U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

G r a f f i t i

by

Deborah Lamm Weisel

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 9
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

• Online access to research and police practices

• Online problem analysis module. 

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

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

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Graffiti

Deborah Lamm Weisel

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

August 2004

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 9

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

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 problem the guides cover. The 

guides will be most useful to officers who:

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing 

principles and methods. The guides are not primers in 

problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with 

the initial decision to focus on a particular problem, 

methods to analyze the problem, and means to assess 

the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They 

are designed to help police decide how best to analyze 

and address a problem they have already identified. (A 

companion series of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been 

produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis 

and assessment.)

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

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to 

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before 

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that 

is most likely to work in your community. You should 

not blindly adopt the responses others have used; 

you must decide whether they are appropriate to your 

local situation. What is true in one place may not be 

true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work 

everywhere.
ii Graffiti

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other 

police departments have used or that researchers 

have tested. While not all of these responses will be 

appropriate to your particular problem, they should help 

give a broader view of the kinds of things you could 

do. You may think you cannot implement some of these 

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. 

In many places, when police have discovered a more 

effective response, they have succeeded in having laws 

and policies changed, improving the response to the 

problem. (A companion series of Response Guides has 

been produced to help you understand how commonlyused police responses work on a variety of problems.) 

• Understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of 

useful research is available to the police; for other 

problems, little is available. Accordingly, some guides 

in this series summarize existing research whereas 

other guides illustrate the need for more research on 

that particular problem. Regardless, research has not 

provided definitive answers to all the questions you 

might have about the problem. The research may help 

get you started in designing your own responses, but 

it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend 

greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. 

In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not every 

piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so 

would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. 

The references listed at the end of each guide are 

those drawn on most heavily; they are not a complete 

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

• Are willing to work with others to find effective 

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 

implement many of the responses discussed in the 

guides. They must frequently implement them in 

partnership with other responsible private and public 

bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public 

utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. 

An effective problem-solver must know how to forge 

genuine partnerships with others and be prepared to 

invest considerable effort in making these partnerships 

work. Each guide identifies particular individuals or 

groups in the community with whom police might 

work to improve the overall response to that problem. 

Thorough analysis of problems often reveals that 

individuals and groups other than the police are in a 

stronger position to address problems and that police 

ought to shift some greater responsibility to them 

to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further 

discussion of this topic.

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.
iv Graffiti

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.
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series v

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This web site 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. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Acknowledgments vii

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.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano, and Nancy Leach oversaw 

the project for the COPS Office and research for the 

guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at 

Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly 

edited this guide.

Contents

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

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents ix
x Graffiti

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

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

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

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

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

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The Problem of Graffiti 1

 The Problem of Graffiti

This guide addresses effective responses to the problem of 

graffiti–the wide range of markings, etchings and paintings 

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

graffiti has become an extensive problem, spreading from the 

largest cities to other locales. Despite the common association 

of graffiti with gangs, graffiti is widely found in jurisdictions 

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

gangs.

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

costs typically associated with cleanup and prevention–

graffiti is often viewed as a persistent, if not an intractable, 

problem. Few graffiti offenders are apprehended, and some 

change their methods and locations in response to possible 

apprehension and cleanups. 

As with most forms of vandalism, graffiti is not routinely 

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

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

about it. Because graffiti is not routinely reported to police 

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

has become a major concern, and the mass media, including 

movies and websites glamorizing or promoting graffiti as an 

acceptable form of urban street art, have contributed to its 

spread.

Although graffiti is a common problem, its intensity varies 

substantially from place to place. While a single incident of 

graffiti does not seem serious, graffiti has a serious cumulative 

effect; its initial appearance in a location appears to attract 

more graffiti. Local graffiti patterns appear to emerge over 

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

§ Although graffiti is also found 

within public or private property 

(such as in schools), this guide 

primarily addresses graffiti in places 

open to public view.
2 Graffiti

locations, and may be associated with varying motives of 

graffiti offenders. These varying attributes offer important 

clues to the control and prevention of graffiti.

For many people, graffiti's presence suggests the government's 

failure to protect citizens and control lawbreakers. There are 

huge public costs associated with graffiti; an estimated $12 

billion a year is spent cleaning up graffiti in the United States. 

Graffiti contributes to lost revenue associated with reduced 

ridership on transit systems, reduced retail sales and declines 

in property value. In addition, graffiti generates the perception 

of blight and heightens fear of gang activity.

Graffiti offenders risk injury by placing graffiti 

on places such as this railroad bridge spanning 

a river.

Kip Kellogg
The Problem of Graffiti 3

Related Problems

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

crime and disorder problems, including:

• public disorder, such as littering, public urination and 

loitering

• shoplifting of materials needed for graffiti, such as paint 

and markers1 

• gangs and gang violence, as gang graffiti conveys threats 

and identifies turf boundaries

• property destruction, such as broken windows or slashed 

bus or train seats. 

Factors Contributing to Graffiti

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem 

will help you frame your own local analysis questions, 

determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key 

intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

Types of Graffiti

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

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

threats of violence, and sometimes copycat graffiti, which 

mimics gang graffiti 

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

complex street art 

• conventional graffiti, often isolated or spontaneous acts 

of "youthful exuberance," but sometimes malicious or 

vindictive 

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

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

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

the most common types found. While other forms of graffiti 

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

proportion of graffiti attributable to differing motives varies 

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

graffiti are discussed later.

Common Targets and Locations of Graffiti

Graffiti typically is placed on public property, or private 

property adjacent to public space. It is commonly found in 

transportation systems–on inner and outer sides of trains, 

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

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

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

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

§ A count in a San Diego area with 

a lot of graffiti showed that about 

50 percent was gang graffiti, 40 

percent was tagger graffiti, and 10 

percent was non-group graffiti (San 

Diego Police Department 2000). 

In nearby Chula Vista (California), 

only 19 percent of graffiti was 

gang-related (Chula Vista Police 

Department 1999). Although the 

counting methods likely differ, 

these proportions suggest how the 

breakdown of types of graffiti varies 

from one jurisdiction to another. 

Gang graffiti marks territory and conveys 

threats.

Bob Morris
The Problem of Graffiti 5

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

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

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

open to public view.

Graffiti tends to recur in some locations. In fact, areas where 

graffiti has been painted over–especially with contrasting 

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

are highly tenacious–conducting a psychological battle with 

authorities or owners for their claim over an area or specific 

location. Such tenacity appears to be related to an escalating 

defiance of authority. 

