U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

C r i m e P r e v e n t i o n 

P u b l i c i t y C a m p a i g n s

by

Emmanuel Barthe

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series

No. 5
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

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

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• On-line access to research and police practices

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

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

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Crime Prevention 

Publicity Campaigns

Emmanuel Barthe

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2003CKWX0087 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

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

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

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

specific companies, products, or services should not be considered 

endorsements by the author(s) or the Justice Department. Rather, 

they are used to supplement discussion of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

June 2006

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series

Guide No. 5

About the Response Guides Series 

About the Response Guides Series

The Response Guides are one of three series of the ProblemOriented Guides for Police. The other two are the ProblemSpecific Guides and Problem-Solving Tools. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge 

about how police can reduce the harm caused by 

specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides 

to preventing problems and improving overall incident 

response, not to investigating offenses or handling specific 

incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details 

about how to implement specific responses. The guides 

are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problems the guides cover. 

The guides will be most useful to officers who:

understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods

can look at problems in depth

are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business

understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge

are willing to work with other community agencies to 

find effective solutions to problems.

The Response Guides summarize knowledge about whether 

police should use certain responses to address various 

crime and disorder problems, and about what effects they 

might expect. Each guide:

describes the response 

discusses the various ways police might apply the 

response 

explains how the response is designed to reduce crime 

and disorder 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
ii Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

examines the research knowledge about the response 

addresses potential criticisms and negative 

consequences that might flow from use of the 

response

describes how police have applied the response to 

specific crime and disorder problems, and with what 

effect.

The Response Guides are intended to be used differently 

from the Problem-Specific Guides. Ideally, police should 

begin all strategic decision-making by first analyzing the 

specific crime and disorder problems they are confronting, 

and then using the analysis results to devise particular 

responses. But certain responses are so commonly 

considered and have such potential to help address a range 

of specific crime and disorder problems that it makes 

sense for police to learn more about what results they 

might expect from them. 

Readers are cautioned that the Response Guides are designed 

to supplement problem analysis, not to replace it. Police 

should analyze all crime and disorder problems in their 

local context before implementing responses. Even if 

research knowledge suggests that a particular response 

has proved effective elsewhere, that does not mean the 

response will be effective everywhere. Local factors matter 

a lot in choosing which responses to use.

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, 

in most cases, the most effective overall approach to 

a problem is one that incorporates several different 

responses. So a single response guide is unlikely to provide 

you with sufficient information on which to base a 

coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems. 

•

•

•
About the Response Guides Series iii

Some combinations of responses work better than others. 

Thus, how effective a particular response is depends partly 

on what other responses police use to address the problem. 

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as 

the main considerations police should take into account 

in choosing responses, but recognize that they are not 

the only considerations. Police use particular responses 

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

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

Community attitudes and values, and the personalities 

of key decision-makers, sometimes mandate different 

approaches to addressing crime and disorder problems. 

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

community-oriented, or harm-reduction approaches. These 

guides will not necessarily alter those preferences, but are 

intended to better inform them.

The COPS Office defines community policing as 

“a policing philosophy that promotes and supports 

organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce 

the fear of crime and social disorder through problemsolving tactics and police-community partnerships.” 

These guides emphasize problem-solving and police-community 

partnerships in the context of addressing specific public 

safety problems. For the most part, the organizational 

strategies that can facilitate problem-solving and policecommunity partnerships vary considerably and discussion 

of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, 

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and 

Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police 

practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that 
the police everywhere experience common problems. In 

a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 

research literature and reported police practice and is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 

executives and researchers prior to publication. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 

feedback on this guide and to report on your own 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 problem-oriented policing training exercise

an interactive Problem Analysis Module

a manual for crime analysts

online access to important police research and practices

information about problem-oriented policing 

conferences and award programs. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

iv Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 

John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this 

guide.

contents

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

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

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

Defining Crime Prevention Publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Using Publicity to Complement Police Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A Word of Caution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Police Publicity Campaigns and Target Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Victim-Oriented Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Offender-Oriented Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Benefits of Publicity Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Low Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Improved Public Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Anticipatory Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Issues Related to Publicity Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Concerned Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Heightened Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Sign Destruction/Theft/Vandalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Nature of Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Specificity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Logo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Contents vii
viii Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Geographic Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Campaign Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Language Issues/ Diverse Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Types of Publicity Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Television and Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Newspaper and Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Billboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Posters and Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Fliers/Leaflets/Newsletters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Other Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Evaluating Your Publicity Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Process Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix A: Checklist for Design and Implementation of Your Publicity Campaign . . . . . 39

Appendix B: Summary Table of Previous Publicity Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

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

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police ...................................... 67
Introduction

Introduction

Developing innovative efforts to reduce crime and social 

disorder is an integral part of modern police work. Police 

agencies that undertake such interventions should consider 

advertising their work and ideas. Departments can help 

remove crime opportunities by teaching and encouraging 

the public to adopt better self-protection measures, or 

they can warn offenders of increased police vigilance 

or improved police practices. When designed properly, 

publicity campaigns can offer police departments another 

problem-solving tool in the fight against crime.

Defining Crime Prevention Publicity

There are many different ways that the public can learn 

about a police crime-prevention initiative. There could be 

a news story detailing the initiative, people may hear about 

it through word of mouth, or newspaper editorials may 

mention it. All of these “sources” do in fact publicize the 

initiative, but there is little control over the content or its 

portrayal. To separate this kind of general information 

from a crime prevention publicity campaign, the term crime 

prevention publicity should refer to: 

1. a planned effort 

2. by an agency 

3. to promote crime prevention practices 

4. by creating distinct campaigns designed 

5. to educate victims, or deter offenders.

This definition focuses on clearly defined efforts that 

incorporate information with practical crime prevention 

measures. 
Using Publicity to Complement Police Efforts

Publicity serves to pass relevant information to potential 

offenders and victims. Informing a community about a 

crime problem, introducing target-hardening measures, or 

warning of increased police patrols can lead to an increase 

in self-protection and/or a decrease in offenses. 

The figure below shows the impact of a stand-alone (no 

publicity component) crime prevention strategy aimed at 

offenders. While the initiative does manage to deter or help 

police apprehend a segment of the offending population, 

many offenders remain unaffected. This is partly because 

in this kind of scenario, the crime prevention benefits are 

limited to those who have heard about the operation or 

who have been directly affected by it. 

In the following figure, a complementary publicity 

campaign advertises the same crime prevention strategy. 

Through the advertisement, however, a bigger segment of 

the population hears about the strategy, and more crime 

reduction results.

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Introduction

Publicity campaigns in crime prevention operate much like 

advertising campaigns in the private sector. Commercial 

advertisements are intended to persuade a target audience 

to buy a particular product by publicizing information 

meant to appeal to that audience. Effective commercial 

advertisements therefore sway customers to change their 

behavior, usually by buying something. When it comes to 

crime prevention, the same dynamics are at work. Those 

targeted by the intervention (offenders and victims alike) 

need to be exposed to information that will influence 

their future decision-making processes. The key is to 

devise proper campaigns and to match the message to the 

audience. There are numerous ways to use publicity, and 

agencies can benefit from succinct and properly designed 

campaigns to support crime prevention efforts. This 

guide’s purpose is to help local police plan and implement 

effective publicity campaigns by exploring their benefits 

and pitfalls. 

A Word of Caution

Police agencies should not blindly resort to publicity 

campaigns or rely on them to replace proper police 

interventions. While it may be tempting to adopt publicity 

campaigns to support police efforts, such attempts should 

incorporate proper planning and adequate implementation. 

A poorly designed publicity campaign may inadvertently 

increase fear of crime, with undesired consequences such 

as vigilantism. Police agencies should also refrain from 

relying on publicity campaigns as a generic response to 

crime problems. Randomly posting signs advising residents 

to lock their cars is unlikely to reduce a city’s car theft 

problem. Publicity campaigns should always complement 

police initiatives, and police departments should be 

wary of relying on publicity alone to combat crime. 
Police should also remember that repeatedly relying on 

campaigns meant to scare offenders without implementing 

concrete programs or enforcement is essentially “crying 

wolf,” which harms police-community relations and causes 

no crime reduction.

Before mounting a crime prevention publicity campaign, 

police should carefully analyze the crime problem. For 

instance, if a burglary analysis indicates that victims 

would benefit the most from prevention information, 

then a campaign is more likely to succeed by focusing on 

educating victims. Agencies should therefore undertake 

a publicity campaign only in the context of a broader 

response to a problem. 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Police Publicity Campaigns and Target Audiences

Police Publicity Campaigns and Target 

Audiences 

Police publicity campaigns target two main audiences: 

potential victims and offenders. Law enforcement 

agencies should decide which audience to target based 

on the nature of the problem. For example, if a police 

department notices that there are numerous preventable 

property crimes in an area, perhaps a short campaign to 

remind residents about the importance of securing their 

belongings could be beneficial. On the other hand, if 

local youths routinely vandalize cars in a parking lot, a 

campaign threatening police apprehension would be more 

effective. However, nothing prevents a dual approach 

whereby two campaigns run simultaneously, one to reduce 

the number of potential victims, and the other to deter 

offenders.1 The figure below illustrates this concept.

