U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series

No. 2 

Closing Streets and 

Alleys to Reduce 

Crime: Should You Go 

Down This Road? 

by 

Ronald V. Clarke 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 
www.PopCenter.org 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

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

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including: 

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 

• Interactive training exercises 

• On-line access to research and police practices 

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series 

Guide No. 2 

Closing Streets and 

Alleys to Reduce Crime: 

Should You Go Down 

This Road? 

Ronald V. Clarke 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2002CKWX0003 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

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

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

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

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

1-932582-40-1 

About the Response Guides Series i 

About the Response Guides Series 

The response guides are one of three series of the 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The other two are the 

problem-specific guides and problem-solving tools. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge 

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific 

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to 

preventing problems and improving overall incident 

response, not to investigating offenses or handling specific 

incidents. The guides are written for police-of whatever 

rank or assignment-who must address the specific 

problems the guides cover. The guides will be most useful 

to officers who 

• understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods, 

• can look at problems in depth, 

• are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business, 

• understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge, and 

• are willing to work with other community agencies to 

find effective solutions to problems. 

The response guides summarize knowledge about whether 

police should use certain responses to address various 

crime and disorder problems, and about what effects they 

might expect. Each guide 

• describes the response, 

• discusses the various ways police might apply the 

response, 

• explains how the response is designed to reduce crime 

and disorder, 
ii Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

• examines the research knowledge about the response, 

• addresses potential criticisms and negative 

consequences that might flow from use of the 

response, and 

• describes how police have applied the response to 

specific crime and disorder problems, and with what 

effect. 

The response guides are intended to be used differently 

from the problem-specific guides. Ideally, police should 

begin all strategic decision-making by first analyzing the 

specific crime and disorder problems they are confronting, 

and then using the analysis results to devise particular 

responses. But certain responses are so commonly 

considered and have such potential to help address a range 

of specific crime and disorder problems that it makes 

sense for police to learn more about what results they 

might expect from them. 

Readers are cautioned that the response guides are 

designed to supplement problem analysis, not to replace it. 

Police should analyze all crime and disorder problems in 

their local context before implementing responses. Even if 

research knowledge suggests that a particular response has 

proved effective elsewhere, that does not mean the 

response will be effective everywhere. Local factors matter 

a lot in choosing which responses to use. 

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, in 

most cases, the most effective overall approach to a 

problem is one that incorporates several different 

responses. So a single response guide is unlikely to provide 

you with sufficient information on which to base a 

coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems. 
About the Response Guides Series iii 

Some combinations of responses work better than others. 

Thus, how effective a particular response is depends partly 

on what other responses police use to address the 

problem. 

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as the 

main considerations police should take into account in 

choosing responses, but recognize that they are not the 

only considerations. Police use particular responses for 

reasons other than, or in addition to, whether or not they 

will work, and whether or not they are deemed fair. 

Community attitudes and values, and the personalities of 

key decision-makers, sometimes mandate different 

approaches to addressing crime and disorder problems. 

Some communities and individuals prefer enforcementoriented responses, whereas others prefer collaborative, 

community-oriented, or harm-reduction approaches. These 

guides will not necessarily alter those preferences, but are 

intended to better inform them. 

Acknowledgments v 

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. 

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw 

the project for the COPS Office. Suzanne Fregly edited 

the guide. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members 

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format 

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

line police officers, police executives and researchers who 

peer reviewed each guide. 

Contents vii 

Contents 

About the Response Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Focus of the Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

What Does Research Reveal About Street Access and Crime? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

What About Displacement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

How Effective Are Street and Alley Closures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

How Should You Meet the Concerns of Those Who Oppose Closures? . . . . . . . . . . 17 

Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

Nearby Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

City Officials and Essential Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

The Public at Large, the Media, and Politicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Your Checklist of Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

Analyzing the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

Getting Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

Implementing the Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

Assessing Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Appendix: Narrative Description of Studies Summarized in Table 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 
viii Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
Introduction 1 

Introduction 

Police sometimes advocate closing streets and alleys to 

keep offenders out of an area. This guide will help you 

decide whether this is an appropriate response to a 

problem you are confronting in a particular neighborhood 

or community. It assumes that you have already conducted 

a detailed problem analysis and are now exploring 

alternative responses, including closing streets or alleys. It 

explains why you might expect street closures to reduce 

crime or disorder, it summarizes the literature on their 

effectiveness, and it discusses the arguments for and 

against their use. It also lists the questions you should ask, 

and steps you should follow, in implementing closures. 

Finally, it suggests measures you might use to assess the 

effectiveness of your actions. 

Police have often successfully been involved in using street 

and alley closings to reduce local crime problems– 

including street prostitution, gang activity, robbery, 

burglary, and drug dealing. But closings do not always 

work, and they often arouse strong opposition in the 

affected neighborhood, in nearby neighborhoods, and, 

more widely, in local newspapers and on TV. You must 

therefore expect to spend considerable time and effort 

working with the residents and businesses affected to gain 

support for proposed closures. You will need to agree on 

which streets and alleys to close, how to close them, how 

to monitor results, when or whether to remove the 

barriers, and many other specifics of the plan. 

You may be considering some other ways of responding to 

your problem–for example, establishing a block-watch 

scheme or undertaking a crackdown. In fact, police have 

usually combined street closings with other crime 
2 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

prevention measures; in problem-oriented projects, it is 

often better to combine responses than to rely on a single 

one. Remember also that no response works equally well in 

all situations, and in every case, you must carefully tailor 

your responses to the problem. This guide will help you do 

so by summarizing the lessons from the available research 

and from other problem-solving projects. However, as 

explained below, the information from these sources is 

incomplete in numerous respects, and the guide cannot 

answer every question you might have. You must combine 

the information it provides with your own assessment of 

situational needs. 
3 

Focus of the Guide 

This guide deals only with closing public streets and alleys 

to control crime in residential areas.

† In most cases, the 

streets and alleys police close are in poor, troubled 

neighborhoods, though sometimes they close streets in 

wealthy neighborhoods that abut poorer ones. The 

closures are intended to be permanent, even if the streets 

are reopened later. 

The guide does not cover 

• temporary street closures during demonstrations, 

festivals, and sporting events; 

• street closures as part of a traffic-calming scheme, or to 

reduce cruising (which falls under traffic calming); 

• securing apartment complexes (whether public or 

private) with fences and gates; 

• securing facilities such as parking lots or shopping malls 

by entrance closures or fence installation; 

Bob Heimberger 

Ornate gated entrances to private streets, such as these in St. Louis, can effectively 

control crime problems, but are not feasible for most crime prevention initiatives. 

Focus of the Guide 

† The implications of closing 

streets are generally much wider 

than those of closing alleys, which 

may affect only a small number of 

residents. In fact, there has been 

little research on closing alleys, and 

most of the information reviewed in 

this guide concerns street closures. 
4 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

• crime-inhibiting street layouts in new residential 

neighborhoods (this is best considered at the planning 

and design stage of new developments, not in response 

† This is less true of some other to current crime problems); and 

countries, such as Brazil and South • so-called "gated communities," small residential 

Africa, where residents in existing developments for middle-class or wealthy residents; in 

affluent neighborhoods are making this country, these enclaves are usually designed as such increasing use of street closures in 

an effort to protect themselves from from the beginning, not subsequently created out of 

crime (Landman, 2003). previously public streets.

† 
What Does Research Reveal About Street Access and Crime? 5 

What Does Research Reveal About 

Street Access and Crime? 