Graffiti locations are often characterized by the absence of 

anyone with direct responsibility for the area. This includes 

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

absentee landlords. Offenders also target locations with poor 

lighting and little oversight by police or security personnel. 

§ Most sources suggest that paintover colors should closely match, 

rather than contrast with, the base. 

Contrasting paint-overs are presumed 

to attract or challenge graffiti 

offenders to repaint their graffiti; the 

painted-over area provides a canvass 

to frame the new graffiti. 

Graffiti is commonly found in transportation 

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

Kip Kellogg
6 Graffiti

Some targets and locations appear particularly vulnerable to 

graffiti:

• easy-to-reach targets, such as signs 

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

overpasses 

• highly visible locations, such as building walls 

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

where there are few windows, employees or passersby

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

or where people are intimidated by graffiti offenders

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

exposure for the graffiti

• places where gang members congregate–taverns, bowling 

alleys, convenience store parking lots, and residential 

developments with many children or youth. 

In addition, two types of surfaces attract graffiti: 

• Light-colored surfaces. Dark surfaces do not generally 

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

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

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

Kip Kellogg
The Problem of Graffiti 7

• Large and plain surfaces. Surfaces without windows or doors 

may be appealing for large-scale projects. Smooth surfaces 

especially attract offenders who use felt-tip markers. 

Motives of Offenders

While making graffiti does not offer material reward to 

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

Rather than being a senseless destruction of property, graffiti 

fulfills certain psychological needs, including providing 

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

risk. The different types of graffiti are associated with different 

motives, although these drives may overlap.§ Distinguishing 

between types of graffiti and associated motives is a critical 

step for developing an effective response.

Historically, much conventional graffiti has represented a 

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

behavior. Such graffiti is usually spontaneous and not malicious 

in nature; indeed, spontaneous graffiti has often been 

characterized as play, adventure or exuberance. Spontaneous 

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

such as abandoned buildings or schools. Communities have 

often tolerated such graffiti.

The motives for some types of conventional graffiti may 

include anger and hostility toward society, and the vandalism 

thus fulfills some personal psychological need.3 The graffiti 

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

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

A related type of graffiti is ideological. Ideological graffiti 

expresses hostility or a grievance–often quite explicitly. Such 

graffiti is usually easily identified by its content, reflecting 

§ The description of types of graffiti 

and motives of graffiti offenders 

draws from broader typologies and 

motives associated with vandalism. 

See, for example, Coffield (1991) and 

Cohen (1973).
8 Graffiti

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

strategically target certain locations to further the message.

In contrast to conventional and ideological graffiti, the 

primary motive for gang graffiti is tactical; the graffiti serves 

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

threats or boast of achievements.4 

Some tagger graffiti may involve creative expression, 

providing a source of great pride in the creation of complex 

works of art. Most taggers seek notoriety and recognition 

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

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

complexity of the graffiti,§ and placement of the graffiti 

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

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

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

and content are replicated over and over again, becoming the 

tagger's unique signature. 

Participation in graffiti is often inadvertently encouraged 

through police contacts, media attention and public 

recognition of it through advertising or art displays–all can 

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

§ This includes complex, artistic 

graffiti known as masterpieces.

§§ Taggers in California used 

climbing equipment to tag freeway 

overpasses, knowing their tags 

would be highly visible for extended 

periods, until the road was shut 

down for paint-overs (Beatty 1990). 

Hard-to-reach places also provide an 

element of danger of apprehension 

or physical risk, contributing to the 

vandal's reputation.
The Problem of Graffiti 9

Type of Graffiti Features Motives

Gang§

Common Tagger§§§§

Artistic Tagger

Conventional Graffiti: 

Spontaneous

Conventional Graffiti: 

Malicious or Vindictive

Ideological

Gang name or symbol, including hand 

signs

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

or sometimes a roll-call listing of 

members

Numbers§§

Distinctive, stylized alphabets§§§

Key visible locations

Enemy names and symbols, or allies' 

names

High-volume, accessible locations

High-visibility, hard-to-reach locations

May be stylized but simple name or 

nickname tag or symbols§§§§§

Tenacious (keep retagging)

Colorful and complex pictures known 

as masterpieces or pieces

Sporadic episodes or isolated incidents

Sporadic, isolated or systematic 

incidents

Offensive content or symbols

Racial, ethnic or religious slurs 

Specific targets, such as synagogues

Highly legible

Slogans

Mark turf 

Threaten violence

Boast of achievements

Honor the slain

Insult/taunt other gangs

Notoriety or prestige

Defiance of authority

Artistic

Prestige or recognition

Play

Rite of passage 

Excitement

Impulsive

Anger

Boredom

Resentment

Failure

Despair

Anger

Hate

Political

Hostility

Defiance

§ Copycat graffiti looks like 

gang graffiti, and may be the 

work of gang wanna-bes or 

youths seeking excitement.

§§ Offenders commonly 

use numbers as code in 

gang graffiti. A number may 

represent the corresponding 

position in the alphabet (e.g., 13 

= M, for the Mexican Mafia), 

or represent a penal or police 

radio code.

§§§ Stylized alphabets include 

bubble letters, block letters, 

backwards letters, and Old 

English script.

§§§§ Tagbangers, a derivative 

of tagging crews and gangs, are 

characterized by competition 

with other crews. Thus crossedout tags are features of their 

graffiti.

§§§§§ The single-line writing 

of a name is usually known as a 

tag, while slightly more complex 

tags, including those with two 

colors or bubble letters, are 

known as throw-ups.

Types of Graffiti and Associated Motives
10 Graffiti

Characteristics and Patterns of Graffiti Offenders

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

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

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

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

participation is growing.7 The profile clearly does not apply 

in some places where the population is predominantly white. 

Tagging is not restricted by class lines.

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

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

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

male, and 72 percent were 16 or younger.9 

Graffiti offenders typically operate in groups, with perhaps 

15 to 20 percent operating alone.

10

 In addition to the 

varying motives for differing types of graffiti, peer pressure, 

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

achievement, and youth unemployment contribute to 

participation in graffiti. 

Young male gang members may engage in a substantial 

amount of graffiti.

