings increases the likelihood 

that a potential intruder will be seen. While it can be 

useful for police to make sporadic checks of school 

grounds while on their normal patrol, continually 

patrolling school property is an inefficient use of police 

resources. Instead, police should conduct risk 

assessments and respond to and investigate vandalism 

incidents.50 
28 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

† If this response is selected, many 

strategic decisions must be made 

regarding the system and component 

specifications, camera placement, 

wiring, etc. For a thorough 

discussion of these issues, see Green 

(1999) and Garst (2004). 

†† Poyner (1984) notes that schools 

are sometimes located in quiet areas 

some distance from busy 

commercial areas or traffic, for 

safety and amenity reasons. This 

isolation can diminish the advantage 

of having clear sight lines to key 

vulnerability points. 

††† The Turner-Fenton Secondary 

School in Ontario used the 

principles of crime prevention 

through environmental design 

(CPTED) to reduce the number of 

trespassers loitering on and 

vandalizing school property. 

Reorienting the school’s parking lot 

increased opportunities for natural 

surveillance and improved entrypoint control. Separating the 

gymnasium from classroom areas 

with partitions and safety glass 

improved opportunities for natural 

surveillance in vulnerable corridors 

(Peel Regional Police 1996). 

16. Using closed-circuit television. The strategic 

placement of closed-circuit television (CCTV) may deter 

potential offenders. When vandalism and break-ins occur, 

CCTV footage can be used to identify the perpetrators.

† 

Though the initial financial outlay may be significant, 

over the long term, CCTV may be less expensive than 

funding a full-time security patrol. 

David Corbett 

Conspicuously placed surveillance cameras can be a useful 

deterrent by increasing the risk of identification and prosecution. 

17. Improving opportunities for natural surveillance. 

The likelihood that school staff, residents, and 

pedestrians going about their daily activities will spot an 

intruder depends on the visibility of the school grounds 

from nearby houses, sidewalks, and streets.

†† Clear sight 

lines in key locations, such as entrances, parking lots, 

hallways, and playgrounds, maximize the ability of 

residents and passersby to observe activity in vulnerable 

areas.

††† Opportunities for natural surveillance are 

enhanced when staff offices are located throughout the 

school building, and staff should be vigilant as they 

move around the school.51 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

18. Providing caretaker or "school sitter" housing on 

school grounds. The continuous presence of a 

caretaker or "school sitter" on school grounds can deter 

potential intruders. An apartment in the school itself or a 

mobile home on the school grounds can provide rentfree housing to a responsible adult in exchange for a 

designated number of hours patrolling the property.

† An 

alternative to having an on-site residence is to stagger 

custodial shifts for 24-hour coverage. In either 

arrangement, it is important that the caretaker or 

custodian is instructed not to intervene in suspicious 

activity, but rather to alert security staff or the police.52 

19. Holding offenders accountable. Very few perpetrators 

of school vandalism are identified and apprehended, and 

even fewer are prosecuted. Courts are generally lenient 

with offenders, and in most cases, the damage from an 

individual incident is minor and does not warrant harsh 

penalties. However, creative and well-publicized 

interventions to hold offenders accountable can have 

both a specific and a general deterrence effect. 

The most traditional approach to offender accountability 

involves either individual or group counseling to address 

the underlying motivations for the behavior. There has 

been some success with juvenile arsonists using this 

approach, and counseling that entails behavior 

modification (token economy, contingency contracts, 

incentives, and rewards) has had some success.53 

Restitution programs include a set of administrative and 

legal procedures to get money from offenders to pay for 

repair or replacement of damaged property. Publicizing 

the results of these efforts is important to maintain their 

deterrent effect.54 Obviously, these programs are 

effective only to the extent that offenders are identified 

and apprehended. 

† It is important that mobile uni

positioned to afford a clear view 

as much of the school as possib

including the most likely approa

and escape routes (Poyner 1984)
30 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

† Strang (2002) describes how 

restorative justice programs have 

been implemented in Australia to 

deal with school vandalism. Nicholl 

(2000) explains the seven basic 

elements of restorative justice. 

†† A handbook containing practical 

guidance on property risk 

management was created and 

distributed to all head teachers in 

Scotland as part of a vandalism 

reduction strategy (Accounts 

Commission for Scotland 2001). 

One of the more promising approaches to encouraging 

offender accountability is to bring together all of the 

stakeholders in the issue to develop a resolution 

collectively. The goal is for the offender to make up for 

the offense, either by paying restitution or by repairing 

the damaged property.

