U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

j

R i 

l i i li

l ifi i i

www.cops.usdo .gov 

S t u d e n t P a r t y 

o t s 

by 

Tamara D. Madensen 

John E. Eck 

Prob em-Or ented Gu des for Po ce 

Prob em-Spec c Gu des Ser es 

No. 39 
l i lici i

l i i lp 

l i l i i i i

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Prob em-Or ented Po ng webs te 

at www.popcenter.org for a wea th of nformat on to he

you dea more effect ve y w th cr me and d sorder n your 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 

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 great 

resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

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

Problem-Specific Guides Series 

Guide No. 39 

Student Party Riots


Tamara D. Madensen 

John E. Eck 

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 authors and do not necessarily represent the official 

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

companies, products, or services do not constitute endorsements 

from the authors or the Justice Department. Rather, such references 

are used to supplement discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6 

February 2006 

About the Problem-Specfc Gudes Seres  

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. 
 Student Party Rots 

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other police 

departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 

your particular problem, they should help give a broader 

view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your 

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when 

police have discovered a more effective response, they 

have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. 

• Understand the value and the limits of research 

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

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides 

illustrate the need for more research on that particular 

problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive 

answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in 

designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you 

exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the 

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest 

of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of 

relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been 

attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references 

listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most 

heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research 

on the subject. 

• Are willing to work with others to find effective 

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. 
About the Problem-Specfc Gudes Seres  

They must frequently implement them in partnership with 

other responsible private and public entities including other 

government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 

and individual citizens. An effective problem-solver must 

know how to forge genuine partnerships with others and 

be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these 

partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular 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 problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context 

of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 

most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 

considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 

these guides. 

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from 

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere 

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be 

aware of research and successful practices beyond the 

borders of their own countries. 
v Student Party Rots 

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 

• online access to important police research and practices. 
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. 

Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Suzanne Fregley 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 reviewed each guide. 

Contents v 

contents 

About the Problem-Specfc Gudes Seres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 


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


The Problem of Student Party Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Problem Descrpton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Factors Contrbutng to Student Party Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


What We Know About the Structure/Characterstcs of Student Gatherngs. . 4


What We Know About Students Who Partcpate n Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6


Why Some Students Engage n Physcal Volence and Property Destructon . . 7


The Role of Alcohol n Student Party Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9


The Role of Polce n Student Party Rots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


Summary of Factors Contrbutng to Student Party Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


Understandng Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


Askng the Rght Questons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


Intal Plannng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


Preassembly Preparaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


Assemblng Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Assembled Gatherng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Dspersal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Measurng Your Effectveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


General Consderatons for an Effectve Acton Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


Responses to Student Party Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


Intal Plannng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


Preassembly Preparaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Assemblng Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


Assembled Gatherng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


Dspersal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


Responses Wth Lmted Effectveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

v Student Party Rots 

Appendx A: Summary of Responses to Student Party Rots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37


Appendx B: Strategc Plannng Framework for Preventng Student Party Rots. . . . . 43


Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51


About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


Recommended Readngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Other Problem Orented Gudes for Polce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

The Problem of Student Party Rots 1 

The Problem of Student Party Riots 

Alcohol-related riots among university students pose a § In this guide, we use the significant problem for police agencies that serve college terms university, college, and school 

communities.§ The intensity of the disturbances may interchangeably to refer to 

vary. However, the possible outcomes include property institutions of higher learning. 

destruction and physical violence and are a serious threat §§ Following the work of McPhail 

to community and officer safety. and Wohlstein (1983), we prefer 

the term gathering to crowd, since the 

latter tends to imply a large group 

Since student party riots are relatively rare, we know acting in unison, without individual 

agendas. little about what causes them. In addition, it has been 

difficult to gauge the effectiveness of police interventions. 

Despite these limitations, the available evidence suggests 

that the most promising strategies for addressing the 

problem are multifaceted and include partnerships with 

the university and the surrounding community. Developing 

a comprehensive action plan requires a thorough 

understanding of the characteristics of student gatherings, 

and of the particular interventions likely to have the 

greatest impact. 

This guide provides a framework for understanding 

student gatherings.§§ You can use this framework to 

systematically investigate your local problem of student 

party riots. You can also use it to develop a wide range 

of proactive strategies to reduce the potential for 

student violence and other misconduct. In addition, this 

guide summarizes interventions used to control past 

disturbances. You can use these interventions, along with 

the solutions you develop, to create a comprehensive 

strategy for addressing your problem. 
2 Student Party Rots 

§ For the purposes of this guide, a 

gathering is a group of 25 or more 

students with access to alcohol 

(Shanahan 1995). However, 25 

should serve as a general rule of 

thumb, rather than an absolute 

minimum. 

§§ There is no standard term for the 

problem this guide addresses. Some 

people use the name “celebratory 

riots,” but this trivializes the 

outbursts, and many of them are 

not celebrations of anything in 

particular. Four characteristics define 

these problems: they take place on 

or near college campuses; most 

of the participants are university 

students; these students, and others, 

drink a lot of alcohol; and the events 

range in intensity from noisy parties 

to serious riots with injuries and 

property damage. One possibility 

was to call these problems USARDs, 

for University Student AlcoholRelated Disturbances. Even though 

that term accurately describes the 

problem, it is awkward and hard 

to remember. Student party riots is 

brief, clearly conveys the basic idea, 

and is easily understood. 

Problem Description 

Student party riots are often associated with a college 

sport team’s victory or loss. However, disorderly group 

behavior can also occur during large street parties 

unrelated to a sports event. Regardless of the initial 

reason for a gathering,§ some gatherings end with 

intoxicated students’ engaging in destructive behavior.§§ 

In some jurisdictions, creating such disturbances becomes 

a “tradition” among students. For example, on or around 

May 5 each year, University of Cincinnati students 

attend a Cinco de Mayo celebration that often results 

in rioting.1 Madison, Wisconsin, police prepare for an 

annual Halloween celebration that has, in the past, ended 

in clashes between students and officers.2 In Columbus, 

Ohio, the risk of a riot increases following a football 

game between Ohio State University and the University of 

Michigan. These and similar events tend to attract more 

and more students and other revelers each year, which 

in turn can lead to larger gatherings that end in more 

violence and destruction. Thus it is imperative that police 

not let a single riotous event become a student tradition. 

Student party riots tend to share the following 

characteristics: 

• a lot of intoxicated people are present 

• both males and females are present, and nearly all the 

attendees are young adults 

• the gathering includes students from other universities 

• the gathering includes young adults who are not college 

students 
The Problem of Student Party Rots 3 

• the disturbance starts late at night and continues into the 

early morning 

• males are most often responsible for any destructive acts 

• injuries and property damage (e.g., from fires and 

overturned cars) are common 

• participants resist authority/police intervention.3 

Related Problems 

Along with student party riots, police face other youthdisorder problems, ones not directly addressed in this 

guide. The following require separate analyses and 

responses: 

• disturbances during political protests 

• graffiti 

• vandalism 

• underage drinking 

• crowd control in stadiums and other public venues 

• drunken driving 

• noise complaints in residential areas 

• house parties 

• disorderly conduct in public places. 

Factors Contributing to Student Party Riots 

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem 

will help you frame your own local analysis questions, 

recognize key intervention points, select appropriate 

responses, and determine effectiveness measures. 
4 Student Party Rots 

§ The five-stage student-gathering 

model in this guide is an extension 

of McPhail’s work. McPhail 

(1991) suggests that temporary 

gatherings have a life cycle that 

includes an assembling process, the 

assembled gathering, and a dispersal 

process. The model presented 

here encourages police to develop 

intervention strategies targeting 

earlier stages in the process. 

What We Know About the Structure/Characteristics 

of Student Gatherings 

Most gatherings are not completely spontaneous:4 some 

degree of planning is typically required to bring a lot of 

people together. Furthermore, gatherings have a “life 

cycle” that consists of at least five discernable stages: 

(1) initial planning, (2) preassembly preparation, (3) 

assembling process, (4) assembled gathering, and (5) 

dispersal process (see figure).§ Once police determine 

that a student gathering is in the works, they can reduce 

the likelihood of disorderly behavior by applying a 

number of prevention strategies at each stage. 

itial Pl i li Di l 

l i l i

1 

2 

5 

4 

3 

In ann ng Assemb ng Process spersa Process 

Preassemb y Preparat on Assemb ed Gather ng 

Five stages of a gathering’s “life cycle.” 

Stage 1: Initial planning. A few students decide to host 

a party. They decide whom to invite, how to invite them, 

when and where to hold the party, what activities (if 

any) the party will include, and what they need to do 

to make it happen. The length of this planning stage 

may vary greatly. Some gatherings may occur with little 

forethought, such as when students go to a popular 

bar after a big sports event. However, students may 

plan other gatherings a year or more in advance.5 They 

may choose party locations either hastily or carefully. 

Similarly, invitations can come via flyers posted months 

in advance, word of mouth, or simple cues that indicate 
The Problem of Student Party Rots 5 

people are gathering nearby. The more students are 

aware of when and where gatherings are likely to occur, 

the more spontaneous the gatherings will appear; little 

advanced planning and communication is needed if 

students regularly gather at a particular location after an 

event. The more frequently the gatherings occur, the more 

predictable they become, and the less effort is needed for 

future planning. 