Researchers have argued that closing neighborhood streets 

and alleys can prevent crime because there is a relationship 

between street access and crime rates. The details of the 

argument are as follows: 

1. Offenders find targets in familiar territory. They gain 

knowledge about vulnerable areas and potential 

opportunities through their contacts with other 

offenders and through their daily routines, such as 

hanging out with friends, traveling to work, and going 

to the movies. This means that frequently traveled 

streets are more vulnerable to crime. 

2. Offenders are quick to recognize a closely knit 

neighborhood and the presence of people who might 

notice them. From litter and other signs of neglect, 

they can judge whether they are likely to be challenged 

if they deal drugs or solicit for prostitution. 

3. Burglars avoid cul-de-sacs and prefer corner sites 

where neighbors are less likely to see them. Offenders 

look for heavily traveled streets and locations near 

major highways, where there are many potential 

victims and where they can easily escape. 

4. Reducing through-traffic by closing streets or alleys 

means that 

• criminal outsiders are less likely to become 

familiar with the area; 

• residents learn who does not belong in the 

neighborhood, which helps them to more 

effectively keep watch on the streets near their 

homes; 

• residents committing crime in their own 

neighborhood cannot so easily blame outsiders 

and thus deflect suspicion from themselves; 
6 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

• burglars cannot so easily gain access to 

properties, especially from alleys behind 

houses; 

• escape routes for robbers are blocked off; and 

• drive-by shootings are prevented because cars 

cannot easily enter a street, or because they 

have to backtrack to escape, exposing them to 

retaliation from those shot at. 

Research findings are generally consistent with this theory: 

• Areas with street layouts that permit easy access 

experience more crime than areas with restricted access 

and complicated street patterns.

1 

• A study in Vancouver, British Columbia, found that the 

more entrances to a street, the more crime on that 

street.2 Most research supports the idea that burglars 

avoid houses in cul-de-sacs, unless these abut wooded 

areas or wasteland affording access from the rear. 

• A study of 86 Norfolk, Virginia, neighborhoods found 

that those with high burglary rates had a larger number 

of access points from arterial roads.

3 

• An early study comparing adjacent high- and low-crime 

neighborhoods found that the low-crime areas did not 

have major thoroughfares.

4 

• Reconstruction of a major highway led to the closing of 

all cross streets in Pompano Beach, Florida., at the 

highway's right-of-way. An unexpected side effect was a 

dramatic reduction in drug dealing, robbery, assault, 

and other crime in the adjacent neighborhoods during 

reconstruction. Side streets were reopened after the 

work was done, but Pompano Beach made traffic 

modifications and adjusted police patrols to control 

access to neighborhoods.

5 
What About Displacement? 7 

What About Displacement? 

The rationale for closing streets and alleys in a particular 

neighborhood is that outsiders commit much of the crime 

there, either going there specifically to do so or doing so 

when passing through. But research shows that criminals 

typically offend quite close to home, so before closing 

streets, you should check arrest records to make sure that 

most of the active criminals in the neighborhood are not 

residents. Otherwise, you cannot justify the closings. If 

you find that a high proportion of those arrested are 

indeed outsiders, you then have another worry to deal 

with: What if the closures do not stop these criminals, but 

simply displace them elsewhere in your jurisdiction? What 

have you gained? 

In fact, displacement can be advantageous if it stops the 

neighborhood from reaching a "tipping point,"6 when 

minor crimes build up to produce a much more serious 

problem (the familiar "broken windows" process). If you 

prevent the neighborhood from reaching this tipping 

point, then the savings to the city as a whole will be much 

greater than the costs of displacement to other 

neighborhoods. But try telling that to the residents of 

those other neighborhoods! Fortunately, you won't need 

to, because research generally shows that displacement is 

by no means inevitable. Most research shows that if it 

occurs at all, the crimes displaced are far fewer in number 

than those prevented.7 This is because some 

neighborhoods are so attractive to criminals and so full of 

criminal opportunities that they actually foster crime. It is 

wrong to think that criminals commit only a certain 

restricted number of crimes in a specific time period, and 

stop once they reach those limits. On the contrary, 
8 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

criminals will commit as many crimes as they have the 

time and energy for, if the crimes are easy to commit, low 

risk, and profitable. When these conditions change and the 

rewards of crime decline, or the risks and effort necessary 

increase, criminals will lower their expectations–as we all 

must do when opportunities for gain are reduced. This 

means that street closures do not inevitably result in 

displacement, and that they can reduce the overall volume 

of crime.

8 
How Effective Are Street and Alley Closures? 9 

How Effective Are Street and Alley 

Closures? 

You may have read newspaper reports about successful 

street closures in particular neighborhoods, or heard about 

them from police officers involved. Crime may indeed 

have been reduced, but you should always be wary of 

anecdotal evidence of this kind. People like to think their 

projects were successful, and newspapers like to publish 

"feel-good" stories about communities pulling together to 

defeat crime. While you can learn much from these 

accounts–for example, how to overcome the difficulties 

associated with street closures–research studies generally 

provide more reliable evidence on effectiveness. 

Unfortunately, only a relatively small number of projects 

involving street closures have been evaluated (for example, 

no published evaluations exist of substantial street-closure 

schemes in Dallas; Houston; Chicago; Bridgeport, 

Connecticut; and Oakland, California and the studies that 

have been published tend to focus on successful projects, 

simply because studies of unsuccessful projects are less 

likely to be published. Furthermore, not all research 

studies on street closures are well designed. Properly 

designed studies compare the neighborhood's crime rates 

before streets were closed with crime rates after they were 

closed. They should also compare the neighborhood's 

crime rates with those of nearby "control" areas where 

streets were not closed. This helps to rule out alternative 

explanations for drops in crime, such as seasonal changes, 

intensified police enforcement, or reduced gang activity. 

The studies sometimes collect other data that help in 
10 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

evaluating street closings, including information regarding 

the number of service calls, the volume of traffic, the 

residents' perceptions of security, and the costs of 

installing gates or barriers. In some cases, evaluations also 

examine whether crimes prevented by the closures have 

been displaced to nearby locations. 

This section summarizes the information available from 11 

studies that evaluated street or alley closings. There is 

considerable variety among the projects reviewed. Several 

were undertaken in deprived inner-city neighborhoods, 

plagued by a variety of crimes. Three other projects were 

citywide efforts, one undertaken in an affluent Florida city. 

Three overseas projects focused on street prostitution. 

Only one (British) project specifically focused on closing 

alleys, though in other projects, both alleys and streets 

were closed. City governments and residents' associations 

implemented most of the projects, though often with 

considerable police involvement. 

Despite the variety of areas and crimes covered, for some 

crimes and for some settings, there are no directly relevant 

studies to draw upon. This means the studies may not tell 

you whether closing streets or alleys will work in your 

particular situation. This is not unusual, because there are 

important gaps in knowledge about effectiveness for 

nearly every aspect of policing, from patrol through 

criminal investigation. In fact, research almost never tells 

you exactly what to do in a given situation–it can only help 

you select responses that have a better chance of working 

for you. It is down to you to judge the fit between the 

available research and your own situation. 
How Effective Are Street and Alley Closures? 11 

Table 1 summarizes the main features of the studies, 

including the type of area covered, the crimes targeted, 

and the results achieved (the Appendix provides fuller 

descriptions of the studies). Few of the studies are recent. 

Only one project–that undertaken in Charlotte, North 

Carolina–was specifically designed as a police-led problemoriented project, though police were active partners in the 

other projects. In the past 10 years, projects submitted for 

the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing have frequently included closures, but 

deal only with problems in shopping plazas and other 

commercial facilities,

10 and problems relating to festivals 

and other events.

11 

Even though few of the studies in Table 1 are problemoriented projects, you can still learn from them-particularly 

about the effectiveness of the closures. To help you decide 

how much weight to place on each study, Table 1 includes 

ratings of the research designs' quality: weak, adequate, or 

strong.

