U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

A s s a u l t s i n a n d 

A r o u n d B a r s 

2n d E d i t i o n

by 

Michael S. Scott

Kelly Dedel

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 1
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site 

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
Assaults in and

Around Bars

2nd Edition

Michael S. Scott

Kelly Dedel

This project was supported by cooperative agreements 

#1999CKWXK004 and #2005CKWXK001 by the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services 

should not be considered an endorsement thereof by the author(s) 

or the Justice Department. Rather, the references are illustrations to 

supplement discussion of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

August 2006

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 1

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 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

• 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 commonly-used 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, non-governmental organizations, private businesses, 

public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. 

An effective problem-solver must know how to forge 

genuine partnerships with others and be prepared to invest 

considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 

Each guide identifies particular 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 problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. 

For the most part, the organizational strategies that can 

facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 

considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 

these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

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

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 
iv Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary 

from country to country, it is apparent that the police 

everywhere experience common problems. In a world that 

is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important 

that police be aware of research and successful practices 

beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 

research literature and reported police practice and is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 

executives and researchers prior to publication. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your 

own agency’s experiences dealing with a similar problem. 

Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem 

using responses not considered in these guides and your 

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This 

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish 

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should 

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This 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 v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

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

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

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

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

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

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University.) 

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

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

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

project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this 

guide.

Contents

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

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

The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Factors Contributing to Aggression and Violence in Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Culture of Drinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Type of Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Concentration of Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Bar Closing Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Aggressive Bouncers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

High Proportion of Young Male Strangers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Price Discounting of Drinks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Continued Service to Drunken Patrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Crowding and Lack of Comfort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Competitive Situations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Low Ratio of Staff to Patrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Lack of Good Entertainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Unattractive Décor and Dim Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Tolerance for Disorderly Conduct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Availability of Weapons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Low Levels of Police Enforcement and Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Incident Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

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

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

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

Bar Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Regulations and Enforcement Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Contents vii
viii Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

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

Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

General Requirements of an Effective Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Specific Responses to Reduce Assaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Reducing Alcohol Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Making Bars Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Assaults in and Around Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

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

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 1

The Problem of Assaults in and 

Around Bars

This guide deals with the problem of assaults in and 

around bars.§ We know a lot about the risk factors for 

these assaults, and about effective responses to them. 

We know less about which particular responses are most 

effective in addressing specific aspects of the problem. 

Therefore, your challenge will be to conduct a good 

analysis of the local problem, guided by the information 

presented here, and put together the right combination of 

responses to address that problem.

The guide begins by reviewing factors that increase the 

risks of assaults in and around bars. It then identifies a 

series of questions that might help you analyze your local 

problem of assaults in and around bars. Finally, it reviews 

responses to the problem, and what is known about them 

from evaluative research and police practice.

The proliferation of bars in many communities has led 

to increases in assaults in and around the bars. While 

many, if not most, of these are alcohol-related, assaults 

also occur when neither the aggressors nor the victims 

have been drinking. Most assaults occur on weekend 

nights.1 The majority of assaults occur at a relatively small 

number of places.2, §§ Not all assaults involve a simple 

fistfight with a clear beginning and ending; instead, the 

incidents are often more ambiguous and complicated. 

For example, some are intermittent conflicts that flare 

up over time, some evolve into different incidents, and 

many involve participants who alternate between the roles 

of aggressor and peacemaker, often drawing additional 

people into the incident.3 Some involve lower levels of 

§

 The term “bar” refers to licensed 

liquor establishments that sell 

alcohol primarily for consumption 

on the premises. These include 

establishments variously known as 

nightclubs, pubs, taverns, lounges, 

hotels (in Australia), discotheques, 

or social clubs. The term “assault” 

refers to the full range of violent 

acts, from those that cause minor 

injury to those that cause death, 

and from consensual fights to 

unprovoked attacks. 

§§ For example, in Sydney, Australia, 

just 12 percent of bars accounted 

for almost 60 percent of assaults 

occurring in licensed drinking 

establishments (Briscoe and 

Donnelly 2001b).
2 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

aggression (pushing, shoving), some involve more-severe 

violence (kicking, punching), and still others involve the 

use of weapons. Many of the injuries treated at hospitals, 

especially facial injuries, are related to assaults in and 

around bars. 

Those who fight in bars are not deterred by negative 

consequences (such as minor injuries, tension among 

friends, or trouble with the police), all of which tend to 

be delayed. The perceived rewards are more immediate 

and include feeling righteous about fighting for a worthy 

cause, increasing group cohesion among friends, getting 

attention, feeling powerful, and having entertaining stories 

to tell.4 Although some assault victims do something to 

precipitate the assault, many do not.5 Most are smaller 

than their attackers, are either alone or in a small group, 

and are drunk more often than their attackers.6 Attackers 

target victims who appear drunker than themselves.7

Many assaults are not reported to the police by either bar 

staff or the victim. Bar owners have mixed incentives for 

reporting assaults to the police. On the one hand, they 

need police assistance to maintain orderly establishments, 

but on the other hand, they do not want official records 

to reflect negatively on their liquor licenses. Many fights 

and disputes that start inside a bar are forced outside 

by the staff so they do not appear to be connected with 

the bar. Victims often are drunk, are ashamed, and see 

themselves as partly responsible, and so do not report 

assaults. Other victims believe the incidents are too trivial 

to involve the police.8 Thus police records do not reflect 

the total amount of violence in and around bars. However, 

we underestimate the seriousness of the problem if we 

believe these assaults are just excessive exuberance by 

young men or “just desserts” for drunken troublemakers. 
The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 3

In addition to generating police and community concerns 

for public safety, bar owners also bear the consequences 

of the problem in terms of damage to reputations, loss 

of future customers, staff reluctance to work, damage to 

property, reductions in profit, and, ultimately, potential 

loss of license.9

Related Problems

Assault is only one of many alcohol- and bar-related 

problems the police must address. Some of these issues 

are covered in other guides in this series. These related 

problems require their own analyses and responses:

• assaults around bars motivated by racial, ethnic, sexual 

orientation, or other bias

• binge drinking on college campuses

• disorderly conduct of public inebriates who drink in 

bars (e.g., panhandling, public urination, harassment, 

intimidation, and passing out in public places)

• drug dealing in bars

• drunken driving by customers leaving bars§

• gambling in bars

• illegal discrimination against bar patrons

• prostitution in bars

• sexual assaults in and around bars

• underage drinking.§§

§

 See Problem-Specific Guide 

No. 36, titled Drunk Driving. 

§§ See Problem-Specific Guide 

No. 27, titled Underage Drinking.
4 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Factors Contributing to Aggression and 

Violence in Bars

Understanding the factors that are known to contribute 

to your problem will help you frame your own local 

analysis questions, determine good effectiveness 

measures, recognize key intervention points, and select an 

appropriate set of responses for your particular problem.

Alcohol

Drinking alcohol is the most obvious factor contributing 

to aggression and violence in bars, but the relationship 

is not as simple as it might seem. Alcohol contributes to 

violence by limiting drinkers’ perceived options during a 

conflict, heightening their emotionality, increasing their 

willingness to take risks, reducing their fear of sanctions, 

and impairing their ability to talk their way out of 

trouble.10 Many of the alcohol problems police deal with 

can be attributed to ordinary drinkers who go on binges, 

drink more than they usually do, or drink on an empty 

stomach. In general, those who drink excessively are more 

aggressive and also get injured more seriously than those 

who drink moderately or not at all.11 Moderate drinkers do 

not appear to be at significantly higher risk of injury than 

nondrinkers.

Culture of Drinking

Cultures that are more accepting of intoxication as an 

excuse for antisocial or aggressive behavior, and that relax 

the normal rules of society during drinking time, have 

higher levels of aggression and violence in and around 

bars.12 This tolerance for intoxication is often reflected 

in a society’s laws related to legal defenses to crimes, and 
The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 5

to the regulation of drinking and the alcohol industry. In 

some peer groups, intoxication is an accepted excuse for 

aggression and violence.13

Type of Establishment

Certain types of bars, such as dance clubs, have higher 

levels of reported violence.14 Neighborhood bars and 

social clubs have lower levels of reported violence, 

partly because patrons know one another well, and partly 

because they usually resolve conflicts privately. Restaurants 

that serve alcohol also have less violence. Bars that serve 

as pickup places, cater to prostitutes, traffic in drugs or 

stolen goods, or feature aggressive entertainment are at 

higher risk for violence.

Concentration of Bars

The evidence on the effect of bar concentration is mixed. 

Some bars attract crime, while others are merely affected 

by crime in the surrounding neighborhood. Blocks with 

bars have higher levels of reported crime than blocks 

with no bars.15 High concentrations of bars can increase 

barhopping, and if all bars close at the same time, the 

risks of conflicts on the street increase. But the mere fact 

that a neighborhood has a high concentration of bars 

does not necessarily mean there will be higher crime levels 

in the area.16

Bar Closing Time

Bars’ hours of operation contribute to the risk of 

violence in different ways. When all bars in a given area 

close at the same time, and large numbers of patrons 

exit simultaneously, crowds may linger on the sidewalk 
6 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

to wait for transportation or to order food from latenight restaurants, and competition for these services can 

precipitate assaults. Moreover, large groups of patrons 

from incompatible social groups might come together, 

creating conflict.17

Uniform mandatory closing hours also encourage some 

patrons to drink heavily just before closing, knowing 

they cannot legally buy another drink for the rest of the 

night. It is generally the case that bars with later closing 

hours experience more assaults than those with standard 

business hours, although additional research on the effects 

of later or staggered bar closing times is needed.18 

Aggressive Bouncers

Some security staff see themselves as enforcers, rather 

than as protectors of customers’ safety.19 The more 

aggressively the security staff handles patrons, the more 

aggressively patrons respond. Many security employees 

and bouncers lack the skills to defuse violence. The 

presence of large, muscular men dressed in black, 

which is not uncommon for security staff, encourages 

confrontations with some patrons, while discouraging 

them with others. Bouncers’ very presence may 

subconsciously signal to some patrons that physical 

confrontation is an acceptable way to resolve disputes in 

that bar. Bouncers are implicated (whether justifiably so 

or not) in a significant proportion of assaults.20 However, 

victims of aggression by security staff may be hesitant to 

report the assault for several reasons: they may not have 

an accurate description of the bouncer involved, they may 

fear retaliation and being banned from the bar, or they 

may not want their own actions to be scrutinized.21
The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 7

High Proportion of Young Male Strangers

The overwhelming majority of attackers and victims 

are young men (18 to 29 years old). Many young men 

gather and drink alcohol to establish machismo, bond 

with one another, and compete for women’s attention.22 

Many incidents of bar aggression start when young men 

challenge one another.23 This is more likely to happen when 

they do not know each other. Overall, women’s presence 

has a calming effect on men’s behavior in crowded bars.24

Price Discounting of Drinks

Many bars offer discounted prices for drinks to attract 

patrons, but price discounting increases patrons’ 

intoxication levels and thereby increases the risks of 

aggression.

