U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Graffiti

by

Deborah Lamm Weisel

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

No. 9

Graffiti

Deborah Lamm Weisel

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #99-CK-WXK004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.

Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the

U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

Guide No. 9

About the Guide Series i

About the Guide Series

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to 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 problem-oriented

policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to

focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the

problem, and means to assess the results of a problemoriented policing project. They are designed to help police

decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have

already identified. (An assessment guide has been produced

as a companion to this series and the COPS Office has also

published an introductory guide to problem analysis. For

those who want to learn more about the principles and

methods of problem-oriented policing, the assessment and

analysis guides, along with other recommended readings, are

listed at the back of this guide.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is

most likely to work in your community. You should not

blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must

decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation.

What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what

works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Graffiti

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business.

The guides describe responses that other police

departments have used or that researchers have tested.

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your

particular problem, they should help give a broader view of

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

cannot implement some of these responses in your

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

police have discovered a more effective response, they have

succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving

the response to the problem.

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is

available to the police; for other problems, little is available.

Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing

research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more

research on that particular problem. Regardless, research

has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you

might have about the problem. The research may help get

you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot

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

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of

keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant

research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed

to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed

and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of

each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a

complete bibliography of research on the subject.

• Are willing to work with other community agencies to find

effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides.

They must frequently implement them in partnership with

other responsible private and public entities. An effective

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine
About the Guide Series iii

partnerships with others and be prepared to invest

considerable effort in making these partnerships work.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police

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

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be

aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders

of their own countries.

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency's

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may

have effectively addressed a problem using responses not

considered in these guides and your experiences and

knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used

to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and

share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to

cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series is very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author,

other project team members, COPS Office staff and

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by

proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University

of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of

criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, associate

professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati;

Michael S. Scott, police consultant, Savannah, Ga.; Rana

Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm

Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State

University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw the

project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy

coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office. Suzanne

Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides was

conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by Gisela

Bichler-Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura Wyckoff.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of

the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

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

police officers, police executives and researchers who peer

reviewed each guide.

Contents

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

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

The Problem of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Factors Contributing to Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Types of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Common Targets and Locations of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Motives of Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Characteristics and Patterns of Graffiti Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

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

Asking Key Questions About Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Amount of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Types of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

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

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Responses to the Problem of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Reducing Rewards to Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Increasing the Risk of Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Contents vii
viii Graffiti

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

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Other Guides in This Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The Problem of Graffiti 1

The Problem of Graffiti

This guide addresses effective responses to the problem of

graffiti–the wide range of markings, etchings and paintings

that deface public or private property.† In recent decades,

graffiti has become an extensive problem, spreading from the

largest cities to other locales. Despite the common association

of graffiti with gangs, graffiti is widely found in jurisdictions

of all sizes, and graffiti offenders are by no means limited to

gangs.

Because of its rising prevalence in many areas–and the high

costs typically associated with cleanup and prevention–graffiti

is often viewed as a persistent, if not an intractable, problem.

Few graffiti offenders are apprehended, and some change

their methods and locations in response to possible

apprehension and cleanups.

As with most forms of vandalism, graffiti is not routinely

reported to police. Many people think that graffiti is not a

police or "real crime" problem, or that the police can do little

about it. Because graffiti is not routinely reported to police or

other agencies, its true scope is unknown. But graffiti has

become a major concern, and the mass media, including

movies and websites glamorizing or promoting graffiti as an

acceptable form of urban street art, have contributed to its

spread.

Although graffiti is a common problem, its intensity varies

substantially from place to place. While a single incident of

graffiti does not seem serious, graffiti has a serious cumulative

effect; its initial appearance in a location appears to attract

more graffiti. Local graffiti patterns appear to emerge over

time, thus graffiti takes distinctive forms, is found in different

† Although graffiti is also found

within public or private property

(such as in schools), this guide

primarily addresses graffiti in places

open to public view.
2 Graffiti

locations, and may be associated with varying motives of

graffiti offenders. These varying attributes offer important

clues to the control and prevention of graffiti.

For many people, graffiti's presence suggests the

government's failure to protect citizens and control

lawbreakers. There are huge public costs associated with

graffiti: an estimated $12 billion a year is spent cleaning up

graffiti in the United States. Graffiti contributes to lost

revenue associated with reduced ridership on transit systems,

reduced retail sales and declines in property value. In addition,

graffiti generates the perception of blight and heightens fear

of gang activity.

Graffiti offenders risk injury by placing graffiti

on places such as this railroad bridge spanning a

river.

Kip Kellogg
The Problem of Graffiti 3

Related Problems

Graffiti is not an isolated problem. It is often related to other

crime and disorder problems, including:

• public disorder, such as littering, public urination and

loitering;

• shoplifting of materials needed for graffiti, such as paint

and markers;1

• gangs and gang violence, as gang graffiti conveys threats

and identifies turf boundaries; and

• property destruction, such as broken windows or slashed

bus or train seats.

Factors Contributing to Graffiti

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem

will help you frame your own local analysis questions,

determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key

intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

Types of Graffiti

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

• gang graffiti, often used by gangs to mark turf or convey

threats of violence, and sometimes copycat graffiti, which

mimics gang graffiti;

• tagger graffiti, ranging from high-volume simple hits to

complex street art;

• conventional graffiti, often isolated or spontaneous acts of

"youthful exuberance," but sometimes malicious or

vindictive; and 

• ideological graffiti, such as political or hate graffiti, which

conveys political messages or racial, religious or ethnic slurs.
4 Graffiti

In areas where graffiti is prevalent, gang and tagger graffiti are

the most common types found. While other forms of graffiti

may be troublesome, they typically are not as widespread. The

proportion of graffiti attributable to differing motives varies

widely from one jurisdiction to another.† The major types of

graffiti are discussed later.

Common Targets and Locations of Graffiti

Graffiti typically is placed on public property, or private

property adjacent to public space. It is commonly found in

transportation systems–on inner and outer sides of trains,

subways and buses, and in transit stations and shelters. It is

also commonly found on vehicles; walls facing streets; street,

freeway and traffic signs; statues and monuments; and bridges.

In addition, it appears on vending machines, park benches,

† A count in a San Diego area with

a lot of graffiti showed that about 50

percent was gang graffiti; 40 percent,

tagger graffiti; and 10 percent, nongroup graffiti (San Diego Police

Department 2000). In nearby Chula

Vista, Calif., only 19 percent of

graffiti was gang-related (Chula Vista

Police Department 1999). Although

the counting methods likely differ,

these proportions suggest how the

breakdown of types of graffiti varies

from one jurisdiction to another.

Gang graffiti marks territory and conveys

threats.

Bob Morris
The Problem of Graffiti 5

utility poles, utility boxes, billboards, trees, streets, sidewalks,

parking garages, schools, business and residence walls, garages,

fences, and sheds. In short, graffiti appears almost any place

open to public view.

In some locations, graffiti tends to recur. In fact, areas where

graffiti has been painted over–especially with contrasting

colors–may be a magnet to be revandalized.† Some offenders

are highly tenacious–conducting a psychological battle with

authorities or owners for their claim over an area or specific

location. Such tenacity appears to be related to an escalating

defiance of authority.

Graffiti locations are often characterized by the absence of

anyone with direct responsibility for the area. This includes

public areas, schools, vacant buildings,2 and buildings with

absentee landlords. Offenders also target locations with poor

lighting and little oversight by police or security personnel.