† 

20. Diverting offenders to alternative activities. Believing 

that involvement in school vandalism and break-ins arises 

from an excess of unstructured time, many jurisdictions 

develop alternative activities for students during afterschool and evening hours. In addition to structured 

events, graffiti boards and mural programs may attract 

offenders to pro-social activities.55 Programs that foster 

a sense of ownership and school pride may make some 

students more apt to report vandalism and encourage 

others to respect school property, but they are unlikely to 

affect students whose involvement in vandalism is a 

result of alienation from the larger school social 

environment. 

School Management Practices 

21. Educating school staff. Not only should school staff 

be familiar with fire safety procedures, but they should 

also be aware of the various strategies enacted to protect 

school property. The strategies should be discussed 

regularly at staff meetings, and police and fire 

departments should be included in pre-school year and 

pre-summer in-service training. Creating a manual 

containing important safety information, procedures for 

handling emergencies, and telephone numbers of those 

to be contacted when suspicious activity is observed 

ensures that teachers will have ready access to those 

details.

†† 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

22. Controlling building and room keys. Intruders 

sometimes enter school buildings by using duplicate keys. 

The distribution of keys to building entrances and 

equipment storage rooms should be limited, and periodic 

key checks can be used to ensure that the owners of keys 

have control of them.56 Stamping DO NOT 

DUPLICATE on keys and warning key holders of the 

dangers of students obtaining keys can prevent 

unauthorized access. Some jurisdictions use computer 

access cards, rather than keys, for rooms where valuables 

are stored. These cards permit access only at certain times 

of the day, and records can show which card was used to 

access any particular room.57 

23. Maintaining an inventory of valuable equipment. 

Missing equipment sometimes goes unreported because 

school officials do not know what they have, and therefore 

do not know when it has been stolen.58 Diligent 

inventory checks can not only help in maintaining control 

of school assets, but can also help in preparing loss 

estimates if property is stolen. Sound inventory procedures 

include: 

• taking stock of all valuables; 

• keeping both paper and computerized inventory lists; 

• supplementing inventory lists with serial numbers, 

physical descriptions, and video images; 

• securing inventory lists and videotapes off-site; and 

• updating inventory lists each year.59 

24. Creating a "vandalism account." To provide incentives 

to students for acceptable conduct, school districts can 

allocate a specific amount of money from the maintenance 

account to cover the costs of all vandalism-related repairs. 

Any funds that remain at the end of the semester are 

allocated to students to pay for something of their choice 

(e.g., a pizza party, new equipment, a dance or other social 
32 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

† Typically, the school administers 

the account. One possible variation 

is for students to administer the 

account and to take responsibility 

for paying all of the bills for 

property replacement and repair. 

This helps students to better 

appreciate the real costs associated 

with even minor acts of vandalism 

(Casserly, Bass, and Garrett 1980). 

†† Mayer et al. (1987) created a 

school discipline survey to assess the 

quality of disciplinary procedures 

(pp. 204-206). 

††† Aryani, Alsabrook, and Garrett 

(2001) provide specific information 

for setting up a Scholastic Crime 

Stoppers program, including 

administrative tips and 

responsibilities for police agencies, 

school administrators, and students. 

event).† Programs involving rewards are most effective 

with younger students, but older students often respond 

to the opportunity for shared administrative authority and 

responsibility.60 Some jurisdictions do not deduct repair 

costs if the perpetrator is identified and restitution is 

made, which gives students an incentive to provide 

information.61 

25. Changing the organizational climate. Social measures 

are not generally effective forms of crime prevention. 

However, because schools have closely structured social 

systems and clear authority systems, responses that affect 

the social environment can be effective.62 In particular, 

schools can seek to make the environment more positively 

reinforcing, reduce the misuse of disciplinary procedures, 

and work to improve administrator-teacher, teacherstudent, and custodian-student relations.

†† 

Community-Focused Responses 

26. Providing rewards for information concerning 

vandalism or break-ins. Offender-focused responses 

require that vandals and intruders be identified and 

apprehended. Police investigations of vandalism incidents 

can be enhanced by high-quality information provided by 

students and community residents. As seen with 

traditional "Crime Stoppers" programs, setting up 

telephone or internet-based tip-lines, offering rewards for 

information, and guaranteeing anonymity encourage 

students and residents to come forward with specific 

information.††† The most effective programs actively 

involve students in collecting and synthesizing 

information for police, and in determining payout 

amounts in the event of apprehension.63 
Responses to the Problem of School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

27. Creating "School Watch" programs. Similar to 

"Neighborhood Watch" efforts, community residents can 

conduct citizen patrols of school property during evenings 

and weekends. Membership and regular participation in 

voluntary patrols increase when some form of prestige is 

offered to volunteers.