Stage 2: Preassembly preparation. Alcohol, typically 

obtained by the hosts or the guests within a few days 

or hours of a scheduled event, plays a significant role 

in student party riots. Obtaining alcohol is only one 

of several possible tasks done during the preassembly 

preparation. Students may also decorate, talk with friends 

or neighbors, or gather belongings to take with them to 

the event. They may even give one another last-minute 

notice of any possible police presence. The length of 

this stage will depend on the degree of planning or 

spontaneity involved. 

Stage 3: Assembling process. In the assembling process, 

people head for the gathering. Their transportation 

methods are of interest. They may drive alone or with 

friends, walk, take a taxi or bus, or simply step out of 

their front doors and into the street. Transportation can 

affect several aspects of the gathering, including who 

can attend and how long it lasts. Transportation also has 

implications for the final stage. 

Stage 4: Assembled gathering. The assembled gathering 

usually receives the most media, police, and other 

attention. It may be easy to forget that most gatherings, 

including student gatherings, remain orderly.6 People tend 

to congregate in small groups and spend most of their 
6 Student Party Rots 

§ One police official was quoted 

as saying, “Because the mob 

mentality makes meaningful 

discussion impossible, and because 

the members are no longer guided 

by rational thought, it is critical 

to avoid any situation that may be 

misinterpreted.” (Begert 1995) 

time talking and observing others similarly engaged.7 

However, with a gathering that turns violent, signs of 

disorderly behavior usually surface sometime near the end 

of it, after participants have drunk a lot of alcohol. The 

disturbance is likely to carry over into the next stage. 

Stage 5: Dispersal process. Transportation methods are 

again important during the dispersal process. During this 

stage, the police must encourage movement away from the 

gathering, while preventing the spread of vandalism and 

violence to nearby areas as people leave the site. During a 

student riot, police may find themselves trying to disperse 

drunken participants. Drunken driving may become a 

problem at this stage if students have used their own 

vehicles to get to the gathering. 

What We Know About Students Who Participate 

in Riots 

Contrary to what some police officials believe, we 

know that crowds do not drive individuals mad, nor 

do individuals lose cognitive control.§ Experts who 

have systematically studied gatherings have discredited 

“madding crowd” theories.8 Crowd members make their 

own choices. That is not to say that crowds do not appear 

to have a will of their own, or that individuals do not 

often use the crowd as an excuse for their behavior. 

However, while people may be influenced by others’ 

actions, there is no evidence to suggest that people lose 

the capacity to control their own behavior simply because 

others are present. 
The Problem of Student Party Rots 7 

We also know that most students who attend gatherings 

that result in riots do not behave destructively. Participants 

at such gatherings attend for a variety of reasons. In a 

telephone survey of 1,162 Michigan State University 

students,9 the top reasons given for attending gatherings 

were to have fun (65 percent), to meet up with friends (60 

percent), and to celebrate (40 percent). Only 5 percent of 

students said the main reason they party is to get drunk. 

Other students attend celebrations just to witness them. 

It has been reported that as many as 50 to 60 percent of 

attendees are there only to observe.10 

Those who attend gatherings to cause destruction—and 

who are of greatest police concern—usually make up the 

smallest portion of an assembly. University of Cincinnati 

students were surveyed in 2004 about their experiences 

at the annual Cinco de Mayo off-campus celebrations.11 

Less than 1 percent of respondents who attended said 

they destroyed property, and only 1.4 percent said they 

had engaged in a confrontation with Cincinnati police 

during the street riots that followed the celebration. These 

numbers correspond with photos and eyewitness accounts 

of the event. 

Why Some Students Engage in Physical Violence and 

Property Destruction 

Unfortunately, research has been unable to provide a 

clear profile of the type of person likely to engage in 

12 violence at university student gatherings. iven the G

general characteristics of university students, we know 

that most attendees, and therefore those who engage in 

violence, are young adults. Media photos and police records 

indicate that males are more likely than females to be 

observed and arrested for committing acts of violence and 

vandalism. However, this information does not explain why 

some students engage in physical violence and property 

destruction, while others do not. 
 Student Party Rots 

Student party riots often include people who do not 

attend the university nearest to the gathering. It has been 

suggested that these individuals are more likely to engage 

in disruptive behavior. Though this is plausible, since such 

people have fewer stakes in the university community, no 

research addresses this issue. We must also be cautious, as 

“outsider” explanations can be used to shift blame. 

Instead of focusing on who, we might ask why students 

engage in destructive behavior. When a relatively orderly 

gathering suddenly turns violent, it is referred to as a 

“flashpoint.”13 It is imperative that police be familiar with 

and recognize factors that can contribute to a flashpoint. 

It has been suggested that boredom or a lull in activity 

may create the impetus for a violent flashpoint.14 When 

the initial excitement of the event has passed (e.g., the 

team has won or lost, or midnight has passed on New 

Year’s Eve), but dispersal fails to begin, some individuals 

may want to renew the excitement at the gathering. They 

will create a new focal point to create or maintain the 

momentum of the gathering. The new focal point may 

consist of a few people burning, looting, or otherwise 

vandalizing property. 

While most members of a gathering do not directly 

participate in riotous behavior, these “nonparticipative” 

members may further instigate such activity through 

their mere presence. Typically, as the riotous behavior 

begins, two simultaneous movements, or surges,15 

occur 

within the gathering: people move toward those engaged 

in destructive behavior, and others move away. Those 

who do not participate in disorder but stay to watch 

can provide tacit or open support for those engaged in 

destructive behaviors.16 This helps to sustain the behavior 

of the violent minority, while making it difficult for police 

to remove those causing the disruption and to disperse the 

gathering. 
The Problem of Student Party Rots 9 

The Role of Alcohol in Student Party Riots 

There is a large and growing body of research that tells 

us there is a strong correlation between alcohol use and 

violence and vandalism committed by university students. 

Research studies show that compared with nondrinking 

students, students who drink excessively have higher 

rates of injuries, assaults, academic problems, arrests, 

vandalism, and other health and social problems.17 Student 

surveys and police records have also found a correlation 

between student drinking and property destruction,18 

20 vandalism,19 and violent crime on campus. 

While quantitative research and anecdotal evidence may 

seem to suggest alcohol causes students to become 

violent and damage property,21 we must be careful when 

attempting to interpret these findings. Not all students 

who get drunk engage in such activities. Much like 

crowds do not drive people “mad,” alcohol does not drive 

students to commit crime. 

Drinking a lot of alcohol can, however, impair the 

judgment of people who may already be predisposed to 

reckless behavior. It has been established that excessive 

drinking can cause people to act overconfidently and 

carelessly, lose awareness of their surroundings, and react 

violently to people they perceive as offensive.22 This helps 

to explain why some students, while in the presence of 

police or other authority figures, continue to vandalize 

property, become hostile with others, or fight, and fail to 

disperse when asked to do so. 
10 Student Party Rots 

The Role of Police in Student Party Riots 

There is a general consensus among those who study 

gatherings regarding the importance of police action. 

Researchers and practitioners agree that the police 

usually play a significant role in forestalling or provoking 

disorder.23 Interviews with officers who have responded 

to riots suggest that police can escalate—or even initiate— 

conflict by treating all members of a disruptive gathering 

as equally dangerous.24 This guide presents techniques 

that emphasize the importance of distinguishing between 

individuals and subgroups within a gathering. 

Another important lesson learned from case studies 

of student party riots is that planning is key. Proactive 

efforts yield more consistent and desirable results than 

reactive enforcement methods. Implementing multiple 

interventions at each of the five stages of a gathering’s 

“life cycle” will help to prevent student misconduct and 

subsequent police use of force. 

Summary of Factors Contributing to Student 

Party Riots 

• Student gatherings are made up of five discernable stages. 

Each stage provides an opportunity for intervention 

efforts. 

• Gatherings or crowds do not drive people mad or make 

them lose control. Students who attend gatherings have 

a wide variety of personal agendas, and typically only a 

small minority will participate in disorderly behavior. 
The Problem of Student Party Rots 11 

• A flashpoint is the moment a gathering turns violent. 

A flashpoint is likely to occur after the initial reason 

for celebrating has passed, and immediate dispersal 

fails to begin. Those who stay to watch the disturbance 

often help to prolong the disorder, even without direct 

participation. 

• Alcohol consumption, especially of large quantities, 

can help to initiate or exacerbate disorder in student 

gatherings. 

• Some types of police action can prevent disorder, and 

other types may provoke it. Proactive responses are more 

likely to prevent a disturbance than reactive responses. 

Understandng Your Local Problem 13 

Understanding Your Local Problem 

The information provided above is only a generalized 

description of the problem of student party riots. You § For an example of how you can 

use an online university student 

must combine the basic facts with a more specific survey to gather information about 

student party riots, see the following understanding of your local problem. The specific 

characteristics of student party riots tend to vary greatly report: http://www.uc.edu/ 

criminaljustice/ProjectReports/ 

across jurisdictions. Analyzing your local problem carefully FINAL_CINCO_REPORT.pdf. 

will help you design a more effective response strategy. 

Asking the Right Questions 

Since large-scale student party riots are relatively rare, 

you may not be able to observe an event carefully before 

formulating your response strategy. You may even have to 

rely on the details of a single past event when conducting 

your analysis. 