† You will see that several of the studies are rated as 

weak, and you should be aware that even those rated as 

adequate or strong have their limitations. Few of them can 

separate the effects of street or alley closings from those 

of other measures taken at the same time, and few 

examine the effects on crime or disorder for more than a 

year. This means that little is known about street closure's 

long-term effects. 

† Judged by the strictest criteria, 

none of the studies would be 

considered strong because none of 

them included randomly selected 

streets to be closed. However, this 

would very rarely be possible, and 

the studies must be judged against 

more realistic criteria. In these 

assessments, an informal (probably 

generous) judgment was made, 

taking account of the number of 

streets closed, the crime measures 

used, the level of crime before 

intervention, the time period 

studied, whether control areas were 

studied, whether 

displacement/diffusion was 

measured, and whether costs were 

calculated. No criticism of the 

researchers is implied by these 

ratings, since they were generally 

doing the best they could, given the 

practical constraints and the time 

and funds available. 
12 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Table 1 

Evaluated Projects Using Street and Alley Closures 

City Type of Area Year Targeted No. of Other Actions How Effective? Research Studies 

(s) Offenses Streets Design 

Closed 

1 Hartford, 

Conn. 

Declining 

inner-city 

neighborhood 

(Asylum Hill) 

1973 Burglary, 

mugging, 

pursesnatching 

Four Residents' 

associations 

established; 

neighborhood 

policing scheme 

Closures reduced 

crime, but effect 

only temporary. 

Fear of crime 

reduced. 

Adequate Fowler, 

McCalla, and 

Mangione 

(1979); Fowler 

and Mangione 

(1982) 

2 Dayton, 

Ohio 

Transitional 

neighborhood 

(Five Oaks) 

1992 Drug houses, 

gunshots, 

prostitution, 

gangs, 

burglary, 

speeding 

35 streets, 

26 alleys 

Supportive 

residents' 

association; 

high level of 

media attention 

Crime reduced by 

25 percent within 

one year; violent 

crime reduced by 

40 percent. No 

evidence of 

displacement. 

Strong Dayton Office 

of 

Management 

and Budget 

(1994); 

Donnelly and 

Kimble (1997) 

Concern about 

crime decreased. 

Traffic declined by 

36 percent. 

3 Los 

Angeles 

Crime-ridden, 

inner-city 

neighborhood 

(Newtown) 

1990 Gangs, drug 

dealing, 

assault, 

homicide, 

14 Increased 

police patrols; 

community 

policing 

Serious crimes 

immediately 

reduced, including 

homicides and 

Strong Vernon and 

Lasley (1992); 

Lasley (1998) 

drive-by drive-by 

shootings shootings. Crimes 

increased when 

streets reopened. 

4 Hartford, 

Conn. 

Publichousing 

project 

About 

1997 

Drug 

dealing, 

assault, 

One None Violent crime 

reduced, with no 

displacement. 

Weak Zavoski et al. 

(1999) 

drive-by Drug dealing 

shootings unaffected. 
How Effective Are Street and Alley Closures? 13 

Table 1 (cont’d) 

City Type of Area Year Targeted No. of Other Actions How Effective? Research Studies 

(s) Offenses Streets Design 

Closed 

5 Charlotte, 

N.C 

Inner-city, 

drug-dealing 

neighbor2000 Drug 

dealing, 

violence 

Two None Substantial 

reduction in 

violence in the 

Adequate Markoe 

(2000) 

hood 

(Belmont) 

area immediately 

affected by the 

closures. Violence 

was not displaced, 

but drug activity 

may have been. 

6 Finsbury 

Park, 

London 

Run-down, 

inner-city 

neighborhood with 

longestablished 

1985 Street 

prostitution 

and cruising 

johns 

Seven Police 

crackdown on 

prostitutes, 

pimps, and 

johns; hotels 

and landlords 

Large reduction in 

street prostitution 

and cruising. 

Lower rates of 

auto theft, assault, 

and burglary. 

Strong Matthews 

(1997) 

street 

prostitution 

prosecuted Resident 

satisfaction 

increased. 

Surprisingly little 

displacement. 

7 Streatham 

London 

Middle-class, 

residential 

area with a 

1989 Street 

prostitution 

and cruising 

Several 

streets 

closed and 

Police 

crackdown on 

prostitutes and 

Large reduction in 

street prostitution, 

cruising, burglary, 

Strong Matthews 

(1993) 

recent 

problem of 

johns "no entry" 

signs 

cruising johns; 

police 

and other crimes. 

Increased resident 

street 

prostitution 

antiburglary 

initiative 

satisfaction. 

Prostitutes 

displaced from 

residential area. 
14 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Table 1 (cont’d) 

City Type of Area Year 

(s) 

Targeted 

Offenses 

No. of 

Streets 

Closed 

Other Actions How Effective? Research 

Design 

Studies 

8 Vancouver, 

British 

Columbia 

Downtown 

prostitution 

strolls 

1981 Street 

prostitution 

and cruising 

johns 

"Series"of 

diverters 

installed 

Series of other 

initiatives taken 

at different 

times in the 

same areas 

The "hardened," 

drug-addicted 

prostitutes 

adapted by 

displacing to 

nearby areas. The 

barriers also 

reportedly helped 

prostitutes to 

solicit cruising 

johns, who were 

forced to slow 

down. 

Adequate Wagner 

(1997) 

9 St. Louis Racially 

integrated, 

60-block city 

neighborhood 

1984 Street 

prostitution 

and cruising 

johns UCR 

offenses 

Multiple Targethardening; 

lighted porches; 

neighborhoodwatch; 

Lower rates of 

increases in 

burglary up to five 

years after 

closures. Limited 

Weak Lowman 

(1992) 

community crime impact on fear. 

newspaper 

10 Liverpool, 

England 

Residential 

neighborhoods with 

row houses 

and rear 

alleys 

2000 

to 

2003 

Burglary 3,168 alley 

gates 

installed 

Research design 

focused only on 

alley gates 

Burglary reduced 

by 37 percent 

within one year. 

Little 

displacement, but 

diffusion of 

benefits. Gates 

were highly costeffective. 

Strong Bowers, 

Johnson 

and 

Hirschfield 

(in press) 

11 Miami 

Shores, 

Fla. 

Affluent 

suburban city 

1988 

to 

1991 

Robbery, burglary, larceny, aggravated 

assault, auto 

theft 

67 in first 

phase; 

eight in 

second 

phase 

None Burglary, larceny, and auto theft 

reduced. Lower 

rates of increases 

in robbery and 

assault, compared 

with nearby 

jurisdictions. 

Weak Atlas and 

LeBlanc 

(1994) 
How Effective Are Street and Alley Closures? 15 

The incomplete coverage of the research, the limitations 

of the methodology, and some inconsistencies in the 

results have been discussed above. Even so, one can draw 

some broad conclusions about the street and alley 

closures, summarized as follows: 

• Street closures have been used for many years in the 

United States and elsewhere as a method of preventing 

crime. Only a small number of projects have been 

evaluated. Those with positive results are more likely to 

be reported. 

• Street closures are usually introduced along with other 

measures (such as crackdowns, neighborhood watch, 

and target-hardening), and it can be difficult to separate 

the effects of street closures from those of other 

measures. Nevertheless, most of the evaluations 

conclude that street closures have reduced crime and 

disorder–in some instances, quickly and dramatically. 

The crimes reduced include robbery, burglary, 

prostitution, drug dealing, assault, and drive-by 

shootings. 

• Street closures have been judged effective in a variety of 

different settings–inner-city residential neighborhoods, 

downtown areas, prostitution strolls, and affluent areas 

abutting poorer ones. 