Bob Morris
The Problem of Graffiti 11

Graffiti offenders often use spray paint, although they may 

also produce graffiti with large markers or by etching, the 

latter especially on glass surfaces.§ Spray paint is widely 

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

of surfaces, available in different colors with different nozzles 

to change line widths–these factors make spray paint suitable 

for a range of offenders.§§

The making of graffiti is characterized by anonymity–hence 

relative safety from detection and apprehension. Most 

offenders work quickly, when few people are around. Graffiti 

predominantly occurs late on weekend nights, though there is 

little systematic evidence about this. In British transit studies, 

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

hours.11 In Bridgeport, Connecticut, graffiti incidents were 

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

Sundays.12 A San Diego study showed that routes leading 

away from schools were hit more frequently, suggesting a 

concentration in after-school hours Monday through Friday. 

Offenders tagged school walls daily.13

There is widespread concern that participation in graffiti may 

be an initial or gateway offense from which offenders may 

graduate to more sophisticated or harmful crimes. Graffiti is 

sometimes associated with truancy, and can involve drug and/

or alcohol use. Graffiti offenders who operate as members of 

gangs or crews may also engage in fighting. 

§ Other tools for graffiti include 

shoe polish, rocks, razors, glass 

cutters, and glass etching fluid. Glass 

etching fluids include acids, such 

as Etch Bath and Armour Etch, 

developed as hobby products for 

decorating glass. Vandals squirt or 

rub the acids onto glass. 

§§ Vandals may adapt or modify 

tools and practices to cleaning 

methods. In New York City, when 

transit system personnel used paint 

solvents to remove graffiti, offenders 

adapted by spraying a surface with 

epoxy, writing their graffiti and then 

coating the surface with shellac, 

which proved very difficult to 

remove. 

Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Understanding Your Local Problem

You must combine the basic facts provided above with a 

more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing 

the local problem helps in designing a more effective response 

strategy.

Asking Key Questions About Graffiti

The following are some critical questions you should ask 

in analyzing your particular problem of graffiti, even if the 

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

these questions, you may select the wrong response.

Victims

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

apartment managers, business owners, transit systems, 

utilities, public works, others)?

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

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

does graffiti affect (e.g., shopping, use of recreational areas 

and public transit)? (Community or other surveys may be 

necessary to answer these questions.)

Amount of Graffiti

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

answer questions about the amount of graffiti.)

• How many individual tags or separate pieces of graffiti are 

there? 

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

• How many graffiti locations are there?

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

or hotline reports are there?
14 Graffiti

Types of Graffiti

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

type?

• What are the content and unique characteristics of the 

graffiti? (Some agencies photograph or videotape graffiti to 

create an intelligence database noting key characteristics, to 

link graffiti to chronic offenders.)§ 

• What appear to be the motives for the graffiti? 

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

• Is the graffiti isolated or grouped?

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

marking pens, etching devices)?

Locations/Times

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

particularly illuminating, revealing its distribution across a 

large area.§§ See Figure 1.)

• What are the specific locations where the graffiti occurs 

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

System locations for sites without addresses, such as in 

parks or along railroad tracks)?

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

schools?

• What are the characteristics of the locations in which 

graffiti is prevalent? Are the locations residences, schools? 

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

stops–what running times?

• What are the characteristics of graffiti targets? Are the 

targets signs, walls, fences, buses, trains?

• What are the physical environment's characteristics, 

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

relevant factors?

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

known graffiti-free time)? Day of week?

• Do the peak times correspond with other events?

§ See Otto, Maly and Schismenos 

(2000) for more information about 

this technology, as used in Akron, 

Ohio.

§§ Maps of graffiti have been used 

to map gang violence and gang 

territory. See, for example, Kennedy, 

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

Offenders

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

student)?

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

do these locations correspond to graffiti locations and/or 

police contacts?§

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

spontaneous or planned, intermittent or regular?

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

interviewed to collect this information. Undercover 

investigations, stings, surveillance, and graffiti content 

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

• Are offenders lone operators or part of a group?

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

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

§ Photographs of offenders and 

their address information can also be 

linked to maps.

§§ Police in some cities have posed 

as film crews, interviewing taggers 

about their practices.

Fig. 1. Map showing locations of graffiti.

San Diego Police Department

"TAGGER" Calls for Service in Central Division

Jan 1 through Jun 30, 2000
16 Graffiti

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify 

your responses if they are not producing the intended 

results. You should take measures of your problem before you 

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem 

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

have been effective. All measures should be taken in both 

the target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed 

guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide 

to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

Research shows that graffiti can be substantially reduced, and 

sometimes eliminated. The following are potentially useful 

measures of the effectiveness of responses to graffiti. To 

track possible displacement, such measures should be routine:

• amount or size of graffiti 

• number and type of graffiti locations

• content and type of graffiti

• length of time graffiti-prone surfaces stay clean

• public fear and perceptions about the amount of graffiti 

(may be assessed through surveys of citizens, changes in use 

of public space and transit systems, changes in retail sales, 

and other indirect measures).

Some jurisdictions track the numbers of arrests made, gallons 

of paint applied or square feet covered, amount of graffiti 

removed, or money spent on graffiti eradication;14 these 

measures indicate how much effort has been put into the 

anti-graffiti initiative, but they do not tell you if the amount or 

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

measures based on the responses chosen; for example, if 

§ Because many anti-graffiti 

strategies are quite expensive, a 

cost-benefit analysis will provide 

a baseline measure of benefits 

associated with specific costs of 

different strategies. 
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

paint sales are limited, you should place more emphasis on 

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

example, some offenders have begun using glass etching fluid.

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

evidence of such displacement is scant. The notion that 

graffiti is an intractable problem that is easily displaced has 

been fueled by haphazard and piecemeal crime prevention 

measures.

15 Useful measures of graffiti will assess the extent 

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

reflect a change in offenders' tactics. While graffiti offenders 

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

that displacement will be complete; indeed, successful 

responses may have a widespread effect.

§ The response to graffiti in the 

New York subway system resulted in 

some reported displacement to buses, 

garbage trucks, walls, and other 

objects in the city (Butterfield 1988; 

Coffield 1991).

Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 19

Responses to the Problem of Graffiti

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better 

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you 

have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline 

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible 

responses to address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation 

of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These 

strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and 

police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your 

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

to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 

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

will involve implementing several different responses. Law 

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing 

or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering 

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

your community shares responsibility for the problem and can 

help police better respond to it. 