The following are some critical questions you should ask 

in analyzing your particular problem of student party 

riots, 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. 

When performing your analysis, it can be helpful to 

consider how the information you collect fits into each 

of the five stages of student gatherings, so you can tailor 

your intervention strategies accordingly. You should try to 

gather as much information about each stage as possible 

and use multiple information sources. These may include 

interviews or surveys of students,§ community residents, 

local businesses, and police officers, as well as past media 

coverage, and police and university records. It may be 

helpful for police to partner with local universities or 

researchers to design, test, and administer any proposed 

surveys. 
14 Student Party Rots 

Initial Planning 

• Do police know about planned gatherings? How do 

they find out? Can you predict when and where the next 

gathering will take place, based on experience? 

• About how many people have attended past gatherings? 

• How do students communicate plans for gatherings? 

Through posters/fliers, e-mail, word of mouth? 

• Are students required to get a permit or meet specific 

requirements before they can hold a large gathering? 

• Have other activities been offered to students as an 

alternative to attending problem gatherings? Are there any 

other alternatives available? 

• Do gatherings take place on public or private property? 

Who manages or owns this property? 

• What location characteristics make them attractive for 

students? Are place managers absent from the locations? 

• What organizations are working to prevent student party 

riots? Are there any other agencies that could help in this 

effort? 

• What legal sanctions exist for riotous behavior in your 

jurisdiction? 

Preassembly Preparation 

• Why do students attend the gatherings? Why do some 

students not attend? How many plan to attend future 

events? 

• What do the overall gathering locations look like? Are 

the areas well kept? Are there visible code violations? 

Are there many parked cars? Are they open or confined 

spaces? Are there restrooms? Trash bins? 

• What role have the media played in the past? Can you use 

them to communicate with students and the community 

immediately before future events? 

• Where do students buy alcohol? Who is buying and who 

is selling the alcohol? 
Understandng Your Local Problem 15 

• Are there regulations that control alcohol distribution in 

your jurisdiction that can be used to monitor large student 

purchases? 

Assembling Process 

• What time do students start to arrive at gatherings? 

• What modes of transportation do students use to get to 

the event? How far do they have to travel? 

• If they drive, where do they park? 

• Has there been a visible police presence as people 

gathered in the past, or did the police arrive after the 

disturbance started? 

Assembled Gathering 

• Where exactly do the students gather on the property? In 

an open field? In the street? On the sidewalks? 

• What are the characteristics of the people who attend the 

events? Are they all local college students? If not, who 

are the other attendees, and where do they come from? Is 

there an even gender and racial distribution at the events? 

• What percentage of students drinks alcohol? How much 

do they drink? Are drugs used at the events? What types? 

• What types of alcohol are consumed at the gatherings? 

In what quantities? How is the alcohol served? In kegs? 

Bottles? Cups? 

• At about what time have the flashpoints occurred during 

past student gatherings? 

• Have the disturbances taken place at the same location as 

the original gatherings? 

• What do police, students, or local residents believe caused 

the flashpoints or encouraged some attendees to engage 

in disorder? 

• Is overcrowding a problem at the gatherings? Do space 

limitations contribute to pushing, irritation, disorderliness, 

or anonymity? 
16 Student Party Rots 

• Have any police interventions proved effective in 

preventing or reducing disorder or violence? Have any 

provoked a violent response? 

• Have rioting students targeted officers? How many 

officers have been injured? How many students or others 

have been injured? 

Dispersal Process 

• How long does it take for the entire gatherings to 

disperse? 

• What modes of transportation do attendees use to leave? 

Is drunken driving an issue? 

• How much damage has resulted from past events? What 

type of damage has occurred? 

• Have students or other attendees damaged property 

outside of the gathering locations as they walked to their 

cars or towards other modes of transportation? 

• How much money have damages cost the city, community, 

police, and/or university? 

• How many arrests, detentions, citations, or other official 

interventions have police made while dispersing people 

from past events? Has the university issued sanctions after 

the disturbances? If so, how many and what type? 

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.) 
Understandng Your Local Problem 17 

You should consider the possibility of displacing 

student parties to other sites, and you should consider 

the possibility that successful prevention at the primary 

location might prevent disruptive student parties at other § As you are relying on your best 

guesses regarding displacement locations (i.e., diffusion of crime prevention benefits).25

sites, it is unclear whether they 

The lack of systematic research into student party riots would become troublesome if 

makes it difficult to give precise advice regarding either left unaddressed. So unless they 

are already troublesome, they displacement or diffusion of benefits. However, there probably do not warrant costly 

are some rules of thumb that are generally useful. First, interventions. Simple interventions 

the most likely displacement sites will have characteristics may be sufficient to keep them from 

becoming major trouble spots. 

similar to the disturbance sites you are already examining. 

Look for locations that are already student party sites, 

though at a lower intensity. Potential displacement sites are 

unlikely to be located far from student concentrations, so 

the number of possible locations you need to investigate 

may be quite limited. You can monitor these sites to detect 

displacement. You should also consider low-intensity 

interventions designed to limit displacement.§ 

Diffusion of crime prevention benefits can occur if 

preventing a disturbance also suppresses other possible 

disturbances. For example, alcohol controls designed 

to prevent one disturbance might also make it difficult 

for smaller drinking parties to grow. University controls 

and police enforcement can influence students to keep 

parties small and relatively discreet. Consultations with 

landlord groups can sensitize landlords throughout the 

university student community to get more involved in 

heading off disruptive parties. So while you should focus 

on preventing specific disturbances, you should also take 

advantage of potential prevention multipliers. 
1 Student Party Rots 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to student party riots: 

• reduced number and severity of offenses committed 

during student gatherings 

• reduced number of student/police confrontations 

• reduced amount of property damage 

• reduced number and severity of injuries 

• reduced number of calls to the police concerning student 

disturbances 

• improved perceptions of police actions by students and 

the community 

• improved perceptions of university involvement by 

students and the community. 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 19 

Responses to the Problem of 

Student Party Riots 

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 

for addressing your particular problem of student party 

riots. 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, especially students 

and university officials. Appendix B contains a strategic 

planning form that can be used to help structure the 

selection of your responses. 

General Considerations for an Effective Action Plan 

Each of the following specific response strategies has 

been used to prevent or substantially reduce harms 

associated with university student gatherings. However, 

none has been rigorously evaluated. This means we cannot 

yet reliably determine which strategies are most effective 

in particular circumstances. We do know that successful 

prevention has consistently required a combination of 

multiple strategies. 
20 Student Party Rots 

You should consider various points of intervention and 

methods of reducing opportunities for misconduct when 

you decide what combination of strategies to use in your 

§ To learn more about techniques for community. As discussed earlier, gatherings consist of five 

opportunity reduction, see Clarke and stages (see earlier figure). Each stage presents us with an 

Eck (2005). opportunity for intervention. Within each stage, you can 

consider five methods of reducing opportunities for illegal 

behavior (see Appendix B). You can prevent or reduce 

harm by increasing the effort and risk involved, and 

reducing the rewards gained, in committing an offense. In 

addition, you should reduce factors that provoke people 

to commit crimes, as well as remove excuses that students 

can use to justify their criminal behaviors.§ 

A comprehensive strategy consists of three key 

components: 

1. implementing interventions at each of the five 

gathering stages 

2. using a variety of opportunity-reduction techniques at 

each stage 

3. developing multiple partnerships, particularly with 

the university. 

After any intervention to prevent a disturbance, you 

should convene an after-action meeting that includes 

representatives of the police, the university, and other 

involved organizations. This will allow you to exchange 

information about what worked and what didn’t. You can 

use this meeting to develop an after-action report. The 

after-action report should include qualitative information 

gathered in the meeting, as well as quantitative measures 

of disturbance-prevention outcomes. In addition, you 

can use the strategic planning framework presented in 

Appendix B to structure a process evaluation and identify 

the most effective interventions. You should then use this 

information to improve your jurisdiction’s strategy for 

dealing with student party riots. 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 21 

Responses to Student Party Riots 

Each strategy is presented under the intervention point 

at which it is most likely to be applied. As you tailor 

your specific response, you might find that your strategy 

is best applied at a different stage, or that the length of 

intervention will expand beyond the implementation stage. 

Initial Planning 

1. Creating a multiagency task force. A critical part of 

any planned response to student party riots involves 

the building of partnerships with other community 

stakeholders.26 This allows police to access a greater range 

of resources and expertise. You are likely to find that 

your university has already established partnerships with 

various community groups, thus reducing the time it will 

take to put the task force together. 

A major partner must be the university or college the 

students attend. University officials’ reactions are likely 

to vary from being extremely cooperative to denying 

that they can do anything to prevent the disturbances. 

Like many other organizations that have a stake in a 

problem, universities sometimes assert that the problem 

is solely that of the police, that they lack the authority to 

do anything, or that the participants are not associated 

with them. This is especially likely if the problem is new. 

Universities may also feign cooperation, but do nothing 

substantive. 

Also, universities are best considered as clusters of

communities rather than hierarchical organizations. 

So even if you obtain cooperation from one group of

university officials, this does not necessarily mean all other 

university groups will be supportive or will not oppose 
22 Student Party Rots 

§ The city of Blacksburg, Virginia 

has adopted a mass-gathering 

ordinance that requires applicants 

to get a permit in advance. 