• Little is known about the long-term benefits of street 

closures, though one study reported that the benefits 

were only temporary. 

• Even when closures have been found effective, streets 

have sometimes been reopened as a result of pressure 

from the local community.

† 

• In some cases, barriers have been said to facilitate 

crime. They can slow cars down, enabling prostitutes or 

drug dealers to solicit customers. They can also trap 

unwary motorists who stray into dangerous 

neighborhoods. 

† Though residents and police 

believed the 1993 street-closure 

scheme in the Hispanic East Side of 

Bridgeport, Connecticut, had been 

effective in reducing drug dealing 

and other crimes, the city council 

ordered that the barriers be removed 

in 1998, in response to residents' 

complaints. Many had become tired 

of the inconvenience caused by the 

40 street closures, and they also 

believed that the ugly concrete 

barriers stigmatized the 

neighborhood and scared off 

businesses (Halbfinger 1998). 
16 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

• Little research is available on the effect of gating alleys 

behind properties, but one exceptionally strong study 

found that gating brought about large reductions in 

burglary. 

• Street and alley closures typically cause little 

displacement of crime. In some cases, the benefits of 

street closures can spread beyond the closure area (a 

phenomenon researchers call "diffusion of benefits"). 

• Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of street 

closings. One study of alley closures found them to be 

highly cost-effective. Within one year, the savings from 

burglaries prevented were much greater than the costs 

of installing the gates. 

In conclusion, research has shown that street and alley 

closures can reduce crime in a variety of different settings. 

However, research is absent or sparse for some crimes and 

settings. In addition, the studies do not separate the 

benefits of closures from those of other measures taken at 

the same time. Follow-up is typically short, and little is 

known about the long-term benefits of street and alley 

closures. Finally, the studies provide little information 

about whether the savings in crime outweigh the costs of 

the closures. 
How Should You Meet the Concerns of Those Who Oppose Closures? 17 

How Should You Meet the Concerns of 

Those Who Oppose Closures? 

As you have seen from the previous section, street and 

alley closures can reduce crime, but the available research 

cannot tell you whether closures will work in your 

situation. You must make that judgment yourself by 

interpreting the research findings in the light of your 

problem analysis. 

Even if you think they will work, effectiveness is not the 

only thing you must consider. Street closings are often 

very controversial and may be strongly opposed (this is 

generally less true of closing alleys). While some 

communities have petitioned the authorities to close 

streets, it is more likely that, in your case, you will be 

trying to convince a divided community and skeptical city 

authorities of the likely benefits. There are several groups 

you will need to persuade: residents, neighboring 

communities, essential service providers, local politicians 

and officials, and the media and public at large. Do not 

underestimate the importance of gaining the support of 

all these groups, or the time and effort this might take. 

Table 2 summarizes the arguments they might raise both 

for and against closures. 

Before meeting with any of the groups, you should brief 

yourself on any legal requirements that must be met to 

bring closures into effect. Will a new local ordinance be 

needed? What are the steps required to bring this into 

effect? You should also have a clear idea of which streets 

should be closed and what types of barriers should be 

used. There are many different types, such as concrete 

"Jersey barriers," steel highway guardrails, railroad ties, 

planters, posts and chains, removable bollards anchored in 

sleeves in the road, and other purpose-built barriers. 
18 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Besides varying in aesthetic appearance (which may change 

over time), they have different installation and 

maintenance costs. They can be used in combination with 

other traffic management measures, such as diagonal 

diverters, one-way streets, "no entrance" or "no turning" 

signs, and parking restrictions. Your proposals should 

include any of these that seem appropriate, especially 

where they can reduce the number of streets closed and 

the inconvenience to residents. 

Residents 

Residents generally express three main concerns. First, 

they fear that the closures will be inconvenient and will 

hinder everyday tasks like shopping or getting to work. 

Second, they think the barriers will be ugly and will 

stigmatize the neighborhood–they may even believe that 

the closures will turn the neighborhood into a ghetto. 

Third, they may think that closures are merely an excuse 

to scale back police patrols. 

Even if these worries seem exaggerated, you must take 

them seriously and address them directly. A residents' 

association can help you do this, but expect the process to 

be very time-consuming. You may need to meet many 

times with the association leaders, and you should hold 

open meetings for all residents to attend. Without a 

residents' association, obtaining general agreement can be 

even more difficult, since there is no obvious person with 

whom to discuss the plans. Beware of self-appointed 

community leaders who may simply be pursuing their own 

agendas. You may find that local elected politicians can be 

very helpful in the process of reaching consensus. 
How Should You Meet the Concerns of Those Who Oppose Closures? 19 

It is essential to be well prepared for meetings. You should 

be able to present crime data showing the proportions of 

crime committed by nonresidents, and you will need to 

discuss the limitations of alternative ways–such as 

increased patrols–of dealing with these outsiders. You will 

need large maps showing where the barriers will be placed 

and how residents will be able to access their homes. You 

will need to show that the closures will not adversely 

affect the provision of police and other emergency 

services. 

You should bring along illustrations of the types of 

barriers you are planning to install. If your plan includes 

provision for a trial period with temporary barriers, bring 

pictures of those barriers, as well as pictures of the 

permanent barriers to be installed if the trial is successful. 

If lockable gates are to be used, you must reach agreement 

with the community about who will be provided with 

keys–whether every householder, the police, or resident 

association nominees. 

Each meeting should have a written agenda and should 

conclude with a review of the agreed actions to be taken, 

and by whom. If possible, you should set the time and 

place for the next meeting while everyone is still present. 

It is important to communicate a sense of urgency to all 

the participants, and to keep up the momentum. 

In addition, you must be very open and clear in your 

approach. At all costs, avoid giving the impression that all 

the important decisions have already been made, and that 

consultation is merely a formality. Be open to alternative 

ideas such as closing streets during the evening hours only, 

redirecting traffic flows, changing parking regulations, 

using more one-way streets, and so forth.† Make strenuous 

efforts to engage stakeholders who are reluctant to 

† For information on how some of 

these measures were used in an 

attempt to reduce access to a drug 

market, see Zanin, Shane and Clarke 

(2004). 
20 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

participate in the discussions, and try to consider the 

needs of resident groups such as children and teenagers, 

who might not be adequately represented at the meetings. 

Finally, it is very important that you persuade your 

superiors to let you remain in post until negotiations are 

concluded and agreement has been reached. The success 

of such a process depends on the trust developed between 

you and the other stakeholders, and nothing is more fatal 

to a problem-oriented project than a change of police 

leadership at a crucial point. 

Nearby Neighborhoods 

Adjacent neighborhoods may fear that the closures will 

bring them more crime and more traffic. They may also 

resent what they see as preferred treatment of the 

neighborhood where streets are to be closed. Again, you 

should seek meetings with the residents' associations of 

these neighborhoods and/or the local elected 

representative(s) to find ways to allay these concerns. 

City Officials and Essential Service Providers 

City planning officers will need to be satisfied that your 

proposals to close streets or alleys do not conflict with 

wider plans for the city. You will also need to clear your 

proposals with your superiors, with city traffic engineers, 

and with fire and ambulance services. They will all need to 

be sure that the closures will not pose a risk to life. Where 

lockable gates are used, as in alleys, police, fire, and 

ambulance services will need immediate access to keys. 

You will also need to discuss closures with local providers 

of garbage pickup, snow removal, and mail delivery–and 

be prepared, if necessary, to adjust your plans to meet 
How Should You Meet the Concerns of Those Who Oppose Closures? 21 

their needs. You should also be prepared to accommodate 

any special needs of public transport or school bus 

providers serving the neighborhood. Finally, you should 

consider whether the closures will cause difficulty for 

drivers making deliveries to the area, whether parcels or 

furniture and appliances. 