† Effective practices include: 

• patrolling regularly, but at unpredictable times; 

• equipping volunteers with cell phones for prompt 

communication with police or other emergency 

services; 

• engaging in passive surveillance only, and not 

interacting with potential vandals or intruders in 

any way; and 

• publicizing activities and outcomes among students 

and residents through school-based and local media 

outlets.64 

In response to a specific problem or rash of incidents, 

School Watch has produced short-term reductions in 

vandalism.65 However, community watch programs are 

difficult to sustain, have not been shown to reduce crime 

over the long-term, and may actually increase the fear of 

crime.66 

28. Evaluating public use of school facilities after hours. 

There is no consensus on how effective after-hours use of 

school facilities is in deterring vandalism and break-ins. On 

the one hand, making facilities and amenities available to 

residents increases the opportunities for natural 

surveillance to protect school buildings and property. Such 

access is also in keeping with the spirit of schools as hubs 

of community activity. However, residents who use the 

facilities after hours may not always have innocent 

intentions. If this response is adopted, rules and 

boundaries should be made very clear to participants, and 

† Schools in Hartlepool, Englan

took the unusual step of targeti

young school children (ages fou

11) in their efforts. After the 

initiative was launched in 33 prim

schools, all students received pe

and pencils with the “School Wa

logo, and were reminded of the 

initiative throughout the year 

through creative classroom activ

Involving students makes them 

important and also teaches good 

citizenship. As a result, the num

of incidents and the associated 

decreased (Cleveland Police 

Department 1999). 
34 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

only those areas required for the activities should be 

accessible, with other areas of the school secured by movable 

gates and locking partitions. 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

29. Controlling the sale of vandalism tools. Some 

jurisdictions have attempted to control the various 

implements used for vandalism–for graffiti, in particular. 

Age-specific bans on the sale of spray paint or wide-tipped 

markers are designed to limit youth access to them. These 

bans are particularly difficult to implement and enforce 

because they require extensive cooperation from merchants.67 

30. Increasing penalties. Responding to school vandalism and 

break-ins with excessively punitive criminal justice sanctions 

or harsh administrative punishments (for example, expulsion) 

has been found to increase the incidence of vandalism.68 

Further, legal deterrents are generally ineffective when victim 

reporting and offender apprehension are not consistent, as is 

the case with school vandalism.69 Finally, most acts of 

vandalism are relatively minor, and thus are not serious 

enough to warrant severe consequences.70 
Appendix 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to School 

Vandalism and Break-Ins 

The table below summarizes the responses to school vandalism and 

break-ins, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the 

conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors 

you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is 

critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you 

can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, 

an effective strategy will involve implementing several different 

responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in 

reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy 

1. 19 Recognizing the 

personenvironment 

interaction 

Addresses 

personal

motivations for 

and 

environmental 

facilitators of 

vandalism 

...multifaceted, 

potent

combinations of 

responses are

implemented 

Over-reliance on 

environmental 

responses can

make schools seem 

fortress-like 

2. 20 Establishing a

task force 

Involves stakeholders 

with varying

expertise 

...broad 

representation is

sought,

stakeholders are 

responsible for

responses within

their area of 

expertise, and

student leaders 

and marginalized

students are 

included 

Due to its 

complexity, the

initiative requires a

coordinator to 

ensure that all 

responses are

implemented

according to

design and within

targeted timelines 
36 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

3. 21 Using the media

wisely 

Shows 

vandalism's 

impact, such as

the scale of 

resources 

squandered and

feelings of loss

among students 

...both local 

media and 

student media 

sources are used 

There is a risk that 

media attention 

may sensationalize

events and 

promote the

concept of

achieving notoriety

through highprofile crimes

committed against

school property 

4. 21 Setting

priorities 

Targets events

with both high

financial and 

social costs 

...high-value

items are 

protected, and

priorities are

established at the 

outset of the 

initiative 

It may not address

factors that 

contribute to highvolume but nonserious vandalism 

5. 22 Operating at

the district level 

Maximizes the 

efficiency of

problem analysis

and response

implementation 

...individual 

schools are given

the authority to

fine-tune 

responses to

address local 

conditions 

Requires both

district- and 

school-level 

facilitators to mak

sure that action 

plans are carried

out at each site 

Specific Responses to School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Changes to the Physical Environment 