When trying to determine the target audience, one 

should also consider how accessible each audience is. For 

example, a victim-oriented campaign designed to reduce 

car break-ins by mailing fliers to local residences is not 

appropriate if most of the victims are commuters from 

out of town. Likewise, putting up posters aimed at car 

thieves in retirement facilities is unlikely to reach the 

intended audience. Therefore, “audience accessibility” 

should guide the campaign’s direction. 

Publicity Campaign

Victims

Offenders

Victims and Offenders
Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Victim-Oriented Campaigns

Efforts to reach victims can take one of two forms. Police 

can try to provide general information to residents concerning 

crime and its prevention, or they can advertise a specific 

community program they are undertaking. The goals of general 

campaigns are to raise awareness in hopes that some members 

of the public will avoid victimization. The second type of 

victim campaign focuses on a particular crime and offers 

victims concrete steps to avoid victimization or reduce their 

fear of crime.2 These campaigns often involve cooperation 

between the police department and the community in 

conducting home-security surveys, obtaining steering-wheel 

locks, or providing classes on various security-enhancing 

measures. Fliers and newsletters demonstrating techniques to 

make cars and houses “burglar-proof ” are common in these 

“target-hardening” campaigns. 

Publicity directed at VICTIMS can advertise:

self-protection techniques 

new ways to report crime

locations of police facilities or resources 

dangerous areas 

offenders living in the area (e.g., sex offenders)

neighborhood crime problems.

•

•

•

•

•

•

Publicity directed at OFFENDERS can advertise:

police techniques or future police crackdowns

penalties or the risk of apprehension for certain 

crimes

results of past crackdowns or police operations

knowledge of an illicit market or drug trade

legislative changes.

•

•

•

•

•
Police Publicity Campaigns and Target Audiences

General publicity campaigns aimed at victims have had 

limited effectiveness.3 A four-month national press and poster 

campaign tried to educate people about the importance of 

locking their parked cars, but it failed to change people’s 

behavior.4 Another campaign used posters and television spots 

to remind people to lock their car doors, but it also proved 

ineffective.5 These studies demonstrate that people often pay 

little attention to crime prevention messages. A common reason 

given is that potential victims do not feel that it concerns 

them.6 For instance, domestic violence awareness campaigns 

have to compete with the possibility that women do not want to 

see themselves as victims.7

Some other explanations include community members’ feeling 

bored by the message, not seeing the message, ignoring the 

message, or adopting the “it won’t happen to me” mentality. 

Even with extensive campaign coverage, general publicity 

attempts show meager results. A five-week police campaign 

showed that “despite an unusually high level of coverage, 

[the campaign] failed to influence the number of car thefts 

known to the police or the proportion of drivers locking their 

cars.”8 In Canada, a mass media campaign to promote crime 

prevention relied on radio, television, newspapers, and billboard 

advertisements. This general campaign attempted to target three 

different property crimes: vandalism, residential burglary, and 

theft from automobiles. Although the campaign reached a large 

segment of the population, only a small number perceived the 

crime prevention themes as relevant or worthwhile.9

However, victim campaigns that focus on specific crimes and 

are carried out in small geographic regions seem to be more 

effective.10 They seem to have more success because people 

feel the messages are more relevant to their immediate situation 

than are generic warnings about crime. A good example of 

this type of campaign was carried out by the North Brunswick 

Police Department in New Jersey. In 1998, the department 
Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

decided to address auto thefts through a multimedia 

publicity campaign. The campaign included television 

public service announcements (PSAs), newsletters 

from the mayor’s office, crime prevention brochures, 

community bulletin boards, and local billboards, among 

other measures. The effort also included the donation 

of free Clubs® from local businesses. By attending 

local community functions, the police could reach 

many residents, effectively disseminating specific crime 

prevention information. One out of three residents 

reported some contact with the campaign, and of 

those, nearly all adopted the proposed crime prevention 

measures, significantly reducing auto crimes.11

Sometimes, victim publicity campaigns reduce crime 

because they alert offenders that the police are doing 

something new or are paying more attention to the 

problem.12 While warning offenders is not an intended 

part of the campaign, the message still reaches them. A 

property-marking project in the United Kingdom was 

successful because the publicity surrounding the police 

intervention inadvertently informed potential burglars 

that measures were under way to address the problem.13 

Similarly, a police campaign to reduce car theft by inviting 

residents to etch a vehicle identification number (VIN) on 

their cars was an unexpected success because it deterred 

potential offenders by alerting them to the prevention 

measure.

14

Summary of Victim-Oriented Campaigns

Victim-oriented campaigns work best when carried out in small geographic areas.

Victim campaigns should focus on specific crime types.

General victim campaigns are rarely successful in changing prevention behaviors.

Many victim campaigns fail to reach the intended audiences with the message.

Timeliness and relevance are key to campaign success.

The campaign may have an indirect positive effect of warning offenders.

•

•

•

•

•

•
Police Publicity Campaigns and Target Audiences

Offender-Oriented Campaigns

 

Crime prevention strategies rely on the notion that 

offenders are rational individuals who seek to maximize 

their rewards while minimizing their potential costs.15 

With that premise, giving offenders information about the 

risks of crime becomes an important component of crime 

reduction efforts. Police agencies can use publicity to 

advertise the risks offenders are taking, either by showing 

the increased level of victim protection (thereby reducing 

the potential benefits), or by highlighting the legal 

consequences of crime (increasing the costs). Costs to the 

offenders can range from bodily harm, to legal sanctions, 

to societal impacts. Boston’s efforts to reduce gun crimes 

included a publicity component that proved to be quite 

effective because the campaign’s message “delivered a 

direct and explicit message to violent gangs and groups 

that violent behavior will no longer be tolerated, and that 

the group will use any legal means possible to stop the 

violence.”16 

Some examples of campaigns focused on legal 

consequences or making moral appeals include “DON’T 

DRINK AND DRIVE,” “SHOPLIFTING IS A CRIME,” 

and “SPEEDING KILLS.” However, evaluations have 

found that this type of publicity campaign rarely has an 

impact.17 Perhaps, as with victim campaigns, offenders 

do not take the message seriously, or they do not feel it 

applies to them and dismiss it as irrelevant. Many offender 

campaigns are also ineffective because they deliver 

information at times when people are not committing 

crimes.18 In short, the campaign organizers should ask 

themselves: “How do we make it relevant to the offenders’ 

immediate situation?”
10 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Publicity campaigns that threaten an increased risk of 

arrest can be more effective in reducing offending.19 

Campaigns that threaten only eventual punishment lack 

the element that plays an important role in the offender’s 

mental equation: the probability of getting caught.20

When a police department engages in crime interdiction 

efforts, the risk of arrest should be the primary advertised 

message—not the effect of an arrest, but the probability

of an arrest. In reality, this is hard to quantify, but the 

purpose of the publicity is simply to alter offenders’ 

perceptions, leaving them to wonder when and where they 

will be caught. 

Offender campaigns are successful not when they threaten 

later punishment, but when they threaten detection and 

arrest. The Operation Identification and VIN initiatives 

discussed earlier were successful because the publicity 

warned offenders about increased police attention. In 

England, signs on buses that warned youths that they 

were being watched via CCTV, and that infractions would 

be reported to the police, significantly reduced bus 

vandalism.21 

Campaigns designed to reduce speeding also support the 

use of threatening apprehension. Speed limit signs and 

posters demanding a slower pace have had little success 

in deterring speeders. However, speed cameras and 

publicity about the high likelihood of getting caught have 

proved to reduce the speeds of even the most dedicated 

of offenders.22 Placing posters warning that officers are 

around the corner to surprise speeders is a good example 

of effective offender publicity.23
Police Publicity Campaigns and Target Audiences 11

Finally, offender campaigns are more efficient when they 

target specific crime types and focus on a clearly defined 

geographic area.24 For offenders to take the message 

seriously, they need to feel as though the campaign 

targets them directly. This need to be specific requires 

police agencies to know whom they are targeting, at what 

times, and in what areas. For example, a police initiative 

to reduce car vandalism after school hours can include 

posting signs around town stating that “VANDALISM 

IS A MISDEMEANOR,” but a more focused approach 

might include posters in the problem area with messages 

such as “SMILE, UNDERCOVER OFFICERS ARE 

WATCHING YOU,” or “OUR OFFICERS HAVE 

ALREADY ARRESTED 12 STUDENTS FOR 

VANDALISM—WILL YOU BE NEXT?”. By focusing 

on distinct areas instead of trying to cover an entire city, 

police officers can concentrate their publicity resources on 

one setting, avoiding the risk of spreading themselves too 

thin. This targeted approach also allows personalization of 

the message, making it more believable and pertinent to 

the local audience.