Applicants must register soundamplifying equipment, provide 

the name of the property owner 

for the location of the event, list 

the number of people expected to 

attend, and demonstrate plans for 

toilet facilities, noise mitigation, 

and cleanup. They must also 

provide evidence that there will be 

a sufficient number of monitors 

to help resolve problems that may 

arise. In Ames, Iowa, the municipal 

code contains a section titled “Beer 

Keg Party Regulations.” A permit 

must be obtained if more than one 

beer-keg tapper is to be used at or 

about the same time. The permit 

holder is responsible for cleaning 

up trash, maintaining sanitary 

conditions, and making sure the 

event is clearly marked and roped 

off (De Raismes, Gordon, and 

Amundson 2001). 

engaging in efforts to prevent another disturbance. 

However, universities are vulnerable to the negative 

publicity student party riots can bring, and officials will 

likely be pressured to do something to prevent a future 

disturbance. 

Partnering with the university and others will help to 

clarify roles and responsibilities27 and, in turn, help 

ensure a more effective implementation of proposed 

interventions. A student disturbance task force may 

include members from: 

• the local police 

• the university police or security 

• the university administration 

• student groups 

• local residents and businesses 

• landlords 

• the university faculty or researchers. 

2. Requiring students to get a permit to host a 

gathering. Officials can impose pre-defined restrictions 

on gatherings by requiring students to get a permit before 

hosting a gathering for more than a few friends. Many 

cities have passed ordinances to help control and oversee 

the details of large gatherings, ordinances that can easily 

be extended to cover student gatherings (if they do not 

already).§ 

Requiring permits serves at least two important purposes. 

First, it notifies authorities of large gatherings in 

advance,28 which eliminates the unwanted element of 

surprise. Second, the pre-defined conditions can be used 

to limit the number of attendees,29 control the availability 

of alcohol, and establish minimum standards that must 

be met before people can assemble. These restrictions 

and standards can serve to lessen the likelihood of a 

disturbance, as well as hold the hosts responsible for any 

negative outcomes. 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 23 

3. Assigning police officers as advisors to hosts of 

gatherings. The population of a university community 

tends to be dynamic. Estimates vary, but it is not 

uncommon for a university population to replace 

itself by 25 percent each academic year.30 This makes 

communication about existing rules and regulations 

challenging for police, university officials, and residents. 

Some police departments offer the “Adopt-a-Cop” 

program to fraternities, sororities, and other student 

groups.

31 This program allows students to adopt a police 

officer who serves as a mentor and advisor and can also 

help keep them informed of legal requirements. This 

program can be extended to individual students or smaller 

groups of students who plan to host a large gathering. 

The officer can help ensure that the student or students 

meet minimum city and university requirements for 

such an event. This interaction also has the potential to 

improve student-police relations as well as communitypolice relations.

4. Increasing the consequences of rioting, and 

educating students about the penalties. Increasing 

the consequences and publicizing the penalties for 

disturbances is widely used as a deterrent to prevent 

student rioting. Police and universities have found several 

ways to increase penalties and to alert students of these 

changes. 

Police in Minnesota notify the Winona State University 

if they arrest a student, so that the university may take 

further disciplinary action.32 At the University of New 

Hampshire, students are warned that a letter will be 

sent to the parents of each person under the age of 21 

who is arrested by the Durham Police.33 New students 

receive door hangers in residence halls to remind them of
24 Student Party Rots 

§ Ohio House Bill 95 states that any 

student of a state-funded college 

or university who is convicted of 

riot-related offenses will be ineligible 

to receive any student financial 

aid from state funds for two years 

from the time they applied for the 

assistance. Riot-related offenses 

include rioting, failure to disperse, 

disorderly conduct, and misconduct 

at the scene of an emergency. 

alcohol laws and policies at the University of Northern 

Colorado.34 Students at the University of Cincinnati 

have previously received e-mails explaining the penalties 

for riot-related offenses.§ Residents in the community 

surrounding the university have also received door 

hangers with this information before an expected Cinco 

de Mayo student street party. Other universities have 

informed students of the monetary costs of vandalism by 

posting signs around campus.35 

Police may want to advocate the establishment of 

penalties, if they do not already exist. This can be done 

at either the state or local level of government. Police 

may also want to work to improve communication with 

the local university so that students who are arrested for 

rioting will also be subject to university penalties. 

WCPO-TV/WCPO.com 

New students receive door hangers in residence halls 

to remind them of alcohol laws and policies at the 

University of Northern Colorado. 

5. Partnering with the media to influence student 

and community perceptions. Media coverage of 

student party riots is often viewed as negative, especially 

when the coverage focuses on the damage done 

and creates unwanted political pressures. However, 

proactive partnerships with the media can help police 

to influence student and community perceptions of 

an event. Communication with the media can create a 

positive image of an event for the community36 and help 

discourage trouble-seeking students from attending. 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 25 

The Lincoln Police Department has kept local Nebraska 

media informed of police presence at parties to increase 

students’ perception of risk.37 They claim that their media 

strategy has been vital to maximizing the deterrent effect 

of a small number of student arrests. 

In addition to local newspapers and television news 

channels, student newspapers and university newsletters 

can also provide forums for communicating with students 

and the surrounding community. 

6. Working with landlords to ensure renter compliance. 

Student party riots have occurred in locations where 

students rent a high percentage of houses or apartments. 

In these instances, landlords may be absent and unaware 

of their tenants’ actions. Police in one community 

found that most landlords were willing to help deal 

with disorderly students, but that communication was a 

problem.38 Police may find it useful to find a way to let 

landlords know what is occurring on their properties. 

If landlords are unwilling to help police, legal 

requirements can be used to force landlords to 

remove problematic tenants. Winona State University 

implemented several programs to combat alcohol-related 

problems.39 One is the Landlord Tenant Ordinance, 

which requires landlords to evict occupants after three 

violations. If landlords fail to comply, they face a fine and 

suspension of their rental license. 

7. Controlling alcohol distribution. Attempts to limit 

alcohol distribution can reduce student drunken driving 

and underage drinking. They may also reduce how 

physically and psychologically impaired those who usually 

drink a lot at student gatherings become. Controls on 

alcohol purchases have been established by working with 

vendors, targeting underage students, establishing city 

ordinances, and limiting the number of liquor outlets. 
26 Student Party Rots 

Police can provide free false-identification training for 

vendors and their employees to help reduce illegal sales to 

underage students.40,§ Police can also work with vendors 

§ See Underage Drinking, guide No. to identify minors using fake IDs.41 This can help police 27 in this series, for further guidance 

on controlling this aspect of the determine the source of the IDs and increase the risk of 

problem. apprehension for students who attempt to use them. In 

addition, police may conduct saturation patrols at known 

underage drinking parties to target those who supply 

alcohol to minors.42 

In Minnesota, the Winona City Council passed an 

ordinance to control and track keg distribution.43 A person 

must first get council approval if he or she wishes to have 

two or more half-barrels of beer in a residentially zoned 

area. Liquor retailers must also keep detailed records of all 

barrels sold. 

Research shows that student party riots around universities 

can be reduced by limiting the presence of alcohol outlets 

and advertisements.44 The number of stores that sell 

alcoholic beverages in an area has been correlated with 

heavy drinking, frequent drinking, and drinking-related 

problems in student populations.45 Some cities have placed 

moratoriums on new liquor establishments to control 

distribution of alcohol within college communities.46 

It should also be noted that there is a trade-off between 

the costs and benefits of beer kegs versus bottled or 

canned beer. Kegs are less expensive and allow students 

to drink a lot. However, using paper or plastic cups to 

drink from kegs can be safer than drinking from bottles 

or cans, which people can use as weapons or projectiles. 

Broken glass on the street can also produce unintended 

injuries. Since bottled and canned beer is more expensive, 

students may not drink as much. On the other hand, keg 

distribution tends to be more centralized and therefore 

easier to monitor than the sale of bottled or canned beer. 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 27 

8. Providing alternative entertainment. Providing 

alternative attractions to large gatherings can reduce the 

number of people and subsequent problems associated 

with an event. In La Crosse, Wisconsin, a campus dance 

and volleyball tournament were arranged as alternative 

attractions to an annual canoe race that previously 

resulted in 150 arrests or more each year.47 The number 

of arrests at the canoe race dropped to 14 as a result 

of these and other interventions. Other universities 

offer more routine alternatives to drinking parties. The 

“LateNight PennState” program provides a variety of 

alcohol-free activities during prime-time social hours (9 

p.m. to 2 a.m.).48 The University of Northern Colorado 

publishes a list of alcohol-free events on campus for 

students living in resident halls.49

Preassembly Preparation 

9. Asking students to participate in “student patrols.” 

To further extend the responsibility of party hosts, 

police can ask organizers to help form “peer” security 

groups within the gathering.50 Similar to student patrols 

colleges train and use to patrol campus events,51 student 

organizers can help to maintain order at large gatherings 

and reduce the need for intervention by authorities.