Continued Service to Drunken Patrons

Drinkers report that the most common reaction to their 

drunkenness in bars is continued alcohol service.25 In 

part, this occurs because staff have difficulty determining 

whether patrons are drunk, particularly when customers 

obtain drinks from several sources within the bar (e.g., 

bartenders, waitresses, and “shot girls”).26 Determining 

whether patrons are drunk is more difficult in overcrowded 

bars, as servers are under pressure to serve customers 

quickly. In addition, crowded venues are noisy, making it 

difficult for servers to hear verbal cues that would suggest 

drunkenness.27 Refusing service to drunken patrons often 

makes them angry. Bartenders and wait staff who do 

not want this aggression directed at them, and who also 

may not want to risk losing tips, often continue to serve 

obviously drunken patrons.
8 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Crowding and Lack of Comfort

Poor ventilation, high noise levels, and lack of seating 

make bars uncomfortable. This discomfort increases the 

risks of aggression and violence.28 Crowding around the 

bar, in restrooms, on dance floors, around pool tables, and 

near phones creates the risk of accidental bumping and 

irritation, which can also start fights.29

Competitive Situations

The high emotions that arise during competition in 

bars—whether patrons are watching sporting events on 

television or competing themselves in pool, darts, or other 

typical bar games—can turn to anger and frustration.30

Competitive drinking contests (e.g., “chugging” beer or 

rolling dice for drinks) contribute to excessive drinking. 

Sports bars may foster a “macho” atmosphere and may 

contribute to customers’ sense that aggression is an 

acceptable part of the social setting.31 Competition outside 

the bar—for food service, public transportation, walking 

space, women’s attention, and so forth—can similarly 

trigger violence. 

Crowding in bars creates the risk of accidental bumping and 

irritation, which can lead to assaults.

Kip Kellogg
The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 9

Low Ratio of Staff to Patrons

Inadequate staffing increases the competition for service 

and the frustration of patrons, and reduces opportunities 

for staff to monitor excessive drinking and aggression.32

Lack of Good Entertainment

Entertained crowds are less hostile. Quality music (as 

defined by the patrons) is more important than the music’s 

noise level.33, § 

Unattractive Décor and Dim Lighting

Recognizing that attractiveness is highly subjective, 

obviously unattractive, poorly maintained, and dimly lit 

bars signal to patrons that the owners and managers have 

similarly low standards for behavior, and that they will 

likely tolerate aggression and violence.34

Tolerance for Disorderly Conduct

If the bar staff tolerates profanity and other disorderly 

conduct, it suggests to patrons that the staff will tolerate 

aggression and violence, as well.35

Availability of Weapons

Patrons can use bottles, glasses, pool cues, heavy ashtrays, 

and bar furniture as weapons. The more available and 

dangerous these items are, the more likely they will cause 

serious injury during fights and assaults.

§

 Newspaper articles and reports 

from some police agencies suggest 

that certain forms of music, such 

as hip-hop, attract aggressive and 

violent crowds, but it is unlikely that 

the musical form itself generates 

aggression, at least not directly.
10 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Low Levels of Police Enforcement and Regulation

Low levels of liquor-law enforcement and regulation 

reduce owners’ and managers’ incentives to adopt 

responsible practices.§ We do not know for certain what 

effect the deployment of off-duty police officers in and 

around bars has on assault rates.

§

 Some police departments 

discourage or prohibit uniformed 

patrol officers from inspecting bars, 

while other departments encourage 

it and make it a key element of 

their efforts to control problems 

in and around bars. The CharlotteMecklenburg (North Carolina) Police 

Department successfully lobbied for 

legislative changes to allow police 

officers to inspect licensed premises.
Understanding Your Local Problem 11

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized 

description of the problem of assaults in and around bars. 

You must combine the basic facts with a more specific 

understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local 

problem helps in designing a more effective response 

strategy. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following 

groups have an interest in the assaults-in-and-around-bars 

problem and ought to be considered for the contribution 

they might make both to gathering information about the 

problem and to responding to it:

• risk managers/liability insurance agents for bars

• local liquor retailer associations

• bank officials holding mortgages or business loans on bars

• emergency medical personnel/treatment facilities

• substance-abuse treatment organizations

• neighborhood residents

• other business owners

• employees in the vicinity of bars.

For further information on how police can work 

effectively with other stakeholders, see the ProblemSolving Tools Guide titled Partnering With Businesses To 

Address Public Safety Problems.
12 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask 

in analyzing your particular problem of assaults in and 

around bars, even if the answers are not always readily 

available. Your answers to these and other questions will 

help you choose the most appropriate set of responses 

later on. The various entities with a stake in the problem 

and its solution will be helpful in collecting some of these 

data, as not all of the information will be readily available 

to police.§

Incident Characteristics

• Is the problem primarily one of bar fights, public inebriates 

assaulting one another, strong-arm robberies, sexual 

assaults, bias-motivated assaults, or something else?

• What precipitates the attacks (e.g., verbal exchanges/insults, 

threats, disagreements, long-standing disputes, or advances 

to girlfriends/boyfriends)? 

• Do the assaults stem from conflicts between individuals or 

between groups? If groups, are they criminal groups such 

as gangs?

• Do the precipitating conflicts initiate in the bar or 

elsewhere?

• How/why does verbal aggression escalate into physical 

assaults?

• Is there a widespread perception that certain bars or 

entertainment districts are dangerous because of assaults?

• What weapons, if any, do offenders use in assaults? Do 

either the offenders or the victims bring weapons to 

the bar, or do they convert items found in the bar into 

weapons?

§

 See Tierney and Hobbs (2003) for 

guidance on sharing responsibility 

for data collection among those 

concerned about assaults in and 

around bars. In addition, see 

Hopkins (2004) for an example of 

using the SARA model to analyze a 

local problem with assaults in bars. 
Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Victims 

• Who is assaulted?

• Do victims report the assaults to the police? (Surveys 

of patrons and emergency room admissions may reveal 

unreported assaults.)§ If victims do not report their 

assaults, why not? What are the characteristics of victims 

who report compared with those who do not?

• Are victims typically drunk?

• Are victims alone or in groups?

• Are victims members of any ethnic or other subcultural 

group?

• Are many of the victims underage drinkers?

• How serious are victims’ injuries?

• Do victims typically instigate assaults?

• Are there chronic assault victims?

• Do victims typically know their assailants? 

Offenders

• How old are offenders? Do they belong to any particular 

ethnic, occupational, recreational, or other group?

• Are offenders alone or in groups?

• Are there repeat offenders? Do they have prior criminal 

records for assault?

• Are offenders typically known as troublemakers in bars?

• Are offenders typically drunk? Do they get drunk in the 

same bar in or around which the assaults occur?

• Are offenders themselves injured in the fights/assaults? 

How seriously?

• Are offenders heavy drinkers? Do they have histories 

of alcohol-related problems (e.g., commitments to 

detoxification centers)?

§

 A recent study of the problem of 

assaults in bars relied heavily on data 

collection from emergency room 

patients by nurses involved (Maguire 

and Nettleton 2003). 
14 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Locations/Times

• In or around which bars are assaults concentrated?

• Where, specifically, do assaults occur (e.g., inside/outside, 

restrooms, alleys, streets/sidewalks, parking lots, or around 

the bar)?

• What is the nature of the surrounding neighborhood (e.g., 

entertainment district or primarily residential/commercial/

industrial)?

• Are the bars on or near major roadways?

• Do the people in or conditions of the bars themselves 

appear to generate the violence, or are bars merely affected 

by other conditions in the surrounding neighborhood?

• When do assaults occur (e.g., closing time, happy hour, 

special events, or weekends)?

• What public transportation is accessible after closing hours 

(e.g., buses, trains, or taxis)?

• Is there a high concentration of bars in areas with high 

reported assault levels?

• What are the lighting conditions both inside and outside 

bars? Do assaults occur in dark areas or areas not easily 

seen by passers-by?

• Are there objects outside bars that offenders can readily 

use as weapons (e.g., loose stones or trash receptacles)?

Bar Management Practices 

• What is the primary theme of a typical problem bar?

• Does the bar serve food, or is it available nearby?

• Does the bar offer discounted drinks?

• What entertainment, if any, does the bar offer? Does the 

entertainment contribute to aggression?

• Does the bar employ bouncers? If so, do they tend to be 

aggressive when dealing with troublesome patrons? Do bar 

managers conduct proper background checks on bouncers 

before hiring them? Are bar employees properly trained?
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

• What is the ratio of bar employees to patrons? Is it 

sufficient to provide timely service and monitor patrons’ 

drinking and behavior?

• Do bar employees call the police under appropriate 

circumstances? Do bar managers encourage or discourage 

police inspectional visits?

• Are employees encouraged to push altercations out of the 

bar?

• Are employees trained to recognize signs of drunkenness, 

to refuse service diplomatically, and to defuse aggression? 

Does management have written policies regarding these 

practices, expect employees to follow them, and support 

them when they do?

• What conduct does the bar prohibit? Do employees 

effectively enforce those prohibitions? 

• Is the bar décor attractive, and interior lighting adequate?

• Does the bar commonly reach or exceed occupancy limits?

• Do competitive events (e.g., playing pool, darts, rolling 

dice) lead to assaults? 

