www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 54

Spectator Violence 

in Stadiums

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

by

Tamara D. Madensen

John E. Eck

Tamara D. Madensen

John E. Eck

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2006-CK-WX-K003 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 of the 

product by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion 

of the issues.

©2008 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for federal government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

August 2008

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 54

Spectator Violence in Stadiums

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guide 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 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

•	 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, nongovernmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 

and individual citizens. An effective problem solver must 

know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making 

these partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular 

individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that 

problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals 

that individuals and groups other than the police are in 

a stronger position to address problems and that police 

ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do 

so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility 

for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this 

topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing 

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 

strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of 

addressing specific public safety problems. For the most part, 

the organizational strategies that can facilitate problem solving 

and police-community partnerships vary considerably and 

discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

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

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs, and police practices vary from 
iv Spectator Violence in Stadiums

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 each guide is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive, and a researcher prior to publication. The review 

process is independently managed by the COPS Office, which 

solicits the reviews. 

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, send your 

comments by 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

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 Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office 

and research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal 

Justice Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. 

Suzanne Fregly edited this guide.

Acknowledgments v

Contents

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

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

The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Factors Contributing to Spectator Violence in Stadiums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Venue Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Event Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Staff Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Incidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Venue Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Current and Previous Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Measuring Your Effectivenesss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Specific Responses To Reduce Abandoned Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Responses With Limited Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Contents vii
viii Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Spectator Violence in Stadiums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix B: Developing a Comprehensive Response to Spectator Violence 

 in Stadiums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 1

The Problem of Spectator Violence 

in Stadiums

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide addresses the problem of spectator violence in stadiums 

and other arena-type settings. It begins with a discussion of the 

factors that contribute to such incidents. It then presents a list of 

questions to help you analyze problems of spectator violence in your 

jurisdiction. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and what is 

known about them from evaluative research and police practice. 

Spectator violence in stadiums is part of a larger set of problems 

related to misbehavior in sport and concert arenas. It is also related 

to issues of crowd control at other types of locations. However, this 

guide addresses only the particular harms that result from spectatorrelated conflicts occurring within and directly outside stadiums. 

Related problems not directly addressed in this guide include

•	 Public intoxication

•	 Ticket scalping

•	 Underage drinking

•	 Crowd control in open fields and along public thoroughfares

•	 Student party riots 

•	 Littering

•	 Terrorism acts

•	 Loitering 

•	 Traffic congestion.

Each of the above problems has a specific opportunity structure 

and therefore requires separate analysis and response. You may 

find that these related problems have opportunity structures that 

overlap with the opportunity structure for spectator violence. By 

eliminating the opportunity for spectator violence, you can also 

reduce opportunities for other types of harm (e.g., terrorist acts 
2 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

or underage drinking). Nevertheless, each problem warrants 

individual attention. Some of these related problems are 

covered in other guides in this series, all of which are listed 

at the end of this guide. For the most up-to-date listing of 

current and future guides, see www.popcenter.org. 

General Description of the Problem

Policing stadium crowds is a difficult task. Spectator 

aggression is often only one of many public safety concerns.1

Police are forced to balance the interests of many different 

parties (e.g., performers who want audience participation, 

owners and vendors who wish to generate profits). Obviously, 

police cannot address all causes of spectator violence. It 

would be difficult to convince team owners that they should 

discourage highly dedicated fans. In addition, police must 

protect individuals’ rights while maintaining an orderly 

environment. While spectators have rights, police should not 

tolerate property destruction and threats or acts of violence.2

Spectator violence in stadiums has been a longstanding 

tradition.§ Documentation of such events is found in 

texts from ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.3 These 

incidents can occur wherever fans gather, including sports 

competitions (e.g., baseball, basketball, boxing, football, 

hockey, soccer) and entertainment events (e.g., music concerts, 

dog shows, theatrical productions). Violence at these events 

is rare in North America compared with European countries, 

particularly when compared with violence at soccer matches 

in Britain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium.4

Problems with “football hooligans” in Britain are so 

widespread that violence occurring at events elsewhere has 

been labeled the “spread of the English Disease.”5 Violence 

levels tend to vary by type of entertainment or sporting 

event and across cultures.6 While no single factor can explain 

§In this guide, we address both actual 

and threatened incidents of violence. 

We use the terms violence and 

aggression interchangeably to refer to 

such incidents. We also use the terms 

stadium and arena interchangeably, 

while acknowledging that arenas are 

generally smaller and more often 

enclosed than stadiums.
The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 3

why there is less spectator violence in North America,7 such 

events’ negative impact can be great and warrant specific 

attention. Recent events, such as the violent outbreak at the 

2004 Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons basketball game,8

highlight the need for careful planning and prevention efforts. 