University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign 

http://www.dps.vivc.edu

Student patrols can help maintain order at large 

gatherings and reduce the need for intervention 

by authorities. 
2 Student Party Rots 

§ While working with the Redlands, 

California, police, Madensen 

observed several neighborhood 

cleanups to remove trash and 

discarded furniture, thus preventing 

conditions that could lead to fires, 

injuries, or death. While a freshman 

at the University of Michigan in 

the early 1970s, Eck was told that 

the university had replaced loose 

bricks used around sidewalk tree 

plantings with materials that students 

could not hurl at police. Students in 

Plattsburgh, New York, participate in 

a dorm-room game called “furniture 

out the window.” As the name 

suggests, drunken students compete 

by throwing unsecured furniture 

out of dorm windows. This results 

in costly property damage and can 

cause serious injury (Epstein and 

Finn 1997). 

10. “Sanitizing” the gathering location. Any liftable object 

can become a weapon. Anything that is flammable may be 

set on fire. Therefore, police may want to coordinate their 

efforts with the city sanitation department to “sanitize” 

a gathering location shortly before the event.§ A general 

street cleanup should be conducted both before and after 

the event, removing bottles and other debris that might be 

used as weapons.52 Sanitation should include the removal 

of dumpsters and trash cans that can be set on fire and 

thrown, tipped over, smashed into patrol cars, or used to 

block roads. Wooden park benches that can be stacked 

and burned should also be secured.53 

Police can also step up code enforcement on private 

properties to help remove debris. Life-safety code 

inspections by fire department personnel can help in 

identifying and reducing hazardous conditions.54 

11. Monitoring advertisements for gatherings. Universities 

that require students to get approval before posting fliers 

on campus

55 are in a position to notify police if a large 

gathering is being advertised. By tracking this information, 

police and university officials will have advance notice 

of planned gatherings. They will also have information 

concerning the identity of the organizers, location, time, 

and, possibly, activities planned for the gathering. 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 29 

12. Limiting parking. Limiting parking at or near a 

gathering can help to reduce the amount of damage 

should a disturbance occur.56 Forcing people to park 

some distance away increases the effort needed to get 

to the event. This may discourage some people from 

attending. No-parking zones at the event location 

reduce the likelihood that cars will be flipped, burned, 

or vandalized by members of the gathering. In addition, 

efforts to disperse the gathering in case of emergency will 

not be hampered by traffic jams or accidents caused by a 

panic. 

Wendy Chao/www.wendychao.com 

No-parking zones at event locations can reduce the 

likelihood that cars will be flipped, burned or vandalized 

such as occurred in Boston after the 2004 World Series. 

13. Closing or controlling traffic flow. Police should 

consider closing certain streets to traffic. This will create 

more space for pedestrians57 and prevent cars from 

passing through the gathering. It will also serve to prevent 

students from bringing in large signs or other items that 

they can burn or use as weapons.58 
30 Student Party Rots 

Assembling Process 

14. Providing transportation to the event. Free bus 

transportation to the event from a centralized location 

can help facilitate an orderly gathering.59 This can reduce 

the number of cars at the event location (see Response 

12 above). Providing transportation allows authorities 

to control the time of arrival and the number of 

people arriving at once. This can also prevent individual 

students from bringing in large quantities of alcohol. The 

neighboring university, local school system, or other city 

agencies that traditionally provide transit services may be 

willing to donate buses and drivers. 

15. Establishing a positive police presence. It is important 

that police do not provoke a disturbance by appearing 

overly aggressive or hostile toward members of the 

gathering. In an effort to change their emphasis from 

reactive to proactive policing, the Metropolitan Toronto 

Police now greet people as they arrive at gatherings.60 The 

greeting serves to initiate conversations and humanize 

both police and gathering members. This initial contact 

makes attendees and police more receptive to later 

communication and reduces the anonymity of both. 

16. Establishing and controlling gathering perimeters. 

Establishing a boundary as soon as people begin to 

assemble can help in maintaining control of the event 

until dispersal, and can prevent any disturbance from 

spreading to the surrounding areas. Once a disturbance 

begins, it typically moves quickly and can engulf large 

areas as it escalates. To gain control of a disturbance, 

it is essential that perimeters are in place to restrict 

outsiders’ ability to engage in violence and destruction.61 

To establish perimeters, police should look for and use 

natural barriers. Natural and man-made barriers allow the 

police to do more with fewer officers.62 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 31 

Assembled Gathering 

17. Using alternative deployment methods. Many police 

departments use alternative officer-deployment methods 

when policing large gatherings. If available, mounted 

patrols have particular advantages over traditional car or 

foot patrols. For example, police can use horses to create a 

wedge in a gathering, after which foot officers can follow.63 

People at the gathering can more easily see hand directions 

given by mounted officers. Furthermore, it is reported that 

most people view police horses positively, and this may 

improve relations between gathering members and those 

policing the event.64 

Bike patrol also has several advantages. Police officials have 

argued that bikes are more effective in policing gatherings 

than foot or car patrols due to their speed and mobility.65 

Bike officers can perform static and moving maneuvers to 

create visibility, barriers, and openings in the gathering.§ 

In general, bike patrols are more effective in low-density 

gatherings that cover large areas, while foot patrols are 

most effective in dealing with high-density gatherings in 

smaller areas. 

Small groups of officers—typically six to eight—have been 

used to effectively manage large gatherings. These small 

teams are large enough to defend themselves, but are not 

large enough to instigate a disruption.66 The Lincoln Police 

Department deploys a single group of these officers, called 

a Party Patrol, on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday nights 

during the academic year to locate and respond to large 

student parties.67 

§ Static maneuvers use bikes in a 

small geographic area. “Post” and 

“barrier” are the two most common 

assignments. In post, the bike unit 

maintains a high-visibility presence 

in a particular location (e.g., a single 

corner or entire city block). In 

barrier, officers use bikes to block or 

fence off a street, entryway, or other 

large area by positioning them wheel 

to wheel. They can then become 

a moving tactic called “mobile 

fencing,” as officers lift the bikes to 

their chest and press them toward 

the gathering. Moving maneuvers use 

bikes in conducting standard crowdcontrol movements: columns, lines, 

diagonals, wedges, and crossbow 

bring officers to a particular point in 

the gathering to remove a hazard or 

make an arrest (Goetz 2002). 
32 Student Party Rots 

18. Using visual deterrents to inhibit misconduct. 

Police can use visual deterrents to warn students that 

officers will act if they engage in disruptive behavior. 

For example, police may position a highly recognizable 

“prison bus” to act as a deterrent to those less likely to 

engage in a disturbance.68 Police officers distributing 

brochures listing the penalties for riotous behavior may 

also have a deterrent effect.69 Too many visual deterrents, 

however, may appear hostile to some in the gathering, and 

instigate a disturbance. Others may become desensitized 

to the overuse of such visuals. 

19. Videotaping the assembled gathering. Anything that 

can reduce the anonymity of people at a gathering can 

help to undermine the momentum of those who wish 

to start trouble.70 Students may be less likely to feel as 

though their actions and identities will go undetected by 

authorities if the event is being recorded. If a disturbance 

does occur, police can later use video taken of the 

gathering to identify those who instigated and participated 

in the disturbance. 

20. Strategically locating the media around the 

gathering. Students are often drawn to news crews in 

hopes of appearing on television or being pictured or 

quoted in a magazine or newspaper. Police can use the 

media to help control gatherings by placing them away 

from the densest areas of the event.71 Placing cameras 

at different points can spread the students more evenly 

throughout the area and serve to break the cohesion of 

large groups. 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 33 

21. Recognizing and immediately removing factors that 

could lead to a flashpoint. The major objective for 

police at large gatherings is to keep people moving and in 

small groups.72 A mobile unit should make an evaluation 

if any suspicious activity is observed, if a single subgroup 

begins to increase significantly in size, or if there is a 

significant lull in activity that is not followed by student 

dispersal. 

Police should identify, isolate, and remove aggressive 

students as soon as possible, without disrupting the rest 

of the event.73 Police do not want to instigate violence 

with their presence or actions. Therefore, they should 

use only subtle “shows of force” to deal with problem 

individuals, and take them away without antagonizing 

the rest of the gathering members.74 Police may want to 

establish observation posts above the gathering, and use 

radios to direct small arrest teams on the ground.

Intervening only to extract problem individuals and 

remove anything that threatens to become a focal point 

allows the celebration to continue. Without needing to 

respond to major acts of violence or vandalism, police 

can allow the people in the gathering to essentially wear 

themselves out and lose interest in staying at the event.75

22. Developing a standard operating procedure in 

case of a disturbance. Although the focus should 

be on preventative efforts, police are not always aware 

of gatherings until someone reports a disturbance. 

Unfortunately, even the best strategies can sometimes 

fail to prevent a disturbance. For this reason, police must 

not forget to develop a well-planned standard operating 

procedure for responding in case one occurs.76 While a 
34 Student Party Rots 

detailed review of the tactics and procedures police use 

to quell a large disturbance is beyond the scope of this 

guide, you can find additional materials on the National 

Criminal Justice Reference Service web site.§ 

§ The web address for the National 

Criminal Justice Reference Service 

is http://www.ncjrs.org. You can Dispersal Process find documents related to crowd and 

riot control by searching the library 

abstracts contained in the site. 23. Providing transportation from the event. Providing 

transportation from the event to dorms or some other 

centralized location allows police to initiate and control 

the dispersal process.77 This can reduce loitering and 

students’ ability to vandalize other students’ vehicles. It 

also may reduce student drunken driving. 