• Does the bar discourage barhopping (e.g., restrict reentry, 

charge entry fees, or prohibit carrying out drinks)?

• Does the bar have items that patrons can readily use as 

weapons? 

• Does the physical setting (e.g., the presence of sharp-edged 

bar tops or glass) create risks of serious injuries?

Regulation and Enforcement Practices 

• Do the police or liquor-license regulators routinely 

inspect bars for compliance with regulations? Do they 

inspect for serving practices and occupancy limits, in 

addition to technical license requirements?

• Do the police or regulators take enforcement actions? 

• Do bar owners believe police will enforce laws? Do 

they perceive enforcement actions as fair?
16 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Measuring Your Effectiveness

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. 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. 

For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, 

see the Problem-Solving Tools guide, Assessing Responses 

to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to assaults in and around bars:§

• reduced number of assaults

• reduced calls for police service for fights and assaults 

(assuming you are confident that police are being called 

when appropriate)

• reduced severity of injuries caused by assaults (it may be 

possible to reduce the degree of injury, even if the number 

of assaults does not decline)

• increased reporting of assaults to police, if you suspect 

that many assaults are not being reported (you might 

compare emergency room records with police records)

• fewer repeat victims and repeat offenders

• greater perception of safety among bar patrons, 

neighboring merchants, and residents

• increased profitability of bars with high assault rates (bars 

with high assault rates typically lose money).

§

 See Graham (2000) for a model 

evaluation strategy for interventions 

to reduce harmful behavior by bar 

patrons.
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 17

Responses to the Problem of Assaults in 

and Around Bars

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a 

better understanding of the factors that are contributing 

to the problem. 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 particular 

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: carefully 

consider who else in your community shares responsibility 

for the problem and can help police better respond to it.

General Requirements of an Effective Strategy

1. Enlisting community support for addressing the 

problem. Broad-based coalitions that incorporate the 

interests of the community, the bars, and the government 

are recommended.36 A number of communities, 

including Vancouver (British Columbia) and Edmonton 

(Alberta) have organized “bar watch” or “pub watch” 

programs, while bars and police in a number of 

Australian communities have negotiated voluntary 

agreements (known as accords) to promote responsible bar 

management.37 These programs incorporate the interests 

of bar owners, community members, and government 
18 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

regulators, including the police. Members meet regularly 

to discuss incidents that have occurred in the local 

area, and to craft solutions. While recruiting members 

can be difficult, the key is to keep all parties motivated 

and actively involved for extended periods.38 All parties 

should come to accept ownership for the problem, 

and for responses to it. Strong leadership, active police 

involvement, and adequate funding are essential.§

2. Implementing multifaceted, comprehensive strategies.

Multifaceted, comprehensive strategies are more 

effective than those that address only one or a few of 

the conditions that increase the risks of aggression and 

violence. Any response strategy should address as many 

known risk factors as possible, rather than focusing on the 

contributions of alcohol alone. Some of the more critical 

factors include the practices of serving and patterns of 

consumption, the physical comfort of the environment, 

the overall permissiveness of the environment, and the 

availability of public transportation to disperse crowds 

once bars have closed.39, §§ 

3. Getting cooperation and support from bar owners 

and managers. It is important to secure the cooperation 

and involvement of all bars in the area to guard against 

merely moving the problem somewhere else, and against 

losing the support of owners who feel unfairly targeted.40 

Bar owners should agree in writing to codes of good 

practice, and establish ways to enforce them.41 Rogue bar 

owners can easily undermine these agreements by refusing 

to follow the codes of practice. This creates pressure 

on other operators to do likewise. You should apply 

basic preventive and enforcement measures to all bars, 

while applying some special preventive and enforcement 

measures at high-risk bars. It is critical that you 

acknowledge the legitimacy of bar owners’ profit motive.

§

 See Homel (2001) for a thorough 

discussion of the various types of 

community action projects, their core 

components, and their effectiveness.

§§ The Derbyshire, England, 

Constabulary (2002) engaged local bar 

owners in a “Safer Pubs and Clubs” 

campaign whereby each owner agreed 

to enact a range of “Safer by...” 

reforms, such as Safer by Dispersal, 

Safer by Design, Safer by Glass 

Management, Safer by Doorwatch, etc. 

The combination of responses led to 

significant reductions in violence in the 

targeted areas and improvements in job 

satisfaction among staff. 
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 19

§ For example, several jurisdictions use 

self-administered checklists to examine 

potential problem areas (entry, layout, 

closing time, rule-setting, etc.). Often 

working with a consultant, bar owners 

discuss their areas of vulnerability and 

craft reforms to minimize risk (Graham 

2000; Graham et al. 2004; Toomey et al. 

2001). 

§§ The New Zealand Police implemented 

a system of informal audits, feedback, 

and recommendations to reduce the risk 

factors present in local bars and clubs. 

After a three-month follow-up period, 

the participating bars saw a 15 percent 

decrease in alcohol-related incidents. 

Despite fears that police would judge 

the approach lacking in severity, twothirds of police considered the approach 

acceptable, and 92 percent of bar owners 

found the process to be both fair and 

useful (Wiggers et al. 2004). 

§§§ Madison, Wisconsin adopted a point 

system in 1986 as the basis for sanctions 

against liquor licensees to remove some 

of the arbitrariness of the administrative 

process, and the police department 

developed methods for recording and 

reporting police activities at bars to the 

liquor-licensing authority. A key feature 

of the system is that reports of problems 

by the owners/managers to the police, 

and cooperation with the police, reflect 

favorably rather than negatively on the 

licensee. A police representative serves 

as a nonvoting member of the alcohollicense review committee. By contrast, the 

Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department 

(2000) had to change city officials’ 

attitudes toward liquor-license regulation 

to close or improve control over problem 

bars.

§§§§ In Sweden, a combination of 

responsible-beverage-service training 

and consistent liquor-law enforcement 

by police led to significant increases in 

the rate at which servers refused to serve 

intoxicated patrons (from 5 percent 

refusals to 70 percent refusals), and a 

significant decrease (29 percent) in the 

number of violent crimes occurring in 

or around participating bars (Wallin, 

Norstrom, and Andreasson 2003; Wallin, 

Gripenberg, and Andreasson 2005).

4. Informally monitoring bar policies and practices. You 

can use voluntary safety audits and risk assessments to 

identify high-risk locations and conditions.42 Monitoring 

systems should use data to measure effectiveness. Informal 

groups, rather than government officials, should oversee 

and monitor voluntary agreements among bars.§ However, 

informal police audits are an effective means of sharing 

knowledge and also carry the implied threat of sanctions, 

which can encourage compliance. For example, police can 

provide bar owners with information about disorderly 

events that occur following consumption on their 

premises. In addition, after an informal audit, police can 

provide tailored feedback reports using a harm-reduction, 

rather than a punitive, focus.§§ 

5. Formally regulating and enforcing relevant liquorlicensing laws. Voluntary agreements should be reinforced 

by formal regulation. Fair and well-enforced liquor-license 

regulation, with a graded system of penalties including 

warnings, modest fines, temporary license suspensions, 

and revocations, is key to ensuring responsible policies and 

practices.43, §§§ Fair and consistent enforcement of liquorlicense laws by the police and liquor-licensing authorities 

is more effective than relying solely on more-expensive 

responsible-beverage-service training programs.44, §§§§ More 

intensive police inspections of licensed bars will also 

result in higher recorded crime rates, but this encourages 

bar owners to adhere to good management practices and 

to obey liquor laws. In many jurisdictions, however, the 

liquor-licensing authority’s resources are inadequate for 

enforcement. 
20 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Kip Kellogg

Some communities use nuisance-abatement laws and 

conditional-use permits (business permits with special 

requirements and restrictions) to compel bar owners to 

establish and enforce responsible policies and practices 

that can reduce aggression and violence in and around the 

premises.§ 

Specific Responses To Reduce Assaults

You will need to combine two groups of responses in any 

effective strategy:

• responses to reduce how much alcohol patrons drink, thereby 

reducing aggression and vulnerability to assault

• responses to make the bar safer, regardless of how much 

alcohol patrons drink. 

§

 Fresno, California makes 

extensive use of conditionaluse permits to regulate liquor 

establishments. Sacramento, 

California, prepared a Model 

Conditional-Use Permit Ordinance 

for Retail Alcohol Outlets 

(Wittman 1997). The Hayward 

(California) Police Department 

helped private residents file a 

civil lawsuit against a problem 

bar, ultimately resulting in the 

revocation of its liquor license 

(Sampson and Scott 2000).

Police inspections of bars and 

enforcement of liquor laws encourages 

bar owners to adhere to responsible 

management practices.
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 21

Reducing Alcohol Consumption

6. Establishing responsible beverage service programs.

§

Responsible beverage service training can be effective in 

reducing intoxication and assaults, especially where there 

is community support for these requirements and adequate 

enforcement of them.45 Responsible beverage service can 

be promoted through voluntary or mandatory training 

programs. Bar owners and managers, as well as serving 

staff, should receive training. These programs are effective 

in changing servers’ knowledge and attitudes, but do not 

affect how often they deny service to drunken customers, 

unless they are supported by regular monitoring and 

consistent sanctions for violations.46 

§

 As of 2000, at least 23 states 

had server-training legislation. In 

11 of these states, the laws provide 

incentives for establishments that 

provide training to their employees, 

while in the remaining 12 states, 

server training is mandatory (Mosher 

et al. 2002).

Training and encouraging bar staff to serve 

responsibly and monitor patrons’ drinking can help 

reduce the risk of violence in the bar.

https://smartserve.org
22 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Responsible beverage service programs include training 

bar staff to adopt responsible serving practices, 

and encouraging bar owners and managers to adopt 

responsible business practices and policies. The most 

common elements of these programs include the 

following:

6a. Monitoring drinking to prevent drunkenness. In 

general, servers are not good at determining whether 

customers are drunk because the signs and signals used 

in that assessment are largely subjective (slurred speech, 

clumsiness, mood changes). The best estimator of a 

customer’s blood alcohol content is the number of 

drinks served, but given the size and layout of many 

bars, the amount of alcohol consumed is very difficult 

to track.47 Further, servers cannot know how much a 

customer has drunk before arriving, what or if he or 

she has eaten, or how long he or she intends to stay at 

the bar—all of which will affect the server’s judgments 

about continued service.48 Training should focus on the 

most obvious and reliable indicators of drunkenness 

and improved communication among multiple servers to 

enable better monitoring.