Summary of Offender-Oriented Campaigns

Advertise increased risks and reduced rewards.

Avoid moral appeals; instead, focus on the likelihood of 

immediate detection and arrest.

The message should be publicized when and where offenders can 

see it. 

Offender-oriented campaigns work best when carried out in small 

geographic areas.

Offender campaigns should focus on specific crime types.

Timeliness and relevance are key to campaign success.

•

•

•

•

•

•

Benefits of Publicity Campaigns 13

Benefits of Publicity Campaigns

Low Cost

Crime prevention efforts that include publicity 

components need to address the campaign’s costeffectiveness. Police agencies have numerous media 

options to promote their message, each with differing 

costs and convenience. As mentioned above, the different 

formats range from television campaigns to common 

fliers. With proper planning and organization, most police 

departments can undertake a publicity campaign with 

minimal costs. 

While television can be a costly medium, police can 

make effective use of local channels and airtime 

dedicated to PSAs to promote crime prevention. 

Community businesses can help defray campaign costs 

by donating materials or disseminating information. 

— A print shop, for example, can donate or discount 

the cost of fliers. 

— Taxi and bus companies can display posters or 

signs on their vehicles, and other businesses can 

display them in store windows. 

— The North Brunswick Police Department worked 

closely with car dealerships and local stores in 

spreading anti-car theft messages to customers.25

Most police agencies can design and produce 

professional-looking messages with the help of 

modern desktop computers and printers. There are 

also private companies that produce customizable 

signs that police departments can use to publicize 

their message. 

•

•

•
14 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

A key consideration in the cost of publicity campaigns, 

especially ones that involve signs and/or posters, is that 

their visibility be constant, allowing agencies cost-effective 

message dissemination. While other components of 

the intervention may be in effect only when people are 

actively promoting crime prevention measures, a posted 

sign is always “at work.” 

 

Improved Public Relations

Police agencies can also reap indirect benefits by initiating 

publicity campaigns, including the following:

The public may appreciate that the police are 

proactively working toward solutions to crime 

problems.

Citizens may increasingly participate in the crime 

prevention effort.

Citizens may start seeing law enforcement agencies 

as prevention partners instead of a sanctioning force, 

which will help to improve public-police relations.26 

With a properly administered campaign, police 

departments not only produce publicity, but also 

advertise themselves as a concerned public-service 

entity. 

Anticipatory Benefits

Research has shown that when a publicity campaign 

advertises an upcoming police intervention, crime 

reduction benefits may occur before implementation. This 

phenomenon is called “anticipatory benefits.”27 This 

occurs when the pre-intervention publicized warning alters 

offenders’ perceptions of risk. Thus, police agencies can 

maximize their crime reduction potential through the early 

advertising of future prevention efforts.

•

•

•
Issues Related to Publicity Campaigns 15

Issues Related to Publicity Campaigns

Concerned Stakeholders

Sharing information, be it offering crime prevention tips 

to potential victims or trying to warn offenders about 

increased risks of arrest, inevitably draws attention to 

a community’s crime problem. Police may therefore 

encounter some opposition to mounting a crime 

prevention publicity campaign from influential community 

members. 

For example, a car theft campaign in a local shopping-mall 

parking lot may meet resistance from business owners 

who fear the campaign may scare away potential shoppers. 

Real-estate agents opposed anti-car theft publicity posters 

in one New Jersey town when clients became apprehensive 

about living in an area with a high car-theft rate.28 Other 

businesses that may express concern include tourism 

bureaus, entertainment venues, and educational facilities. 

Finally, local politicians may not approve of advertising 

crime problems in their jurisdictions, regardless of the 

potential prevention benefits.29 These examples highlight 

the importance of working closely with community 

stakeholders when developing and implementing publicity 

campaigns, as there may be competing interests at play.30 

Heightened Anxiety

Publicity campaigns can sometimes result in residents’ 

becoming unduly alarmed about relatively rare crimes.31 

Sometimes, this might lead them to take crime prevention 

matters into their own hands (such as by carrying 

weapons).32 Therefore, campaign messages should 

avoid sounding too alarming or providing unnecessarily 

frightening information. Campaigns should address 
16 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

their targets directly, avoiding words that may alarm a 

community by highlighting a crime problem. For example, 

an anti-car theft campaign should avoid the following 

message: “This neighborhood is working to drive car 

thieves out”. This sort of message may raise unnecessary 

community concerns about car thefts. A more appropriate 

campaign may state: “Car thieves are in for a ride 

– straight to jail”. A further undesirable result of some 

campaigns might be citizens’ belief that police intrude too 

much in their daily lives. While these may not always be 

by-products of publicity, police agencies should be aware 

of them as they plan their campaigns. A possible solution 

to reduce heightened anxiety is for police departments to 

reach out to community members, explaining the reasons 

behind the anti-crime campaign. 

Displacement

Might a publicity campaign displace crime to an 

unprotected area, raising community concerns? 

Unfortunately, there is little information about publicity’s 

impact on displacement. However, research has shown 

that displacement caused by crime prevention efforts is 

relatively rare and, if it occurs, is minimal at best.33 Fear 

of displacement should not hinder attempts to mount 

publicity campaigns, however, as proper planning and 

implementation can reduce the probability of such an 

outcome. For example, by alternating publicity across 

different neighborhoods, a police department can increase 

a campaign’s deterrent value by creating uncertainty in 

the offending population. Offenders will not know where 

the real risks are, reducing the incentives for them to go 

elsewhere to offend.
Issues Related to Publicity Campaigns 17

Sign Destruction/Theft/Vandalism

Vandals or concerned stakeholders who do not agree 

with the campaign may deface street signs or billboards. 

In this case, rapidly repairing or replacing damaged signs 

is important, as the message must not be diluted or 

otherwise lose its significance. Campaigns that rely on 

street signs or posters are particularly at risk of vandalism. 

Wherever possible, campaign planners should place signs 

out of reach. In New Jersey, a Jersey City campaign to 

prevent auto thefts suffered considerable amounts of 

vandalism, as seen below.

Examples of damaged posters

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 19

Elements to Consider When Designing a 

Publicity Campaign

Poorly designed publicity campaigns are unlikely to 

produce the desired results. This section highlights some 

of the major considerations surrounding crime prevention 

publicity efforts.

Nature of Message

The campaign message comprises several important 

elements, discussed below. 

Content

The message content is any campaign’s central component. 

The message needs to be relevant to the target 

audience by being salient and timely.35

If victims are the target audience, the message 

should avoid blame, because most people will not 

pay attention to a campaign reminding them of their 

shortcomings.36 

Research shows that messages warning offenders of 

an increased risk of arrest are more successful than 

•

•

•

Ineffective campaigns usually result from:

making faulty assumptions concerning the nature of the message

targeting the wrong audience

improperly implementing the effort.

To avoid problems, it is a good idea to pretest publicity campaigns with a 

sample target audience to ensure that the content has sufficient appeal and 

communicates the correct message.34

•

•

•
20 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

those that focus on the legal consequences if one is 

caught. 

Campaigns should not include terms such as “battle,” 

“war effort,” “spreading cancer,” or “scourge” when 

referring to crime.37

Source

When it is appropriate to identify the agency responsible 

for the publicity campaign, avoid giving off an air of 

superiority when delivering the message, as this may turn 

off the audience, leading them to reject it. There may be 

times, however, when not identifying the agency producing 

the publicity campaign may prove beneficial. For example, 

a campaign targeting graffiti problems is likely to fail if it 

is sponsored by the Department of Public Works. While 

this agency may be responsible for implementing and 

reaping the eventual benefits of the campaign, offenders 

may not respond very well to messages coming from such 

a nondescript, generic entity.

A police department should portray itself as a 

concerned community entity, not a moralizing force. 

Many of the national PSAs concerning drug use 

and drunken driving failed because of “moralistic 

absolutism,”38 whereby the campaign criticized certain 

behaviors, leading audiences to perceive the messages 

as unrealistic and condescending. 

Public service announcements that use credible 

spokespeople are more likely to have an impact. For 

instance, a recovering alcoholic with multiple DUI 

arrests has credibility in promoting a “Don’t Drink 

and Drive” message.39

•

•

•
Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 21

Sensitivity

Trying to scare people is not recommended when deciding 

on a campaign’s content. 