If providing transportation is not a viable option, you 

should check on the availability of public transportation. 

If the event ends after public transportation has stopped, 

then problems may arise. Police should partner with 

the local transit authorities to determine if public 

transportation hours can be extended for that day or 

evening. 

24. Facilitating orderly dispersal. Recognizing when to 

begin to facilitate dispersal of a gathering is crucial. One 

indication that a gathering is ready for dispersal is when 

people begin to break into smaller conversational groups. 

At this point the gathering has lost its cohesion, and 

police should begin to ask people to leave. Individuals 

will be more receptive to this command because the 

anonymity of the larger group no longer protects them.78 

If a disturbance breaks out during the dispersal process, 

a tactical deployment of officers should focus on the 

element involved in criminal activity. Other uniformed 

officers should simultaneously help bystanders and other 

nonparticipating individuals to leave the area.79 
Responses to the Problem of Student Party Rots 35 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

25. Developing reactive responses only. The importance 

of developing multiple proactive strategies has 

been stressed throughout this guide. Increasing the 

effectiveness of a preplanned standard operating 

procedure in case of an actual disturbance is important. 

This alone, however, is unlikely to prevent a disturbance. 

This is especially true if your jurisdiction has experienced 

more than a single student party riot. If many of these 

events have occurred over several years, students may feel 

more committed to the event, and less receptive to official 

intervention. Sanctions may also fail to prove a strong 

deterrent. Working with multiple partners, including 

students, to develop proactive interventions holds the 

greatest potential for reducing the likelihood of another 

disturbance. 

26. Banning all student parties. A zero-tolerance approach 

to student parties may not produce the intended 

outcome. There are civil liberty issues associated with this 

approach, especially if the parties occur off campus. Also, 

harassing students who throw nondestructive parties can 

strain student-police relations. Students may engage in 

retaliatory or destructive behaviors if they perceive police 

actions as unjust. 

27. Relying on parental control. Many universities have 

implemented a “parental notification” system that informs 

parents of student misbehavior.80 Some parents may pay 

for their son or daughter’s tuition and/or living expenses. 

For these students, parental notification may provide a 

strong deterrent to engaging in student party riots. This 

strategy is likely to be less effective, however, for students 

who live on their own and are financially independent. 

There can also be confidentiality issues associated with 

sharing personal information about individuals who are 

over 18 with anyone, including their parents. 

Appendx A: Summary of Responses to Student Party Rots 37 

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to 

Student Party Riots 

The table below summarizes the responses to student 

party riots, 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 

Initial Planning 

1. 21 Creating a 

multiagency 

task force 

Brings 

together a 

variety of 

community 

resources, 

and clarifies 

the roles and 

responsibilities 

of the groups 

involved 

...there is 

community or city 

pressure to prevent 

disturbances, so that 

more organizations 

and agencies will 

be willing to assist 

police 

Some agencies may be 

reluctant to get involved, 

especially if there has 

been negative press 

concerning previous 

efforts to control 

disturbances 

2. 22 Requiring 

students to 

get a permit 

to host a 

gathering 

Notifies 

authorities of 

a gathering in 

advance, sets 

restrictions 

and standards 

...a city ordinance 

already requires such 

applications, and 

this requirement 

can easily be 

communicated 

The city council may have 

to pass new legislation 

for the to students and 

event, and 

holds hosts 

responsible for 

meeting basic 

requirements 

the surrounding 

community 
3 Student Party Rots 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

3. 23 Assigning 

police officers 

as advisors 

to hosts of 

gatherings 

Officers help 

students to 

meet legal 

requirements 

for hosting a 

gathering 

...there is an 

available campus or 

community officer 

with whom the 

students are familiar 

Students hosting the 

gathering may not be 

willing to work with 

police 

4. 23 Increasing the 

consequences 

of rioting, 

and educating 

students about 

the penalties 

Deters 

students from 

engaging in 

destructive 

behaviors at 

gatherings 

...laws and sanctions 

prohibiting rioting 

are in place, and 

students perceive 

these penalties as a 

credible threat for 

misbehaving 

Penalties must already 

exist and be severe 

enough to offset the 

perceived benefits of 

engaging in a disturbance 

5. 24 Partnering 

with the media 

to influence 

student and 

community 

perceptions 

Increases 

positive 

perceptions of 

the event and 

perceptions of 

risk for those 

interested 

...the police can 

or have established 

positive relationships 

with the media 

Interventions must 

be developed and 

implementation must 

begin before the media 

can focus on these 

strategies 

in causing a 

disturbance 

6. 25 Working with 

landlords to 

ensure renter 

Creates an 

additional 

element 

...police have the 

full cooperation of 

landlords 

Without the backing of 

legal requirements, it may 

be difficult to obtain the 

compliance of risk for 

students who 

host disruptive 

gatherings 

on rented 

assistance of absentee or 

uncooperative landlords 

property; 

encourages 

landlord 

participation 

in preventing 

disruptive 

gatherings 
Appendx A: Summary of Responses to Student Party Rots 39 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

7. 25 Controlling 

alcohol 

distribution 

Reduces 

student 

alcohol 

consumption, 

underage 

drinking and 

purchasing 

of alcohol, 

and drunken 

...a multifaceted 

approach is used 

that targets vendors, 

students, local laws, 

and liquor outlets 

Some strategies are easier 

to implement than others; 

limiting the number of 

alcohol outlets may take 

many years, require local 

government cooperation, 

and create significant 

opposition 

driving 

8. 27 Providing 

alternative 

Reduces 

the number 

...the alternatives 

are attractive 

University-sponsored 

events often do not serve 

entertainment of people 

at a single 

gathering; 

provides other 

recreation 

to college-aged 

individuals 

alcohol due to liabilities; 

this may decrease general 

interest in the event if 

alcohol is being offered 

elsewhere 

opportunities 

in a more 

controlled 

setting 

Preassembly Preparation 

9. 27 Asking 

students to 

participate 

in “student 

patrols” 

Allows peers 

to “police” 

themselves; 

reduces the 

need for official 

interventions 

...those in charge 

of security are seen 

as authority figures, 

and other attendees 

respect this authority 

This must involve a tightly 

coordinated effort between 

the student patrols and 

police in case of a violent 

outbreak or emergency; 

students who patrol should 

not be asked to engage in 

dangerous situations 

10. 28 “Sanitizing” 

the gathering 

location 

Removes 

objects that can 

become a safety 

hazard 

...multiple agencies 

help police to 

identify and remove 

hazardous materials 

To prevent new debris from 

collecting at the location, 

final cleanup should not be 

organized too far in advance 

of the event 
40 Student Party Rots 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

11. 28 Monitoring 

advertisements 

for gatherings 

Notifies 

authorities of 

large gatherings 

in advance 

...there is clear 

and immediate 

communication 

between university 

officials and police 

once fliers are posted 

Students may continue to 

post fliers without proper 

approval; officials must 

have a monitoring system in 

place to track and remove 

this material 

12. 29 Limiting 

parking 

Increases the 

effort needed to 

attend; removes 

targets that may 

be vandalized; 

clears exits 

in case of an 

emergency 

...police enforce noparking at the event 

location and in the 

immediate adjacent 

areas 

Opposition may arise if 

residents do not have access 

to off-street parking; police 

should also anticipate where 

students will park instead, 

to prepare for possible 

traffic problems or citizen 

complaints 

13. 29 Closing or 

controlling 

traffic flow 

Reduces 

pedestrian 

injuries; 

prevents 

students 

from bringing 

in large, 

dangerous 

objects 

...the measures do 

not significantly 

disrupt busy traffic 

routes during peak 

traffic hours 

Closing major 

thoroughfares will require 

planning and coordination 

with the media to alert 

the public of alternative 

traffic routes 

Assembly Process 

14. 30 Providing 

transportation 

to the event 

Facilitates 

orderly arrival; 

reduces the 

number of 

cars at the 

event; prevents 

attendees from 

...the transportation 

leaves from an easily 

accessible, centralized 

location 

Police need to consider 

the number of buses or 

vans needed to transport 

the expected number of 

attendees, and the liability 

associated with providing 

this service 

bringing large 

quantities of 

alcohol to the 

event 

15. 30 Establishing a 

positive police 

presence 

Reduces 

anonymity 

and facilitates 

communication 

...police presence is 

established early on, 

preferably as people 

begin to assemble 

Hosts and attendees may 

view any police presence as 

negative 
Appendx A: Summary of Responses to Student Party Rots 41 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

16. 30 Establishing 

and controlling 

gathering 

perimeters 

Prevents the 

gathering from 

spreading too 

far into the 

surrounding 

areas 

...natural barriers are 

used 

The size of the most 

appropriate perimeter may 

be difficult to determine 

before full assembly; police 

should make necessary 

adjustments as people arrive 

and begin to disperse 

Assembled Gathering 

17. 31 Using 

alternative 

deployment 

methods 

Gives officers 

a tactical 

advantage over 

car patrols 

...police use more 

than one deployment 

method 

Police cars are still likely to 

be needed, but should not 

be the principle method 

of deployment within the 

gathering 

18. 32 Using visual 

deterrents 

to inhibit 

misconduct 

Deters 

attendees by 

reminding 

them of the 

...all members of the 

gathering can see the 

“deterrent” 