While it may take a long time for enforcement officials 

to witness bar staff serving drunken patrons, the benefits 

appear to be worth the costs.49 For the most part, it is 

still too easy for both drunken and underage drinkers to 

get served in bars.50

6b. Promoting slower drinking rates. Several practices 

encourage patrons to drink quickly, such as announcing 

“last call,” having happy hours, serving multiple drinks at 

one time, and tolerating “chugging” contests and other 

drinking games. Eliminating these practices can slow the 

rate at which patrons feel compelled to drink. 
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 23

6c. Prohibiting underage drinking. This response 

prevents less physically and emotionally mature patrons 

from getting drunk. It is unclear, though, what effect 

allowing underage patrons into bars, even if they are not 

served alcohol, has on the assault problem.

6d. Providing reduced-alcohol or nonalcoholic 

beverages. Offering reduced-alcohol or nonalcoholic 

beverages can lower patrons’ drunkenness level, 

patrons who might otherwise be potential assailants 

and/or victims. Regardless, the risk of injury from 

assault is reduced. There are virtually no drawbacks to 

this response as long as some patrons will drink these 

beverages.

6e. Requiring or encouraging food service with alcohol 

service. Eating while drinking slows the rate of alcohol 

absorption into the bloodstream. Serving food also helps 

create an atmosphere that is not exclusively centered on 

alcohol consumption, and can attract a more diverse, and 

possibly less aggressive, clientele.51

6f. Discouraging alcohol price discounts. Reducing the 

price of drinks during happy hours significantly increases 

consumption by both light and heavy drinkers.52 The 

competitive pressure to reduce drink prices actually 

threatens many bars’ profitability, so some owners 

actually appreciate restrictions on price discounting.

7. Establishing and enforcing server liability laws.

In many jurisdictions, alcohol servers and bar owners 

can be held legally liable either for the harm drunken 

patrons cause (through private civil suits) or for merely 

serving drunken people (through statute enforcement by 

the police or liquor-license regulators).§ Server liability 

laws alone have had mixed results as an incentive for 

§

 Erenberg and Hacker (1997) report 

that 36 states have some form of 

dram-shop liability law, and refer to 

the Model Alcoholic Beverage Retail 

Licensee Liability Act of 1985.
24 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

bar owners to adopt and enforce responsible (beverage) 

service policies and practices.53 In particular, the relatively 

low enforcement rate, the owner’s profit motive, and the 

server’s reliance on tips as income can decrease these laws’ 

deterrent effect.54

8. Reducing the concentration and/or number of bars. 

There is growing evidence that the concentration of bars 

in an area is related to that area’s crime levels and patterns, 

although the exact nature of the relationship is not yet 

clear.55 We cannot yet say how many bars in a small area 

are too many, but evidence does suggest there is such a 

threshold. Police agencies can support efforts to reduce 

the concentration or number of bars through zoning and 

liquor-license enforcement.

Making Bars Safer

9. Training staff to handle patrons nonviolently. Some 

assaults in bars have less to do with alcohol and more 

to do with unprofessional or unskilled staff. There are 

conflicting views about the effectiveness of employing 

security staff (bouncers and doormen) as a way to reduce 

assaults in and around bars.56 Well-trained bar staff 

can function as guardians (protecting victims), handlers 

(modifying behavior of offenders, particularly those who 

are regular customers), and place managers (exerting social 

control over people in places).57 However, they may react 

ineffectively to incidents or, at worst, may overreact or 

antagonize customers and precipitate an incident. 

Skill development programs to reduce aggression are often 

easier to market to bar owners than interventions focused 

on serving less alcohol.58 The programs are most effective 

when focused on portable skills using real-world scenarios, 

drawing on participants’ experience. The following 

particular techniques can defuse aggressive incidents:59
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 25

• Remove the audience (get aggressors away from onlookers)

• Employ calming strategies

–Verbal skills

Allow the aggressor to talk and express anger

Use role-appropriate language

Avoid hostile or angry remarks

Respond indirectly to hostile questions

Express an understanding of the aggressor’s mood

–Nonverbal skills

Increase the distance between oneself and the 

aggressor

Avoid sustained eye contact with the aggressor

Move slowly and avoid sudden movements

Maintain calm, relaxed facial expressions

Control the vocal signals of anxiety and stress

• Employ control strategies

Clearly establish the situation requirements

Depersonalize the encounter

Emphasize one’s role requirements

Encourage the aggressor’s decision-making

Offer the aggressor face-saving possibilities

A number of communities require security staff to 

be trained, licensed, and registered, a measure several 

researchers endorse.60, § The United Kingdom uses “door 

staff registration schemes” extensively, requiring all door 

staff at bars to be trained and vetted.§§ The many local 

variances in policy can be frustrating to those wishing to 

work in multiple jurisdictions.61 These schemes are most 

effective when staff receive individually numbered badges; 

registering agencies maintain a comprehensive name, 

photograph, and address register; and bars keep premisespecific staff assignment logs.62

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

§ The San Diego (California) Police 

Department’s In-House Security 

Training Program offers training 

courses for instructors from local 

venues who, once endorsed, teach 

and certify in-house security 

personnel. The program includes an 

evaluation component to determine 

reductions in the numbers of 

complaints, disturbances, violent 

incidents, and drug use; the quality 

of training content, delivery, and 

materials; and whether the program 

contributes to the ability to identify 

problematic security personnel (San 

Diego Police Department Vice Unit 

n.d.).

§§ The United Kingdom’s Private 

Security Act 2001 requires all privatesector security staff to obtain an 

occupational license before working 

in the industry. This act supersedes 

all local door-staff registration 

schemes (Hobbs et al. 2003). 
26 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

§ Increasing the availability of 

taxis and buses to patrons leaving 

nightclubs in Douglas, Isle of Man 

was an important dimension of a 

larger successful strategy to reduce 

violence and disorder around bars 

(Isle of Man Constabulary 2005).

§§ The United Kingdom’s Licensing 

Act 2003 eliminated mandatory 

pub closing hours. The new liquorlicensing legislation gave police 

more authority to close rowdy 

pubs, allowed for lengthy bans 

of troublemakers and habitual 

drunkards from pubs, and allowed 

local authorities to impose 

environmental conditions on liquor 

licenses. Several organizations had 

strong concerns about the legislation 

(Civic Trust and the Institute of 

Alcohol Studies 2002; Roberts et al. 

2002; McNeil 2005). To date, the 

relaxed closing hours’ impact on the 

assault and disorder rates has not 

been evaluated. 

§§§ A Grand Rapids, Iowa proposal 

would allow bars to stay open 

later, although they would still be 

required to stop serving alcohol at 

the usual time. The purpose of these 

extended hours would be to allow 

customers to “cool down and sober 

up” before leaving the bar (Ronco 

and Quisenberry 2005). In Australia, 

a group of local bars agreed to 

a “patron lockout” to reduce 

barhopping. Although bars remained 

open until 3 or 5 a.m., customers 

were not allowed to enter or reenter 

bars after 2 a.m. (University of 

Ballarat Center for Health Research 

and Practice 2004). 

10. Establishing adequate transportation. Adequate 

public transportation to and from bars, especially after 

closing hours, can reduce competition for transportation, 

more quickly clear the streets of drunken people, and 

reduce the hazards of drunken driving.63, § Separating taxi 

stands and bus stops from each other can reduce the size 

of groups congregating on the sidewalks.64

11. Relaxing or staggering bar closing times. Allowing 

bars to determine their own closing times or staggering 

the mandatory closing times results in fewer drunken 

people on the streets competing for food, transportation, 

and attention.65 In addition, more people are on the 

streets, though in lower concentrations, for longer 

periods—a factor that improves natural surveillance and 

makes people feel safer.§§ However, it is also possible 

that staggered closing hours will increase barhopping, 

as patrons roam the streets looking for open bars.§§§ In 

addition, eliminating mandatory closing times could create 

an environment where alcohol is almost continuously 

available and could increase assault rates at venues with 

extended hours.66 So, while staggered closing times show 

promise in reducing assault levels, more evidence of its 

impact is needed. Changes to operating hours, alone, are 

unlikely to decrease the assault rates. The change must 

also be accompanied by high-quality efforts to control, 

manage, and regulate the properties.67 If this response is 

implemented, it should first be done in a controlled pilot 

effort to gauge the overall effect.

12. Controlling bar entrances, exits, and immediate 

surroundings. In addition to employing bouncers or 

doormen, some bars install surveillance cameras at 

entrances and exits to discourage altercations. Prohibiting 

reentry after exit or charging reentry fees can discourage 
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 27

barhopping, which can reduce the risks of assaults among 

drunken patrons on the streets.68 Regulating parking 

outside bars is a way to control the movement of patrons 

and their vehicles, and enhancing lighting in alleys and 

parking lots improves natural surveillance.

13. Maintaining an attractive, comfortable, entertaining 

atmosphere in bars. Attractive, well-maintained bars 

suggest to patrons that the owners care about their 

property and will not tolerate disorderly and violent 

conduct that might destroy it.69 A comfortable and 

entertaining atmosphere reduces both frustration and 

boredom among patrons, which can reduce aggression 

levels. Lighting should not be so bright that it acts as an 

irritant, but also not so dim that it can conceal customers’ 

activities.70 An important environmental consideration is 

the crowding level. Police in some jurisdictions enforce 

occupancy limits (primarily adopted for fire safety) as a 

means to control the bar crowding that can lead to fights. 

Redesigning a bar’s interior to improve traffic flow and 

prevent congestion can reduce the opportunities for 

accidental bumps and drink spills that may escalate into 

fights.71

Kip Kellogg

Occupancy limits should be enforced so 

that bar patrons do not feel crowded.
28 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

§ The Merseyside Police (2000) in 

England coordinated a plan that 

promoted the use of toughened 

glass containers, added litter 

containers outside bars, and had bar 

staff and police discourage patrons 

from taking glass containers out 

of bars in downtown Liverpool. 