The Public at Large, the Media, and Politicians 

Proposals to close streets can give rise to strong emotions, 

even among those not directly affected. Closures can be 

attacked as being antidemocratic and as infringing on civil 

liberties. Some of this opposition is a by-product of the 

hostility that many social commentators feel for "gated 

communities."12 Because these communities often cater to 

the rich, they are seen as having "exclusionary" and 

divisive consequences for society. Other social 

commentators cite street closings in their general 

condemnation of the trend toward a "fortress society," 

where people live in fear behind locked doors, venturing 

out only when they have to, with little concern for their 

neighbors' welfare. 

So you can expect the local media to take an interest in 

your proposals. You could even find yourself at the center 

of civil action to prevent the closures, though court cases 

are more likely to result from the large-scale introduction 

of street closures affecting many different neighborhoods 

in the city. The media concerns may have little substance, 

and they might prove more of an irritation than a real 

impediment. Dealing with them will be easier if you can 

demonstrate the problem analyses you have undertaken, 

and if you carefully explain the limitations of alternative 

solutions. 
22 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

You will be in much more trouble if you don't have the 

local elected representative's support, and you will need to 

carefully plan how to approach him or her and how best 

to argue your case. 

Table 2 

The Arguments For and Against Street and Alley Closures 

For Against 

Closures help to prevent crime and disorder by 

excluding offenders. 

By slowing traffic, barriers facilitate drug dealing 

and prostitution. 

Closures reduce crime in nearby communities 

because they discourage offenders from coming 

to the area as a whole. 

Barriers displace crime to more vulnerable 

neighborhoods that cannot take similar defensive 

measures. 

Barriers provide protection for bedroom 

communities with few residents at home during 

the day to keep an eye on things. 

Barriers are an inadequate substitute for proper 

policing of a neighborhood. 

Closures enable residents to regain control of 

their neighborhood and send a message to 

criminals to keep out. 

Closures prohibit the free use of public streets. 

They are exclusionary and antidemocratic. 

The process of closing streets brings neighbors 

together. Barriers can help to define and create a 

neighborhood. 

Barriers stigmatize neighborhoods and create 

ghettos. They sometimes promote discord within 

a neighborhood between those in favor and those 

against. 

Barriers reduce fear of crime, which can lead 

residents to become actively involved in their 

neighborhoods. 

Closures weaken civic ties and create tension 

with neighboring communities. 

Closure reduces speeding, pedestrian injuries, 

noise, and congestion. 

Closures create havoc on nearby streets by 

displacing traffic. They can create dangerous, 

life-threatening situations if emergency vehicles 

are restricted. 

Closures make it possible for neighborhood 

children to play on the streets. 

As a result of closures, parents become 

complacent and fail to monitor their children's 

whereabouts. 

Street closures improve property values. Barriers harm businesses. 
Your Checklist of Tasks 23 

Your Checklist of Tasks 

Too little is known about street closures to provide you 

with a step-by-step guide on how to go about them, and in 

any case, every problem-oriented project is unique. You 

will therefore have to tailor general guidelines to your own 

situation to produce an action plan. Answering the 

following questions will help you determine how well you 

have done this. 

Analyzing the Problem 

• Have you clearly defined the neighborhood's 

boundaries? 

• Have you collected reliable data about the types of 

crime or disorder that are the focus of concern? 

• Do you know the proportion of crimes committed by 

outsiders? 

• Do you know how they reach the neighborhood (by car 

or on foot)? 

• Do you know whether they go to the neighborhood 

specifically to commit crimes, or whether they do so 

when passing through? 

• Have you estimated how much crime the barriers will 

prevent? 

• Have you explored alternatives to closures (e.g., CCTV, 

neighborhood watch, crackdowns, target-hardening)? 

• Can you explain why these alternatives could not 

adequately substitute for closures? 
24 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Getting Support 

• Do you have support from police district commanders, 

the chief, and other key city officials, such as the traffic 

engineer? 

• Do you have a clear mandate from residents and elected 

representatives to proceed? 

• Are residents content with the barriers' appearance? 

• Have you allayed resident concerns about neighborhood 

stigmatization? 

• Have you agreed on who will have keys (if keys are 

needed)? 

• Have you dealt with the worries of nearby communities 

about displaced traffic and crime? 

• Have you satisfied the concerns of emergency service 

providers (fire, ambulance, and police)? 

• Is your plan acceptable to local providers of garbage 

pickup, snow removal, and mail delivery? 

• Does your plan accommodate any special needs of 

public transport or school bus providers serving the 

neighborhood? 

• Will your plan avoid untoward difficulty for delivery 

and cab drivers? 

• Have you briefed the local media about the need for 

closures? 

• Have you dealt satisfactorily with public opposition? 

Implementing the Closures 

• How many streets and/or alleys will be closed? 

• Can you produce a map showing where the closures will 

be made? 

• Can you clearly explain the effect on neighborhood 

access and traffic patterns? 

• What kind of barriers will be installed? 

• How much will the barriers cost? 
Your Checklist of Tasks 25 

• How long will it take to install the barriers once 

agreement has been reached? 

• Who will install the barriers? 

• Does your plan include a trial period? If so, is it long † See Eck (2002) for help with 

enough to assess the closures' effect on crime? assessing effectiveness. 

• How will it be decided whether to make the closures 

permanent? 

• Have you made sure that any legal requirements for 

implementing closures can be met? 

Assessing Effectiveness† 

• Will you compare neighborhood crime or disorder 

before the closures with that after the closures? 

• Will the before-and-after time periods be directly 

comparable? 

• Will you be able to directly compare the proportions of 

crime committed by outsiders in the before-and-after 

periods? 

• Will you be able to compare before-and-after crime 

trends in your neighborhood with those in nearby 

neighborhoods? 

• Will you examine possible displacement/diffusion? 

• Will you be able to estimate the barriers' costeffectiveness? 

Appendix 27 

Appendix: Narrative Description of 

Studies Summarized in Table 1 

1. A Declining Inner-City Neighborhood in Hartford, 

Connecticut 

One of the first reported projects to use street closures in 

the United States was undertaken in Asylum Hill, a 

declining inner-city neighborhood in Hartford, 

Connecticut.13 In an attempt to deal with burglary, 

mugging, and purse-snatching, four streets were closed 

using large planters, some streets were made one-way, and 

entrances to several streets were narrowed. At the same 

time, neighborhood policing was introduced, as well as a 

scheme to encourage the development of community 

groups and residents' organizations. Subsequent 

evaluations compared crime in the area with that in an 

adjacent control area. Victim surveys showed that crime 

dropped immediately following the street closures, but this 

result did not last for long. There was little evidence that 

the other changes had any effect on crime, though they 

did reduce fear of crime and improve community 

cohesion.14 

Research design: Adequate. This is a small but careful case 

study using sound crime measures. 

2. A Transitional Neighborhood in Dayton, Ohio 

Another widely reported project involved a 10-squareblock Dayton, Ohio, neighborhood known as Five Oaks. 

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, this once stable, 

middle-income neighborhood rapidly changed into a 

working-class area with increasing poverty and 

neighborhood decay. This was accompanied by an increase 
28 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

in crime problems, including drug houses, gunshots, 

prostitution, and speeding traffic. To regain control, a 

neighborhood stabilization project was implemented. A 

major component of the project was a traffic management 

scheme in which 11 streets from the surrounding areas 

were closed to traffic, as well as 24 streets within the grid. 

Twenty-six alleys were also closed so that the gates could 

not be circumvented, creating several sub-neighborhoods. 