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

be one of support and assistance. Effective responses to 

graffiti may combine management practices, design and 

maintenance, and involve the general public, individual 

victims, criminal justice officials such as prosecutors 

and judges, and others. Responses to graffiti should be 

comprehensive and coordinated, while costs and available 

resources should be carefully evaluated. 
20 Graffiti

Responses to graffiti must be thorough and consistent, as 

some offenders may be highly opportunistic, adaptive and 

tenacious. Responses should include ways to monitor graffiti 

and address changes in time, location and methods of 

applying it. 

Reducing Rewards to Offenders

Rapid identification and removal of graffiti has been shown 

to reduce its occurrence.§ This approach directly addresses 

the motives of many offenders by reducing the notoriety 

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

involves routine monitoring to quickly spot graffiti, and rapid 

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

to transit graffiti, it was initially removed within two hours of 

identification.§§ In St. Petersburg, Florida, business owners are 

required to remove graffiti within 48 hours.16 

1. Detecting graffiti rapidly and routinely. There are two 

primary ways to gather information about the incidence and 

location of graffiti: systematic monitoring of graffiti-prone 

locations, and increased reporting. Both are used to rapidly 

detect graffiti incidents; document the location and time of 

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

• Monitoring graffiti-prone locations routinely. Quick 

detection of graffiti provides better information for 

developing effective interventions. A graffiti database can 

be used to track incidents and illuminate patterns, identify 

chronic offenders and/or interpret gang activities or plans 

encoded in graffiti. Monitoring may include documenting 

graffiti through photographs or video. In some places, 

graffiti provides a barometer of gang activity and relations 

between gangs.

§ This "law of diminishing 

vandalism" is that persistence in 

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

(1989); Cheetham (1994); Clarke 

(1978); and Governing (1994).

§§ If graffiti cannot be removed 

quickly, trains are taken out of 

service. For train stations, graffiti is 

removed within 72 hours. Similar 

quick cleanups have occurred in 

Philadelphia (Scott 1989). In London, 

graffiti is cleaned from large stations 

within 24 hours.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 21

Addressing Transit Graffiti in New York City

The experiences of the New York City Transit System illustrate varying 

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

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

declined. 

The motive for the graffiti was "getting up" and getting noticed; there were 

no indications the graffiti was gang-related. Instead, the graffitists or taggers 

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

As competition among them increased, they distinguished themselves through 

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

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

markings.

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

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

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

the vast train yards; and developing materials to ease graffiti removal, materials 

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

substantially reduce the amount of graffiti.

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

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

also began to store clean trains in highly secure yards that featured 24-hour-aday work crews, enhanced lighting, routine fence maintenance, and undercover 

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

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

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

targeted for parental contact and enhanced penalties.

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

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

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

approach addressed the offenders' underlying motives. Immediately removing 

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

To monitor graffiti-prone locations, Phoenix has used night 

vision and digital cameras, while Philadelphia and Sydney have 

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

on Los Angeles buses, plainclothes officers have monitored 

graffiti. In other jurisdictions, Neighborhood Watch and 

other groups systematically monitor graffiti. In Lakewood, 

Colorado, citizens' academy graduates take graffiti reports, 

photograph graffiti and monitor graffiti locations. In New 

South Wales, "graffiti spotters" have this role. Employees such 

as bus drivers or maintenance workers can immediately report 

vandalism through two-way radio.

• Increasing reporting of graffiti and offenders.§ 

Anonymous graffiti hotlines, some operating 24 hours a day, 

collect information about graffiti incidents. Communities 

have also used cell phone reporting, voice mail, emergency 

cell service, and connection to neighborhood watch groups.

Some jurisdictions pay graffiti reporters' cell phone charges. 

In London, people can use free telephones in transit 

stations to report offenses. In other jurisdictions, transit 

riders are encouraged to report graffiti and offenders. 

Numerous jurisdictions offer a cash reward of $200 to 

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

In some jurisdictions, graffiti reports may be suppressed 

due to concerns about retaliation by gang members or 

taggers. Widespread public participation in both open and 

anonymous reporting usually addresses these concerns, but 

police should be aware of this potential problem.

2. Removing graffiti rapidly. One of the most promising 

responses to graffiti is consistently getting rid of it, and 

doing so quickly. The removal process may vary substantially 

depending on the type of graffiti tool and the type of material 

§ Police usually encourage citizens 

to call 911 regarding graffiti in 

progress; they discourage citizens 

from confronting offenders. Citizens 

can report graffiti not in progress to 

hotlines.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 23

vandalized.§ Many of the methods are time-consuming and 

can be quite expensive, so a jurisdiction must be able to tap 

sufficient resources to fully implement this approach. Some 

types of cleanup–including paint-overs–may be affected by 

cold or wet weather. Removal may be time-targeted, such 

as during predawn hours, to further reduce exposure. Rapid 

removal is key, and many jurisdictions try to remove graffiti 

within 24 to 48 hours; in some obscure locations, such as 

drainage ditches, graffiti may be removed less quickly.

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

• Painting over graffiti. Painting over graffiti appears to 

be the most common and relatively cheapest method of 

removing it. Although paint-overs can be expensive if 

recurring, the approach is widely accessible, and usually 

requires no special skills or technology. Some cities provide 

recycled paints for free; some cities have cleanups funded 

by contributions; and in some cities, businesses donate 

paint. Property owners victimized by graffiti offenders often 

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

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

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

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

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

Painting over graffiti may require the use of a sealer to 

prevent bleeding through.

• Removing graffiti chemically. There are a variety of 

chemical removal products available, but care should be 

taken in selecting one. The use of some removal products 

on certain porous surfaces may create a shadow of the 

graffiti. Paint companies sometimes donate paint-removal 

supplies. 

§ The type of surface graffiti is 

placed on is a major factor because 

graffiti-removal products may 

damage some surfaces. The type 

of marking agent is also a factor: 

some paints are reversible. There 

is a wide range of graffiti removal 

products available, including chemical 

sprays, aerosols, gels, and poultices. 

Cleaners are either alkaline or acidic; 

the latter can damage masonry, 

and neutralizing techniques must 

be incorporated when using either. 

Physical removal methods include 

low- and high-pressure water 

cleaning, often with detergents, and 

sandblasting. Physical removal is 

more expensive, and is typically used 

for large areas where other methods 

have failed. 
24 Graffiti

• Cleaning graffiti off. Depending on the surface and 

marking agent, many surfaces can be cleaned of graffiti. 