Serious assaults involving glass 

injuries in and around bars in the 

target area declined significantly. The 

police subsequently convinced the 

city council to authorize police to 

confiscate glass containers outside 

bars. The city of Savannah, Georgia 

allows patrons to take alcoholic 

beverages out of bars in the 

entertainment district, but requires 

that they be in plastic cups. Patrons 

use the so-called “to-go cups” 

extensively.

14. Establishing and enforcing clear rules of conduct 

for bar patrons. Restrictions on swearing, sexual activity, 

prostitution, drug use and dealing, and rowdiness can 

reduce aggression. A more permissive atmosphere with 

little control over patrons’ behavior is associated with 

higher aggression levels.72 Raising the bar area’s height is 

one way to improve servers’ capacity to monitor patrons’ 

behavior.

15. Reducing potential weapons and other sources 

of injury. Drink glasses that shatter in small pieces 

when broken minimize the seriousness of injuries from 

assaults with glasses. They may also be cheaper and more 

durable than more dangerous glassware.73 Discouraging 

or prohibiting patrons from taking glass containers out 

of bars reduces the likelihood patrons will use them as 

weapons in street fights.§ Padded furniture or rounded 

corners on tables and bars can also reduce the risk of 

serious injury. Requiring identification to check out pool 

cues can enhance accountability for their proper use and 

reduce the likelihood patrons will use them as weapons.

16. Communicating about incidents as they occur. Using 

handheld radios or cellular telephones, bar managers 

in a local area can pass on real-time information about 

problems, incidents, or patrons that may require a police 

response.74 Armed with this information, door staff at 

nearby clubs can help contain the incident and can deny 

entry to the patrons in question. Some bars include police 

directly in these communications. 
Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars 29

§

 The city of Portland, Oregon 

explained the procedures for 

banning troublemakers from liquor 

establishments in a guidebook for 

liquor establishment owners and 

managers (Campbell Resources Inc. 

1991). The Madison (Wisconsin) 

Police Department uses what it calls 

an “Unruly Patron Complaint.” They 

remove unruly customers from bars 

and serve them a form telling them 

they are banned from entering the 

bar again due to their behavior. They 

file a report and give the bar a copy 

of the complaint, with the offender’s 

name and information, and a case 

number. Should the patron return 

to the bar, the bar staff calls the 

police, who arrest the patron for 

trespassing. Madison police have 

found this tactic especially helpful 

in bars with a regular clientele who 

fear losing the privilege of going 

there. This tactic is also a common 

feature of “PubWatch” schemes in 

the United Kingdom (Pratten and 

Greig 2005). 

§§ The Arlington (Texas) Police 

Department (1997) helped 

one especially problematic bar 

develop a computer database to 

record all people ejected from or 

arrested at the bar, and to make 

this information available to door 

security staff.

§§§ One sensible response related 

to police enforcement is to pass 

legislation making public fighting 

an offense, as was done at the 

recommendation of the Edmonton 

(Alberta) Police in 1999. This allows 

police to arrest offenders even when 

they cannot establish the elements 

of assault and battery.

17. Banning known troublemakers from bars. Banning 

known troublemakers from bars takes them out of 

situations where fights and assaults are likely to occur.§ 

Bar owners and the police should get legal guidance 

on the required process for banning people, the length 

of time such bans are effective, and the role police 

should play in enforcing the bans. For this response to 

be effective, the police and the bar management must 

cooperate to identify—preferably with a photograph—

those who have been banned.§§ Some bars may be 

reluctant to enforce police-requested bans of their regular 

customers.75 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

18. Using extra police patrols in and around bars. Many 

police departments concentrate on the streets outside 

bars rather than the conditions inside bars. They do so 

by providing a heavy police presence outside bars and, in 

some instances, in the bars themselves, with regular onduty patrols through the bars or off-duty police officers 

working there. The main result seems to be an increase 

in the rates of reported and recorded offenses, if for no 

other reason than the police witness offenses that might 

otherwise go unreported.76, §§§ Heavy police involvement 

through patrols and enforcement is not essential if there 

is sufficient community, peer, and regulatory pressure 

on licensees to manage bars responsibly. The police are 

neither able, nor fully authorized, to regulate every aspect 

of bar management, but they can encourage, support, and 

insist on responsible management policies and practices.
30 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

19. Marketing responsible consumption and service 

practices. Efforts to reduce consumption by educating 

people about responsible drinking do not appear 

effective.77 In general, drinkers do not view messages 

about responsible drinking as relevant to their own 

experiences.78 Media messages to young audiences 

about the dangers of drinking are counteracted by news 

about the health benefits of drinking modest amounts of 

alcohol, and by alcohol industry promotions. While major 

alcohol manufacturers and distributors have toned down 

their marketing campaigns in recent years, promoting 

responsible drinking, local bars have filled the void in the 

competition to attract patrons.79, § Police can target their 

enforcement efforts toward irresponsible bar advertising. 

20. Prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol. 

Alcohol prohibition can be effective under certain 

conditions, such as in unique cultural contexts where 

there is widespread public support for it, or in isolated 

communities where there are no nearby jurisdictions 

where one can drink.80, §§ However, in most communities, 

prohibition is politically impractical and can create a new 

set of problems. For example, strict prohibition creates 

an illegal alcohol market, and violence is often used to 

enforce that market.81 

§

 The North American Partnership 

for Responsible Hospitality and 

the National Licensed Beverage 

Association set standards for 

responsible beverage service, 

even though they have little direct 

influence over individual licensed 

premises. Sources of U.S. alcohol 

industry advertising codes include 

the Beer Institute, the Wine Institute, 

and the Distilled Spirits Council of 

the United States. State and local 

laws, newspaper advertising policies, 

and college campus advertising 

policies may also govern alcohol 

marketing.

§§ Barrow, Alaska, an isolated Arctic 

community, experienced dramatic 

decreases in alcohol-related assaults, 

as well as many other alcohol-related 

problems, when it banned the sale, 

possession, and consumption of 

alcohol (Sampson and Scott 2000). 

Some cities, such as Chicago, Illinois, 

have provisions allowing residents 

to vote to prohibit alcohol sales 

in specific areas—in effect, to 

create dry zones within the larger 

community.
Appendix 31

Appendix: Summary of Responses to 

Assaults in and Around Bars

 

The table below summarizes the responses to assaults 

in and around bars, 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. Enforcement responses alone 

are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

General Requirements of an Effective Strategy

1 17 Enlisting 

community 

support for 

addressing the 

problem

Establishes 

joint 

ownership of 

the problem

...there is 

sufficient public 

interest in and 

political support 

for addressing the 

problem

Requires a high degree 

of project management 

to sustain coalitions 

over time

2 18 Implementing 

multifaceted, 

comprehensive 

strategies

Addresses 

many of the 

known risk 

factors that 

contribute to 

assaults

...responses 

are properly 

implemented (in 

the right sequence 

and strength)

Difficult to isolate 

the effect of specific 

interventions; requires a 

high degree of project 

management

3 18 Getting 

cooperation and 

support from 

bar owners and 

managers

Prevents 

displacement 

of the 

problem; 

prevents 

perceptions 

of unfairness; 

addresses 

problems at 

lower-risk bars

...there are 

mechanisms 

to enforce 

agreements, 

and regulators 

acknowledge the 

legitimacy of 

owners’ profit 

motive

Rogue operators can 

easily undermine 

cooperative agreements
32 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

4 19 Informally 

monitoring bar 

policies and 

practices

Identifies 

high-risk 

locations and 

practices; 

enforces 

cooperative 

agreements; 

monitors 

progress and 

effectiveness

...participating bar 

owners cooperate 

and support the 

oversight system; 

constructive 

feedback is offered 

to participating bar 

owners, along with 

potential solutions

Lacks the force of law; 

requires a high degree 

of project management

5 19 Formally 

regulating and 

enforcing relevant 

liquor-licensing 

laws

Motivates 

owners/

managers 

to adopt 

and enforce 

responsible 

serving 

policies and 

practices

...done in 

conjunction with 

more cooperative 

and voluntary 

efforts, and 

enforcement is 

consistent, routine, 

and perceived to 

be fair

Labor-intensive and 

costly; increases 

rates of detected and 

reported offenses

Specific Responses To Reduce Assaults

Reducing Alcohol Consumption

6 21 Establishing 

responsiblebeverage-service 

programs

Addresses 

a range of 

risk factors, 

especially 

reducing 

drunkenness 

levels

...servers, 

managers, and 

owners are 

provided with 

concrete examples 

of responsible 

practices; 

combined with 

sanctions and 

enforcement

Evidence of 

effectiveness is mixed; 

requires enforcement 

to be taken seriously; 

costly to establish

6a 22 Monitoring 

drinking 

to prevent 

drunkenness 

Reduces 

drunkenness 

levels

...servers know 

how to detect 

intoxication, they 

have sufficient 

incentives to 

stop serving, and 

there is adequate 

opportunity to 

monitor patrons

Refusing service to 

intoxicated patrons can 

instigate aggression; 

difficult to monitor 

drinking in large bars
Appendix Appendix 33

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

6b 22 Promoting slower 

drinking rates

Reduces 

drunkenness 

levels

...bars prohibit 

serving multiple 

drinks to a single 

customer

Runs counter to 

licensees’ short-term 

profit motive

6c 23 Prohibiting 

underage drinking

Prevents 

drunkenness 

of vulnerable 

population

...jurisdiction has 

identification cards 

that are difficult to 

falsify

Easy to provide false 

proof of age in some 

jurisdictions

6d 23 Providing 

reduced-alcohol 

or nonalcoholic 

beverages

Reduces 

drunkenness 

levels

...patrons will 

drink reducedor nonalcoholic 

beverages

Some bar owners may 

be reluctant to stock 

reduced- or nonalcoholic beverages, 

believing they are less 

profitable

6e 23 Requiring or 

encouraging 

food service with 

alcohol service

Reduces 

drunkenness 

levels; attracts 

a more 

diverse, less 

aggressive 

clientele; 