Brick columns with metal gates served as barriers, and the 

remaining entrances to the area were identified with brick 

columns bearing a logo and the name Five Oaks. 

One year after these changes were implemented, overall 

crime had dropped by 25 percent, with an even larger 

decline of 40 percent in violent crime. Resident surveys 

showed a reduction in the perceived seriousness of crime, 

including drug-related offenses, prostitution, gang 

problems, burglary, and violence.

15 

An active residents' association was extensively involved in 

planning the project, and took responsibility for it. A high 

level of media attention may have promoted images of a 

cohesive neighborhood and deterred potential offenders. 

Research design: Strong. This is a large study, using sound 

crime measures, with street closings as a major 

component. 

3. A Crime-Ridden, Inner-City Neighborhood in Los 

Angeles 

In 1990, the city of Los Angeles and the police 

department decided to implement "Operation Cul-de-Sac," 

a community-based policing program to restore order to 

crime-ridden, inner-city neighborhoods. Because of the 
29 

problems resulting from the Rodney King beating, the 

program never progressed beyond its trial in Newton, an 

area in south central Los Angeles. Newton covers 

approximately one square mile, with 5,000 residents in 

some 500 dwellings. In 1990, over half the households 

were below the poverty line. In 1988, the community was 

95 percent African American, and by 1990, 60 percent of 

its residents were Hispanics–most of them illegal 

immigrants. Newton had one of the highest recorded 

levels of serious crime in the city and was plagued by drug 

activity, gang activity, and drive-by shootings.

16 

Fourteen iron gates were placed on streets to mark 

Newton's outer boundary. Barriers were installed to 

impede drive-by shootings and drive-up drug purchase. 

Patrols (foot, bicycle, and horseback) were stepped up to 

suppress these crimes and to improve police-community 

relations. Officers also joined in cleanup efforts with 

community groups and the high school. A survey of 350 

residents taken in both the first and the last month of the 

program found that their ratings of police officers' 

politeness and helpfulness improved by over 33 percent. 

The barriers brought about an immediate reduction in 

serious crimes, including drive-by shootings and 

homicides.

† For example, in 1989, the year before 

Operation Cul-de-Sac, seven homicides were committed in 

the area. In the two years after the barriers were installed, 

only one homicide was recorded. There was no evidence 

that homicides had been displaced to another 

neighborhood. When the barriers were removed (in the 

aftermath of the Rodney King beating), homicides 

returned to their previous level.17 

Appendix 

† The traffic barriers prevented cars 

from entering the street, or required 

those that did enter to leave the 

same way. The latter increased the 

risks for shooters, because those 

whom they shot at would have their 

weapons ready when the car 

returned. 
30 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

† The authors' claim that increased 

drug activity on nearby streets was 

due to displacement therefore seems 

unlikely. 

Research design: Strong. This is a large study, with street 

closings as a major component of the intervention. 

Displacement/diffusion was assessed. The study's major 

strength is its assessment of the effect of reopening the 

streets. 

4. A Public-Housing Project in Hartford, Connecticut 

In response to a drive-by shooting that wounded four 

adolescents in a large public-housing project in Hartford, 

the housing authority erected a barrier across the street at 

the site of the shooting. Violent crimes on the street 

decreased by 33 percent (from nine to six) during the 15 

months after it was barricaded, compared with the 15-

month period before. On adjoining streets and blocks, 

violent crime also decreased in similar proportion, 

indicating that no displacement occurred. The barrier had 

no effect on drug-related crimes on the street.18, † 

Research design: Weak. A carefully designed study, but 

only one barrier was installed, and the reduction in the 

number of violent crimes (from nine to six) could have 

been due to chance. 

5. An Inner-City, Drug-Dealing Neighborhood in 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Belmont is a deprived inner-city neighborhood in 

Charlotte, well known locally for being an easy place to 

buy drugs on the street. The streets are laid out in a grid, 

and the neighborhood is easily reached from several 

nearby highways. Five drug-related homicides and more 

than 100 aggravated assaults in a nine-month period in 

1998 to 1999 led to the establishment of a problem-
31 

oriented policing project in the northeastern part of the 

neighborhood. Analysis revealed that 60 percent of those 

arrested for buying or selling drugs in the area were not 

Belmont residents. It also revealed that distinct travel 

routes for drug trafficking fed vehicles from nearby 

highways into the area. The police decided to block two of 

the busiest routes by installing concrete barriers at the end 

of two streets. 

A 12-month before-and-after comparison of reported 

crime data showed that after the barriers were installed, 

violent offenses decreased by 54 percent (from 59 to 27) 

in the northeastern part of Belmont, and arrests fell by 42 

percent. The largest drops were on the two barricaded 

streets. There was no evidence that violence had been 

displaced elsewhere in Belmont (in fact, violent offenses 

for Belmont as a whole dropped by 12 percent, from 236 

to 206), though there was some evidence that drug activity 

had been displaced. 

Encouraged by these results, the police sought to install 

more barriers in Belmont, but the community opposed 

this on the grounds that the barriers were ugly and were 

not a substitute for proper policing. Even after 

"beautification" of the two existing concrete barriers 

(which were replaced by posts and chains in a mulched 

garden), community objections to installing more barriers 

persisted, and the police withdrew the plan.† 

Appendix 

† Matt White, crime analyst for the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 

Department, evaluated this project, 

with advice from Herman Goldstein 

and the author of this guide. The 

report has not been published, 

though the Charlotte-Observer has 

published an article about the 

initiative (Markoe 2001). 
32 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Ronald V. Clarke 

Beautified street barriers in Charlotte, North Carolina, helped 

control neighborhood violent crime and drug problems. 

Research design: Adequate. A careful analysis was done, 

but only two barriers were installed. 

6. A Run-Down, Inner-City Neighborhood With LongEstablished Street Prostitution, in London 

Finsbury Park, a run-down North London neighborhood, 

was known for years as an area to solicit prostitutes. 

Residents, disheartened by police failure to control the 

problem, petitioned the local authority to reduce vehicle 

access to the area, in hopes of deterring men from 

cruising for prostitutes. As a result, seven streets were 

closed in 1985. This was preceded by an intensive police 

crackdown that involved a range of interventions directed 

toward prostitutes and their clients, pimps, and local 

landlords who rented short-term accommodation. 

As judged by official crime statistics, resident surveys, 

traffic counts, and interviews with prostitutes, this 

combined approach was successful. It increased residents' 

sense of security, reduced the traffic volume, reduced 

serious crimes by about 50 percent, and improved the 
Appendix 33 

relationship between the police, the public, and the local 

authority. Finally, it did not displace the problems to 

adjacent communities. This seemed due to the prostitutes' 

lack of deep commitment to their profession. Few were 

addicted or controlled by pimps. In fact, the most 

common reasons they gave for being prostitutes were that 

they could earn more money from that than from other 

types of work, they enjoyed the independence, and they 

enjoyed meeting a variety of men. Many of them came to 

Finsbury Park from outlying areas on cheap "away day" 

rail tickets. Together with other women, they rented rooms 

in one of the many local boarding houses or residential 

hotels, or they conducted business in clients' cars. When 

not working as prostitutes, many of them worked as 

barmaids, go-go dancers, or shop assistants. 

The prostitutes' relatively light commitment to their work, 

and the availability of alternative ways to make money, 

might help explain why the researchers could find little 

evidence of their displacement to nearby areas in London. 