Methods include sandblasting with high-pressure hot-water 

jets–and sometimes baking soda–to remove graffiti from 

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

be expensive and leave a shadow. Lasers to remove graffiti 

are becoming available.

• Replacing signs, materials and other items vandalized. 

Replacement is appropriate for materials from which graffiti 

cannot be painted over, chemically removed or cleaned.

The source of labor for removing graffiti may vary. Cleanup 

squads may consist of volunteers, employees or adjudicated 

offenders. Graffiti removal may be coercive. A large number 

of jurisdictions hold the property owner responsible for 

graffiti removal. Sanctioning victims requires that they clean 

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

physical assistance from volunteers, if needed. Cities can use 

nuisance ordinances, zoning codes or graffiti ordinances to 

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

absentee owners. Alternatively, some cities clean up graffiti 

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

for free; the owner then has responsibility for subsequent 

cleanups. 

Numerous jurisdictions use graffiti removal as a courtordered sanction for offenders and other misdemeanants. In 

some jurisdictions, such sanctions require victim restitution, 

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

Increasing the Risk of Detection

Because graffiti offenders usually operate in darkness, where 

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

Increasing the likelihood of their being detected increases the 

risk of apprehension.

3. Increasing natural observation of graffiti-prone 

locations. The likelihood of detecting offenders can be 

increased by installing, upgrading or maintaining lighting. 

(While most offenders operate in the dark, additional lighting 

may actually attract graffiti in some isolated or remote 

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

which may signal unauthorized property use.) In addition, 

shrubbery or trees that conceal areas can be removed. Sight 

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

Other methods to increase observation involve design, such 

as eliminating blind spots of underpasses, or park paths, 

installing windows or building parking lots within view of 

residences and designing spacious areas with good visibility.

4. Increasing formal observation of graffiti-prone 

locations. Observation of graffiti-prone locations can be 

improved systematically through use of police, security 

personnel, Neighborhood Watch, and employees with 

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

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

property managers). Such observation may include the use of 

uniformed or undercover personnel or covert surveillance, 

and may target fixed locations or mobile locations such as 

buses and trains.
26 Graffiti

5. Increasing electronic security. Formal observation 

of graffiti-prone locations can be carried out via electronic 

methods. CCTV has shown promising evidence of reducing 

vandalism, including graffiti.18 CCTV is widely used to 

deter potential offenders, apprehend offenders in the act or 

after the fact, and provide evidence in prosecutions. There 

are substantial up-front and operating costs to CCTV, and 

decisions must be made as to whether cameras will be actively 

or passively monitored, or activated by motion detectors. 

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

adequate lighting and follow-up investigation are necessary. 

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

it must be actively monitored. Signs warning of CCTV are 

often posted to discourage offenders; such deterrence may 

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

evidence that CCTV's crime prevention benefits may spread 

to other locations.

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

For example, video surveillance with infrared technology 

has been used on buses, while electronic surveillance robots 

monitor CCTV screens in some jurisdictions, and emit 

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

CCTV has been effectively used to supplement the real thing. 

Other types of electronic security include infrared beams, 

which are used around trains in London.

Use of CCTV may result in reduced vigilance, as electronic 

surveillance may create a false sense of security. But the 

presence of CCTV may also reassure citizens, and public 

support for it is often high. 
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 27

6. Conducting publicity campaigns. On their own, 

publicity campaigns are of limited effectiveness. However, 

many publicity efforts are combined with other strategies. 

A number of publicity campaigns can be described as 

beautification efforts, consisting of community cleanup days 

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

jurisdictions, these cleanup days require volunteers, but some 

may involve court-adjudicated offenders who are working off 

community service time. In contrast to the systematic graffiti 

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

An extension of the cleanup programs are ownership 

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

environment in public areas. Some of the adoption schemes 

involve painting murals on transit shelters, invoking a 

presumed conscience that deters graffiti offenders from 

marring others' artistic endeavors. It is assumed that graffiti 

is easier to detect where no other graffiti exists, and cleaned 

areas invoke a sense of ownership and responsibility among 

users of the areas. 

Other publicity efforts include posters to publicize anti-graffiti 

efforts, public service announcements, flyers, brochures, and 

the like. Publicity campaigns often include information on the 

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

offender, and how to report graffiti. This educational effort 

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

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

and educational campaigns have been shown to be effective 

in reducing graffiti when used to publicize surveillance of 

vandalized buses; the effects even extended beyond the crime 

prevention targets.19
28 Graffiti

Publicity campaigns often discourage the use of graffiti in 

advertising and art exhibits, as well as media coverage of 

graffiti, recognizing that such attention serves to further 

contribute to the notoriety graffiti offenders seek. Care is 

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

a result.

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending

7. Vandal-proofing graffiti-prone locations. Graffiti 

offenders can be thwarted by vandal-proofing vulnerable 

surfaces in vulnerable areas, a process that often involves 

modifying surface textures. Anti-graffiti coverings and 

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

both. There are six primary types: 

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

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

steel, concrete and brickwork.§ Sealers on concrete prevent 

absorption.

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

silicon applications on walls or buildings. When hot water 

is applied, these coatings break down, allowing graffiti to be 

washed off.§§

• Textured surfaces are not attractive targets for graffiti, as 

they obscure legibility. Such surfaces are particularly difficult 

for offenders to draw on or paint. Such surfaces include 

deeply grooved surfaces and rough surfaces§§§ such as 

exposed rock, rough cement and dimpled stainless steel, like 

that used in London telephone kiosks.

• Dark or colorful surfaces make graffiti less visible, thus 

deterring offenders. Dark surfaces are more difficult to 

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

surfaces, such as advertisements on the sides of buses, 

deflect graffiti.20 Flecked or spotted wall surfaces also mask 

graffiti.

§ Some of these products may 

produce toxic fumes in case of fire. 

§§ These coatings must be reapplied; 

the surface dissolves when graffiti is 

cleaned off.

§§§ These surfaces are harder to 

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

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

screens rather than solid panels, may deflect graffiti.

• Easily cleaned materials may be installed in highly 

vulnerable areas. These include vitreous-enamel panels§ or 

glazed ceramic tiles from which graffiti washes off; wired 

glass that can be cleaned with scrapers;§§ polyester film over 

glass; plastic laminates, which make for easier cleaning; and 

signs with surfaces resistant to marker pens and spray paint.

Some materials cannot be effectively protected from graffiti. 