Publicity should be about education, not threatening 

people or producing emotionally disturbing images.40 

A Scottish campaign against domestic violence 

included a poster of two rough-looking fists that 

promoted the stereotype that domestic violence was 

limited to brutish, criminal, working-class men.41

Campaigns should avoid messages that may upset the 

intended audience. In one rape prevention campaign 

designed to educate women, they were questioned 

about their attire and told that “loud praying” might 

scare off potential attackers.42 While many crime 

prevention messages promote individual responsibility 

for adopting self-protection measures,43 campaigns 

should refrain from overtly blaming victims. 

Specificity

Publicity messages need to be relevant and offer specifics 

to the target audiences. 

Anti-drinking campaigns that state “Know when 

to stop” tend not to be effective because different 

audiences may interpret the message differently.44

Quantifying the point at which to stop drinking (e.g., 

limiting intake to two drinks per hour) is less vague, 

and audiences are then more likely to change their 

behavior. 

•

•

•
22 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Campaigns should also provide the target audience 

with as much practical information as possible. For 

example, a publicity campaign supporting extra police 

patrols to combat auto theft should clearly state the 

nature of the intervention, the areas concerned, and 

the times when the patrols will be in effect. 

While it is tempting to try to reach as many people 

as possible, it is important to target the focus of 

any campaign, because audiences are more likely to 

respond to a message they perceive as being personal 

and relevant to their immediate surroundings and 

situation.45 Messages with catchy graphics, flashy 

colors, and references to subcultures, for example, are 

effective in reaching youths at risk for drug use and 

other thrill-seeking behaviors.46 

Logo

A well-designed logo can help to increase a publicity 

campaign’s impact. This notion comes directly from 

commercial advertisements that are highly laden with 

pictures, cartoon characters, and other appealing visuals to 

attract customer attention. 

Consumers usually identify more with the visual 

components of a publicity campaign than with simple 

text. 

Police departments should make concerted efforts 

to develop appropriate logos to complement their 

publicity campaigns, by carefully analyzing the crime 

problem and the target population. A good example 

of an effective logo accompanying a crime prevention 

campaign is the renowned McGruff crime dog. 

The cartoon figure is an imposing yet friendly dog 

dressed as a detective. While it is hard to measure the 

McGruff campaign’s exact impact on crime reduction, 

•

•

•

•
Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 23

an evaluation of the “Take a Bite out of Crime” 

campaign found that one in four people exposed to it 

adopted some crime prevention techniques.47

Geographic Coverage 

Police should base their decisions about geographic 

coverage on the aims of the campaign:

If the aim is to reduce shoplifting in local stores, a 

television campaign may be a waste of resources, 

whereas focusing on store entrances with signs and 

posters would be more appropriate.

Posting billboards citywide with burglary prevention 

tips may be a waste of resources if this crime affects 

only one or two neighborhoods. Once again, proper 

crime analysis should guide the campaign coverage.

The more tailored the coverage, the more effective 

the campaign. Limiting the coverage also allows police 

agencies to allocate resources more efficiently.

Campaign Duration

Campaigns that advertise crime prevention tips generally 

run longer than those that advertise a specific police 

operation, but they run the risk of leaving their target 

audience feeling bored and indifferent.48 To avoid this 

problem, publicizing in “bursts” can be very effective. 

This method avoids drawn out, continual exposure to the 

message, but relies instead on short, focused, and intense 

bursts of information.49 Research shows that repetition 

is an important factor when it comes to retention,50 and 

small increments of publicity serve this goal well. 

•

•

•
Campaigns that support police operations are often 

limited to the duration of the police intervention, but it 

is possible to begin the publicity before the intervention, 

and to continue it after the intervention ends. In this 

respect, publicity can amplify the perception of the police 

intervention, creating a greater deterrent effect. For 

example, if a police department develops a program to 

address auto thefts by implementing random checkpoints, 

the program can be advertised before, during, and 

after the operation. This informs offenders about the 

checkpoints but creates uncertainty as to when the police 

are actually out enforcing them.51

Implementation 

Implementation becomes especially relevant when 

the campaign is relatively short. Poor implementation 

protocols run the risk of reducing a campaign’s intensity 

and overall effectiveness. In mounting a campaign, police 

should ask the following: 

Where, when, and how will the publicity be 

disseminated? 

Who will be in charge? 

If a police intervention relies on street posters, who 

will ensure that the posters are at the right locations at 

the right times? 

If door-to-door fliers are part of the campaign, what 

procedures are in place to ensure that the participants 

are indeed delivering the fliers? 

•

•

•

•

24 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Language Issues/Diverse Populations

It is important for police agencies to be aware of their 

target audience’s demographic composition. Publicity 

messages cannot be efficient if people cannot understand 

the basic content. Increased use of visuals and logos 

can promote messages more efficiently by relying on 

universally recognized symbols. This is important, for 

example, in populations with low literacy rates, or when 

addressing young children.

Types of Publicity Formats

Having decided to implement a publicity campaign to 

advertise your crime prevention effort, should you adopt 

a general or a more tailored approach? The table below 

highlights some points to consider when choosing the 

publicity campaign’s format.

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 25

General Format Focused Format

Is based primarily on canvassing areas 

with general information

•

Has a less important dissemination 

method

•

Has unrestricted temporal and 

geographic coverage

•

• Reaches a wide audience

Makes it hard to control who 

“receives” the message

•

Makes it hard to control dissemination 

and update campaign information

•

• Is hard to evaluate

Example: a campaign to provide burglary 

prevention information citywide

•

Is designed to target a specific problem 

in a particular area

•

Requires a guided strategy to 

disseminate information

•

Has limited temporal and geographic 

coverage

•

• Reaches a limited audience

Requires techniques to ensure that 

selected audiences “receive” the message

•

May be carried out in a particular 

neighborhood, limiting the information 

to one concerned area

•

Is easier to manipulate, monitor, and 

evaluate

•

Example: a campaign focused on repeat 

burglaries in senior citizen housing 

•
26 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Too often, practical considerations such as ease of 

production and cost determine the format, even though 

it may not be the most effective one. While budgets are 

important, to select an effective publicity format, it is 

crucial to understand the target audience’s motivations and 

concerns. A common mistake is for police to think they 

know what message and format an audience will like and 

embrace. These decisions usually result in unattractive, 

poorly conceived, and ultimately ineffective campaigns. 

A good example of a well-thought-out and appropriately 

chosen format is the “Spur of the Moment” comic 

book initiative Australia’s National Motor Vehicle Theft 

Reduction Council used to describe the risks young 

car thieves faced (see below).52 In this case, the format 

spoke to the audience and increased the campaign’s 

success. Ideally, to maximize a campaign’s visibility, police 

agencies should rely on multiple avenues to disseminate 

information; relying on only one medium greatly reduces 

the campaign’s potential reach.53

“Spur of the Moment” comic book, 

Australia’s National Motor Vehicle Theft 

Reduction Council.
Television and Radio

 

While national campaigns rely heavily on television or 

radio to address problems such as drug abuse and drunken 

driving, few police agencies rely on these media. However, 

television or radio spots can also be appropriate venues 

for local campaigns, as police departments can publicize 

efforts on the local news or in PSAs.54 PSAs are often 

ineffective unless they target a very specific group, provide 

a very detailed message,55 and air when the target audience 

is watching.56 Unless donated, television time and the 

professional work needed to make attractive televised 

messages are expensive. Many cities have community 

access channels, but the audience tends to be limited, 

and it is unlikely that police campaigns that rely on these 

channels alone will have great impact. 

 

Newspapers and Magazines

National newspapers and magazines, like television and 

radio, are more suited for national campaigns. Local 

papers are more suitable for reaching a large segment 

of the local population, allowing them to read and learn 

about police interventions. Unlike television and radio, 

print media are relatively cheap, but it is difficult to 

control who receives the information. Simply printing 

a message does not ensure that the target audience will 

read it. In addition, because the information is mixed with 

other information, there is a chance the target audience 

may overlook it. With any printed media, you should 

always consider community or audience literacy levels.

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 27
Billboards

With their large imposing letters, billboards on highways 

and major roads ensure visibility. Billboards commonly 

advertise crime prevention techniques or otherwise 

educate the public about crime. In 2001, Los Angeles 

erected 60 billboards in gang-plagued neighborhoods 

carrying the message: “Guns ended the lives of 149 L.A. 

County kids last year. Stop the violence!” Billboards 

can also be useful in sharing target-hardening measures, 

as seen in the example below. While some billboard 

companies will donate space for public service messages, 

this medium is generally expensive. The design and 

production are also more elaborate than simple print 

media campaigns, and the message is confined to the 

billboards’ location.