Of 253 women arrested for prostitution in 1984 (the year 

before the street closures), only 65 were still involved in 

prostitution in North London as of 1991. Another 50 had 

convictions in other parts of the country, but for the 

remaining 138 women, there was no record of their having 

been involved in prostitution after Finsbury Park was 

"closed down."19 

Research design: Strong. Multiple before-and-after 

measures were used. A careful attempt was made to 

measure displacement. 
34 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

7. A Middle-Class, Residential Area With a Recent 

Problem of Street Prostitution, in London 

A similar project in Streatham, an inner-city suburb in 

South London, also reduced street prostitution and related 

problems, but overall, it was not as successful as the 

Finsbury Park project. Again, the impetus for the project 

grew from local residents who sought to create a 

partnership with the police and the local authority to 

develop a traffic management scheme, introduced in 

December 1989.20 Several streets were closed, and "no 

entry" signs were installed. 

The traffic management scheme achieved many of its 

goals. Traffic was reduced, especially late at night, and 

cruising for prostitutes declined by 60 percent. 

Furthermore, burglary, assault, and street robbery 

decreased. Residents' fear of crime decreased, and there 

was also evidence of improved dialogue with the police 

and increased community cohesion. However, there was 

substantial "benign" displacement of the problem to the 

nearby park and main commercial street–"benign" because 

prostitution there was considered less offensive than in the 

residential area. The reason given for the greater amount 

of displacement in Streatham was that the prostitutes 

there were much more committed to prostitution than 

those in Finsbury Park. 

Research design: Strong. Multiple before-and-after 

measures were used. Some attempt was made to measure 

displacement. 
Appendix 35 

8. Downtown Prostitution Strolls in Vancouver, 

British Columbia 

At one time or another between 1970 and 1989, 

downtown Vancouver had numerous prostitution strolls. 

Pressure from local residents and businesses generated 

numerous initiatives to "get tough" with the prostitutes. 

These included a series of police crackdowns, a "shame 

the johns" campaign, civil injunctions forbidding 

prostitutes from entering certain areas, and the installation 

of a series of "traffic diverters" to prevent cars from 

cruising in the strolls. 

An evaluation of these initiatives concluded that, in every 

case, the prostitutes adapted to the changes. They moved 

to new strolls in the downtown area or changed their way 

of doing business.

21 With regard to the traffic diverters, 

the evaluation reported that shortly after these were 

installed, a local newspaper published a photo of a woman 

sitting astride one of them, waiting for a customer. Other 

prostitutes were reported as saying that the diverters "were 

'good for business' because they slowed traffic down 

nicely." The evaluation proposed that the traffic diverters 

and other measures to prevent prostitution had failed in 

Vancouver (while appearing to have worked in London) 

because more of the Vancouver women might have been 

supporting heroin habits or had fewer opportunities to 

engage in off-street prostitution. 

Research design: Weak. An interesting and persuasive case 

is made for adaptation and displacement as the result of 

street closings (and other measures), but very limited use 

is made of data. 
36 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

9. A Citywide Program of Street Closures in St. Louis 

In January 1984, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police 

Department initiated "Operation Safestreet," a 

multifaceted program with five components: (1) "Project 

Porch Light," in which people were asked to keep porch 

lights on from dusk until dawn; (2) "Project Home 

Security," which target-hardened homes, (3) traditional 

"Neighborhood Watch"; (4) "Operation Safestreet 

Newsletter," which regularly informed residents of the 

current crime situation; and (5) "Project Quiet Street," a 

traffic management program using street closures and 

diversions. 

This program was phased in for the entire city over four 

years. Project Quiet Street generated considerable public 

debate, two lawsuits, and one unsuccessful recall election 

of an alderman. Negative public reaction grew from the 

failure to involve citizens at the planning stage–residents 

began to be involved only after the program began. 

Consequently, after four years, only two out of nine 

targeted neighborhoods had permanent barriers in place. 

Results were studied in only one of those neighborhoods, 

but a comparison was made with a nearby "control" area 

that did not have street closures. It was found that crime 

rates fluctuated randomly, with no real decrease 

attributable to the street closures. However, a review of 

five years of data following introduction of the barriers 

showed lower rates of increases in burglary where streets 

were modified.22 

Evaluation design: Adequate. The study is distinguished by 

an unusually long follow-up, but only one neighborhood 

was studied. 
Appendix 37 

10. A Citywide "Alley-Gating" Program in Liverpool, 

England 

Liverpool is an older city in the United Kingdom. Much of 

the city's housing consists of row houses, which can be 

accessed from lanes running behind them. These lanes 

have contributed to high burglary rates in many parts of 

the city, and for a number of years, the city has pursued an 

intensive program of "alley-gating." This involves 

installing robust, lockable gates to block alleys and thus 

restrict burglars' access to the rear of houses. Gate keys 

are available only to residents of the houses secured by the 

gates.

23 

A recent evaluation covered a total of 3,178 alley gates, 

protecting 106 blocks of housing.

24 The gates protected 

distinct blocks of adjacent housing, typically containing 

around 360 houses. It was found that burglary decreased 

by approximately 37 percent in the gated areas, and that 

burglary declined in direct proportion to the number of 

gates installed over time. Moreover, there was a large 

reduction in burglaries where offenders gained access via 

the rear of the property. There was a small increase in the 

proportion of burglaries where offenders gained access 

through the front or side of the property, indicating 

possible displacement, but the changes observed were 

unrelated to the timing and intensity of implementation. 

Finally, burglaries declined in nearby areas not within the 

boundaries of the alley-gating scheme, suggesting there 

had been a diffusion of benefits to unprotected houses. 

A simple cost-benefit analysis indicated that once the gates 

had been in place for a year or more, they became costbeneficial, with a return of around $1.86 for every dollar 

spent. 
38 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Shane Johnson 

Alley gates, installed extensively in Liverpool, England, 

have proven a cost-effective method of reducing 

residential burglaries. 

Research design: Strong. In fact, the combination of the 

large number of alley gates covered in the evaluation, the 

effort made to examine displacement/diffusion, and the 

cost-benefit analysis undertaken make this by far the 

strongest study reviewed here. 

11. An Affluent Suburban City in Florida 

Miami Shores was once a quiet suburban community near 

Miami. Following major growth in Miami-Dade County, 

commuter traffic increased, and soon after, crime also 

increased substantially. In 1986, city officials decided to 

close 67 streets as part of a citywide strategy to curb 

traffic, speeding, and crime problems–primarily property 

crime. The referendum on the street closures passed with 

a 58 percent majority vote, despite much negative publicity 

generated by a small but vocal minority. Implementation 

started in July 1988 and ended in March 1991. In August 

1992, a second phase of 28 street closures was proposed, 

but only eight were approved in the referendum. 
Appendix 39 

A before-and-after examination of crime rates found that 

Miami Shores showed small declines for burglary, larceny, 

and auto theft. Rates were unchanged for robbery and 

aggravated assault. In contrast, Miami showed significant 

increases for all of the above crimes, and Miami-Dade 

County showed a general upward trend across crime 

categories. The evaluators attributed the generally 

favorable results in Miami Shores to the barriers.

25 

Research design: Weak. This was a large study, but the 

evaluation did not explore alternative explanations for the 

unchanged crime rates in Miami Shores compared with the 

rest of Miami-Dade County. Nor did it examine possible 

displacement. 