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

inexpensive materials. These include transparent, replaceable 

glass or polycarbonate panels in bus shelters, and replaceable 

polycarbonate covering signs.

8. Controlling access to graffiti-prone locations. 

Controlling access to graffiti-prone locations physically bars 

offenders from vulnerable areas. Means of access control 

include:

• graffiti hoods to buffer freeway signs

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

on bird feeders

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

sometimes supplemented by barbed wire 

• recessed walls 

• dense or thorny plants, or climbing vines

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

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

vandals, while bus stops and other frequently vandalized 

targets have been relocated.

§ These washable walls are used in 

larger London train stations.

§§ The alternative, polycarbonate 

surfaces become hazy.

§§§ Some of these measures impose 

social costs by making areas look 

like war zones. Access controls with 

forbidding appearances may be better 

left to isolated areas.
30 Graffiti

Environmental design to limit access to graffiti surfaces can 

best be incorporated into planning and construction, but may 

also be adapted to existing structures. An example of effective 

environmental design is the recessed walls of the Washington, 

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

from the public. 

Police or security patrols, guards and dogs may supplement 

access control. Access to residential or commercial properties 

may be restricted to those with resident or employee 

identification cards, while visitor access may be controlled 

through entry phones. 

Much like environmental design, situational design reduces 

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

fast food, and lockers in transit stations effectively discourages 

potential offenders from loitering. In Hong Kong, a limited 

life to transit tickets encourages people to quickly move 

through stations before their tickets expire, thus discouraging 

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

closes at midnight on weekdays and somewhat later on 

weekends, thus limiting opportunities for vandalism. Since 

graffiti often takes place late at night, limiting hours reduces 

opportunities for vandalism at times when there are typically 

few other riders or employees to deter the offender or witness 

the offense.

9. Focusing on chronic offenders. Approaches that focus 

exclusively on enforcement to control offenders have had 

little effect on the amount of graffiti.21 Apprehending and 

prosecuting graffiti offenders is difficult. Graffiti is not 

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

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

tangible evidence of graffiti offenses. In addition, police have 

competing priorities, and sanctions against offenders are often 

weak, consisting of community service and fines.

Some graffiti offenders are prolific; a small group typically 

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

on chronic offenders show promise. Chronic offenders can 

be identified through graffiti investigations. Since offenders 

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

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

single offender. Some taggers practice their tags in notebooks 

or take photographs to document their efforts; these may be 

used as evidence to link offenders to graffiti incidents. 

Some police conduct surveillance of known offenders and/

or high-risk hot spots, collaborate with schools to detect 

offenders, and monitor chronic offenders, particularly those 

on probation. Police may use extensive intelligence databases 

to record information about graffiti content, locations and 

offenders. Such databases may include photographs or video 

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

locations.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

Numerous responses have been incorporated into efforts 

to control graffiti. Most have not been carefully evaluated, 

and are thus of unknown effectiveness. Any response can 

be effective if it increases the difficulties of offending and 

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

difficult to enforce. 
32 Graffiti

10. Controlling graffiti tools. A number of jurisdictions 

have tried to control the tools used for graffiti. Boston 

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

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

been widely used in recent years.§ Some jurisdictions require 

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

require buyers to furnish their name and address. In some 

jurisdictions, juvenile possession of spray paint or large, 

indelible markers without supervision is a misdemeanor.

Efforts have been made to reduce shoplifting of spray paint 

by placing stock away from exits and removing it from open 

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

storerooms or in locked display cases. Some jurisdictions 

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

efforts have also been made to regulate graffiti tools. Spray 

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

offenders cannot change caps.§§ Some jurisdictions encourage 

proper disposal of contractor painting materials so that 

graffiti offenders cannot access them.

While there have been no evaluations of efforts that limit 

graffiti tools, enforcing local ordinances that do so can be 

difficult. Although restrictions on possession of supplies may 

provide an additional enforcement tool, graffiti offenders 

are rarely apprehended. In many tagging groups, one person 

carries the graffiti supplies, making it more difficult to obtain 

the evidence that may be necessary for a conviction.

11. Channeling behavior into more acceptable activities.

A lot of anti-graffiti efforts have involved designating 

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

Graffiti walls or boards are often obtained through 

contributions from businesses. While artists may have to have 

a painting permit to participate, paint for such projects is 

often contributed.

§ Chicago has had such a ban since 

1980.

§§ Graffiti offenders prefer 

interchangeable caps, allowing them 

to combine thick and thin lines. 

Wide caps or other caps from oven 

cleaners or spray starch are especially 

desirable.

§§§ Nugent (1998) describes a 

graffiti wall in Washington, D.C.'s 

Lafayette Park; Coffield (1991) notes 

the painting of a Southampton, 

England, garage.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti 33

Similarly, some jurisdictions have commissioned murals to 

cover up graffiti or improve the community's appearance. 

These murals are often located where graffiti has posed a 

problem. Graffiti offenders appear to respect the artwork 

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

may reduce incentives to vandalize. Similar initiatives to divert 

offenders have included art classes or programs for reformed 

offenders, some of which involve a contract or pledge not 

to produce further graffiti. These efforts may be effective in 

reducing the amount of graffiti in specific locations.

12. Providing alternative activities and services. A 

variety of programs have been developed to address the 

needs of graffiti offenders who are bored, unsupervised or 

unemployed. These programs include mentoring, job training, 

counseling, tutoring, and family services. Many of these 

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

youth to leave gangs. Others provide alternative activities, 

such as sports. 

13. Involving youth in developing programs. Youth are 

often involved in anti-graffiti efforts to increase their sense 

of ownership. In Denmark, youth were involved in selecting 

the design and colors of buses and bus platforms. Officials 

there also engage in "alternative conflict solving," and 

meet monthly with youth to address hostility and improve 

communication with those who are disaffected. Anti-graffiti 

posters for publicity campaigns are designed through student 

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

Some anti-graffiti programs involve educating youth about the 

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

graffiti is uncool is conveyed through subway and bus posters, 

and television and radio commercials. Sports figures may 

endorse the message to add potency to it. 

In some cases, former graffiti offenders create murals 

with anti-graffiti messages, give public talks, counsel other 

offenders, and organize graffiti cleanups. 