creates 

a calmer 

atmosphere

...patrons will buy 

and eat food, and 

food service is 

adequate so as not 

to create additional 

frustration and 

conflict

Increases costs to 

licensees, but does 

not necessarily reduce 

profitability

6f 23 Discouraging 

alcohol price 

discounts 

Reduces 

volume of 

consumption

...all bars are 

prohibited from 

discounting prices

Easily undermined 

by the pressures of 

business competition; 

potential legal 

restrictions to price 

agreements

7 23 Establishing and 

enforcing server 

liability laws

Provides 

incentives 

for servers 

to control 

excessive 

consumption

...there is 

sufficient 

community 

support for 

liability laws, and 

laws are enforced 

adequately

Difficult to establish 

server’s knowledge of 

drunkenness; judgments 

are rare
34 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

8 24 Reducing the 

concentration 

and/or number 

of bars

Reduces 

barhopping; 

reduces the 

potential for 

conflicts at 

closing time

...the 

concentration and/

or number of bars 

is high

Not conclusively 

proven effective at 

reducing violence levels

Making Bars Safer

9 24 Training staff to 

handle patrons 

nonviolently

Reduces levels 

of aggression; 

encourages 

staff to 

intervene 

before assaults 

occur

...there are highquality training 

programs available; 

skill development 

is emphasized; 

real-world 

scenarios are used

Increases costs to 

either licensees or 

local government to 

administer training; 

training is often of 

poor quality

10 26 Establishing 

adequate 

transportation

Reduces 

numbers 

of drunken 

people on 

streets after 

closing hours; 

reduces 

competition 

for 

transportation

...the 

transportation 

infrastructure is 

adequate to the 

demand

May increase costs to 

local government

11 26 Relaxing or 

staggering bar 

closing times 

Reduces the 

concentration 

of drunken 

people on 

streets after 

closing hours

...there are 

multiple bars in 

the area, with large 

crowds

Requires legislation 

to authorize; seems 

counterintuitive 

and therefore easily 

opposed
Appendix 35

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

12 26 Controlling bar 

entrances, exits, 

and immediate 

surroundings 

Reduces the 

entry of 

underage, 

drunken, and 

belligerent 

patrons; 

reduces 

barhopping; 

controls 

conflict at key 

locations

...the security staff 

is properly trained 

and nonaggressive, 

and patrons often 

get into conflicts 

in the alleys and 

parking lots 

outside bars

May increase shortterm costs to licensees 

(for security staff, 

surveillance cameras, 

lighting)

13 27 Maintaining 

an attractive, 

comfortable, 

entertaining 

atmosphere in 

bars

Reduces the 

frustration 

and boredom 

that can 

precipitate 

aggression

...bar owners are 

willing to invest in 

maintenance and 

entertainment

Increases short-term 

costs to licensees

14 28 Establishing and 

enforcing clear 

rules of conduct 

for bar patrons

Reduces the 

potential 

for conflicts 

among 

patrons; 

promotes 

a calmer 

atmosphere

...bar owners 

have sufficient 

incentives to 

promote peaceful 

and legal conduct

May run counter to 

patrons’ expectations 

and desires

15 28 Reducing 

potential weapons 

and other sources 

of injury 

Reduces the 

likelihood 

and/or 

severity of 

injury

...bar owners 

know where to buy 

safer materials

May increase shortterm costs to licensees

16 28 Communicating 

about incidents as 

they occur

Permits early 

intervention 

in potentially 

violent 

situations

...all local bars 

participate; police 

are included 

Need to distinguish 

between incidents that 

require police response 

and those that do not
36 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

17 29 Banning known 

troublemakers 

from bars

Removes highrisk offenders 

from 

situations 

where 

altercations 

are likely

...police and 

bar management 

cooperate to 

identify banned 

patrons, and 

enforce the terms 

of the banishment

Legal restrictions; may 

be difficult to ensure 

compliance from bar 

owners if regular 

customers are banned

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

18 29 Using extra police 

patrols in and 

around bars

Intended to 

deter assaults 

and allow 

police to 

intervene in 

disputes

Little evidence in the 

research that extra 

police presence is 

effective or efficient

19 30 Marketing 

responsible 

consumption and 

service practices

Intended 

to heighten 

general 

awareness 

of the 

problem and 

discourage 

excessive 

consumption

Excessive-consumptionwarning campaigns do 

not appear effective; 

irresponsible marketing 

can be used to identify 

high-risk bars

20 30 Prohibiting 

the sale and 

consumption of 

alcohol 

Reduces 

consumption

Difficult to obtain 

widespread public 

support; reduces the 

positive effects of 

social drinking; creates 

illegal and potentially 

violent black markets
Endnotes 37

Endnotes

 1 Budd (2003); Finney (2004).

 2 Forsyth, Cloonan, and Barr (2005); Briscoe and 

Donnelly (2001b). 3 Graham and Wells (2001). 

 4 Graham and Wells (2003).

 5 Homel and Tomsen (1991).

 6 Stockwell (1997), citing Homel et al. (1992); Homel 

and Clark (1994). 7

 Parks and Zetes-Zanatta (1999), citing Homel, 

Tomsen, and Thommeny (1992). 8 Budd (2003). 9 Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). 10 Engineer et al. (2003).

11 Graham, Schmidt, and Gillis (1996); Richardson and 

Budd (2003). 12 Graham, Schmidt, and Gillis (1996); Pernanen (1998); 

Marsh and Kibby (1992); Homel and Clark (1994). 13 Richardson et al. (2003); Engineer et al. (2003).

14 Block and Block (1995).

15 Zhu, Gorman, and Horel (2004); Lipton and 

Gruenewald (2002); Reid, Hughey, and Peterson 

(2003). 16 Block and Block (1995).

17 Berkley and Thayer (2000).

18 Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b); Chikritzhs and 

Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant (2005). 19 Graham et al. (2005).

20 Tomsen, Homel, and Thomenny (1991); Tomsen 

(2005); Macintyre and Homel (1997); Stockwell (1997); 

Homel and Clark (1994). 21 Lister et al. (2000).

22 Marsh and Kibby (1992).

23 Tomsen (2005); Graham and Wells (2001).

24 Macintyre and Homel (1997).
38 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

25 Donnelly and Briscoe (2003).

26 Roberts (2002). 

27 Doherty and Roche (2003).

28 Graham et al. (1980); Quigley, Leonard, and Collins 

(2003). 29 Macintyre and Homel (1997).

30 Graham et al. (1980).

31 Graham, West, and Wells (2000). 

32 Doherty and Roche (2003).

33 Graham and Homel (1997).

34 Graham et al. (1980).

35 Graham et al. (1980); Graham, West, and Wells (2000).

36 Homel (1998); Wittman (1997); Homel et al. (1997);

Deehan (1999); Erenberg and Hacker (1997); Calgary

Police Service (1994). 37 Pratten and Bailey (2005); Deehan (2004); Graham 

(2000); Stockwell (1997); Felson et al. (1997). 38 Graham (2000).

39 Homel et al. (2004).

40 Roberts (2002). 

41 Homel et al. (1997); Graham (2000). 

42 Homel et al. (1997).

43 Stockwell (2001).

44 Holder et al. (1997).

45 Stockwell (1997); Homel and Clark (1994); Erenberg 

and Hacker (1997); Saltz (1997). 46 Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003); Graham 

(2000); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a); Briscoe and 

Donnelly (2001b). 47 Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003). 

48 Sloan et al. (2000). 

49 McKnight and Streff (1994).

50 Stockwell (1997); Donnelly and Briscoe (2003).

51 Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999); Marsh and

Kibby (1992). 52 Single (1988).

53 Saltz (1997).
Endnotes 39

54 Liang, Sloan, and Stout (2004); Sloan et al. (2000).

55 Stockwell (1997); Block and Block (1995); Saville 

(1996). 56 Wells, Graham, and West (1998); Graham and Homel 

(1997); Deehan (1999); Homel and Clark (1994); 

Marsh and Kibby (1992). 57 Fox and Sobol (2000); Graham et al. (2004).

58 Graham et al. (2004).

59 Marsh and Kibby (1992).

60 Deehan (1999); Homel and Clark (1994); Marsh and 

Kibby (1992). 61 Hobbs et al. (2003).

62 Lister et al. (2000). 

63 Greater London Authority (2002). 

64 Roberts (2004).

65 Marsh and Kibby (1992); Deehan (1999); Lovatt 

(1994); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a). 66 Chikritzhs and Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant 

(2005). 67 Roberts et al. (2002).

68 Felson et al. (1997).

69 Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999).

70 Doherty and Roche (2003).

71 Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005).

72 Marsh and Kibby (1992); Graham and Homel (1997); 

Deehan (2004,1999). 73 Shepherd, Huggert, and Kidner (1993); Deehan (1999).

74 Great Britain Home Office (2004); Roberts (2004). 

75 Roberts (2002).

76 Burns and Coumarelos (1993); Pernanen (1998); 

Stockwell (2001). 77 Single (1988).

78 Tomsen (2005). 

79 Erenberg and Hacker (1997).

80 Wood and Gruenewald (2004).

81 Pernanen (1998).

References 41

References

Arlington Police Department (1997). “Taming the ‘Cowboys’: 

Arlington Police Reduce Calls for Service From Local 

Nightclub.” Problem-Solving Quarterly 10(3) (Fall):1–2. 

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

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). Managing and Designing 

Out Crime and Disorder at Licensed Premises: A Guide for Licensees. 

Portishead (England): Avon and Somerset Constabulary.

Berkley, B., and J. Thayer (2000). “Policing Entertainment 

Districts.” Policing 23(4):466–491.

Block, R., and C. Block (1995). “Space, Place, and Crime: HotSpot Areas and Hot Places of Liquor-Related Crime.” In J. 

Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.), Crime and Place. Crime Prevention 

Studies, Vol. 4. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press; 

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

Briscoe, S., and N. Donnelly (2001a). Temporal and Regional 

Aspects of Alcohol-Related Violence and Disorder. Alcohol Studies 

Bulletin, No. 1. Sydney (Australia): New South Wales Bureau 

of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug 

Research Institute of Curtin University.