† Most sources suggest that paintover colors should closely match,

rather than contrast with, the base.

Contrasting paint-overs are presumed

to attract or challenge graffiti

offenders to repaint their graffiti; the

painted-over area provides a canvass

to frame the new graffiti.

Graffiti is commonly found in transportation

systems, such as on the side of this railroad car.

Kip Kellogg
6 Graffiti

Some targets and locations appear particularly vulnerable to

graffiti:

• easy-to-reach targets, such as signs;

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

overpasses;

• highly visible locations, such as building walls;

• locations where a wall or fence is the primary security, and

where there are few windows, employees or passersby;

• locations where oversight is cyclical during the day or week,

or where people are intimidated by graffiti offenders;

• mobile targets, such as trains or buses, which generate wide

exposure for the graffiti; and

• places where gang members congregate–taverns, bowling

alleys, convenience store parking lots, and residential

developments with many children or youth.

In addition, two types of surfaces attract graffiti:

• Light-colored surfaces. Dark surfaces do not generally

attract as much graffiti, but can be marred with lightcolored paint.

Graffiti often appears in hard-to-reach yet highly visible

locations, such as on the upper-story windows of this warehouse.

Kip Kellogg
The Problem of Graffiti 7

• Large and plain surfaces. Surfaces without windows or doors

may be appealing for large-scale projects. Smooth surfaces

especially attract offenders who use felt-tip markers.

Motives of Offenders

While making graffiti does not offer material reward to

offenders, contrary to public opinion, it does have meaning.

Rather than being a senseless destruction of property, graffiti

fulfills certain psychological needs, including providing

excitement and action, a sense of control and an element of

risk. The different types of graffiti are associated with different

motives, although these drives may overlap.† Distinguishing

between types of graffiti and associated motives is a critical

step for developing an effective response.

Historically, much conventional graffiti has represented a

youthful "rite of passage"–part of a phase of experimental

behavior. Such graffiti is usually spontaneous and not malicious

in nature; indeed, spontaneous graffiti has often been

characterized as play, adventure or exuberance. Spontaneous

graffiti may reflect local traditions and appear on "fair targets"

such as abandoned buildings or schools. Communities have

often tolerated such graffiti.

The motives for some types of conventional graffiti may

include anger and hostility toward society, and the vandalism

thus fulfills some personal psychological need.3 The graffiti

may arise from boredom, despair, resentment, failure, and/or

frustration, in which case it may be vindictive or malicious.

A related type of graffiti is ideological. Ideological graffiti

expresses hostility or a grievance–often quite explicitly. Such

graffiti is usually easily identified by its content, reflecting a

† The description of types of

graffiti and motives of graffiti

offenders draws from broader

typologies and motives associated

with vandalism. See, for example,

Coffield (1991) and Cohen (1973).
8 Graffiti

political, religious, ethnic, or other bias. Offenders may

strategically target certain locations to further the message.

In contrast to conventional and ideological graffiti, the

primary motive for gang graffiti is tactical; the graffiti serves

as a public form of communication–to mark turf, convey

threats or boast of achievements.4

Some tagger graffiti may involve creative expression,

providing a source of great pride in the creation of complex

works of art. Most taggers seek notoriety and recognition of

their graffiti–they attach status to having their work seen.

Thus, prolonged visibility due to the sheer volume, scale and

complexity of the graffiti,† and placement of the graffiti in

hard-to-reach places†† or in transit systems, enhance the

vandal's satisfaction.5 Because recognition is important, the

tagger tends to express the same motif–the graffiti's style and

content are replicated over and over again, becoming the

tagger's unique signature.

Participation in graffiti is often inadvertently encouraged

through police contacts, media attention and public

recognition of it through advertising or art displays–all can

serve to enhance the offender's reputation or notoriety.6

† This includes complex, artistic

graffiti known as masterpieces.

†† Taggers in California used

climbing equipment to tag freeway

overpasses, knowing their tags would

be highly visible for extended

periods, until the road was shut down

for paint-overs (Beatty 1990). Hardto-reach places also provide an

element of danger of apprehension

or physical risk, contributing to the

vandal's reputation.
The Problem of Graffiti 9

Type of Graffiti Features Motives

Gang†

Common Tagger††††

Artistic Tagger

Conventional Graffiti:

Spontaneous

Conventional Graffiti:

Malicious or Vindictive

Ideological

Gang name or symbol, including hand

signs

Gang member name(s) or nickname(s),

or sometimes a roll-call listing of

members

Numbers††

Distinctive, stylized alphabets†††

Key visible locations

Enemy names and symbols, or allies'

names

High-volume, accessible locations

High-visibility, hard-to-reach locations

May be stylized but simple name or

nickname tag or symbols†††††

Tenacious (keep retagging)

Colorful and complex pictures known

as masterpieces or pieces

Sporadic episodes or isolated incidents

Sporadic, isolated or systematic

incidents

Offensive content or symbols

Racial, ethnic or religious slurs 

Specific targets, such as synagogues

Highly legible

Slogans

Mark turf

Threaten violence

Boast of achievements

Honor the slain

Insult/taunt other gangs

Notoriety or prestige

Defiance of authority

Artistic

Prestige or recognition

Play

Rite of passage 

Excitement

Impulsive

Anger

Boredom

Resentment

Failure

Despair

Anger

Hate

Political

Hostility

Defiance

† Copycat graffiti looks like

gang graffiti, and may be the

work of gang wanna-bes or

youths seeking excitement.

†† Offenders commonly use

numbers as code in gang

graffiti. A number may

represent the corresponding

position in the alphabet (e.g., 13

= M, for the Mexican Mafia),

or represent a penal or police

radio code.

††† Stylized alphabets include

bubble letters, block letters,

backwards letters, and Old

English script.

†††† Tagbangers, a derivative

of tagging crews and gangs, are

characterized by competition

with other crews. Thus crossedout tags are features of their

graffiti.

††††† The single-line writing of

a name is usually known as a

tag, while slightly more

complex tags, including those

with two colors or bubble

letters, are known as throw-ups.

Types of Graffiti and Associated Motives
10 Graffiti

Characteristics and Patterns of Graffiti Offenders

Graffiti offenders are typically young and male. In one study,

most offenders were ages 15 to 23; many of the offenders

were students. Offenders may typically be male, inner-city

blacks and Latinos, but female, as well as white and Asian,

participation is growing.7 The profile clearly does not apply in

some places where the population is predominantly white.

Tagging is not restricted by class lines.

In Sydney, Australia, graffiti offenders, while mostly boys,

include girls; offenders are typically ages 13 to 17.8 In San

Diego, all the taggers identified within a two-mile area were

male, and 72 percent were 16 or younger.9

Graffiti offenders typically operate in groups, with perhaps 15

to 20 percent operating alone.10 In addition to the varying

motives for differing types of graffiti, peer pressure,

boredom, lack of supervision, lack of activities, low academic

achievement, and youth unemployment contribute to

participation in graffiti.

Young male gang members may engage in a substantial

amount of graffiti.