14. Expanding applicable laws. A wide variety of laws 

have been passed in cities and counties across the United 

States, providing police and prosecutors with additional 

tools to charge and punish offenders. In some cases, existing 

ordinances or statutes have been applied in new ways, 

including enforcing civil trespassing laws; applying nuisance 

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

gangs as unincorporated associations, to pursue criminal 

conspiracy charges; applying civil injunctions requiring 

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

dispositions or sentences for gang members. In addition, 

many jurisdictions routinely use criminal mischief, malicious 

mischief, property destruction, vandalism, and criminal 

trespass statutes or ordinances in charging graffiti offenders.

15. Holding parents accountable. In some communities, 

efforts are made to educate parents in recognizing signs of 

graffiti offending. Parents are held accountable for juvenile 

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

costs and even jail for failure to control or supervise their 

children. Structured juvenile diversion programs may involve 

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

16. Increasing sanctions for offenders. Across the United 

States, jurisdictions have increased the sanctions against 

graffiti offenders. Some sanctions are targeted specifically 

at juveniles. For example, California suspends or defers the 

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

community service to reduce the suspension time.

Many jurisdictions use graffiti cleanup for community service 

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

part of a disposition or sentence. Some communities have 

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

offenders pay restitution. 

In some jurisdictions, students are suspended or expelled 

from school for graffiti offenses. A large number of 

jurisdictions have involved courts in treating graffiti incidents 

seriously, systematically imposing fines, community service 

and even jail time on chronic offenders.

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

evaluated. Some may be effective in specific settings under 

certain conditions. 

New anti-graffiti technologies include the following:

• Listening devices positioned at chronic graffiti locations. 

The devices detect sounds such as spraying of paint cans, 

alerting police to offenses. 

• Motion detectors combined with sprinkler systems. Caltrans 

used this technology in Orange County, California, but 

offenders broke off sprinkler heads. 

• Lasers for graffiti removal.
36 Graffiti

Since developing or purchasing new technologies may be 

quite costly for most jurisdictions, such responses should 

be carefully evaluated first. New technologies to respond to 

graffiti will likely continue to become available. 

18. Establishing juvenile curfews. Juvenile curfews have 

been widely adopted in the United States to address a variety 

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

avoid detection, and police agencies must invest a substantial 

amount of effort to enforce curfews. While curfews may 

have some benefits in very narrowly defined situations, their 

contribution to graffiti reduction are unlikely to be substantial.

19. Warning offenders. Many jurisdictions warn graffiti 

offenders about the costs of being apprehended. Sydney 

found that warnings of dire consequences do not work, 

and media attention glorifies and reinforces graffiti.22 Most 

warnings are intended to increase the perception of risk 

of detection and apprehension. Offenders, however, tend 

to accurately perceive that risks of apprehension are fairly 

low. Some warnings relate to increased sanctions for graffiti 

offenses. If offenders do not believe the risk of apprehension 

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

for offending.§ Warnings directed at chronic offenders may be 

more effective than general warnings. 

§ In some limited studies of 

bathroom graffiti (Mueller et al. 2000; 

Watson 1996), posting signs warning 

of sanctions, containing positive 

messages appealing to altruism, or 

conveying neutral messages–"Please 

do not write on these walls"–resulted 

in a decline in graffiti. 
Appendix 37

Summary of Responses to Graffiti

The table below summarizes the responses to graffiti, 

the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the 

conditions under which they ought to work best, and 

some factors you should consider before implementing a 

particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to 

local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 

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

will involve implementing several different responses. Law 

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing 

or solving the problem.

1.

2.

3.

20

22

25

Detecting graffiti 

rapidly and 

routinely

Removing graffiti 

rapidly

Increasing natural 

observation of 

graffiti-prone 

locations

Permits rapid 

removal

Reduces time 

graffiti is visible, 

thus thwarting 

offenders' 

objective of 

having graffiti be 

widely seen

Increases risk of 

detection

...locations 

are regularly 

monitored

...removal is 

very quick and 

consistent 

...graffiti occurs 

in low-visibility 

places 

Requires 

commitment and 

resources–efforts 

should not 

be piecemeal; 

can involve 

employees, police, 

citizens, hotlines, 

and other means

Removal may 

be expensive, 

difficult and/or 

coercive (e.g., 

victims, as well as 

offenders, may be 

sanctioned)

Efforts to 

improve lighting, 

reduce shrubbery 

and improve 

sight lines are 

most effective if 

the area is not 

isolated for long 

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It 

Works

Works 

Best If...

Considerations

Reducing Rewards to Offenders

Increasing the Risk of Detection
38 Graffiti

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

25

26

27

28

29

Increasing formal 

observation of 

graffiti-prone 

locations

Increasing 

electronic security

Conducting 

publicity 

campaigns

Vandal-proofing 

graffiti-prone 

locations

Controlling access 

to graffiti-prone 

locations 

Increases risk 

of detection; 

information can 

aid investigations

Increases risk of 

detection

Increases risk of 

detection

Increases 

difficulty of 

applying graffiti 

(may also 

decrease graffiti 

visibility, reducing 

motives); some 

methods facilitate 

removal

Makes it more 

difficult to access 

or vandalize 

properties

...there are highrisk hot spots

...offenders are 

targeting large 

areas such as 

transit lots 

...information 

is widely 

disseminated, and 

risk of detection 

increases

...there are 

chronic graffiti 

locations 

...property or 

operations can 

support design 

changes

Can use undercover 

personnel, other 

employees and 

electronic means; 

easily available; can 

be used on transit 

systems

Can be costeffective; 

information can aid 

investigations 

May contribute to 

increased graffiti 

reports and extend 

deterrent effect

Can be expensive if 

done retroactively; 

offenders may 

change their 

methods or targets; 

may stimulate and 

challenge offenders; 

some measures, 

such as using 

grooved, slanted 

or heavily textured 

walls, or otherwise 

unappealing graffiti 

surfaces, can be 

very effective; may 

be unsightly

May be expensive, 

but very effective; 

may best be 

incorporated into 

construction and 

planning designs; 

most effective if 

behavior is also 

regulated, such 

as in apartment 

complexes or transit 

stations

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It 

Works

Works 

Best If...