Police must maintain 

an appropriate level 

of deterrence, without 

appearing overly hostile 

consequences 

of rioting 

19. 32 Videotaping 

the assembled 

gathering 

Reduces 

anonymity; 

assists in 

subsequent 

investigationss 

...attendees are aware 

they are being filmed 

Civil liberty issues may be 

called into question if the 

gathering is held on private 

property 

20. 32 Strategically 

locating the 

media around 

the gathering 

Breaks the 

cohesion of 

large groups 

...the media are 

spread evenly 

throughout the area 

The media may want 

access to film from 

various locations and fail 

to cooperate with police 

requests 

21. 33 Recognizing 

and 

immediately 

removing 

factors that 

Removes the 

impetus that 

causes a violent 

outbreak 

...there are enough 

police to adequately 

observe the entire 

gathering’s activities 

Police may contribute 

to a flash point if they 

unnecessarily harass people 

who are not engaged in 

destructive behavior 

could lead to a 

flashpoint 
42 Student Party Rots 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

22. 33 Developing 

a standard 

operating 

procedure 

in case of a 

disturbance 

Contains and 

stops violence 

after it begins 

...police use force 

only when necessary 

and target only those 

individuals engaged in 

disruptive behavior 

Reactive strategies, if 

perceived as unjust, can 

serve to instigate rather than 

inhibit violent activity 

Dispersal Process 

23. 34 Providing 

transportation 

from the event 

Controls 

dispersal; 

reduces 

drunken driving 

...people are returned 

as soon as possible, 

without having to 

wait too long in a 

crowded place for 

transportation 

If too many people are 

dropped off at the same 

place at the same time, a 

disturbance may occur at 

this secondary location 

24. 34 Facilitating 

orderly 

dispersal 

Breaks up 

the gathering 

before a 

disturbance 

begins 

...police wait until 

people break into 

smaller groups 

Shutting down the event 

too early may lead some 

people to resist police 

authority and possibly rebel 

by vandalizing property or 

attacking officers 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

25. 35 Developing 

reactive 

responses only 

Suppresses a 

disturbance 

once it begins 

These do little to prevent 

disturbances, and may even 

instigate them 

26. 35 Banning all 

student parties 

Prohibits 

alcohol-related 

gatherings at 

venues where 

a ban can be 

enforced 

...there are no easy 

alternative locations 

where the ban cannot 

be enforced 

There are civil liberty issues 

associated with this tactic, 

and students may refuse to 

comply, particularly those 

living off-campus 

27. 35 Relying on 

parental 

control 

Deters students 

through 

parental 

informal social 

control 

...students still live 

with their parents 

or rely on them for 

financial support 

Sharing information with 

parents of individuals over 

18 may violate privacy laws 
Appendx B: Strategc Plannng Framework for Preventng Student Party Rots 43 

Appendix B: Strategic Planning 

Framework for Preventing Student 

Party Riots	 § For more information on Clarke’s 

situational prevention techniques, see the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing A comprehensive strategy should address the five stages website at http://popcenter.org. of a student gathering presented earlier (see figure). 

It should also incorporate Ronald Clarke’s techniques 

of situational prevention. These techniques fall under 

five general types of opportunity-reduction: increase the 

effort needed to commit an offense, increase the risk of 

detection, reduce the rewards gained from committing 

crime, reduce factors that can provoke a criminal response, 

and remove excuses justifying illegal behavior.§ The five 

gathering stages and five opportunity-reduction types can 

be combined to produce a strategic planning framework 

for preventing student party riots. Using this framework 

to organize and select your interventions will allow you to 

determine whether you have considered all intervention 

points (gathering stages) and opportunity-reduction types. 

The following form provides an example of how you 

can use this strategic planning framework to develop a 

comprehensive strategy. It is not necessary to fill each cell 

with an intervention to create an effective action plan. 

Instead, using this table to classify your strategies will 

allow you to see whether there are opportunity-reduction 

types (rows) you have not considered, and whether you 

are concentrating too much or too little of your effort 

at a single intervention stage (columns). At minimum, a 

comprehensive strategy addresses each of the five stages. 

You should use at least two different types of responses at 

each stage to increase your likelihood of success. 
44 Student Party Rots 

As you can see, the example provided for addressing 

the student riot at Riverside Drive and 13th Street is 

weakest at stages three (assembling process) and four 

(assembled gathering). Two interventions should be used 

at each stage; however, no interventions are planned for 

the assembling process. Although two interventions are 

planned for the assembled gathering, both increase the 

risk of detection. Therefore, a different opportunityreduction-type intervention should be included at this 

stage. The planning assessment section at the bottom of 

the form allows a supervisor to quickly see whether the 

action plan meets the basic criteria for a comprehensive 

strategy. A blank planning form is provided for you 

to duplicate and use when formulating your particular 

strategy. 
Appendx B: Strategc Plannng Framework for Preventng Student Party Rots 45 

REDUCTION TYPE Initial 

Planning 

Preassembly Assembling 

Process 

Assembled 

Gathering 

Dispersal 

Process 

Increase •Enforce noparking transporation 

Increase 

Risk 

•Videotape 

methods 

•Sanitize 

location 

•Use student 

patrols 

•Use Adopt-adispersal 

2 3 0 2 2 

NUMBER OF TYPES 

USED 2 3 0 1 2 

No 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

types NUMBER OF 

TYPES USED

No 

Assembling Process 

Strategic Planning Framework for Preventing 

Student Party Riots 

Event: Student riot at Riverside Drive and 13th Street Date: April 1, 2006 

Classification of Interventions 

OPPORTUNITY- STAGE 1 STAGE 2 

Preparation 

STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5 

Effort 

•Require party 

permits 

•Provide 

gathering 

•Use alternative 

deployment 

Reduce Rewards 

Reduce Provocations 

Remove Excuses 

Cop program 

•Facilitate 

TOTAL 

INTERVENTIONS 

Planning Assessment* 

1. Have you used at least two interventions during each stage (see TOTAL INTERVENTIONS row)? 

 Yes 

2. If not, which stage or stages are lacking two interventions? 

3. Have you used at least two different opportunity-reduction during each stage (see 

 row)?

 Yes 

4. If not, which stage or stages are lacking multiple opportunity-reduction types?

 ________________________________________________________________________________ Assembling Process and Assembled Gathering 

*You should consider changes or additions to your overall action plan if you answered “no” to any of 

the above questions. 
46 Student Party Rots 

REDUCTION TYPE Initial 

Planning 

Preassembly Assembling 

Process 

Assembled 

Gathering 

Dispersal 

Process 

Increase Risk 

NUMBER OF TYPES 

USED 

OPPORTUNITY- STAGE 1 STAGE 2 

Preparation 

STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5 

Increase Effort 

Reduce Rewards 

Reduce Provocations 

Remove Excuses 

TOTAL 

INTERVENTIONS 

 Yes 

 Yes 

No 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

types NUMBER OF 

TYPES USED

No 

Strategic Planning Framework for Preventing 

Student Party Riots 

Event: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Classification of Interventions 

Planning Assessment* 

1. Have you used at least two interventions during each stage (see TOTAL INTERVENTIONS row)? 

2. If not, which stage or stages are lacking two interventions? 

3. Have you used at least two different opportunity-reduction during each stage (see 

 row)?

4. If not, which stage or stages are lacking multiple opportunity-reduction types?

 ________________________________________________________________________________ 

*You should consider changes or additions to your overall action plan if you answered “no” to any of 

the above questions. 
Endnotes 47 

Endnotes 

1. Police and other agencies and organizations prevented a 

Cinco de Mayo riot in 2004. 

2. Police arrested 519 people over the Halloween weekend in 

2004 (source: Wisconsin News Channel 3000 story aired 

Nov. 18, 2004: “How Much Did Halloween Riots Cost This 

Year?”). 

3. The Ohio State University (2003). 

4. Winegar (2001). 

5. University of Cincinnati Cinco de Mayo disturbances, for 

example. 

6. See Waddington, Jones, and Critcher’s (1989) list of basic 

propositions to understanding crowds. 

7. McPhail (1991). 

8. McPhail (1991); Schweingruber (2000). 

9. Michigan State University (2002). 

10. Oldham (2002). 

11. Fisher, Eck, and Madensen (2004). 

12. McPhail and Wohlstein (1983). 

13. Waddington, Jones, and Critcher (1989). 

14. Oldham (2002). 

15. For a more detailed explanation of crowd surges, see 

McPhail and Wohlstein (1986). 

16. Waddington, Jones, and Critcher (1989). 

17. National Institutes of Health (2002). 

18. Epstein and Finn (1997) (citing Bausell, Bausell, and Siegel 

1994). 