Bob Morris
The Problem of Graffiti 11

Graffiti offenders often use spray paint, although they may

also produce graffiti with large markers or by etching, the

latter especially on glass surfaces.† Spray paint is widely

available, easily concealed, easily and quickly used on a variety

of surfaces, available in different colors with different nozzles

to change line widths–these factors make spray paint suitable

for a range of offenders.††

The making of graffiti is characterized by anonymity–hence

relative safety from detection and apprehension. Most

offenders work quickly, when few people are around. Graffiti

predominantly occurs late on weekend nights, though there is

little systematic evidence about this. In British transit studies,

graffiti incidents typically occurred in off-peak or non-rush

hours.11 In Bridgeport, Conn., graffiti incidents were

concentrated from 5 p.m. to 4 a.m. Thursdays through

Sundays.12 A San Diego study showed that routes leading

away from schools were hit more frequently, suggesting a

concentration in after-school hours Monday through Friday.

Offenders tagged school walls daily.13

There is widespread concern that participation in graffiti may

be an initial or gateway offense from which offenders may

graduate to more sophisticated or harmful crimes. Graffiti is

sometimes associated with truancy, and can involve drug

and/or alcohol use. Graffiti offenders who operate as

members of gangs or crews may also engage in fighting.

† Other tools for graffiti include

shoe polish, rocks, razors, glass

cutters, and glass etching fluid. Glass

etching fluids include acids, such as

Etch Bath and Armour Etch,

developed as hobby products for

decorating glass. Vandals squirt or

rub the acids onto glass.

†† Vandals may adapt or modify

tools and practices to cleaning

methods. In New York City, when

transit system personnel used paint

solvents to remove graffiti, offenders

adapted by spraying a surface with

epoxy, writing their graffiti and then

coating the surface with shellac,

which proved very difficult to

remove.

Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Understanding Your Local Problem

You must combine the basic facts provided above with a

more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing

the local problem helps in designing a more effective response

strategy.

Asking Key Questions About Graffiti

The following are some critical questions you should ask in

analyzing your particular problem of graffiti, even if the

answers are not always readily available. If you fail to answer

these questions, you may select the wrong response.

Victims

• Whom does the graffiti directly victimize (e.g., homeowners,

apartment managers, business owners, transit systems,

utilities, public works, others)?

• Whom does the graffiti indirectly affect (e.g., people who

see the graffiti)? How fearful are these people? What

activities does graffiti affect (e.g., shopping, use of

recreational areas and public transit)? (Community or other

surveys may be necessary to answer these questions.)

Amount of Graffiti

• How much graffiti is there? (Visual surveys are necessary to

answer questions about the amount of graffiti.)

• How many individual tags or separate pieces of graffiti are

there? 

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

• How many graffiti locations are there?

• How many graffiti-related calls for service, incident reports

or hotline reports are there?
14 Graffiti

Types of Graffiti

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

type?

• What are the content and unique characteristics of the

graffiti? (Some agencies photograph or videotape graffiti to

create an intelligence database noting key characteristics, to

link graffiti to chronic offenders.)†

• What appear to be the motives for the graffiti? 

• Is the graffiti simple or complex? Small or large? Singlecolored or multicolored? 

• Is the graffiti isolated or grouped?

• What do offenders use to make the graffiti (e.g., spray paint,

marking pens, etching devices)?

Locations/Times

• Where does the graffiti occur? (Maps of graffiti can be

particularly illuminating, revealing its distribution across a

large area.†† See Figure 1.)

• What are the specific locations where the graffiti occurs

(e.g., addresses or, more precisely, Global Positioning

System locations for sites without addresses, such as in

parks or along railroad tracks)?

• How close is the graffiti to graffiti-generators such as

schools?

• What are the characteristics of the locations in which

graffiti is prevalent? Are the locations residences, schools?

Are they close to stores–what type, with what hours–or bus

stops–what running times?

• What are the characteristics of graffiti targets? Are the

targets signs, walls, fences, buses, trains?

• What are the physical environment's characteristics,

including lighting, access, roads, surface types, and other

relevant factors?

• When does the graffiti occur? Time of day? (using last

known graffiti-free time)? Day of week?

• Do the peak times correspond with other events?

† See Otto, Maly and Schismenos

(2000) for more information about

this technology, as used in Akron,

Ohio.

†† Maps of graffiti have been used

to map gang violence and gang

territory. See, for example, Kennedy,

Braga and Piehl (1997).
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

Offenders

• What are the offenders' characteristics (e.g., age, gender,

student)?

• Where do the offenders live, go to school or work? How do

these locations correspond to graffiti locations and/or

police contacts?†

• What is the pattern of offending? For example, is the

graffiti spontaneous or planned, intermittent or regular?

• What are the offenders' motives? (Offenders can be

interviewed to collect this information. Undercover

investigations, stings, surveillance, and graffiti content

analysis can reveal more about offenders' practices.††)

• Are offenders lone operators or part of a group?

• Does drug and/or alcohol use contribute to graffiti? 

• Is graffiti associated with other violations, such as truancy?

† Photographs of offenders and

their address information can also be

linked to maps.

†† Police in some cities have posed

as film crews, interviewing taggers

about their practices.

Fig. 1. Map showing locations of graffiti.

Map courtesy San Diego Police Dept.
16 Graffiti

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify

your responses if they are not producing the intended results.

You should take measures of your problem before you

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem

is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they

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

target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed

guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide

to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

Research shows that graffiti can be substantially reduced, and

sometimes eliminated. The following are potentially useful

measures of the effectiveness of responses to graffiti. To

track possible displacement, such measures should be routine:

• amount or size of graffiti,

• number and type of graffiti locations,

• content and type of graffiti,

• length of time graffiti-prone surfaces stay clean, and

• public fear and perceptions about the amount of graffiti

(may be assessed through surveys of citizens, changes in

use of public space and transit systems, changes in retail

sales, and other indirect measures).

Some jurisdictions track the numbers of arrests made, gallons

of paint applied or square feet covered, amount of graffiti

removed, or money spent on graffiti eradication;14 these

measures indicate how much effort has been put into the antigraffiti initiative, but they do not tell you if the amount or

nature of graffiti has changed in any way.† You should choose

measures based on the responses chosen; for example, if

† Because many anti-graffiti

strategies are quite expensive, a costbenefit analysis will provide a

baseline measure of benefits

associated with specific costs of

different strategies.
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

paint sales are limited, you should place more emphasis on

tracking the type of graffiti tool used. Tools do change; for

example, some offenders have begun using glass etching fluid.

It is widely believed that graffiti is easily displaced,† but

evidence of such displacement is scant. The notion that

graffiti is an intractable problem that is easily displaced has

been fueled by haphazard and piecemeal crime prevention

measures.15 Useful measures of graffiti will assess the extent

to which graffiti is reduced or moved to different locations, or

reflect a change in offenders' tactics. While graffiti offenders

can be persistent and adaptive, there is no reason to assume

that displacement will be complete; indeed, successful

responses may have a widespread effect.

† The response to graffiti in the

New York subway system resulted in

some reported displacement to buses,

garbage trucks, walls, and other

objects in the city (Butterfield 1988;

Coffield 1991).

Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 19

Responses to the Problem of Graffiti

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you

have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible

responses to address the problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of

ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies

are drawn from a variety of research studies and police

reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your

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

local circumstances, and that you can justify each response

based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy

will involve implementing several different responses. Law

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing

or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering

what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in

your community shares responsibility for the problem and can

help police better respond to it.