6. 22 Controlling

access to deter 

unauthorized 

entry 

Makes it difficult 

to enter school 

grounds and

buildings after

hours 

...materials and 

devices are of 

good quality and

cannot easily be

broken or disabled 

It can be more 

costly to fortify

the building than

to repair the

damage caused by vandalism; fire 

escape routes may

be compromised; i

can give buildings

a foreboding 

appearance 
Appendix 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

7. 23 Posting

warning signs 

Lists prohibited

activities, indicates that 

the school is 

cared for and 

controlled, and 

deters potential

intruders 

...signs are

prominently

placed and are

supplemented

with 

architectural 

features such as 

gardens, sitting

areas, and 

student artwork 

It may not deter

highly motivated

offenders; signs

and architectural 

features may

become 

vandalism targets 

8. 24 Storing

valuables in 

Makes it harder 

and more time- ...valuables are 

stored in inner 

It may be

inconvenient to 

secure areas consuming to

steal valuables 

rooms with 

high-quality

locking devices,

and there are no 

staff who 

regularly want to

access equipment 

signs indicating

where highvalue goods are 

9. 25 Reducing the

availability of

combustibles 

Makes it harder 

to start a fire, 

by limiting the

materials 

...trash cans are 

emptied

regularly, and

flammable 

It requires

constant attention; 

it may be

inconvenient to 

available on-site chemicals are staff who 

always properly

secured 

regularly want to

access chemicals 

10. 25 Inscribing

valuables with 

identifying

marks 

Reduces the 

incentive for 

burglary by

making it hard

to sell stolen 

...identifying

marks are 

conspicuous and 

permanent 

It can make equipment less

attractive; it is 

ineffective if the 

vandal wants to 

goods destroy the items 
38 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

11. 25 Adjusting

indoor or 

outdoor lighting 

Either increases 

others' ability to

spot intruders or

reduces 

intruders' ability

to see what they

are doing 

...the 

community is

aware of the 

school's policy

and knows how 

to report

suspicious

behavior to the 

Well-lit campuses

have high energy

costs; "dark 

campuses" may

compromise the

safety of staff and

others who are 

there for 

police legitimate reasons 

12. 26 Obstructing

vandals through

physical barriers 

Makes it harder 

to damage property 

...high-quality,

strong finishes

and enclosures 

are used, and 

barriers are well 

maintained 

It does not 

address vandals' 

underlying

motivation; it can 

be expensive;

potential

offenders may see

it as a challenge 

13. 26 Repairing

damage quickly

and improving

the appearance

of school 

grounds 

Gives the 

impression that

the school is 

under steady

surveillance by

those concerned 

about keeping it

safe 

...materials 

needed to repair

damage or

repaint surfaces

are kept on

hand 

It requires

constant attention 

by maintenance

staff; multiple

repairs can be

costly 

14. 27 Removing

ground-floor

glass windows and other 

vandalism 

targets 

Eliminates or 

fortifies easily

damaged

fixtures 

...features are 

considered when 

buildings are

first designed,

and high-quality

glass substitutes

are used 

It can be costly

and decrease the 

building's

attractiveness 
Appendix 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

Offender-Focused Responses 

15. 27 Increasing the

frequency of

security-staff

patrols 

Increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught, and

regular contact

with police may

improve

reporting 

...patrols are

consistent but 

unpredictable,

and mainly

conducted by

school security

staff, conserving

police resources

for response and

investigation 

It requires

significant

manpower, which

may be costly 

16. 28 Using closedcircuit television 

Increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught, as

footage may be

used to identify

them 

...equipment is

placed and

angled properly,

and used to 

review incidents 

rather than to 

prompt

intervention in 

ongoing

incidents 

It is expensive and

logistically

difficult to install 

in existing

buildings; cameras

can be vandalized; 

it requires

monitoring and

consistent 

maintenance 

17. 28 Improving

opportunities

for natural 

surveillance 

Increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught 

...residents are 

encouraged to

be alert to 

suspicious

activity, and

know how to 

report it to

police 

It is not useful if 

the school is in an 

isolated area 

18. 29 Providing

caretaker or "school sitter" 

housing on

school grounds 

Increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught 

...the caretaker feels it is costbeneficial and is 

a school 

employee 

Maintaining the

residence may be

costly; it may be

hard to supervise

the caretaker appropriately 
40 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