Considerations

Increasing the Difficulty of Offending
Appendix 39

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

30

32

32

33

33

34

34

Focusing on 

chronic offenders

Controlling 

graffiti tools 

Channeling 

behavior into 

more acceptable 

activities 

Providing 

alternative 

activities and 

services

Involving youth 

in developing 

programs

Expanding 

applicable laws 

Holding parents 

accountable

Increases risk 

of detection of 

prolific graffiti 

offenders

Makes it more 

difficult for 

offenders to get 

paint or markers

Intended to 

provide creative 

outlets

Intended 

to engage 

and provide 

supervision to 

youth 

Intended to 

tap offenders' 

consciences and 

create ownership

Increases threat 

of punishment to 

deter offenders

Involves parents 

in controlling 

offenders' 

behavior

...there is a small 

group of chronic 

offenders

...offenders are 

easily deterred, 

and merchants 

comply

...offenders 

are artistically 

motivated

....offenders are 

jobless, bored or 

unsupervised 

...offenders 

are not highly 

invested in the 

graffiti lifestyle

...laws target 

particular 

problems

....offenders are 

juveniles

Requires offender 

identification and 

follow-up

Difficult to 

enforce; offenders 

can seek tools 

elsewhere; tools 

are easily accessed, 

transported and 

hidden

Graffiti boards and 

walls can be placed 

in highly visible 

locations; they 

appear to attract 

little vandalism; they 

may not attract the 

target group

Difficult to identify 

and involve chronic 

offenders; programs 

may be expensive

Little deterrent 

effect for chronic 

offenders

Can be timeconsuming; 

offenders believe 

they won't get 

caught, so they 

don't worry about 

punishment

Offenders can often 

hide behavior from 

parents; parents 

may have little 

control

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It 

Works

Works 

Best If...

Considerations

Responses with Limited Effectiveness
40 Graffiti

16.

17.

18.

19.

35

35

36

36

Increasing 

sanctions for 

offenders

Applying new 

technologies

Establishing 

juvenile curfews

Warning 

offenders

Raises the risks 

associated with 

graffiti

Reduces motives, 

deflects or 

diverts offenders, 

or increases 

detection

Increases the risk 

of detection for 

certain offenders

Intended to 

increase fear of 

detection

...combined with 

investigative

enforcement 

activities

...the technology 

fits the problem

...graffiti typically 

occurs late 

at night, and 

offenders are 

juveniles

...detection is 

increased, and 

consequences are 

unpleasant

Because 

apprehension 

of offenders is 

low, may have 

little deterrent 

effect; sanctions 

should be applied 

systematically; 

requires 

collaboration with 

prosecutors and 

judges; can consist 

of fines, community 

service or loss of 

driver's license

May be expensive 

and require 

substantial 

adaptation or 

experimentation

Difficult to enforce

Apprehension of 

offenders is low; 

warnings of dire 

consequences may 

not be effective

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It 

Works

Works 

Best If...

Considerations
Endnotes 41

Endnotes 10 Castleman (1982); Sloan-Howitt and Kelling (1990). 20 Coffield (1991). 30

 Wilson (1988).

40

 Ley and Cybrinsky (1974); Klein (1995).

50

 Coffield (1991).

60

 Gomez (1993); Ferrell (1995).

70

 Gomez (1993).

80

 Wilson (1987).

90

 San Diego Police Department (2000). 10 Clarke (1978); Coffield (1991). 11 Wilson (1987). 12 Bridgeport Police Department (1999). 13 San Diego Police Department (2000). 14 Sampson and Scott (2000). 15 Wilson (1988). 16 Governing (1994). 17 Nugent (1998). 18 Poyner (1988); Tilley (1998). 19 Poyner (1988). 20 Eastel and Wilson (1991). 21 Gomez (1993). 22 Wilson (1988).

References 43

References

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

p. 43.

Bridgeport Police Department (1999). Problem-Solving 

Partnership Grant Progress Report to the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (August). Bridgeport (Connecticut): 

Bridgeport Police Department.

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

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

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

MIT Press.

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

the Control of Vandalism. London: Construction Industry 

Research and Information Association.

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

Recent Graffiti Trends. Chula Vista (California): Chula Vista 

Police Department.

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

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

Office.

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

London: Calhouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

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

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

Architectural Press.
44 Graffiti

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

Rail, Buses, Taxis, Planes. Canberra: Australian Institute of 

Criminology. 

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

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

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

Solutions Through Distinguishing Graffiti Art From 

Graffiti Vandalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law 

Reform 26(3):633–708.

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

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

High-Crime Settings and a Theory of Prevention." 

Valparaiso University Law Review 31:449–483.

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

Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston." 

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

Crime Prevention. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice 

Press.

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

University Press.

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

Territorial Markers." Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers 64:491–501.

Mueller, M., J. Moore, A. Doggett, and D. Tingstrom 

(2000). "The Effectiveness of Contingency-Specific 

and Contingency-Nonspecific Prompts in Controlling 

Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

33(1):89–92.
References 45

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

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

Justice Assistance.

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

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

Successful Crime Mapping Case Studies, Vol. 2. Washington, 

D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

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

Journal of Security Administration 11:44–51.

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

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

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

Community Oriented Policing Services.

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

Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

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

Bulletin (December):10–14.

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

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

It.'" Security Journal 1(3):131–136.

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

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

(eds.), Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. 

Brookfield (Vermont): Ashgate Publishing Co.
46 Graffiti

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

Procedure for Reducing Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of 

Applied Behavior Analysis 29(1):121–124.

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

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

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

Vandalism on Public Transport." Trends and Issues. 

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
About the Author 47

About the Author

Deborah Lamm Weisel

Deborah Lamm Weisel is an assistant research professor 

and the director of police research in the Department of 

Political Science and Public Administration at North Carolina 

State University. Her portfolio includes research on police 

responses to crime problems such as gangs, street drugs and 

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

public housing, and repeat victimization from burglary and 

robbery. Her work has been published in Justice Quarterly, 

Public Management, the NIJ Journal, and the American Journal of 

Police. She holds a doctorate in political science/public policy 

analysis from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Recommended Readings 49

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
50 Graffiti

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

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

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at www.

ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

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

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime.

• Problem 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 51

• 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.
52 Graffiti

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

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

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

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

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 53

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

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

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

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

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

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

Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

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

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

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

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

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

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

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

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

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

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. 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 55

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

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction 

Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and 

Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

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

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

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

• 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
56 Graffiti

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: 1-932582-49-5

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

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

Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Abandoned Vehicles

Bicycle Theft

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Child Abuse

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Transient Encampments

Problem-Solving Tools

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Displacement

Implementing Responses to Problems

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem Solving

•
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Sting Operations

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. 


www.cops.usdoj.gov

For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Office at the address listed below.

e07042448 Updated Date: June 12, 2007

ISBN:1-932582-08-8