Graffiti is not solely a police problem. The police role should

be one of support and assistance. Effective responses to

graffiti may combine management practices, design and

maintenance, and involve the general public, individual

victims, criminal justice officials such as prosecutors and

judges, and others. Responses to graffiti should be

comprehensive and coordinated, while costs and available

resources should be carefully evaluated.
20 Graffiti

Responses to graffiti must be thorough and consistent, as

some offenders may be highly opportunistic, adaptive and

tenacious. Responses should include ways to monitor graffiti

and address changes in time, location and methods of

applying it.

Reducing Rewards to Offenders

Rapid identification and removal of graffiti has been shown

to reduce its occurrence.† This approach directly addresses

the motives of many offenders by reducing the notoriety

associated with graffiti's visibility. The two-step process

involves routine monitoring to quickly spot graffiti, and rapid

removal of the graffiti. In New York's successful approach to

transit graffiti, it was initially removed within two hours of

identification.†† In St. Petersburg, Fla., business owners are

required to remove graffiti within 48 hours.16

1. Detecting graffiti rapidly and routinely. There are two

primary ways to gather information about the incidence and

location of graffiti: systematic monitoring of graffiti-prone

locations, and increased reporting. Both are used to rapidly

detect graffiti incidents; document the location and time of

occurrences, and content of graffiti; and to trigger responses.

• Monitoring graffiti-prone locations routinely. Quick

detection of graffiti provides better information for

developing effective interventions. A graffiti database can be

used to track incidents and illuminate patterns, identify

chronic offenders and/or interpret gang activities or plans

encoded in graffiti. Monitoring may include documenting

graffiti through photographs or video. In some places,

graffiti provides a barometer of gang activity and relations

between gangs.

† This "law of diminishing

vandalism" is that persistence in

cleaning up pays off. See SloanHowitt and Kelling (1990); Scott

(1989); Cheetham (1994); Clarke

(1978); and Governing (1994).

†† If graffiti cannot be removed

quickly, trains are taken out of

service. For train stations, graffiti is

removed within 72 hours. Similar

quick cleanups have occurred in

Philadelphia (Scott 1989). In London,

graffiti is cleaned from large stations

within 24 hours.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 21

Addressing Transit Graffiti in New York City

The experiences of the New York City Transit System illustrate varying

approaches to graffiti. Graffiti began to appear on subway trains in the 1960s; by

1970, it was a huge problem. The public was fearful, and ridership on trains

declined.

The motive for the graffiti was "getting up" and getting noticed; there were no

indications the graffiti was gang-related. Instead, the graffitists or taggers sought

to build their reputation through the sheer quantity of their graffiti. As

competition among them increased, they distinguished themselves through

writing style, embellishment, graffiti size, and location–either in unusual spots or

in previously unmarked spots. One prolific vandal produced 10,000 graffiti

markings.

Despite the severity of its ongoing fiscal crisis, New York City adopted a variety

of anti-graffiti strategies in the 1970s: punishing offenders by making them clean

up trains marked with graffiti; using fencing with razor wires to protect the vast

train yards; and developing materials to ease graffiti removal, materials that were

later found to be environmentally hazardous. The methods all failed to

substantially reduce the amount of graffiti.

In 1984, the city adopted a system to monitor trains and clean those marked with

graffiti within two hours; otherwise, they took the cars out of service. They also

began to store clean trains in highly secure yards that featured 24-hour-a-day

work crews, enhanced lighting, routine fence maintenance, and undercover

police. The initiative focused on the most problematic times, locations and train

lines; initially, all trains were monitored, but random checks were later

successfully used to maintain clean trains. In addition, repeat offenders were

targeted for parental contact and enhanced penalties.

In contrast to the earlier initiatives, this anti-graffiti effort began with a handful

of trains (those detected with graffiti) and built up to cover the entire system.

Importantly, rather than focusing on using the criminal justice system, this

approach addressed the offenders' underlying motives. Immediately removing

graffiti-marked trains from service severely limited the vandals' exposure.
22 Graffiti

To monitor graffiti-prone locations, Phoenix has used night

vision and digital cameras, while Philadelphia and Sydney have

used closed-circuit television (CCTV). In Philadelphia and on

Los Angeles buses, plainclothes officers have monitored

graffiti. In other jurisdictions, Neighborhood Watch and other

groups systematically monitor graffiti. In Lakewood, Colo.,

citizens' academy graduates take graffiti reports, photograph

graffiti and monitor graffiti locations. In New South Wales,

"graffiti spotters" have this role. Employees such as bus

drivers or maintenance workers can immediately report

vandalism through two-way radio.

• Increasing reporting of graffiti and offenders.†

Anonymous graffiti hotlines, some operating 24 hours a day,

collect information about graffiti incidents. Communities

have also used cell phone reporting, voice mail, emergency

cell service, and connection to neighborhood watch groups.

Some jurisdictions pay graffiti reporters' cell phone charges.

In London, people can use free telephones in transit

stations to report offenses. In other jurisdictions, transit

riders are encouraged to report graffiti and offenders.

Numerous jurisdictions offer a cash reward of $200 to

$1,000 if a tip leads to a conviction.

In some jurisdictions, graffiti reports may be suppressed

due to concerns about retaliation by gang members or

taggers. Widespread public participation in both open and

anonymous reporting usually addresses these concerns, but

police should be aware of this potential problem.

2. Removing graffiti rapidly. One of the most promising

responses to graffiti is consistently getting rid of it, and doing

so quickly. The removal process may vary substantially

depending on the type of graffiti tool and the type of

† Police usually encourage citizens

to call 911 regarding graffiti in

progress; they discourage citizens

from confronting offenders. Citizens

can report graffiti not in progress to

hotlines.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 23

material vandalized.† Many of the methods are timeconsuming and can be quite expensive, so a jurisdiction must

be able to tap sufficient resources to fully implement this

approach. Some types of cleanup–including paint-overs–may

be affected by cold or wet weather. Removal may be timetargeted, such as during predawn hours, to further reduce

exposure. Rapid removal is key, and many jurisdictions try to

remove graffiti within 24 to 48 hours; in some obscure

locations, such as drainage ditches, graffiti may be removed

less quickly.

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

• Painting over graffiti. Painting over graffiti appears to be

the most common and relatively cheapest method of

removing it. Although paint-overs can be expensive if

recurring, the approach is widely accessible, and usually

requires no special skills or technology. Some cities provide

recycled paints for free; some cities have cleanups funded

by contributions; and in some cities, businesses donate

paint. Property owners victimized by graffiti offenders often

supply their own paint. They can match chips of paint at

home supply stores. Once they make a paint match, they

should keep a supply of the paint readily available. In areas

with heavy graffiti, property owners can unify colors (e.g.,

of alley walls and fences) to make routine paint-overs easier.

Painting over graffiti may require the use of a sealer to

prevent bleeding through.

• Removing graffiti chemically. There are a variety of

chemical removal products available, but care should be

taken in selecting one. The use of some removal products

on certain porous surfaces may create a shadow of the

graffiti. Paint companies sometimes donate paint-removal

supplies.

† The type of surface graffiti is

placed on is a major factor because

graffiti-removal products may

damage some surfaces. The type of

marking agent is also a factor: some

paints are reversible. There is a wide

range of graffiti removal products

available, including chemical sprays,

aerosols, gels, and poultices. Cleaners

are either alkaline or acidic; the latter

can damage masonry, and

neutralizing techniques must be

incorporated when using either.