19. 29 Holding

offenders 

accountable 

Deters would-be 

offenders from 

engaging in or

repeating the

behavior 

...it is combined 

with 

investigative

enforcement 

activities, 

involves 

students in 

problem-solving,

addresses 

offenders' 

motivations, and 

is publicized

during student

orientation 

Its effectiveness is 

not well 

documented; few 

offenders are 

apprehended 

20. 30 Diverting

offenders to 

alternative 

activities 

Decreases the 

amount of 

unstructured, 

unsupervised

time offenders 

have; channels 

behavior in prosocial directions; 

and may

encourage better

reporting 

...programs 

encourage a

sense of 

ownership,

target students

appropriately,

and involve 

students in 

planning

activities 

It may not involve the students most 

at risk for 

vandalism; it may

not have credibility among

disenfranchised 

student groups 

School Management Practices 

21. 30 Educating

school staff 

Increases the 

consistency with

which other 

responses are

applied, and

increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught 

...property

protection

procedures are

discussed 

regularly at staff

meetings, and

procedures are

documented in a 

manual 

It does not 

address offenders' 

motivation or the 

environmental 

features that 

make the school 

vulnerable 

22. 31 Controlling

building and

room keys 

Reduces 

potential means

of unauthorized 

access 

...the 

distribution of 

keys is limited,

and periodic key

checks are 

conducted 

It is limited to a 

single entry

method; it 

depends on

teacher vigilance

and compliance

with procedures 
Appendix 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

23. 31 Maintaining an

inventory of

valuable 

equipment 

Improves the

ability to detect

when equipment

has been stolen 

...detailed 

inventory lists

are created and 

secured off-site, 

and are updated

regularly 

It affects only the

ability to confirm

that property has

been stolen; it has 

no prevention

value 

24. 31 Creating a

"vandalism 

account" 

Gives students 

an incentive to refrain from and 

report vandalism 

...rewards are 

made available 

periodically

throughout the 

year 

It requires staff

time to 

administer; 

apathetic youths

can subvert the 

process; vandalism

is not always committed by

students; if no money is

returned, the 

program loses

credibility 

25. 32 Changing the

organizational

climate 

Makes the 

school more 

responsive to

student needs, 

and addresses 

vindictive 

motivations 

...students are 

involved in 

identifying

concerns and 

designing

modifications 

It may be difficult

to develop a plan;

it requires

motivated staff to 

implement

changes;

vandalism is not 

always committed

by students 

Community-Focused Responses 

26. 32 Providing

rewards for 

information 

concerning

vandalism or 

break-ins 

Increases 

incentives for 

students and 

residents to 

provide

information, and 

increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught 

...it is 

supported by

local police, and

students are 

given autonomy

in running the 

program 

Investigation time

may be wasted on

inaccurate or 

misleading tips; it

is not preventionoriented 
42 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Response 

No. 

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

27. 33 Creating

"School Watch" 

programs 

Increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught 

...patrols are

regular but

unpredictable,

volunteers 

immediately

contact the 

police if they

see suspicious

activities, and 

activities and 

outcomes are 

well publicized 

It can be hard to 

maintain resident 

participation

levels; there is a 

risk of vigilantism

among volunteers,

and concerns 

about volunteer 

safety 

28. 33 Evaluating

public use of

school facilities 

after hours 

Increases 

offenders' risk 

of getting

caught 

...rules and 

boundaries are 

clear, and other 

areas of the 

school are 

secured 

Potential vandals 

or intruders may

have unquestioned

access to the 

school 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

29. 34 Controlling the

sale of 

vandalism tools 

Bans the sale of 

materials used 

for vandalism 

It requires

extensive 

cooperation from

merchants; it does 

not address other 

means of 

acquiring tools 

30. 34 Increasing

penalties 

Imposes harsh

punishments on

offenders 

Punitive 

environments 

increase the 

incidence of 

vandalism; 

reporting is

inconsistent, and 

apprehension rates

are low; most acts of vandalism are 

minor and do not 

warrant severe penalties 
Endnotes 

Endnotes 

1 Hope (1982). 

2 Sadler (1988). 

3 Arson Prevention Bureau (2003b). 

4 Heaviside et al. (1998). 

5 Heaviside et al. (1998). 

6 Casserly, Bass, and Garrett (1980). 7 Goldstein (1996). 

8 Sadler (1988). 

9 Goldstein (1996). 

10 National Education Association (1973); Stoner, Shinn, and 

Walker (1991). 11 Vestermark and Blauvelt (1978). 12 Tygart (1988). 