Example of newspaper advertisement 

addressing mini-bikes.

Reno Gazette Journal 2004

28 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Posters and Signs

Posters and signs are relatively inexpensive to produce, 

and they are easily posted in relevant areas. Police agencies 

can place signs in specific areas, increasing the chances 

they will reach key audiences. Posters can be moved 

from location to location following police activity, but 

they are vulnerable to vandalism and destruction. Some 

communities may also have ordinances against posting 

signs on utility poles. Finally, plastering posters in a 

neighborhood may raise concerns about aesthetics or 

questions about safety. 

Example of a billboard to educate motorists

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 29
Fliers/Leaflets/Newsletters

Ease of production and low distribution costs make fliers 

and leaflets favorites of police departments and other 

crime prevention agencies. Using readily available desktop 

publishing software, an agency can create a cost-effective 

publicity campaign. Police officers can deliver the material 

door-to-door or place it on car windshields. 

Mailings are also an effective method of distribution, but 

materials should be addressed to an individual, instead 

of “occupant” or “resident,” as this personalizes the 

message.

57 While some studies have shown newsletters and 

brochures to be effective ways to spread crime prevention 

information,58 such media do not always produce the 

intended result. In the early 1980’s, the Houston Police 

Department failed to reduce residents’ fear of crime by 

distributing newsletters containing local crime rates and 

30 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Posters and signs designed to warn offenders.
prevention tips.59 In Newark, N.J., the police department 

used a similar strategy; while people liked receiving the 

newsletters, they rarely read them.60 

Other Media

Key chains reminding owners to lock their cars can be 

distributed at local stores, pencils or colorful stickers with 

messages against violence can be given to schoolchildren, 

and cards reminding drivers about the fines for speeding 

can be printed on the back of tollbooth tickets. A 

good example of an alternative medium was used in 

Birmingham, England, where police started mailing out 

Christmas cards during the holiday season to residents 

living in crime hotspots, offering them crime prevention 

tips.61 In a similar vein, Manchester, England, police sent 

holiday cards to known offenders in the area, reminding 

them to be on their best behavior by stating: “We are 

looking out for you.”62 

Other means to spread a message include coasters, as seen 

in the London Metropolitan Police effort to reduce drug 

use.

63 This is an example of a cheap yet visible method to 

state your message or warning concerning the effects of 

drug abuse.

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 31

Coasters used to warn public about the dangers of 

drug use.
During one campaign for responsible alcohol 

consumption, a partnership was formed between bars, a 

National Football League (NFL) team, beer wholesalers, 

and police. An advertisement aimed at reducing 

victimization around bars was printed on table toppers, 

with the NFL coach giving “tips.” The beer wholesalers 

agreed to distribute the table toppers as they delivered 

their product. Thus, the drinking public in bars and 

restaurants was specifically targeted. 

As mentioned above, comic books can be a useful way 

to reach youths. A phone company in England created 

an educational comic book for children to address the 

problem of phone vandalism.64 On page 26 is an example 

of a comic book designed to reduce car theft.65

Evaluating Your Publicity Campaign

Without an evaluation, police departments will learn little 

about a campaign’s successes or pitfalls, and there will be 

little evidence to support future use of the campaign. A 

valid evaluation should focus on two components of the 

campaign: its actual implementation (process) and the 

result (impact). 

Process Evaluation

The process evaluation will determine if the agency 

carried out the intended plan for the publicity campaign. 

For example, if the campaign plan included weekly radio 

ads and posters in business storefronts, the process 

evaluation would measure the extent to which police met 

these weekly targets. 

32 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
A process evaluation for publicity campaigns should ask 

the following questions:

Did the police target the appropriate geographic areas?

Did the police distribute the information at the proper 

times?

Did the police target the proper audience?

Did the campaign increase fear or concern within the 

community?

Did the police distribute the right numbers of posters, 

fliers, etc.?

Did the police end the campaign when planned? 

Did the police keep the campaign within budget?

Did the police have mechanisms in place to identify 

and resolve potential problems?

The above questions are important, as they will guide the 

impact evaluation and provide contextual information 

about the overall effort’s success or failure. If the process 

evaluation reveals that police poorly implemented the 

campaign, its effectiveness will remain questionable. 

Impact Evaluation

The impact evaluation will answer the basic question: Did 

the campaign have the desired effect? While the rate of 

the targeted crime problem is the first obvious measure, 

police departments should also consider other indicators 

when carrying out an impact evaluation of a publicity 

campaign. A community offended by a campaign’s content 

may easily offset the gains of a minor crime reduction. A 

thorough impact analysis should consider measuring how 

a campaign affects: 

the crime problem

residents/victims

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 33
offenders

community groups and businesses

the police department.

 

The Crime Problem

Did the incidence of the targeted crime change?

(A reduction in the number of crimes is the most basic 

indicator that the campaign was a success, though the police 

can claim other successes even if the crime rate does not 

change.)

Did the severity of the targeted crime change? 

(A campaign may reduce the severity of harms a crime 

causes. For example, a campaign may lead to police agencies’ 

recovering stolen cars sooner, reducing the amount of damage 

to the cars.)

Did the number of targeted victims change?

(Campaigns may also lead to a reduction in the number of 

people victimized. While the incidence of crime may not 

decrease, a change in the victimized population may be a 

benefit.)

Did the geographic locations of the crimes change 

(displacement)?

(A campaign may also move undesirable behaviors from one 

setting to another. If a police department can move rowdy 

after-school students from busy sidewalks to some quiet 

corner, the department may claim a measure of success.) 

Residents/Victims

Were residents/victims aware of the publicity 

campaign?

Did the use of self-protection measures change during 

the campaign?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

34 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Did public participation in crime prevention efforts 

change?

(A victim-oriented campaign may have unexpected benefits 

such as increased public interest in crime prevention 

programs. Neighborhood Watch programs could develop, 

resulting from a campaign that raised crime awareness.)

Did concern about the publicity campaign decrease?

Did the community experience a heightened sense of 

anxiety because of the campaign?

Offenders

Were offenders aware of the publicity campaign?

Did their awareness change during the campaign?

Did offenders understand the campaign’s message?

Did they think the information was advertised in the 

proper format?

What did they perceive as the campaign’s weaknesses 

and strong points?

Did the campaign affect their decisions to commit 

crime?

Local Businesses/Schools/Community Groups

Were these groups happy with the campaign?

How did the campaign enhance or affect their role in 

the community?

Did they participate in the campaign?

The Police Department That Conducted the Campaign

What did the officers think of the campaign? 

What was the financial cost of the campaign to the 

department?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Elements to Consider When Designing a Publicity Campaign 35
What were the personnel costs?

What was the impact on officer morale and job 

satisfaction?

To carry out an effective campaign evaluation, police 

agencies must think ahead and gather the requisite data 

for meaningful comparisons and analyses. Departments 

should have valid and reliable indicators of the measures 

discussed above to allow for pre- and post-campaign 

comparisons. 

To see if a campaign increases residents’ selfprotection behaviors, police should conduct a survey 

of residents before the start of a campaign on selfprotection. 

Another survey at the end of the campaign will 

help explain changes in resident behavior due to the 

campaign. 

Multiple surveys at regular intervals during the 

campaign may reveal how resident behaviors vary over 

time, possibly highlighting the point when campaigns 

lose their novelty and, ultimately, their effectiveness.

A good way to test the effectiveness of crime prevention 

messages is to select an area similar to the one chosen for 

the campaign to serve as a control group, not exposing 

it to campaign information.66 The control group will 

help in determining whether any changes observed are 

attributable to the campaign and not to other factors. 

An impact evaluation would then compare crime rates 

or resident behaviors between the two groups. In some 

cases, such comparisons can be misleading, however, as 

the publicity component may lead to a simple increase in 

crime reporting, falsely increasing the “crime problem.”67 

•

•

•

•

•

36 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Summary

Publicity campaigns have had mixed success when used 

in crime reduction programs. Perhaps publicity campaigns 

fail in delivering their intended message because of poor 

design or implementation, and hence, it may be premature 

to dismiss campaigns as ineffective crime prevention 

tools. While publicity attempts have had little success in 

changing victim or offender behavior, they should not 

be abandoned; rather, the police should refine them. The 

challenge lies in finding the proper ways to influence 

citizen behaviors. Finding ways to reach the public is a key 

component. For example, if we know that elderly women 

living alone have a greater fear of crime, police should 

seek greater campaign efficiency by addressing this group 

more directly.68 Police in England reported that only 29 

percent of residents had heard about an anti-burglary 

initiative they conducted.69 In this case, it is clear that the 

publicity component did not reach the intended audience. 