Physical removal methods include

low- and high-pressure water

cleaning, often with detergents, and

sandblasting. Physical removal is

more expensive, and is typically used

for large areas where other methods

have failed.
24 Graffiti

• Cleaning graffiti off. Depending on the surface and

marking agent, many surfaces can be cleaned of graffiti.

Methods include sandblasting with high-pressure hot-water

jets–and sometimes baking soda–to remove graffiti from

cement and other unpainted surfaces, although this, too, can

be expensive and leave a shadow. Lasers to remove graffiti

are becoming available.

• Replacing signs, materials and other items vandalized.

Replacement is appropriate for materials from which graffiti

cannot be painted over, chemically removed or cleaned.

The source of labor for removing graffiti may vary. Cleanup

squads may consist of volunteers, employees or adjudicated

offenders. Graffiti removal may be coercive. A large number

of jurisdictions hold the property owner responsible for

graffiti removal. Sanctioning victims requires that they clean

graffiti up quickly or get fined.17 Citizens may get paint or

physical assistance from volunteers, if needed. Cities can use

nuisance ordinances, zoning codes or graffiti ordinances to

force owners to clean up quickly, which may be necessary for

absentee owners. Alternatively, some cities clean up graffiti

and then bill the owner. Some cities do the first cleanup for

free; the owner then has responsibility for subsequent

cleanups.

Numerous jurisdictions use graffiti removal as a court-ordered

sanction for offenders and other misdemeanants. In some

jurisdictions, such sanctions require victim restitution,

reflecting a restorative justice approach.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 25

Increasing the Risk of Detection

Because graffiti offenders usually operate in darkness, where

there is little chance of being seen, few are apprehended.

Increasing the likelihood of their being detected increases the

risk of apprehension.

3. Increasing natural observation of graffiti-prone

locations. The likelihood of detecting offenders can be

increased by installing, upgrading or maintaining lighting.

(While most offenders operate in the dark, additional lighting

may actually attract graffiti in some isolated or remote

locations. An alternative is to install motion-activated lighting,

which may signal unauthorized property use.) In addition,

shrubbery or trees that conceal areas can be removed. Sight

lines can be improved where vision is obscured in other ways.

Other methods to increase observation involve design, such

as eliminating blind spots of underpasses, or park paths,

installing windows or building parking lots within view of

residences and designing spacious areas with good visibility.

4. Increasing formal observation of graffiti-prone

locations. Observation of graffiti-prone locations can be

improved systematically through use of police, security

personnel, Neighborhood Watch, and employees with other

primary duties (such as bus drivers, ticket agents, newsstand

staff, lobby concierges, and on-site/residential property

managers). Such observation may include the use of

uniformed or undercover personnel or covert surveillance,

and may target fixed locations or mobile locations such as

buses and trains.
26 Graffiti

5. Increasing electronic security. Formal observation of

graffiti-prone locations can be carried out via electronic

methods. CCTV has shown promising evidence of reducing

vandalism, including graffiti.18 CCTV is widely used to deter

potential offenders, apprehend offenders in the act or after

the fact, and provide evidence in prosecutions. There are

substantial up-front and operating costs to CCTV, and

decisions must be made as to whether cameras will be actively

or passively monitored, or activated by motion detectors. If

CCTV is to be used for evidence, good picture quality,

adequate lighting and follow-up investigation are necessary. If

CCTV is to be used to apprehend offenders in progress, it

must be actively monitored. Signs warning of CCTV are often

posted to discourage offenders; such deterrence may

contribute to graffiti's spread to other locations. There is also

evidence that CCTV's crime prevention benefits may spread

to other locations.

CCTV will not be effective everywhere, but can be adapted.

For example, video surveillance with infrared technology has

been used on buses, while electronic surveillance robots

monitor CCTV screens in some jurisdictions, and emit

warning alarms. Portable CCTV can also be used, and dummy

CCTV has been effectively used to supplement the real thing.

Other types of electronic security include infrared beams,

which are used around trains in London.

Use of CCTV may result in reduced vigilance, as electronic

surveillance may create a false sense of security. But the

presence of CCTV may also reassure citizens, and public

support for it is often high.

6. Conducting publicity campaigns. On their own,

publicity campaigns are of limited effectiveness. However,

many publicity efforts are combined with other strategies. A
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 27

number of publicity campaigns can be described as

beautification efforts, consisting of community cleanup days

to eliminate graffiti, litter and other signs of disorder. In many

jurisdictions, these cleanup days require volunteers, but some

may involve court-adjudicated offenders who are working off

community service time. In contrast to the systematic graffiti

removal described above, publicity campaigns are usually onetime or episodic cleanups of specific areas.

An extension of the cleanup programs are ownership

initiatives such as Adopt-a-Block, Adopt-a-Bus, Adopt-aStation, or other efforts to maintain the "cared for"

environment in public areas. Some of the adoption schemes

involve painting murals on transit shelters, invoking a

presumed conscience that deters graffiti offenders from

marring others' artistic endeavors. It is assumed that graffiti is

easier to detect where no other graffiti exists, and cleaned

areas invoke a sense of ownership and responsibility among

users of the areas.

Other publicity efforts include posters to publicize anti-graffiti

efforts, public service announcements, flyers, brochures, and

the like. Publicity campaigns often include information on the

harms of graffiti, the costs of graffiti, how to detect a graffiti

offender, and how to report graffiti. This educational effort is

often targeted at parents, schools, businesses, civic groups,

transit system users, and/or the general public. Publicity and

educational campaigns have been shown to be effective in

reducing graffiti when used to publicize surveillance of

vandalized buses; the effects even extended beyond the crime

prevention targets.19
28 Graffiti

Publicity campaigns often discourage the use of graffiti in

advertising and art exhibits, as well as media coverage of

graffiti, recognizing that such attention serves to further

contribute to the notoriety graffiti offenders seek. Care is

taken to avoid glorifying graffiti, and generating more of it as

a result.

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending

7. Vandal-proofing graffiti-prone locations. Graffiti

offenders can be thwarted by vandal-proofing vulnerable

surfaces in vulnerable areas, a process that often involves

modifying surface textures. Anti-graffiti coverings and

surfaces make surfaces easy to clean, difficult to write on, or

both. There are six primary types:

• Paint-like products such as polyurethane-based coatings are

resistant to graffiti and easy to clean. These are suitable for

steel, concrete and brickwork.† Sealers on concrete prevent

absorption.

• Wash-off coatings–known as sacrificial coatings–are wax or

silicon applications on walls or buildings. When hot water is

applied, these coatings break down, allowing graffiti to be

washed off.††

• Textured surfaces are not attractive targets for graffiti, as

they obscure legibility. Such surfaces are particularly difficult

for offenders to draw on or paint. Such surfaces include

deeply grooved surfaces and rough surfaces††† such as

exposed rock, rough cement and dimpled stainless steel, like

that used in London telephone kiosks.

• Dark or colorful surfaces make graffiti less visible, thus

deterring offenders. Dark surfaces are more difficult to

mark up, although light paint can be used. Colorful or busy

surfaces, such as advertisements on the sides of buses,

† Some of these products may

produce toxic fumes in case of fire.

†† These coatings must be reapplied;

the surface dissolves when graffiti is

cleaned off.