13 Canter and Almond (2002). 

14 Greenberg (1969); Yankelovich (1975); Tygart (1988). 

15 Strang (2002). 

16 Goldstein (1997); Tygart (1988). 

17 Tygart (1988). 

18 Fox and Newman (1997). 

19 Afterschool Alliance (2004). 

20 Hope (1982). 

21 Gladstone (1978). 

22 Cohen (1971); Barker and Bridgeman (1994). 

23 Patterson (1996). 

24 Black (2002). 

25 Goldstein (1996). 

26 Burquest, Farrell, and Pease (1992). 

27 Harlan and McDowell (1980). 

28 Casserly, Bass, and Garrett (1980); Goldstein (1996). 
44 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

29 U.S. National Institute of Education (1977). 

30 Hope (1986). 

31 Zeisel (1976). 

32 Pablant and Baxter (1975). 

33 Hope and Murphy (1983). 

34 Cooze (1995). 

35 Allsop (1988). 

36 Trump (1998). 

37 Casserly, Bass, and Garrett (1980). 

38 Green (1999). 

39 Sampson (2002). 

40 Florida Department of Education (2003). 

41 Blauvelt (1981). 

42 Arson Prevention Bureau (2003a). 

43 Florida Department of Education (2003). 

44 International Dark-Sky Association (1997); National 

Crime Prevention Council (1995). 

45 Clarke (1978). 

46 Blauvelt (1981). 

47 Poyner (1984). 

48 Poyner (1984). 

49 Weisel (2002). 

50 Casserly, Bass, and Garrett (1980). 

51 Goldstein (1997). 

52 Zeisel (1976). 

53 Cooze (1995). 

54 Zeisel (1976). 

55 Goldstein (1997). 

56 Blauvelt (1981). 

57 Patterson (1996). 

58 Patterson (1996). 

59 Patterson (1996). 

60 Zeisel (1976). 
Endnotes 

61 Zeisel (1976). 62 Poyner (1984). 63 Aryani, Alsabrook, and Garrett (2001). 64 Allsop (1988). 65 Allsop (1988); Cleveland Police Department (1999). 66 Sherman et al. (1998); National Research Council (2004). 67 Weisel (2002). 68 Casserly, Bass, and Garrett (1980); Goldstein (1997). 69 Houghton (1982). 70 Clarke (1978). 

References 

References 

Accounts Commission for Scotland (2001). 'A Safer Place': 

Revisited: A Review of Progress in Property Risk 

Management in Schools. Edinburgh, Scotland: Accounts 

Commission for Scotland. 

Afterschool Alliance (2004). America After 3 PM: A 

Household Survey on Afterschool in America. Washington, 

D.C.: Afterschool Alliance. 

Allsopp, J. (1988). "Preventing Criminal Damage to Schools." 

In D. Challinger (ed.), Preventing Property Crime. Seminar 

Proceedings, No. 23. Canberra, Australia: Australian 

Institute of Criminology. 

Arson Prevention Bureau (2003a). How to Combat Arson in 

Schools. London: Arson Prevention Bureau. 

(2003b). School Arson: Education Under Threat. 

London: Arson Prevention Bureau. 

Aryani, G., C. Alsabrook, and T. Garrett (2001). "Scholastic 

Crime Stoppers: A Cost-Benefit Perspective." FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 70(9):1-8. 

Atkinson, A. (2002). Guide 5: Fostering School-Law 

Enforcement Partnerships. Portland, Ore.: Northwest 

Regional Education Laboratory. 

Barker, M., and C. Bridgeman (1994). Preventing Vandalism: 

What Works? Crime Detection and Prevention Series, 

Paper 56. London: Home Office Police Research Group. 
48 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Black, S. (2002). "The Roots of Vandalism: When Students 

Engage in Wanton Destruction, What Can Schools Do?" 

American School Board Journal 189(7):1-7. 

Blauvelt, P. (1981). Effective Strategies for School Security. 

Reston, Va.: National Association of Secondary School 

Principals. 