In order to achieve the intended goals, police publicity 

campaigns should do the following:

Design

Focus on a specific crime type.

Avoid judgmental or patronizing messages.

Provide clear and simple steps to change behavior.

Appeal to a very specific group.

Use a logo that people can easily recognize and relate 

to.

Avoid scare tactics or images that may increase citizen 

fears

•

•

•

•

•

•

Summary 37
Implementation

Be limited to specific geographic areas.

Be implemented in bursts over time (avoid long, 

continuous campaigns).

Be closely monitored to ensure exposure.

Rely on multiple dissemination methods to maximize 

coverage.

Seek realistic goals and outcomes.

Ensure that the message does not lose its relevance.

Change message format regularly to avoid boredom 

and overexposure.

Evaluation/Assessment

Measure the crime problem before and after the 

campaign.

Identify conditions leading to success or failure.

Have an evaluation plan to measure success or failure.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

38 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Appendix A: Checklist for Design 

and Implementation of Your Publicity 

Campaign

Problem Selection

Have you selected a specific crime type on which to 

focus?

Have you carried out a detailed analysis concerning 

the crime type?

— Who are the offenders?

— Who are the victims?

— Where and at what times does this crime occur 

most?

Who is your target audience (victims, offenders, or 

both)?

On what specific neighborhoods or areas will you 

focus?

Message Design

Have you identified the themes relevant to your 

audience?

Have you met with concerned community stakeholders 

about the campaign design?

Is there any offensive content (wording, political 

messages, artwork, etc.)?

Is your message clear and appealing to your target 

audience?

Have you selected a campaign logo with which people 

can identify?

How is your approach different from ones that have 

failed in the past?

Does your design meet legal standards for your 

agency?

Is your design idea realistic and within your budget?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Appendix A: Checklist for Design and Implementation of Your Publicity Campaign 39
Implementation

Before dissemination, did you get input from a pretest audience and incorporate feedback in the design?

In addition, was the campaign pilot-tested with the 

intended target audience?

Have you devised a dissemination plan?

— Who will be in charge?

— How will you spread the publicity?

— How will you know that the campaign is going 

according to plan?

— What mechanisms are in place to monitor the 

campaign’s progress?

How long will the campaign last?

Will there be multiple waves of dissemination, or just 

a one-time exposure?

How will you address any community concerns that 

arise?

Evaluation

How will you measure whether the campaign was a 

success or not?

Did you conduct resident interviews before the 

campaign started to measure behaviors and attitudes?

What statistics will you use to compare the problem 

before and after the campaign?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

40 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns
Appendix B: Summary Table of Previous 

Publicity Efforts

The table below describes previous attempts to use 

publicity as a crime prevention tool. While intended as a 

summary of past efforts, given the wide range of publicity 

types, and their numerous applications, you should be 

careful when comparing different studies. For example, 

not all campaigns incorporated evaluation components 

into their design, and many relied on anecdotal evidence 

to gauge the success of the publicity used.

Furthermore, many published descriptions of publicity 

campaigns leave out information such as the coverage 

duration, the costs involved, and the population targeted. 

Therefore, the summary table highlights those studies or 

campaigns that offered detailed information concerning 

implementation and relative success

Appendix B: Summary Table of Previous Publicity Efforts 41
Audience Publicity Type Coverage Duration Details Successful? Author(s) of 

Evaluation

Crime Type Location/Date Purpose of 

Campaign

To reduce slug 

use in parking 

meters

To reduce 

shoplifting of 

clothes

“Shoplifting 

is a crime”

1976 Home 

Office 

campaign to 

reduce car 

crimes

“Lock Your 

Car”

New York 

(1972)

Slug use 

in parking 

meters

Offenders Warning 

stickers on 

parking meters

Local 3 years Stickers on parking 

meters warned that 

slug use was illegal.

No decrease 

in slug use.

Decker (1972)

Tennessee 

(1976)

Plymouth, 

England (1977)

Shoplifting

Auto crimes

Offenders

Victims

Store signs 

Newspapers, 

television, 

handbills, 

posters, “talking 

car”

Local (one 

store)

Focused 

on highcrime areas

20 days

5 weeks

Signs with 

antishoplifting 

messages were placed 

in a department store. 

Some had general 

messages (“Shoplifting 

is a crime”), and 

others were much 

more specific (“These 

items are frequently 

taken by shoplifters”).

Multiple media outlets 

were used: radio 

and TV coverage 

included crime 

prevention shows, 

and mentions of the 

campaign occurred 

during news segments. 

One hundred forty 

posters were placed 

in strategic locations 

in parking lots, and 

5,000 leaflets were 

distributed in post 

offices, garages, and 

social clubs.

With general 

signs, some 

reduction; 

with specific 

signs, complete 

reduction.

No measurable 

impact on 

victim behavior 

or car crimes, 

because 

residents failed 

to adopt crimeprevention 

measures.

McNees et al. 

(1976)

Burrows and 

Heal (1980)

42 Appendix B: Summary Table of Previous Publicity Efforts
Victims Television, 

newspapers, 

magazines, 

posters

General 2 years One out of every 

10 people exposed 

to the campaign 

began to engage 

in some form 

of victimization 

prevention.

Residents 

who perceived 

more objective 

risks adopted 

measures.

Van Dijk and 

Steinmetz 

(1981)

Pickpocketing, 

thefts from 

autos, 

residential 

burglary 

Netherlands 

(1977–1978)

Dutch 

publicity 

campaign 

to spread 

general crimeprevention 

messages

Crimeprevention 

campaign to 

reduce general 

victimization

“Let’s not 

give crime a 

chance”

Anti-vandalism 

campaign to 

warn youths 

about police 

apprehension

Crimeprevention tips 

to address rape

“Women 

by Night”

Alberta, Canada 

(1978)

Vandalism, 

burglary, 

thefts from 

autos

Victims Radio, 

television, 

PSAs, 

newspapers, 

billboards

General Several 

weeks

While large numbers 

of provincial residents 

reported exposure 

to the campaign, 

only a negligible 

number changed their 

behavior in response 

to it.

No change in 

behavior or 

crime rate.

Sacco and 

Silverman 

(1981)

England (1978)

Bremen, 

Germany (1980)

Vandalism

Rape

Offenders

Victims

Television

Fliers, 

brochures

National

General

8 weeks

2 months

Two television 

commercials were 

used. The first 

warned vandals of 

police attention, and 

the other reminded 

parents to stay 

vigilant.

More than 260,000 

leaflets were 

distributed to local 

schools, churches, 

hospitals, sports clubs, 

etc. The campaign was 

met with severe public 

reaction because it 

seemed to blame the 

victim.

No 

No

Riley (1980b)

Schafer (1982)
Audience Publicity Type Coverage Duration Details Successful? Author(s) of 

Evaluation

Crime Type Location/Date Purpose of 

Campaign

Jerusalem 

burglary 

project to 

spread burglary 

prevention 

information

To publicize 

general 

car crime 

prevention 

techniques

“Make Life 

Hell for Car 

Thieves”

To warn bus 

vandals about 

closed-circuit 

television 

(CCTV) 

cameras

“Video Bus” 

Jerusalem 

(1980)

Burglaries Victims Radio, 

newspapers, 

community 

meetings

Focused 

on one 

neighborhood

3 months Among other media 

used, radio interviews 

with police and 

department bulletins 

were found to be the 

most effective media 

approach.

Yes, 46 percent 

of residents 

changed 

behavior, and 

there was a 32 

percent decline 

in burglaries.

Geva and 

Israel (1982)

Sydney, 

Australia (1988)

England (1988)

Auto crimes

Bus vandalism

Victims

Offenders

Brochures, 

banners, 

television, 

PSAs, 

newspapers, 

video messages 

in shopping 

centers, theater 

ads, mailings

Newspapers, 

television, signs 

on buses

General

Local

Several 

weeks

Several 

months

The campaign 

provided specific 

information to victims 

about the probability 

of being victimized, 

based on where they 

lived, where they 

parked their cars, and 

what kinds of cars 

they drove. 

Newspaper articles 

and television reports 

discussed the new 

risks of apprehension 

when vandalizing 

buses, because of to 

new CCTV cameras. 

There was 

some increase 

in selfprotection 

measures, but 

nothing drastic.

Decrease in 

vandalism rates.

Monaghan 

(1988)

Poyner 

(1988)

44 Appendix B: Summary Table of Previous Publicity Efforts
Victims Television, 

local press

Local Approximately 

1 month

The publicity 

component advertised 

the success of the 

property-marking 

program.