††† These surfaces are harder to

mark, but are difficult to clean.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 29

deflect graffiti.20 Flecked or spotted wall surfaces also mask

graffiti.

• Non-solid surfaces, such as open-grill storefront security

screens rather than solid panels, may deflect graffiti.

• Easily cleaned materials may be installed in highly vulnerable

areas. These include vitreous-enamel panels† or glazed

ceramic tiles from which graffiti washes off; wired glass that

can be cleaned with scrapers;†† polyester film over glass;

plastic laminates, which make for easier cleaning; and signs

with surfaces resistant to marker pens and spray paint.

Some materials cannot be effectively protected from graffiti.

Graffiti-prone surfaces can be replaced with standard-sized,

inexpensive materials. These include transparent, replaceable

glass or polycarbonate panels in bus shelters, and replaceable

polycarbonate covering signs.

8. Controlling access to graffiti-prone locations.

Controlling access to graffiti-prone locations physically bars

offenders from vulnerable areas. Means of access control

include:

• graffiti hoods to buffer freeway signs;

• metal baffles on sign poles, which work like squirrel baffles

on bird feeders;

• walls, fences, locked alleys, barriers, chasms, and rails,

sometimes supplemented by barbed wire;

• recessed walls;

• dense or thorny plants, or climbing vines; and

• razor wire or jagged metal wrapped around sign poles.†††

In some cases, signs have been moved out of reach of

vandals, while bus stops and other frequently vandalized

targets have been relocated.

† These washable walls are used in

larger London train stations.

†† The alternative, polycarbonate

surfaces become hazy.

††† Some of these measures impose

social costs by making areas look like

war zones. Access controls with

forbidding appearances may be better

left to isolated areas.
30 Graffiti

Environmental design to limit access to graffiti surfaces can

best be incorporated into planning and construction, but may

also be adapted to existing structures. An example of effective

environmental design is the recessed walls of the Washington,

D.C., metro system; subway walls are physically separated

from the public.

Police or security patrols, guards and dogs may supplement

access control. Access to residential or commercial properties

may be restricted to those with resident or employee

identification cards, while visitor access may be controlled

through entry phones.

Much like environmental design, situational design reduces the

opportunity for graffiti. The absence of toilets, seating, fast

food, and lockers in transit stations effectively discourages

potential offenders from loitering. In Hong Kong, a limited

life to transit tickets encourages people to quickly move

through stations before their tickets expire, thus discouraging

loitering. In Washington, D.C., the subway system generally

closes at midnight on weekdays and somewhat later on

weekends, thus limiting opportunities for vandalism. Since

graffiti often takes place late at night, limiting hours reduces

opportunities for vandalism at times when there are typically

few other riders or employees to deter the offender or witness

the offense.

9. Focusing on chronic offenders. Approaches that focus

exclusively on enforcement to control offenders have had little

effect on the amount of graffiti.21 Apprehending and

prosecuting graffiti offenders is difficult. Graffiti is not

routinely reported to police, it is difficult to catch offenders in
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 31

the act, and may be impossible to find witnesses or tangible

evidence of graffiti offenses. In addition, police have

competing priorities, and sanctions against offenders are often

weak, consisting of community service and fines.

Some graffiti offenders are prolific; a small group typically

accounts for a large portion of all offenses. Efforts that focus

on chronic offenders show promise. Chronic offenders can be

identified through graffiti investigations. Since offenders tend

to replicate their graffiti, it has unique characteristics, like a

signature, and different incidents or tags can be linked to a

single offender. Some taggers practice their tags in notebooks

or take photographs to document their efforts; these may be

used as evidence to link offenders to graffiti incidents.

Some police conduct surveillance of known offenders and/or

high-risk hot spots, collaborate with schools to detect

offenders, and monitor chronic offenders, particularly those

on probation. Police may use extensive intelligence databases

to record information about graffiti content, locations and

offenders. Such databases may include photographs or video

of graffiti, mug shots of offenders, and maps of graffiti

locations.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

Numerous responses have been incorporated into efforts to

control graffiti. Most have not been carefully evaluated, and

are thus of unknown effectiveness. Any response can be

effective if it increases the difficulties of offending and

reduces the rewards for it. Many responses, however, are quite

difficult to enforce.
32 Graffiti

10. Controlling graffiti tools. A number of jurisdictions

have tried to control the tools used for graffiti. Boston and

other cities have banned the sale of large, wide-tipped

markers. In addition, bans on spray paint sales to minors have

been widely used in recent years.† Some jurisdictions require

stores to be licensed for and to limit spray paint sales, and

require buyers to furnish their name and address. In some

jurisdictions, juvenile possession of spray paint or large,

indelible markers without supervision is a misdemeanor.

Efforts have been made to reduce shoplifting of spray paint

by placing stock away from exits and removing it from open

displays. Instead, stock is often stored behind counters, in

storerooms or in locked display cases. Some jurisdictions

require stores to place markers in full view of clerks. Industry

efforts have also been made to regulate graffiti tools. Spray

valves can be modified, and restricted-use caps limited, so that

offenders cannot change caps.†† Some jurisdictions encourage

proper disposal of contractor painting materials so that

graffiti offenders cannot access them.

While there have been no evaluations of efforts that limit

graffiti tools, enforcing local ordinances that do so can be

difficult. Although restrictions on possession of supplies may

provide an additional enforcement tool, graffiti offenders are

rarely apprehended. In many tagging groups, one person

carries the graffiti supplies, making it more difficult to obtain

the evidence that may be necessary for a conviction.

11. Channeling behavior into more acceptable activities.

A lot of anti-graffiti efforts have involved designating

particular areas or locations as legitimate places for graffiti.†††

Graffiti walls or boards are often obtained through

contributions from businesses. While artists may have to have

† Chicago has had such a ban since

1980.

†† Graffiti offenders prefer

interchangeable caps, allowing them

to combine thick and thin lines. Wide

caps or other caps from oven

cleaners or spray starch are especially

desirable.

††† Nugent (1998) describes a graffiti

wall in Washington, D.C.'s Lafayette

Park; Coffield (1991) notes the

painting of a Southampton, England,

garage.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 33

a painting permit to participate, paint for such projects is

often contributed.

Similarly, some jurisdictions have commissioned murals to

cover up graffiti or improve the community's appearance.

These murals are often located where graffiti has posed a

problem. Graffiti offenders appear to respect the artwork on

such murals, but the surfaces can be protected with antigraffiti coating. Murals and walls showcase artists' work and

may reduce incentives to vandalize. Similar initiatives to divert

offenders have included art classes or programs for reformed

offenders, some of which involve a contract or pledge not to

produce further graffiti. These efforts may be effective in

reducing the amount of graffiti in specific locations.

12. Providing alternative activities and services. A variety

of programs have been developed to address the needs of

graffiti offenders who are bored, unsupervised or

unemployed. These programs include mentoring, job training,

counseling, tutoring, and family services. Many of these

programs focus on building pride and self-esteem. Some help

youth to leave gangs. Others provide alternative activities,

such as sports.

13. Involving youth in developing programs. Youth are

often involved in anti-graffiti efforts to increase their sense of

ownership. In Denmark, youth were involved in selecting the

design and colors of buses and bus platforms. Officials there

also engage in "alternative conflict solving," and meet

monthly with youth to address hostility and improve

communication with those who are disaffected. Anti-graffiti

posters for publicity campaigns are designed through student

competitions, and peer pressure is used to discourage graffiti.
34 Graffiti

Some anti-graffiti programs involve educating youth about the

harms and costs of graffiti. The youth-targeted message that

graffiti is uncool is conveyed through subway and bus posters,

and television and radio commercials. Sports figures may

endorse the message to add potency to it.