———— (2001b). Assaults on Licensed Premises in Inner-Urban 

Areas. Alcohol Studies Bulletin, No. 2. Sydney (Australia): New 

South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and 

the National Drug Research Institute of Curtin University.

Budd, T. (2003). “Alcohol-Related Assault: Findings From 

the British Crime Survey.” Home Office Online Report 35/03. 

London: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 

Directorate.
42 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Burns, E., M. Nusbaumer, and D. Reiling (2003). “Think 

They’re Drunk? Alcohol Servers and the Identification of 

Intoxication.” Journal of Drug Education 33(2):177–186.

Burns, L., and C. Coumarelos (1993). Policing Pubs: Evaluation 

of a Licensing Enforcement Strategy. Sydney (Australia): New 

South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Calgary Police Service (1994). “Police Lead Effort To 

Improve Safety of Popular Nightspot. Electric Avenue—

‘The Place To Go.’” Problem-Solving Quarterly 7(3/4) 

(Fall):1,6–8. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research 

Forum.

Campbell Resources Inc. (1991). Alcohol and Problem Customers. 

Controlling Drug Activity and Other Illegal Behavior in Taverns 

and Retail Liquor Outlets: What Owners and Managers Need To 

Know. Portland (Oregon): City of Portland.

Chikritzhs, T., and T. Stockwell (2002). “The Impact of Later 

Trading Hours for Australian Public Houses (Hotels) on 

Levels of Violence.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(5):591–

599.

Civic Trust and The Institute of Alcohol Studies (2002). Open 

All Hours? A Report on Licensing Deregulation by the Open All 

Hours? Campaign. London: Civic Trust and the Institute of 

Alcohol Studies.

Deehan, A. (2004). “The Prevention of Alcohol-Related 

Crime: Operationalising Situational and Environmental 

Strategies.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An 

International Journal 6(1):43–52.
References 43

———— (1999). Alcohol and Crime: Taking Stock. Crime 

Reduction Research Series, Paper 3. London: Great Britain 

Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. 

Derbyshire Constabulary (2002). “Peaks and Dales Safer 

Pubs and Clubs.” Submission for the Tilley Award for 

Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Doherty, S., and A. Roche (2003). Alcohol and Licensed Premises: 

Best Practice in Policing. Payneham (Australia): Australasian 

Center for Policing Research.

Donnelly, N., and S. Briscoe (2003). “Signs of Intoxication 

and Server Intervention Among 18–39-Year-Olds Drinking 

at Licensed Premises in New South Wales, Australia.” 

Addiction 98(9):1287–1295.

Engineer, R., A. Phillips, J. Thompson, and J. Nicholls (2003). 

Drunk and Disorderly: A Qualitative Study of Binge Drinking 

Among 18- to 24-Year-Olds. Home Office Research Study, 

No. 262. London: Great Britain Home Office Research, 

Development, and Statistics Directorate.

Erenberg, D., and G. Hacker (1997). Last Call for High-Risk 

Bar Promotions That Target College Students: A Community 

Action Guide. Washington, D.C.: Center for Science in the 

Public Interest. www.health.org/pubs/lastcall/index.

Felson, M., R. Berends, B. Richardson, and A. Veno (1997). 

“Reducing Pub Hopping and Related Crime.” In R. Homel 

(ed.), Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, 

and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New 

York): Criminal Justice Press.
44 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Finney, A. (2004). Violence in the Nighttime Economy: Key Findings 

From the Research. Home Office Findings, No. 214. London: Great 

Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 

Directorate.

Forsyth, A., M. Cloonan, and J. Barr (2005). “Factors Associated 

With Alcohol-Related Problems Within Licensed Premises.” 

Report to the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Glasgow, 

Scotland: Glasgow Center for the Study of Violence, Glasgow 

Caledonia University; and Center for Research Development in 

Adult and Lifelong Learning, University of Glasgow.

Fox, J., and J. Sobol (2000). “Drinking Patterns, Social 

Interaction, and Barroom Behavior: A Routine-Activities 

Approach.” Deviant Behavior 21(5):429–450.

Graham, K. (2000). “Preventive Interventions for On-Premise 

Drinking: A Promising But Underresearched Area of 

Prevention.” Contemporary Drug Problems 27(3):593–668.

Graham, K., S. Bernards, D. Osgood, R. Homel, and J. Purcell 

(2005). “Guardians and Handlers: The Role of Bar Staff in 

Preventing and Managing Aggression.” Addiction 100(6):755–

766.

Graham, K., and R. Homel (1997). “Creating Safer Bars.” In M. 

Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell (eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the 

Harm: What Works? London and New York: Free Association 

Books.

Graham, K., D. Osgood, E. Zibrowski, J. Purcell, L. Gliksman, 

K. Leonard, K. Pernanen, R. Saltz, and T. Toomey (2004). 

“The Effect of the Safer Bars Program on Physical Aggression 

in Bars: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Drug and 

Alcohol Review 23(1):31–41.
References 45

Graham, K., L. Rocque, R. Yetman, T. Ross, and E. Guistra 

(1980). “Aggression and Barroom Environments.” Journal 

of Studies on Alcohol 41(3):277–292.

Graham, K., G. Schmidt, and K. Gillis (1996). 

“Circumstances When Drinking Leads to Aggression: 

An Overview of Research Findings.” Contemporary Drug 

Problems 23(3):493–557.

Graham, K., and S. Wells (2003). “‘Somebody’s Gonna Get 

Their Head Kicked in Tonight!’ Aggression Among Young 

Males in Bars—A Question of Values?” British Journal of 

Criminology 43(3):546–566.

———— (2001). “Aggression Among Young Adults in the 

Social Context of the Bar.” Addiction Research & Theory

9(3):193–219.

Graham, K., P. West, and S. Wells (2000). “Evaluating 

Theories of Alcohol-Related Aggression Using 

Observations of Young Adults in Bars.” Addiction

95(6):847–863.

Great Britain Home Office (2004). Violent Crime: Tackling 

Violent Crime in the Nighttime Economy. London: Police 

Standards Unit and Crime Directorate.

Greater London Authority (2002). Late-Night London: Planning 

and Managing the Late-Night Economy. SDS Technical Report 

Six. London: Greater London Authority.

Green Bay Police Department (2000). “Street Sweeping, 

Broadway Style.” In Police Executive Research Forum, 

National Institute of Justice and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing: The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 
46 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Hobbs, D., P. Haedfield, S. Lister, and S. Winlow (2003). 

Bouncers: Violence and Governance in the Nighttime Economy. 

Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Holder, H., R. Saltz, J. Grube, R. Voas, P. Gruenewald, and 

A. Treno (1997). “A Community Prevention Trial To 

Reduce Alcohol-Involved Accidental Injury and Death: 

Overview.” Addiction 92(Supplement 2):S155–S171. 

Homel, R. (2001). Preventing Violence: A Review of the Literature 

on Violence and Violence Prevention. A Report Prepared for 

the Crime Prevention Division of the NSW Attorney General’s 

Department. Sydney (Australia): NSW Department of the 

Attorney General.

——— (1998). “Policing Alcohol Problems.” In T. 

O’Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented 

Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP 

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

Homel, R., R. Carvolth, M. Hauritz, G. McIlwain, and R. 

Teague (2004). “Making Licensed Venues Safer for Patrols: 

What Environmental Factors Should Be the Focus of 

Interventions?” Drug and Alcohol Review 23(1):19–29.

Homel, R., and J. Clark (1994). “The Prediction and 

Prevention of Violence in Pubs and Clubs.” In R. Clarke 

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

Criminal Justice Press.

Homel, R., M. Hauritz, R. Wortley, G. McIlwain, and R. 

Carvolth (1997). “Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime 

Through Community Action: The Surfers-Paradise Safety 

Action Project.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: 

Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention 

Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.
References 47

Homel, R., and S. Tomsen (1991). “Pubs and Violence.” 

Current Affairs Bulletin 68(7):20–27. 

Homel, R., S. Tomsen, and J. Thommeny (1992). “Public 

Drinking and Violence: Not Just an Alcohol Problem.” 

Journal of Drug Issues 22(3):679–697.

Hopkins, M. (2004). “Targeting Hotspots of Alcohol-Related 

Town Center Violence: A Nottinghamshire Case Study.” 

Security Journal 17(4):53–66.

Isle of Man Constabulary (2005). “Project Centurion: 

Reducing Crime and Disorder on Douglas Promenade.” 

Submission to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence 

in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Liang, L., F. Sloan, and E. Stout (2004). “Precaution, 

Compensation, and Threats of Sanction: The Case of 

Alcohol Servers.” International Review of Law and Economics

21(1):49–69.

Lipton, R., and P. Gruenewald (2002). “The Spatial Dynamics 

of Violence and Alcohol Outlets.” Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol 63(2):187–195.

Lister, S., D. Hobbs, S. Hall, and S. Winlow (2000). “Violence 

in the Nighttime Economy: Bouncers: The Reporting, 

Recording, and Prosecution of Assaults.” Policing and Society

10(4):383–402.

Lovatt, A. (1994). “The More the Merrier: A Manchester 

Experiment Suggests That Abandoning Traditional 

Licensing Hours Reduces Crime and Rowdyism.” Policing

10(4):268–275.
48 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Macintyre, S., and R. Homel (1997). “Danger on the 

Dance Floor: A Study of Interior Design, Crowding, and 

Aggression in Nightclubs.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for 

Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime 

Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal 

Justice Press.

Maguire, M., and H. Nettleton (2003). Reducing Alcohol-Related 

Violence and Disorder: An Evaluation of the ‘TASC’ Project. 

Home Office Research Study, No. 265. London: Great Britain 

Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 

Directorate.

Marsh, P., and K. Kibby (1992). Drinking and Public Disorder. 

London: Alden Press, Oxford.

McKnight, A., and F. Streff (1994). “The Effect of 

Enforcement Upon Service of Alcohol to Intoxicated 

Patrons of Bars and Restaurants.” Accident Analysis and 

Prevention 26(1):79–88.

McNeill, A. (2005). “Occasional Paper: Crime and Disorder, 

Binge Drinking, and the Licensing Act 2003.” London: 

Institute for Alcohol Studies.