Yes Laycock (1991) Burglaries England (1991) To increase 

property 

marking in an 

effort to reduce 

burglaries

“Operation 

Identification”

To reduce 

public 

intoxication in 

bars and clubs

“New 

Zealand Host 

Responsibility 

Program”

To reduce car 

crime

“Project Heat”

New Zealand 

(1993)

Public 

intoxication

Offenders Television, 

posters in 

bars and 

clubs

National 1 year The campaign sought 

to reduce intoxication 

by warning bar 

owners of their 

responsibility and legal 

consequences.

Yes, the 

campaign had 

a significant 

impact on 

awareness 

about serving 

intoxicated 

patrons.

Wyllie (1997)

Queensland, 

Australia (1997)

Auto crimes Victims Television, 

newspapers

General 

(statewide)

3 months The campaign invited 

residents to participate 

in a VIN etching 

program.

There was a 

reduction in 

car crimes 

caused by a 

reduction in 

offending, 

because of 

publicity.

Wortley, 

Kane, and 

Gant (1998) 
Audience Publicity Type Coverage Duration Details Successful? Author(s) of 

Evaluation

Crime Type Location/Date Purpose of 

Campaign

To reduce car 

crimes

“Operation 

Target”

North 

Brunswick 

Township 

project to 

prevent auto 

crimes

“Tell the 

Truth” 

campaign 

to address 

burglary and 

street crimes

New Jersey 

(1997)

Auto crimes Offenders Posters Local 10 

weeks

Six hundred posters 

warning of police 

apprehension were 

placed in select 

neighborhoods to 

deter car thieves. 

Additional police 

patrols were also 

added.

No decrease in 

car crimes

Barthe (2004) 

North 

Brunswick 

(New Jersey) 

(1998)

Twente, 

Netherlands 

(1998)

Auto crimes

Residential 

burglary and 

street crimes

Victims

Victims

Newsletters, 

television and 

radio PSAs, 

newspapers, 

brochures, 

internet, 

billboards, 

bulletin boards

Daily 

newspapers, 

some radio 

coverage, use 

of a crime 

prevention van

General 

(citywide)

General 

(the entire 

province)

Several 

months

9 weeks

The campaign used 

multiple media outlets 

to publicize the police 

initiative over a 5-

month period; police 

worked closely with 

community groups to 

spread publicity.

It provided objective 

information about the 

local crime problem, 

crime prevention tips, 

and information about 

the criminal justice 

system.

Yes

Mixed: 

residents had 

increased 

knowledge 

about local 

crime, but 

failed to 

adopt crime 

prevention 

measures.

Simmons 

and Farrell 

(1998)

Kuttschreuter 

and Wiegman 

(1998)

46 Appendix B: Summary Table of Previous Publicity Efforts
Multipronged 

initiative 

to reduce 

burglaries

“Antiburglary 

Initiative”

England (2001) Residential 

burglary

Victims 

and 

offenders

Wide array of 

publicity tools, 

ranging from 

television, 

newspapers, 

leaflets, and 

posters, to 

stickers and 

offender 

Christmas 

cards

Focused on 

21 burglary 

sites

2 years Police implemented 

different campaigns 

in various burglaryreduction initiative 

sites. Focused, 

stand-alone publicity 

efforts were cheaper 

than general 

ones. The most 

effective campaigns 

preceded the actual 

interventions.

Yes, sites 

subjected 

to publicity 

experienced 

a reduction 

in burglary.

Johnson 

and Bowers 

(2003)

Endnotes 49

Endnotes

1. Geva and Israel (1982).

2. Brown and Wycoff (1987).

3. Riley and Mayhew (1980); Burrows and Heal (1980).

4. Van Dijk and Steinmetz (1981).

5. Riley and Mayhew (1980).

6. Burrows and Heal (1980); Riley and Mayhew (1980).

7. Sacco and Trotman (1990).

8. Riley and Mayhew (1980).

9. Sacco and Silverman (1982).

10. Johnson and Bowers (2003).

11. Simmons and Farrell (1998).

12. Wortley, Kane, and Gant (1998).

13. Laycock (1991)

14. Wortley, Kane, and Gant (1998).

15. Cornish and Clarke (1986).

16. www.popcenter.org/Problems/problem-gun_violence.htm. 17. Decker (1972); McNees et. al. (1976); Riley (1980).

18. Sacco and Trotman (1990).

19. Riley and Mayhew (1980).

20. Laycock and Tilley (1995).

21. Poyner (1988).

22. Corbett (2000).

23. Glendon and Cernecca (2003).

24. Laycock (1991); Bowers and Johnson (2003).

25. Simmons and Farrell (1998).

26. Laycock (1991).

27. Smith, Clarke, and Pease (2002); Bowers and Johnson (2003).

28. Barthe (2004).

29. Schaefer and Nichols (1983).

30. Rice and Atkin (1989).

31. Schneider and Kitchen (2002).

32. Winkel (1987).

33. Hesseling (1994).

34. Wyllie (1997).
50 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

35. Sacco and Silverman (1982).

36. Derzon and Lipsey (2002).

37. Gorelick (1989).

38. Beck (1998).

39. Borzekowski and Poussaint (1999). 

40. Atkin, Smith, and Bang (1994).

41. Scottish Office Central Research Unit (1995).

42. Schafer (1982).

43. O’Malley (1992).

44. Atkin, Smith, and Bang (1994).

45. Holder and Treno (1997). 

46. Derzon and Lipsey (2002).

47. O’Keefe (1986).

48. Riley and Mayhew (1980).

49. Riley and Mayhew (1980).

50. Hallahan (2000).

51. Johnson and Bowers (2003).

52. www.aic.gov.au/conferences/cartheft/skelton.pdf. 53. Kuttschreuter and Wiegman (1998).

54. Holder and Treno (1997).

55. Borzekowski and Poussaint (1999). 

56. Palmgreen et al. (1995).

57. Lavrakas (1986).

58. Beedle (1984).

59. Brown and Wycoff (1987).

60. Williams and Pate (1987).

61. www.birmingham101.com/101news2002dec4.htm. 62. www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/25/25557_cops_

warn_yule_be_sorry.html. 63. www.met.police.uk/drugs. 64. Bridgeman (1997).

65. www.streetwize.com.au/publications_legal.html. 66. Derzon and Lipsey (2002).

67. Sacco and Silverman (1982).

68. Sacco and Silverman (1982).

69. Mawby and Simmonds (2003).
References 51

References

Atkin, C., S. Smith, and H. Bang (1994). “How Young 

Viewers Respond to Televised Drinking and Driving 

Messages.” Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving 10(3/4):263–275.

Barthe, E (2004). “Publicity and Car Crime Prevention.” 

In M. Maxfield and R. Clarke (eds.), Understanding and 

Preventing Car Theft, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 17. 

Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.

Beck, J (1998). “100 Years of ‘Just Say No’ Versus ‘Just 

Say Know’: Reevaluating Drug Education Goals for 

the Coming Century.” Evaluation Review 22 (1):15–45.

Beedle, S (1984). Citizen Response to Burglary Information 

Brochures: A Follow-Up Study. Portland (Oregon): 

Portland Police Bureau, Public Affairs Unit, Crime 

Prevention Section.

Borzekowski, D., and A. Poussaint (1999). “Public 

Service Announcement Perceptions: A Quantitative 

Examination of Antiviolence Messages.” American 

Journal of Preventive Medicine 17(3):181–188.

Bowers, K., and S. Johnson (2003). The Role of Publicity 

in Crime Prevention: Findings From the Reducing Burglary 

Initiative. Home Office Research Study No. 272. 

London: Home Office.

Bridgeman, C. (1997). “Preventing Pay Phone Damage.” 

In M. Felson and R. Clarke, eds., Business and Crime 

Prevention. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.
52 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Brown, L., and M. Wycoff (1987). “Policing Houston: 

Reducing Fear and Improving Service.” Crime and 

Delinquency 33(1):71–89.

Burrows, J., and K. Heal (1980). “Police Car Security 

Campaigns.” In R. Clarke and P. Mayhew, eds., 

Designing Out Crime. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery 

Office.

Corbett, C. (2000). “A Typology of Drivers’ Responses 

to Speed Cameras: Implications for Speed Limit 

Enforcement and Road Safety.” Psychology, Crime, and 

Law 6(4):305–330.

Cornish, D., and R. Clarke (eds.) (1986). The Reasoning 

Criminal: Rational-Choice Perspectives on Offending. New 

York: Springer-Verlag.

Decker, J. F. (1972). “Curbside Deterrence: An analysis 

of the Effect of a Slug Rejection Device, Coin View 

Window and Warning Labels on Slug Usage in New 

York City Parking Meters.” Criminology 10(1):127–42. 