In some cases, former graffiti offenders create murals with

anti-graffiti messages, give public talks, counsel other

offenders, and organize graffiti cleanups.

14. Expanding applicable laws. A wide variety of laws have

been passed in cities and counties across the United States,

providing police and prosecutors with additional tools to

charge and punish offenders. In some cases, existing

ordinances or statutes have been applied in new ways,

including enforcing civil trespassing laws; applying nuisance

abatement, which can force gangs to clean up graffiti; labeling

gangs as unincorporated associations, to pursue criminal

conspiracy charges; applying civil injunctions requiring

offenders to stay away from certain areas; enforcing antiloitering ordinances; and applying sanctions that enhance

dispositions or sentences for gang members. In addition,

many jurisdictions routinely use criminal mischief, malicious

mischief, property destruction, vandalism, and criminal

trespass statutes or ordinances in charging graffiti offenders.

15. Holding parents accountable. In some communities,

efforts are made to educate parents in recognizing signs of

graffiti offending. Parents are held accountable for juvenile

offenders' actions, and may be sanctioned with fines, cleanup

costs and even jail for failure to control or supervise their

children. Structured juvenile diversion programs may involve

parents in meeting conditions imposed on offenders.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 35

16. Increasing sanctions for offenders. Across the United

States, jurisdictions have increased the sanctions against

graffiti offenders. Some sanctions are targeted specifically at

juveniles. For example, California suspends or defers the

award of driver's licenses for one year; offenders can do

community service to reduce the suspension time.

Many jurisdictions use graffiti cleanup for community service

to avoid adjudication, as a condition of probation, or as part

of a disposition or sentence. Some communities have

restorative justice initiatives in which face-to-face victimoffender reconciliation occurs, a contract is signed, and

offenders pay restitution.

In some jurisdictions, students are suspended or expelled

from school for graffiti offenses. A large number of

jurisdictions have involved courts in treating graffiti incidents

seriously, systematically imposing fines, community service

and even jail time on chronic offenders.

17. Applying new technologies. A wide range of new antigraffiti technologies have not been tested, used extensively or

evaluated. Some may be effective in specific settings under

certain conditions.

New anti-graffiti technologies include the following:

• Listening devices positioned at chronic graffiti locations.

The devices detect sounds such as spraying of paint cans,

alerting police to offenses.

• Motion detectors combined with sprinkler systems. Caltrans

used this technology in Orange County, Calif., but offenders

broke off sprinkler heads.

• Lasers for graffiti removal.
36 Graffiti

Since developing or purchasing new technologies may be

quite costly for most jurisdictions, such responses should be

carefully evaluated first. New technologies to respond to

graffiti will likely continue to become available.

18. Establishing juvenile curfews. Juvenile curfews have

been widely adopted in the United States to address a variety

of juvenile crime. For the most part, tenacious offenders can

avoid detection, and police agencies must invest a substantial

amount of effort to enforce curfews. While curfews may have

some benefits in very narrowly defined situations, their

contribution to graffiti reduction are unlikely to be substantial.

19. Warning offenders. Many jurisdictions warn graffiti

offenders about the costs of being apprehended. Sydney

found that warnings of dire consequences do not work, and

media attention glorifies and reinforces graffiti.22 Most

warnings are intended to increase the perception of risk of

detection and apprehension. Offenders, however, tend to

accurately perceive that risks of apprehension are fairly low.

Some warnings relate to increased sanctions for graffiti

offenses. If offenders do not believe the risk of apprehension

is high, they are unlikely to be concerned about the penalties

for offending.† Warnings directed at chronic offenders may be

more effective than general warnings.

† In some limited studies of

bathroom graffiti (Mueller et al. 2000;

Watson 1996), posting signs warning

of sanctions, containing positive

messages appealing to altruism, or

conveying neutral messages–"Please

do not write on these walls"–resulted

in a decline in graffiti.
Appendix 37

Summary of Responses to Graffiti

The table below summarizes the responses to graffiti, the

mechanism by which they are intended to work, the

conditions under which they ought to work best, and some

factors you should consider before implementing a particular

response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local

circumstances, and that you can justify each response based

on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will

involve implementing several different responses. Law

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing

or solving the problem.

1.

2.

3.

20

22

25

Detecting graffiti

rapidly and

routinely

Removing graffiti

rapidly

Increasing natural

observation of

graffiti-prone

locations

Permits rapid

removal

Reduces time

graffiti is visible,

thus thwarting

offenders'

objective of

having graffiti be

widely seen

Increases risk of

detection

...locations are

regularly

monitored

...removal is very

quick and

consistent 

...graffiti occurs

in low-visibility

places 

Requires

commitment and

resources–efforts

should not be

piecemeal; can

involve

employees, police,

citizens, hotlines,

and other means

Removal may be

expensive,

difficult and/or

coercive (e.g.,

victims, as well as

offenders, may be

sanctioned)

Efforts to

improve lighting,

reduce shrubbery

and improve sight

lines are most

effective if the

area is not

isolated for long

periods of time

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Reducing Rewards to Offenders

Increasing the Risk of Detection
38 Graffiti

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

25

26

26

28

29

Increasing formal

observation of

graffiti-prone

locations

Increasing

electronic security

Conducting

publicity

campaigns

Vandal-proofing

graffiti-prone

locations

Controlling access

to graffiti-prone

locations 

Increases risk of

detection;

information can

aid investigations

Increases risk of

detection

Increases risk of

detection

Increases

difficulty of

applying graffiti

(may also

decrease graffiti

visibility, reducing

motives); some

methods facilitate

removal

Makes it more

difficult to access

or vandalize

properties

...there are highrisk hot spots

...offenders are

targeting large

areas such as

transit lots 

...information is

widely

disseminated, and

risk of detection

increases

...there are

chronic graffiti

locations 

...property or

operations can

support design

changes

Can use undercover

personnel, other

employees and

electronic means;

easily available; can

be used on transit

systems

Can be costeffective;

information can aid

investigations 

May contribute to

increased graffiti

reports and extend

deterrent effect

Can be expensive if

done retroactively;

offenders may

change their

methods or targets;

may stimulate and

challenge offenders;

some measures,

such as using

grooved, slanted or

heavily textured

walls, or otherwise

unappealing graffiti

surfaces, can be

very effective; may

be unsightly

May be expensive,

but very effective;

may best be

incorporated into

construction and

planning designs;

most effective if

behavior is also

regulated, such as in

apartment

complexes or transit

stations

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending
Appendix 39

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

30

32

32

33

33

34

34

Focusing on

chronic offenders

Controlling

graffiti tools 

Channeling

behavior into

more acceptable

activities 

Providing

alternative

activities and

services

Involving youth

in developing

programs

Expanding

applicable laws 

Holding parents

accountable

Increases risk of

detection of

prolific graffiti

offenders

Makes it more

difficult for

offenders to get

paint or markers

Intended to

provide creative

outlets

Intended to

engage and

provide

supervision to

youth 

Intended to tap

offenders'

consciences and

create ownership

Increases threat

of punishment to

deter offenders

Involves parents

in controlling

offenders'

behavior

...there is a small

group of chronic

offenders

...offenders are

easily deterred,

and merchants

comply

...offenders are

artistically

motivated

....offenders are

jobless, bored or

unsupervised 

...offenders are

not highly

invested in the

graffiti lifestyle

...laws target

particular

problems

....offenders are

juveniles

Requires offender

identification and

follow-up

Difficult to enforce;

offenders can seek

tools elsewhere;

tools are easily

accessed,

transported and

hidden

Graffiti boards and

walls can be placed

in highly visible

locations; they

appear to attract

little vandalism; they

may not attract the

target group

Difficult to identify

and involve chronic

offenders; programs

may be expensive

Little deterrent

effect for chronic

offenders

Can be timeconsuming;

offenders believe

they won't get

caught, so they

don't worry about

punishment

Offenders can often

hide behavior from

parents; parents

may have little

control

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Responses with Limited Effectiveness
40 Graffiti

16.