Merseyside Police (2000). “Operation Crystal and the 

24-Hour City.” Submission for the Tilley Award for 

Problem-Oriented Policing. www.popcenter.org/library/

tilley/2001/01-49(W-cdrc).pdf. 

Mosher, J., T. Toomey, C. Good, E. Harwood, and A. 

Wagenaar (2002). “State Laws Mandating or Promoting 

Training Programs for Alcohol Servers and Establishment 

Managers: An Assessment of Statutory and Administrative 

Procedures.” Journal of Public Health Policy 23(1):90–113.
References 49

Parks, K., and L. Zetes-Zanatta (1999). “Women’s BarRelated Victimization: Refining and Testing a Conceptual 

Model.” Aggressive Behavior 25(5):349–364.

Pernanen, K. (1998). “Prevention of Alcohol-Related 

Violence.” Contemporary Drug Problems 25(3):477–509.

Plant, E., and M. Plant (2005). “A ‘Leap in the Dark?’ 

Lessons for the United Kingdom From Past Extensions 

of Bar Opening Hours.” International Journal of Drug Policy

16(6):363–368.

Pratten, J., and N. Bailey (2005). “Pubwatch: Questions on 

Its Validity and a Police Response.” International Journal of 

Contemporary Hospitality Management 17(4):359–364.

Pratten, J., and B. Greig (2005). “Can Pubwatch Address 

the Problems of Binge Drinking? A Case Study From the 

Northwest of England.” International Journal of Contemporary 

Hospitality Management 17(3):252–260.

Quigley, B., K. Leonard, and R. Collins (2003). 

“Characteristics of Violent Bars and Bar Patrons.” Journal 

of Studies on Alcohol 64(6):765–772.

Reid, R., J. Hughey, and N. Peterson (2003). “Generalizing 

the Alcohol Outlet—Assaultive Violence Link: Evidence 

From a U.S. Midwestern City.” Substance Use & Misuse

38(14):1971–1982.

Richardson, A., and T. Budd (2003). “Young Adults, Alcohol, 

Crime, and Disorder.” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health

13(1):5–16.
50 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Richardson, A., T. Budd, R. Engineer, A. Phillips, J. 

Thompson, and J. Nicholls (2003). Drinking, Crime, and 

Disorder. Home Office Findings, No. 185. London: Great 

Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics 

Directorate.

Roberts, J. (2002). “Serving Up Trouble in the Barroom 

Environment.” Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, School of 

Criminal Justice.

Roberts, M. (2004). Good Practice in Managing the Evening and 

Late-Night Economy: A Literature Review From an Environmental 

Perspective. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Roberts, M., C. Turner, S. Greenfield, G. Osborn, N. Bailey, 

and T. Edmundson (2002). Licensing Reform: A Cross-Cultural 

Comparison of Rights, Responsibilities, and Regulation. London: 

Central Cities Institute, University of Westminster.

Ronco, E., and D. Quisenberry (2005). “Bar Patrons Could 

Get Extra Time To Sober Up.” The Grand Rapids Press, July 

1, p. A1. 

Saltz, R. (1997). “Prevention Where Alcohol Is Sold and 

Consumed: Server Intervention and Responsible Beverage 

Service.” In M. Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell (eds.), 

Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm: What Works? London and 

New York: Free Association Books.

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

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

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (2000). 

San Diego Police Department Vice Unit (n.d.). In-House 

Security Program: Instructor Course. San Diego: San Diego 

Police Department. 
Saville, G. (1996). “Searching for a Neighborhood’s Crime 

Threshold.” Subject to Debate 10(10):1,7. Washington, D.C.: 

Police Executive Research Forum.

Shepherd, J., R. Huggert, and G. Kidner (1993). “Impact 

Resistance of Bar Glasses.” The Journal of Trauma 

35(6):936–938.

Single, E. (1988). “The Availability Theory of AlcoholRelated Problems.” In C. Chaudron and D. Wilkinson 

(eds.), Theories on Alcoholism. Toronto: Addiction Research 

Foundation.

Sloan, F., E. Stout, K. Whetten-Goldstein, and L. Liang 

(2000). Drinkers, Drivers, and Bartenders: Balancing Private 

Choices and Public Accountability. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Stockwell, T. (2001). “Responsible Alcohol Service: Lessons 

From Evaluations of Server Training and Policing 

Initiatives.” Drug and Alcohol Review 20(3):257–265.

———— (1997). “Regulation of the Licensed Drinking 

Environment: A Major Opportunity for Crime 

Prevention.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: 

Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention 

Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.

Tierney, J., and D. Hobbs (2003). “Alcohol-Related Crime and 

Disorder Data: Guidance for Local Partnerships.” Home 

Office Online Report 08/03. London: Home Office Research, 

Development, and Statistics Directorate.

References 51
52 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Tomsen, S. (2005). “‘Boozers and Bouncers’: Masculine 

Conflict, Disengagement, and the Contemporary 

Governance of Drinking-Related Violence and Disorder.” 

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 38(3):283–

297.

Tomsen, S., R. Homel, and J. Thommeny (1991). “The 

Causes of Public Violence: Situational ‘Versus’ Other 

Factors in Drinking-Related Assaults.” In D. Chappell, 

P. Grabosky, and H. Strang (eds.), Australian Violence: 

Contemporary Perspectives. Canberra: Australian Institute of 

Criminology.

Toomey, T., A. Wagenaar, J. Gehan, G. Kilian, D. Murray, and 

C. Perry (2001). “Project ARM: Alcohol Risk Management 

To Prevent Sales to Underage and Intoxicated Patrons.” 

Health Education & Behavior 28(2):186–199.

University of Ballarat Center for Health Research and 

Practice (2004). Operation Link: Be Safe Late Program: A 

Partnership Approach to Responsible Patrol Management at 

Nightclubs to Reduce the Occurrence of Alcohol-Related Crime, 

Disorder, and Nuisance Within the Central Business District of the 

City of Ballarat. Mt. Helen, Victoria (Australia): University 

of Ballarat.

Wallin, E., J. Gripenberg, and S. Andreasson (2005). 

“Overserving at Licensed Premises in Stockholm: Effects 

of a Community Action Program.” Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol 66(6):806–814.

Wallin, E., T. Norstrom, and S. Andreasson (2003). “Alcohol 

Prevention Targeting Licensed Premises: A Study of 

Effects on Violence.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64(2):270–

277.
Wells, S., K. Graham, and P. West (1998). “‘The Good, 

the Bad, and the Ugly’: Responses by Security Staff to 

Aggressive Incidents in Public Drinking Settings.” Journal 

of Drug Issues 28(4):817–836.

Wiggers, J., M. Jauncey, R. Considine, J. Daly, M. Kingsland, 

K. Purss, S. Burrows, C. Nicholas, and R. Waites (2004). 

“Strategies and Outcomes in Translating Alcohol HarmReduction Research Into Practice: The Alcohol Linking 

Program.” Drug and Alcohol Review 23(3):355–364.

Wittman, F. (1997). “Local Control To Prevent Problems 

of Alcohol Availability: Experience in California 

Communities.” In M. Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell 

(eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm: What Works? London 

and New York: Free Association Books.

Wood, D., and P. Gruenewald (2004). “Alcohol Availability, 

Police Presence, and Violence in Isolated Alaskan Villages.” 

Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of 

Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas.

Zhu, L., D. Gorman, and S. Horel (2004). “Alcohol Outlet 

Density and Violence: A Geospatial Analysis.” Alcohol & 

Alcoholism 39(4):369–375.

References 53

About the Authors 55

About the Authors

Michael S. Scott

Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for ProblemOriented Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the 

University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was formerly 

chief of police in Lauderhill (Florida); served in various civilian 

administrative positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce 

(Florida), and New York City police departments; and was a 

police officer in the Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department. 

Scott developed training programs in problem-oriented policing 

at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). He was the 

1996 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation and 

leadership in policing. He is a judge for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott holds 

a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree 

from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
56 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Kelly Dedel 

Kelly Dedel is the director of One in 37 Research, Inc., a 

criminal justice consulting firm based in Portland, Oregon. 

As a consultant to federal, state, and local agencies, she 

contributes to research on the juvenile and criminal justice 

systems by 1) developing written tools to enhance practice 

or inform public policy; 2) conducting investigations of 

confinement conditions in juvenile correctional facilities; 

and 3) undertaking rigorous evaluations of various juvenile 

and criminal justice programs to assess their effectiveness. 

She has provided evaluation-related technical assistance to 

more than 60 jurisdictions nationwide for the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance. In this capacity, she has worked with a 

broad range of criminal justice programs implemented by 

police, prosecutors, public defenders, juvenile detention and 

confinement facilities, local jails, community corrections, 

and prisons. She consults with the Justice Department as 

a monitor/investigator of civil rights violations in juvenile 

correctional facilities, most often in the areas of education 

and protection from harm. Among her other research 

interests are prisoner reentry, risk assessment and offender 

classification, and juveniles in adult correctional facilities. 

Before working as a consultant, she was a founder and 

senior research scientist at The Institute on Crime, Justice, 

and Corrections at The George Washington University, 

and a senior research associate at the National Council on 

Crime and Delinquency. Dedel received bachelor’s degrees 

in psychology and criminal justice from the University of 

Richmond, and a doctorate in clinical psychology from the 

Center for Psychological Studies, in Berkeley, California. 
Recommended Readings 57

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

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

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

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

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

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

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

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

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

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

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
58 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

• 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 59

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

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

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

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

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

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

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency.
60 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

• 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 61

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and 

Kelly Dedel. 2006. 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 Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. 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
62 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

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

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

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

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

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

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

2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

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

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

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

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

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

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

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

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

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

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

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

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

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

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 63

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

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

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
64 Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Domestic Violence

Bank Robbery

Drive-by Shootings

Disorder at Day Laborer Sites

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses

Robbery of Convenience Stores

Theft from Cars on Streets

Problem-Solving Tools

Risky Facilities

Implementing Responses to Problems

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Response Guides

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem Solving

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e08064507 Updated: August 16, 2006

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2