Derzon, J., and M. Lipsey (2002). “A Meta-Analysis of the 

Effectiveness of Mass Communication for Changing 

Substance-Use Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior.” 

In W. Crano and M. Burgoon, eds., Mass Media and 

Drug Prevention: Classic and Contemporary Theories and 

Research. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum.

Geva, R., and I. Israel (1982). “Antiburglary Campaign in 

Jerusalem: Pilot Project Update.” Police Chief 49(4):44–

46.
References 53

Glendon, A., and L. Cernecca (2003). “Young Drivers’ 

Responses to Anti-Speeding and Anti-Drink-Driving 

Messages.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic 

Psychology and Behavior 6(3).

Gorelick, S. (1989). “Join Our War’: The Construction of 

Ideology in a Newspaper Crimefighting Campaign.” 

Crime and Delinquency 35(3):421–436.

Hallahan, K. (2000) “Enhancing Motivation, Ability, and 

Opportunity to Process Public Relations Messages.” 

Public Relations Review 26(4):463–480.

Hesseling, R. (1994). “Displacement: A Review of 

the Empirical Literature.” In R. Clarke, ed., Crime 

Prevention Studies, Vol. 3. Monsey (New York): Criminal 

Justice Press.

Holder, H., and A. Treno. (1997). “Media Advocacy in 

Community Prevention: News as a Means to Advance 

Policy Change.” Addiction 92(6) (Supp. 2):189–199.

Johnson, S., and K. Bowers (2003). “Opportunity Is in the 

Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Publicity in Crime 

Prevention.” Criminology and Public Policy 2(3):497–524.

Kuttschreuter, M., and O. Wiegman (1998). “Crime 

Prevention and the Attitude Toward the Criminal 

Justice System: The Effects of a Multimedia 

Campaign.” Journal of Criminal Justice 26(6):441–452.

Lavrakas, P. (1986). “Evaluating Police-Community 

Anticrime Newsletters: The Evanston, Houston, 

and Newark Field Studies.” In D. Rosenbaum, ed., 

Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills 

(California): Sage.
54 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Laycock, G., and N. Tilley (1995). “Implementing Crime 

Prevention.” In M. Tonry and D. P. Farrington, eds. 

Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime 

Prevention Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laycock, G. (1991). “Operation Identification, or the 

Power of Publicity?” Security Journal 2(2):67–72.

——— (1985). Property Marking: Deterrent to Domestic 

Burglary? Crime Prevention Unit, Paper 3. London: 

Home Office.

Mawby, R., and L. Simmonds (2003). “Homesafing 

Keyham: An Evaluation.” Community Safety Journal

2(3):20–30.

McNees, M., D. Egli, R. Marshall, J. Schnelle, and R. 

Todd (1976). “Shoplifting Prevention: Providing 

Information Through Signs.” Journal of Applied 

Behavior Analysis 9(4):399–405.

O’Keefe, G. (1986). “The ‘McGruff ’ National 

Media Campaign: Its Public Impact and Future 

Implications.” In D. Rosenbaum, ed., Community 

Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills 

(California): Sage.

O’Malley, P. “Burglary, Private Policing, and Victim 

Responsibility.” In P. Moir and H. Eijkman, eds., 

Policing Australia: Old Issues, New Perspectives. South 

Melbourne (Australia): Macmillan, 1992.

Palmgreen, P., E. Lorch, L. Donohew, N. Harrington, M. 

Dsilva, and D. Helm. “Reaching At-Risk Populations 

in a Mass-Media Drug Abuse- Prevention Campaign: 

Sensation-Seeking as a Targeting Variable.” Drugs & 

Society 8 (1995)(3/4):29–45.
References 55

Poyner, B. (1993). “What Works in Crime Prevention: An 

Overview of Evaluations.” In R. Clarke, ed., Crime 

Prevention Studies, Vol. 1. Monsey (New York): Criminal 

Justice Press.

——— (1988). “Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism.” 

Journal of Security Administration 11(2):44–51.

Rice, R., and C. Atkin (eds.) (1989). Public Communication 

Campaigns. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage.

Riley, D. (1980a). “An Evaluation of the Campaign To 

Reduce Car Thefts.” In R. Clarke and P. Mayhew 

(eds.), Designing Out Crime. London: Her Majesty’s 

Stationery Office.

Riley, D., and P. Mayhew (1980). Crime Prevention Publicity: 

An Assessment. Home Office Research Study No. 63. 

London: Home Office.

Sacco, V., and R. Silverman (1982). “Crime Prevention 

Through Mass Media: Prospects and Problems.” 

Journal of Criminal Justice 10(4):257–269.

Sacco, V., and M. Trotman (1990). “Public Information 

Programming and Family Violence: Lessons from the 

Mass Media Crime Prevention Experience.” Canadian 

Journal of Criminology 32(1):91–105.

Schaefer, R., and W. Nichols (1983). “Community 

Response to Crime in a Sun-Belt City.” Criminal Justice 

and Behavior 10(1):35–46.
56 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Schafer, H. (1982). “Frauen bei Nacht—Women by 

Night: Analysis of a Warning-Leaflet Campaign.” In 

E. Kuhlhorn and B. Svensson, eds., Crime Prevention, 

Report No. 9. Stockholm, Sweden: National Council 

for Crime Prevention.

Schneider, R., and T. Kitchen (2002). Planning for Crime 

Prevention: A Transatlantic Perspective. London; New 

York: Routledge.

Scottish Office Central Research Unit (1995). Evaluation 

of the Scottish Office Domestic Violence Media Campaign. 

Edinburgh (Scotland): Author.

Simmons, T., and G. Farrell (1998). Evaluation of North 

Brunswick Township Police Department’s Community-Oriented 

Policing Project To Prevent Auto Crime. North Brunswick 

(New Jersey): North Brunswick Township Police 

Department.

Smith, M., R.V. Clarke, and K. Pease (2002). “Anticipatory 

Benefits in Crime Prevention” Analysis for Crime 

Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 13. Monsey 

(New York): Criminal Justice Press.

Van Dijk, J., and C. Steinmetz (1981). Crime Prevention: An 

Evaluation of the National Publicity Campaign. The Hague, 

Netherlands: Netherlands Ministry of Justice.

Williams, H., and A. Pate (1987). “Returning to First 

Principles: Reducing Fear of Crime in Newark.” Crime 

and Delinquency 33(1):53–70.

Winkel, F. (1987). “Response Generalisation in Crime 

Prevention Campaigns: An Experiment.” British Journal 

of Criminology 27(2):155–178.
References 57

Wortley, R., R. Kane, and F. Gant (1998). “Public 

Awareness and Auto-Theft Prevention: Getting It 

Right for the Wrong Reason.” Security Journal 10(2):59–

64.

Wyllie, A. (1997). “Evaluation of a New Zealand 

Campaign Towards Reduction of Intoxication on 

Licensed Premises.” Health Promotion International 

12(3):197–207.

About the Author 59

About the Author

Emmanuel P. Barthe

Emmanuel P. Barthe is an assistant professor in the 

Department of Criminal Justice at the University of 

Nevada, Reno (UNR). His research interests lie in the 

areas of policing, situational crime prevention, car theft, 

and drug markets. Before joining the UNR faculty, he 

taught at Kean University in New Jersey and served as the 

research director for the Jersey City Police Department’s 

Planning and Research Bureau. He has a doctorate and a 

master’s in criminal justice from the School of Criminal 

Justice at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Recommended Readings 61

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.
62 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A 

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at www.

ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 63

• 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.
64 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

• 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.
Recommended Readings 65

Some helpful internet sites can help agencies 

implement a publicity campaign.

• The following site has very specific information on publicity 

campaigns, ranging from working with news media outlets 

to connecting with ethnic communities.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/learningzone/comm_

strat/home-page.htm.

• London’s Metropolitan Police has developed interesting and 

innovative publicity campaigns targeting drug use, domestic 

violence, and illegal weapons, among others.

http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns.

• The National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign’s 

website offers templates and other information you can 

incorporate into publicity campaigns.

http://www.ncpc.org/ncpc/ncpc.

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 67

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
68 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

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

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

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

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

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

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

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

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

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

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

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

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

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

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

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

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

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 69

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

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

• Crime-Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel 

Barthe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

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
70 Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police: 

Problem-Specific Guides

Domestic Violence

Bank Robbery

Witness Intimidation

Drive-by Shootings

Disorder at Day Laborer Sites

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses

Robbery of Convenience Stores

Theft from Cars on Streets

Problem-Solving Tools

Partnering with Business to Address Public Safety Problems

Risky Facilities

Implementing Responses to Problems

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Response Guides

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e04062002 June 2006

ISBN: 1-932582-66-5