Burquest, R., G. Farrell, and K. Pease (1992). "Lessons From 

Schools." Policing 8:148-155. 

Canter, D., and L. Almond (2002). The Burning Issue: Research 

and Strategies for Reducing Arson. London: Office of the 

Deputy Prime Minister. 

Casserly, M., S. Bass, and J. Garrett (1980). School Vandalism: 

Strategies for Prevention. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington 

Books. 

Clarke, R. (ed.) (1978). Tackling Vandalism. Home Office 

Research Study, No. 47. London: Home Office. 

Cleveland Police Department (1999). "School Watch." 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Cohen, S. (1971). "Direction for Research on Adolescent 

School Violence and Vandalism." British Journal of 

Criminology 9:319-340. 

Cooze, J. (1995). "Curbing the Cost of School Vandalism: 

Theoretical Causes and Preventive Measures." Education 

Canada 35(3):38-41. 
References 

Florida Department of Education (2003). Florida Safe School 

Design Guidelines: Strategies to Enhance Security and Reduce 

Vandalism. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida Department of 

Education. 

Fox, J., and S. Newman (1997). After-School Crime or AfterSchool Programs: Tuning in to the Prime Time for Violent 

Juvenile Crime and Implications for National Policy. 

Washington, D.C.: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. 

Garst, S. (2004). "The School Year in Pictures." Security 

Management 48(3):74-79. 

Gladstone, F. (1978). "Vandalism Amongst Adolescent 

Schoolboys." In R. Clarke (ed.), Tackling Vandalism. 

Home Office Research Study, No. 47. London: Home 

Office. 

Goldstein, A. (1997). "Controlling Vandalism: The PersonEnvironment Duet." In A. Goldstein and J. Conoley 

(eds.), School Violence Intervention: A Practical Handbook. 

New York: Guilford Publications 

(1996). The Psychology of Vandalism. New York: 

Plenum Press. 

Green, M. (1999). The Appropriate and Effective Use of 

Security Technologies in U.S. Schools: A Guide for Schools 

and Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington, D.C.: 

National Institute of Justice. 

Greenberg, B. (1969). School Vandalism: A National 

Dilemma. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research 

Institute. 
50 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Hampshire Constabulary (2004). "Southampton Safer 

Schools Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Harlan, J., and C. McDowell (1980). "Vindictive Vandalism 

and the Schools: Some Theoretical Considerations." 

Journal of Police Science and Administration 8(4):399-405. 

Heaviside, S., C. Rowand, C. Williams, and E. Farris (1998). 

Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Schools, 1996-

1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Hope, T. (1986). "School Design and Burglary." In K. Heal 

and G. Laycock (eds.), Situational Crime Prevention: From 

Theory Into Practice. London: Home Office Research and 

Planning Unit. 

(1982). Burglary in Schools: The Prospects for Prevention. 

Research and Planning Unit, Paper 11. London: Home 

Office. 

Hope, T., and D. Murphy (1983). "Problems of 

Implementing Crime Prevention: The Experience of a 

Demonstration Project." Howard Journal of Penology and 

Crime Prevention 22(1):38-50. 

Houghton, J. (1982). Vandalism and Theft: A Problem for 

Schools. Research Report 12. Sydney, Australia: New 

South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 

International Dark-Sky Association (1997). "Dark-Campus 

Programs Reduce Vandalism and Save Money." 

Information Sheet 54. Tucson, Ariz.: IDA Inc. 

www.darksky.org/infoshts/is054.html 
References 

Kenney, D., and T. Watson (1999). Crime in the Schools: 

Reducing Fear and Disorder With Student Problem-Solving. 

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

Mayer, G., M. Nafpaktitis, T. Butterworth, and P. 

Hollingsworth (1987). "A Search for the Elusive Setting 

Events of School Vandalism: A Correlational Study." 

Education and Treatment of Children 10(3):259-270. 

National Crime Prevention Council (2003). School Safety and 

Security Toolkit: A Guide for Parents, Schools, and Community. 

Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council. 

(1995). 350 Tested Strategies to Prevent Crime: A 

Resource for Municipal Agencies and Community Groups. 

Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council. 

National Education Association (1973). Danger-School Ahead: 

Violence in the Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: National 

Education Association. 