19. Epstein and Finn (1997) (citing Engs and Hanson 1994). 

20. Sullenberger (n.d.). 

21. Epstein and Finn (1997). 

22. Johnson (2004). 

23. Waddington, Jones, and Critcher (1989). 

24. Stott and Reicher (1998). 

25. Clarke and Weisburd (1994). 

26. Walsh (2003). 

27. Nichols (1997). 

28. Shanahan (1995). 
4 Student Party Rots 

29. Sampson and Scott (2000). 

30. Kurz (2001). 

31. Kurz (2001). 

32. Walski (2002). 

33. Kurz (2001). 

34. U.S. Department of Education (2002). 

35. Epstein and Finn (1997). 

36. Sampson and Scott (2000). 

37. Casady and Major (n.d.). 

38. Casady and Major (n.d.). 

39. Walski (2002). 

40. Kurz (2001). 

41. Sullenberger (n.d.). 

42. Sullenberger (n.d.). 

43. Walski (2002). 

44. Wechsler et al. (2002). 

45. Weitzman et al. (2003). 

46. Walski (2002). 

47. Sampson and Scott (2000). 

48. U.S. Department of Education (2002). 

49. U.S. Department of Education (2002). 

50. Harman (1995). 

51. Epstein and Finn (1997). 

52. Sampson and Scott (2000). 

53. Begert (1995). 

54. Kurz (2001). 

55. Walski (2002). 

56. Bjor, Knutsson, and Kuhlhorn (1992). 

57. Sampson and Scott (2000). 

58. Oldham (2002). 

59. Sampson and Scott (2000). 

60. Harman (1995). 

61. IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center (1992). 

62. Winegar (2001). 

63. Bjor, Knutsson, and Kuhlhorn (1992). 
Appendx A: Summary of Responses to Student Party Rots Endnotes 49 

64. 

65. 

66. 

67. 

68. 

69. 

70. 

71. 

72. 

73. 

74. 

75. 

76. 

77. 

78. 

79. 

80. 

Harman (1995).

Goetz (2002).

Oldham (2002). 

Casady and Major (n.d.).

Harman (1995).

Sampson and Scott (2000).

Winegar (2001); Sampson and Scott (2000

Oldham (2002).

Walsh (2003).

Winegar (2001).

Harman (1995).

Oldham (2002).

Winegar (2001).

Sampson and Scott (2000).

Oldham (2002).

Harman (1995).

U.S. Department of Education (2002). 

).

References 51 

References 

Begert, M. (1995). “Crowd Control Measures.” Police Chief 

65(6):42–51. 

Bjor, J., J. Knutsson, and E. Kuhlhorn (1992). “The 

Celebration of Midsummer Eve in Sweden: A Study in 

the Art of Preventing Collective Disorder.” Security Journal 

3(3):169–174. 

Casady, T., and L. Major (n.d.). “NU Directions: Goals and 

Objectives.” Report. Lincoln (Nebraska): University of 

Nebraska. 

Clarke, R., and J. Eck (2005). Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers: 

In 60 Small Steps. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing. 

Clarke, R., and D. Weisburd (1994). “Diffusion of Crime 

Control Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of 

Displacement.” In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, 

Vol. 3. Monsey (New York): Willow Tree Press. 

De Raismes, J., J. Gordon, and M. Amundson (2001). 

“Memorandum: Research into Large-Party Ordinances in 

Other Jurisdictions.” Report. Boulder (Colorado): City of 

Boulder. 

Epstein, J., and P. Finn (1997). “Preventing Alcohol-Related 

Problems on Campus: Vandalism.” Report. Washington, 

D.C.: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Prevention and Violence Prevention, U.S. 

Department of Education. 
52 Student Party Rots 

Fisher, B., J. Eck, and T. Madensen (2004). “Cinco de 

Mayo Student Disturbance Report.” Cincinnati (Ohio): 

University of Cincinnati. 

Goetz, M. (2002). “Police Bicycle Use in Crowd-Control 

Situations.” Law and Order 50(4):102–104. 

Harman, A. (1995). “Toronto’s Public Order Unit.” Law and 

Order 43(9):97–100. 

IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center (1992). “Civil 

Disturbances.” Police Chief 59(10):138–149. 

Johnson, K. (2004). Underage Drinking. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services. 

Kurz, D. (2001). “The Durham Alcohol Enforcement 

Initiative: Problem-Oriented Community Policing in a 

University Setting.” The Police Chief 68(10):66–73. 

McPhail, C. (1991). The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New York: 

Aldine De Gruyter. 

McPhail, C., and R. Wohlstein (1986). “Collective 

Locomotion as Collective Behavior.” American Sociological 

Review 51(August):447–463. 

——— (1983). “Individual and Collective Behaviors Within 

Gatherings, Demonstrations, and Riots.” Annual Review of 

Sociology 9(1):579–600. 

Michigan State University (2002). “Executive Summary: 

College Students and ‘Celebration Drinking.’” Report. 

Michigan State University. 
References 53 

National Institutes of Health (2002). “Reducing Alcohol 

Problems on Campus: A Guide to Planning and 

Evaluation.” Washington, D.C.: Task Force on the 

National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism. 

Nichols, D. (1997). Creating a Safe Campus: A Guide for College 

and University Administrators. Springfield (Illinois): Charles 

C. Thomas. 

Oldham, S. (2002). “Madness of March: Dealing With Large 

Celebratory Crowds.” Law and Order 50(9):112–116. 

Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other 

Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. U.S. 

Department of Justice: Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services. 

Schweingruber, D. (2000). “Mob Sociology and Escalated 

Force: Sociology’s Contribution to Repressive Police 

Tactics.” The Sociological Quarterly 41(3):371–389. 

Shanahan, M. (1995). “Solving Campus-Community 

Problems.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 64(2):1–5. 

Stott, C., and S. Reicher (1998). “Crowd Action as Intergroup 

Process: Introducing the Police Perspective.” European 

Journal of Social Psychology 28:509–529. 

Sullenberger, R. (n.d.). “Underage Alcohol Abuse: A 

Reformation of the Boulder Experience.” Report. 

Boulder (Colorado): Boulder Police Department. 

The Ohio State University (2003). “Task Force on Preventing 

Celebratory Riots: Final Report.” Columbus (Ohio): The 

Ohio State University. 
54 Student Party Rots 

U.S. Department of Education (2002). “Alcohol and Other 

Drug Prevention on College Campuses, Safe and DrugFree Schools Program.” Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Waddington, D., K. Jones, and C. Critcher (1989). Flash Points: 

Studies in Public Order. London: Routledge. 

Walsh, D. (2003). “Up Close: March Madness Western 

Weekend.” Law and Order 53(3):84–89. 

Walski, D. (2002). “Drinking on College Campuses: A 

Communities Approach.” Campus Law Enforcement Journal 

32(6):20–22. 

Wechsler, H., J. Lee, A. Wagenaar, and H. Lee (2002). 

“Secondhand Effects of Student Alcohol Use Reported 

by Neighbors of Colleges: The Role of Alcohol Outlets.” 

Social Science and Medicine 55:425–435. 

Weitzman, E., A. Folkman, K. Folkman, and H. Wechsler 

(2003). “The Relationship of Alcohol Outlet Density 

to Heavy and Frequent Drinking and Drinking-Related 

Problems Among College Students at Eight Universities.” 

Health and Place 9:1–6. 

Winegar, S. (2001). “Crowd Control: Planning for Civil 

Disobedience.” Law and Order 49(10): 158–162. 
About the Authors 55 

About the Authors 

Tamara D. Madensen 

Tamara D. Madensen is a doctoral candidate at the University of 

Cincinnati and in 2007 will join the University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

Criminal Justice Department faculty as an Assistant Professor. Her 

research interests are the opportunity structures of drug markets, 

violence, white collar crime and crowd disturbances. While working 

as a research associate for the Police Foundation, she studied the 

effectiveness of policing strategies to reduce juvenile crime. She 

also served as the project manager for the Ohio Service for Crime 

Opportunity Reduction (OSCOR) project, which helps police and 

communities develop crime reduction strategies and conduct project 

evaluations. Ms. Madensen received her bachelors and masters 

degrees from the California State University, San Bernardino. 

John E. Eck 

John E. Eck is professor of criminal justice at the University of 

Cincinnati. He has contributed to the development of problemoriented policing since 1984 when he studied the first full-scale 

attempt to implement the concept in the United States at Newport 

News, Virginia. He helped to develop a number of now standard 

techniques in problem-oriented policing, including the SARA model 

and the problem analysis triangle. Dr. Eck is an affiliate member of 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. He is a judge for the Tilley 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Dr. Eck was a 

member of the Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and 

Practice (2000-2003) of the National Academy of Sciences. He can be 

reached at: john.eck@uc.edu. 

Recommended Readngs 57 

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. 
5 Student Party Rots 

• 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. 
Appendx A: Summary of Responses to Student Party Rots Recommended Readngs 59 

• 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 Student Party Rots 

• 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 Orented Gude for Polce 61 

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 
62 Student Party Rots 

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7 

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 

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

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2 
Other Problem Orented Gude for Polce 63 

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John 

E. Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6 

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 

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

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

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

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

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

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 
64 Student Party Rots 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 

Domestic Violence 

Mentally Ill Persons 

Bank Robbery 

Witness Intimidation 

Drive-by Shootings 

Problem with Day Laborer Sites 

Child Pornography on the Internet 

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 

Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses 

Robbery of Convenience Stores 

Theft from Cars on Streets 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Partnering with Business to Address Public Safety Problems 

Risky Facilities 

Implementing Responses to Problems 

Designing a Problem Analysis System 

Response Guides 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

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. 

: 

j

e02061801 Updated Date February 23, 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6 

www.cops.usdo .gov