17.

18.

19.

35

35

36

36

Increasing

sanctions for

offenders

Applying new

technologies

Establishing

juvenile curfews

Warning

offenders

Raises the risks

associated with

graffiti

Reduces motives,

deflects or diverts

offenders, or

increases

detection

Increases the risk

of detection for

certain offenders

Intended to

increase fear of

detection

...combined with

investigative

enforcement

activities

...the technology

fits the problem

...graffiti typically

occurs late at

night, and

offenders are

juveniles

...detection is

increased, and

consequences are

unpleasant

Because

apprehension of

offenders is low,

may have little

deterrent effect;

sanctions should be

applied

systematically;

requires

collaboration with

prosecutors and

judges; can consist

of fines, community

service or loss of

driver's license

May be expensive

and require

substantial

adaptation or

experimentation

Difficult to enforce

Apprehension of

offenders is low;

warnings of dire

consequences may

not be effective

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations
Endnotes 41

Endnotes 1 Castleman (1982); Sloan-Howitt and Kelling (1990). 2 Coffield (1991). 3 Wilson (1988). 4 Ley and Cybrinsky (1974); Klein (1995). 5 Coffield (1991). 6 Gomez (1993); Ferrell (1995). 7 Gomez (1993). 8 Wilson (1987). 9 San Diego Police Department (2000). 10 Clarke (1978); Coffield (1991). 11 Wilson (1987). 12 Bridgeport Police Department (1999). 13 San Diego Police Department (2000). 14 Sampson and Scott (2000). 15 Wilson (1988). 16 Governing (1994). 17 Nugent (1998). 18 Poyner (1988); Tilley (1998). 19 Poyner (1988). 20 Eastel and Wilson (1991). 21 Gomez (1993). 22 Wilson (1988).

References 43

References

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

p. 43.

Bridgeport Police Department (1999). Problem-Solving

Partnership Grant Progress Report to the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services (August). Bridgeport, Conn.:

Bridgeport Police Department.

Butterfield, F. (1988). "On New York Walls, the Fading of

Graffiti." New York Times, May 6, p. B1.

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

MIT Press.

Cheetham, D. (1994). Dealing With Vandalism–A Guide to the

Control of Vandalism. London: Construction Industry Research

and Information Association.

Chula Vista Police Department (1999). City of Chula Vista

Recent Graffiti Trends. Chula Vista, Calif.: Chula Vista Police

Department.

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

Research Study, No. 47. London: Her Majesty's Stationery

Office.

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

London: Calhouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Cohen, S. (1973). "Property Destruction: Motives and

Meanings." In C. Ward (ed.), Vandalism. London: The

Architectural Press.
44 Graffiti

Eastel, P., and P. Wilson (1991). Preventing Crime on Transport:

Rail, Buses, Taxis, Planes. Canberra, Australia: Australian

Institute of Criminology.

Ferrell, J. (1995). "Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control and

Resistance." Youth and Society 27(1):73–89.

Gomez, M. (1993). "The Writing on Our Walls: Finding

Solutions Through Distinguishing Graffiti Art From Graffiti

Vandalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

26(3):633–708.

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

Kennedy, D. (1997). "Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders,

High-Crime Settings and a Theory of Prevention." Valparaiso

University Law Review 31:449–483.

Kennedy, D., A. Braga and A. Piehl (1997). "(Un)Known

Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston." In

D. Weisburd and T. McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime

Prevention. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

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

University Press.

Ley, D., and R. Cybrinsky (1974). "Urban Graffiti As

Territorial Markers." Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 64:491–501.

Mueller, M., J. Moore, A. Doggett, and D. Tingstrom (2000).

"The Effectiveness of Contingency-Specific and ContingencyNonspecific Prompts in Controlling Bathroom Graffiti."

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33(1):89–92.
References 45

Nugent, H. (1998). "Gang Graffiti." Addressing Community Gang

Problems: A Practical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of

Justice Assistance.

Otto, A., K. Maly and D. Schismenos (2000). "Cracking Down

on Gangs With GIS." In N. La Vigne and J. Wartell (eds.),

Successful Crime Mapping Case Studies, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.:

Police Executive Research Forum.

Poyner, B. (1988). "Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism."

Journal of Security Administration 11:44–51.

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

Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington,

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

Oriented Policing Services.

San Diego Police Department (2000). "Mid-City Graffiti

Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Scott, D. (1989). "Graffiti Wipeout." FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin (December):10–14.

Sloan-Howitt, M., and G. Kelling (1990). "Subway Graffiti in

New York City: 'Getting Up' vs. 'Meaning It and Cleaning It.'"

Security Journal 1(3):131–136.

Tilley, N. (1998). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of CCTV

Schemes." In C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong (eds.),

Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Brookfield,

Vt.: Ashgate Publishing Co.
46 Graffiti

Watson, S. (1996). "A Prompt Plus Delayed Contingency

Procedure for Reducing Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis 29(1):121–124.

Wilson, P. (1988). "Preventing Vandalism and Graffiti." Journal

of Security Administration 11(2):28–35.

(1987). "Research Brief No. 6: Graffiti and

Vandalism on Public Transport." Trends and Issues. Canberra,

Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
About the Author 47

About the Author

Deborah Lamm Weisel

Deborah Lamm Weisel is an assistant research professor and

the director of police research in the Department of Political

Science and Public Administration at North Carolina State

University. Her portfolio includes research on police

responses to crime problems such as gangs, street drugs and

graffiti, as well as community policing, safety and security in

public housing, and repeat victimization from burglary and

robbery. Her work has been published in Justice Quarterly, Public

Management, the NIJ Journal, and the American Journal of Police.

She holds a doctorate in political science/public policy

analysis from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Recommended Readings 49

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.
50 Graffiti

• 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-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.
Recommended Readings 51

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the

problem-solving process, and provides examples of

effective problem-solving in one agency.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
52 Graffiti

• 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 Guides in This Series 53

Other Guides in This Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

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

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

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

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001.

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001.

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

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

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

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

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

Clarke. 2002.

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002.

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

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

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

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

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

2002.

19. Misuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

Companion guide to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
54 Graffiti

Other Related COPS Office Publications

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law

Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 2001.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.

Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case

Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S.

Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative

Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced

Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing

Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and

Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Karin

Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg

Townsend. 1998.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series

and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of

Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 or check our website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770

Visit the COPS internet web site at the address listed below.

e11011354 Created Date: February 1, 2002