National Research Council (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness 

in Policing: The Evidence. Committee to Review Research 

on Police Policy and Practices. W. Skogan and K. Frydl 

(eds.). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 

Nicholl, C. (2000). Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice 

and Advancing Community Policing. Washington, D.C.: 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Pablant, P., and J. Baxter (1975). "Environmental Correlates 

of School Vandalism." Journal of the American Institute of 

Planners 41:270-279. 
52 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Patterson, K. (1996). "Thwart Computer Theft." Education 

Digest 62(2):61-63. 

Peel Regional Police (1996). "The Turner-Fenton Project: 

Reducing School Disorder With CPTED." Submission 

for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Poyner, B. (1984). Design Against Crime: Beyond Defensible 

Space. Woburn, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Sadler, W. (1988). "Vandalism in Our Schools: A Study 

Concerning Children Who Destroy Property and What 

To Do About It." Education 108(4):556-560. 

Sampson, R. (2002). False Burglar Alarms. Problem-Oriented 

Guides for Police Series, No. 5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services. 

Schneider, T., H. Walker, and J. Sprague (2000). Safe School 

Design: A Handbook for Educational Leaders: Applying the 

Principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental 

Design. Eugene, Ore.: ERIC Clearinghouse on 

Educational Management. 

Sherman, L., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. 

Reuter, and S. Bushway (1998). Preventing Crime: What 

Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs. 

Stoner, G., M. Shinn, and H. Walker (eds). (1991). 

Interventions for Achievement and Behavior Problems. 

Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of School 

Psychologists. 
References 

Strang, H. (2002). Crimes Against Schools: The Potential for a 

Restorative Justice Approach. Canberra, Australia: 

Australian National University, Research School of 

Social Sciences, Law Program. 

Trump, K. (1998). Practical School Security: Basic Guidelines for 

Safe and Secure Schools. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin 

Press. 

Tygart, C. (1988). "Public School Vandalism: Towards a 

Synthesis of Theories and Transition to Paradigm 

Analysis." Adolescence 23(89):187-200. 

U.S. National Institute of Education (1977). Violent Schools, 

Safe Schools: The Safe School Study Report to Congress, 

Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of 

Education. 

Vestermark, S., and P. Blauvelt (1978). Controlling Crime in 

the School: A Complete Security Handbook for 

Administrators. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker. 

Weisel, D. (2002). Graffiti. Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police Series, No. 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

Yankelovich, D. (1975). "How Students Control Their Drug 

Crisis." Psychology Today 9:39-42. 

Zeisel, J. (1976). Stopping School Property Damage: Design and 

Administrative Guidelines to Reduce School Vandalism. 

Arlington, Va.: American Association of School 

Administrators. 

About the Author 

About the Author 

Kelly Dedel Johnson 

Kelly Dedel Johnson 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 

over 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, 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 

area of education. 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 

Johnson received bachelor's 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 

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 costeffective 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. 
58 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

• 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 problemoriented 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. 
Recommended Readings 

• 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. 
60 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

• 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 

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 
62 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

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. Glensor 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 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides series: 

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1932582-49-5 

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 

Domestic Violence 

Mentally Ill Persons 

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 

Drunk Driving 

Bank Robbery 

Witness Intimidation 

Drive-by Shootings 

Runaway Juveniles 

Exploiting Trafficked Women 

Disorderly Day Laborers in Public Places 
64 School Vandalism and Break-Ins 

Internet Child Pornography 

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 

Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Forming and Sustaining Problem-Solving Partnerships with 

Businesses 

Risky Facilities 

Response Guides 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

Video Surveillance of Public Places 

Other Related COPS Office Publications 

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 

20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and 

Michael S. Scott. 2000. 

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and 

Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the 

Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety. 

Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999. 

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and 

Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 

2000. 

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998. 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The 

National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police 

Foundation. 2002. 

• Call Management and Community Policing. Tom 

McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell 

and Barbara Webster. 2003. 

• Crime Analysis in America. Timothy C. O’Shea and 

Keith Nicholls. 2003. 

• Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba. 2003. 

• Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons 

From a Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke 

and Herman Goldstein. 2003. 

• The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, 

Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Gwen O. 

Briscoe, Anna T. Laszlo and Tammy A. Rinehart. 

2001. 

• The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, 

purchase and manage technology (successfully!). 

Kelly J. Harris and William H. Romesburg. 2002. 

• Theft From Cars in Center City Parking 

Facilities - A Case Study. Ronald V. Clarke and 

Herman Goldstein. 2003. 

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, D.C. 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. 

e01052683 Created Date: July 25, 2005 

ISBN: 1-932582-51-7 

www.cops.usdoj.g