Endnotes 41 

Endnotes 

1 Bevis and Nutter (1978); Wagner (1997). 2 Beavon, Brantingham, and Brantingham (1994). 3 White (1990). 4 Greenberg and Rohe (1984). 5 Crowe and Zahm (1994). 6 Gladwell (2000). 7 Felson and Clarke (1998). 8 Felson and Clarke (1998). 9 Eggers and O'Leary (1995). 10 Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Lauderhill Police Department (1996); 

Halton Regional Police Service (2002); Miami Police Department (2002). 11 La Crosse Police Department (1994); Savannah Police Department (1995). 12 Blakely and Snyder (1997). 13 Gardiner (1978); Fowler, McCalla, and Mangione (1979); Fowler and 

Mangione (1982). 14 Poyner (1983). 15 Donnelly and Kimble (1997); Newman (1996); Dayton Office of 

Management and Budget (1994). 16 Vernon and Lasley (1992). 17 Lasley (1998). 18 Zavoski et al. (1999). 19 Matthews (1997, 1993). 20 Matthews (1993). 21 Lowman (1992). 22 Wagner (1997). 23 Johnson and Loxley (2001). 24 Bowers, Johnson, and Hirschfield (in press). 25 Atlas and LeBlanc (1994). 

References 43 

References 

Atlas, R., and W. LeBlanc (1994). "The Impact on Crime 

of Street Closures and Barricades: A Florida Case 

Study." Security Journal 5(3):140-145. 

Beavon, D., P. Brantingham, and P. Brantingham (1994). 

"The Influence of Street Networks on the Patterning 

of Property Offenses." In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime 

Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice 

Press. 

Bevis, C., and J. Nutter (1978). Changing Street Layouts To 

Reduce Residential Burglary. Minneapolis: Minnesota 

Crime Prevention Center. 

Blakely, E., and M. Snyder (1997). Fortress America: Gated 

Communities in the United States. Washington, D.C.: 

Brookings Institution Press. 

Bowers, K., S. Johnson, and A. Hirschfield (in press). 

"Closing off Opportunities for Crime: An Evaluation 

of Alley-Gating." European Journal on Criminal Policy and 

Research. 

Crowe, T. D. and D.L. Zahm (1994). Crime Prevention 

through Environmental Design. Land Development Fall: 

22-27. 

Dayton Office of Management and Budget (1994). 

Evaluation of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Stabilization 

Plan. Dayton, Ohio: City of Dayton. 
44 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Donnelly, P., and C. Kimble (1997). "Community 

Organizing, Environmental Change, and 

Neighborhood Crime." Crime and Delinquency 43(4):493-

511. 

Eck, J. (2002). Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Eggers, W., and J. O'Leary (1995). "The Beat Generation: 

Community Policing at Its Best." Policy Review 74 

(Fall):4-11. 

Felson, M., and R. Clarke (1998). Opportunity Makes the 

Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Police 

Research Series, Paper 98. London: Home Office. 

Fowler, F., Jr., and T. Mangione (1982). Neighborhood Crime, 

Fear, and Social Control: A Second Look at the Hartford 

Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of 

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. 

Fowler, F., Jr., M. McCalla, and T. Mangione (1979). 

Reducing Residential Crime and Fear: The Hartford 

Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Gardiner, R. (1978). Design for Safe Neighborhoods: The 

Environmental Security Planning and Design Process. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Law 

Enforcement and Criminal Justice. 
References 45 

Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things 

Can Make a Big Difference. London: Little Brown. 

Greenberg, S. and W. Rohe (1984). "Neighborhood Design 

and Crime: A Test of Two Perspectives." Journal of the 

American Planning Association 50: 48-60. 

Halbfinger, D. (1998) "Bridgeport Removing Barriers That 

Slowed Crime But Marred Streets." New York Times, 

Feb. 7, pp. B1, B7. 

Halton Regional Police Service (2002). "Let's Dance: A 

Community's Collaborative Response to an All-Ages 

Nightclub." Submission for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Jones, M., and K. Lowrey (1995). "Street Barriers in 

American Cities." Urban Geography 16(2):112-122. 

La Crosse Police Department (1994). "Police ProblemSolving for a Civil Disturbance." Submission for the 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 

Research Forum. 

Landman, K. (2003). A National Survey of Gated 

Communities in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: 

CSIR Publication. BOU/1 347. 

Lasley, J. (1998). "Designing Out" Gang Homicides and Street 

Assaults. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of 

Justice. 
46 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

Lauderhill Police Department (1996). "Mission Lake 

Plaza." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award 

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Lowman, J. (1992). "Street Prostitution Control: Some 

Canadian Reflections on the Finsbury Park 

Experience." British Journal of Criminology 32(1):1-17. 

Markoe, L. (2000). "Barricades Are Unpopular, But Crime 

Rate Falls." Charlotte-Observer, Oct. 14, 1B, 4B. 

Matthews, R. (1993). Kerb-Crawling, Prostitution, and 

Multiagency Policing. Crime Prevention Unit Series, 

Paper 43. London: Home Office. 

(1997). "Developing More Effective Strategies for 

Curbing Prostitution." In R. Clarke (ed.), Situational 

Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, 2nd ed. Monsey, 

N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 

Miami Police Department (2002). "Allapattah Produce 

Market Power Play." Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research 

Forum. 

Newman, O. (1986). Creating Defensible Space. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

Poyner, B. (1983). Design Against Crime: Beyond Defensible 

Space. London: Butterworths. 
References 47 

Reckdahl, K. (1999). "Bump and Grind." City Pages: The 

Online News and Arts Weekly of the Twin Cities 20(971). 

Santa Ana Police Department (1993). "Harbor Plaza 

Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award 

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Savannah Police Department (1995). "The River Street 

Bollards." Submission for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Vernon, R.L. and J.R. Lasley (1992). "Police/Citizen 

Partnerships in the Inner City." FBI Law Enforcement 

Bulletin 61(5):18-22. 

Wagner, A. (1997). "A Study of Traffic Pattern 

Modifications in an Urban Crime Prevention 

Program." Journal of Criminal Justice 25(1):19-30. 

White, G. (1990). "Neighborhood Permeability and 

Burglary Rates." Justice Quarterly 7(1):57-67. 

Zanin, N., J. Shane, and R. Clarke (2004). "Reducing Drug 

Dealing in Private Apartment Complexes." Final 

report on a Newark, N.J., project to test the utility of 

the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Washington, D.C.: 

Office of Community Oriented Police Services. 

Zavoski, R., G. Lapidus, T. Lerer, G. Burke, and L. Banco 

(1999). "Evaluating the Impact of a Street Barrier on 

Urban Crime." Injury Prevention 5(1):65-68. 

About the Author 49 

About the Author 

Ronald V. Clarke 

Ronald V. Clarke is a professor at the School of Criminal 

Justice, Rutgers University. He previously headed the 

British government's criminological research department, 

where he had a significant role in developing situational 

crime prevention and the British Crime Survey. Clarke is 

the founding editor of Crime Prevention Studies, and his 

publications include Designing Out Crime (HMSO 1980), The 

Reasoning Criminal (Springer-Verlag 1986), Business and Crime 

Prevention (Criminal Justice Press 1997), and Situational 

Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (Harrow and Heston 

1997). Together with Herman Goldstein, he has recently 

been working on problem-oriented policing projects for 

the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (N.C.) Police Department. 

Since 1998, he has chaired the selection committee for the 

annual Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. Clarke holds a docorate in 

psychology from the University of London. 

Recommended Readings 51 

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. 
52 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

• 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 53 

• 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 through 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. 
54 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

• 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 55 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana 

Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 
56 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

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 

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 1-932582-40-1 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for 

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 

Disorder at Budget Motels 

Domestic Violence 

Mentally Ill Persons 

Robbery of Taxi Drivers 

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 

Vandalism and Break-Ins at Schools 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57 

Street Racing 

Bomb Threats in Schools 

Drug-dealing in Open-Air Markets 

Ilicit Sexual Activity in Public Places 

Drunk Driving 

Cruising 

Bank Robbery 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving 

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. 

• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The 

National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police 

Foundation. 2002. 
58 Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 

• 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 Department of Justice 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. 

e08042481 Updated Date: September 16, 2004 

ISBN: 1-932582-40-1