Failure to prevent these incidents can produce a variety 

of negative consequences, including injury to spectators, 

entertainers, and security personnel; decreased public 

confidence; damage to the reputation of the facility and those 

providing the entertainment; and property destruction.9

The six most common forms of spectator aggression are as 

follows:

1. Verbal—singing, chanting, and yelling taunts or 

obscenities

2. Gesturing—signaling to others with threatening or 

obscene motions

3. “Missile” throwing—throwing items such as food, drinks, 

bricks, bottles, broken seats, and cell phones at particular 

or random targets

4. Warming—rushing the field or stage and trying to crash 

the gates to gain entry, or rushing the exit, both of which 

may result in injury or death from trampling 

5. Property destruction—knocking down sound systems, 

tearing up the playing field, and burning/damaging the 

venue or others’ property

6. Physical—spitting, kicking, shoving, fistfights, stabbings, 

and shootings.10

Little documentation is available to help us develop a profile 

of those most likely to engage in the above behaviors. We 

do know that when physical violence is documented, the 

perpetrators are most often male.11 Studies of university 

students suggest that males are more likely than females to 

consider acts of aggression at sporting events, although this 
4 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

difference becomes less pronounced when less physical forms 

of aggression are considered.12 Reports of spectator ejections 

from sporting events suggest that rowdy and abusive fans tend 

to be middle-class professionals,13 although ticket prices likely 

influence this finding. Like the level of violence, we should 

expect the type of violent spectator to change based on the 

form of entertainment provided. While middle-class adult 

males are more likely to become aggressive at sporting events, 

young adolescent girls may exhibit similar behaviors at a boyband concert. 

The forms of violence outlined above can take place between 

spectators and others in and around the venue. Violence can 

occur between the following:

•	 Two or more spectators, or groups of spectators

•	 Spectators and entertainers—entertainers include those 

engaged in competition, coaches, referees, and performers

•	 Spectators and stadium personnel—personnel include 

security as well as general employees

•	 Spectators and the venue—the venue includes all physical 

structures and properties, both permanent and temporary 

(e.g., vehicles), present during the event. 

You can generally classify spectator violence as either 

spontaneous or organized.14 Organized violence is very rare 

in the United States and is seen more often in European 

sport matches that attract large numbers of hardcore fans 

from other countries. These fans form “gangs” who attend 

events intending to cause a disturbance. U.S. events tend 

to experience more spontaneous violence resulting from 

an overzealous or intoxicated crowd (e.g., wild dancing 

in a so-called “mosh pit”). It is important to distinguish 

between organized and spontaneous violence, since each 

requires different solutions. Specific factors that contribute to 

spontaneous spectator violence are explored below. 
The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 5

Factors Contributing to Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Understanding the factors that contribute to problems in 

your jurisdiction will help you frame your own local analysis 

questions, determine effectiveness measures, recognize key 

intervention points, and select appropriate responses. 

It is important to recognize the characteristics of each venue, 

event, and available staff that may increase fan aggression. 

No single characteristic of these elements can guarantee that 

violence will or will not occur. However, a combination of 

poorly designed physical environments, high-energy events, 

and poorly trained or inexperienced staff will increase the 

likelihood of spectator violence. 

Local analysis may reveal unique characteristics of your 

venue, event, or staff that facilitate violence. Your analysis 

should be based on the spectator violence triangle (Figure 

1) that incorporates these major elements. This triangle is a 

modification of the widely used problem analysis triangle 

(see www.popcenter.org for a description). The relative 

importance of each side of the triangle will vary from event to 

event. Fixing problematic characteristics on any one side of the 

triangle may reduce the likelihood of spectator violence. Fixing 

more than one side should give greater assurance that your 

preventive efforts will work. 

Figure 1 also lists specific characteristics of venues, events, and 

staff found to be related to higher levels of spectator violence 

in stadiums. While some of these factors may be difficult or 

impossible to change, it is important to understand how each 

contributes to the likelihood of aggression. Each of these is 

described next.
6 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Venue Characteristics

There are more than 360 sports stadiums and arenas in the 

United States,15 and while some share similar features, each 

is unique. Research and analysis of publicized incidents 

suggest that specific characteristics of stadiums and arenas are 

associated with higher levels of spectator violence. Five of 

these features are discussed below. 

Performance proximity. Violence between spectators and 

entertainers is more likely to occur when there is less physical 

distance between them. Those in the front row of concerts 

are better able to reach out and grab performers,16 fans with 

courtside seats can stretch their legs to trip players,17 and 

fans can throw objects or jump onto a baseball field or into a 

hockey penalty box to assault players, coaches, or referees.18

Verbal insults and other aggressive behavior by spectators 

close to the action can also prompt retaliatory behavior from 

entertainers who feel threatened or disrespected.19

Venue Characteristics

•	 Performance proximity 

•	 Noise level

•	 Seating arrangements

•	 Place reputation

•	 Temperature

•	 Stadium location 

Event Characteristics

•	 Crowd demographics

•	 Event significance 

•	 Performance quality

•	 Alcohol availability 

•	 Crowding

•	 Performer behavior

•	 Event duration 

Staff Characteristics

•	 Training

•	 Experience

•	 Presence

•	 Communication

Figure 1. Spectator violence triangle and specific 

causes of spectator violence.
The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 7

Noise level. Researchers have found that extreme noise 

levels increase the likelihood of interpersonal aggression.20

This implies that spectator violence is more likely to be a 

concern at very loud concerts or for those who are closer to 

amplification systems. It has also been suggested that noise 

meters, used to indicate the crowd’s volume and encourage 

spectators to yell and cheer more loudly at sporting events, 

may encourage obnoxious behaviors that set the stage for 

spectator aggression.21

Seating arrangements. One of the most consistent findings 

regarding higher levels of aggression in stadiums relates to 

the type of seating available to spectators. Individual seats 

are related to lower violence levels, while general admission 

seating that requires spectators to stand, often referred to 

as festival seating, generates higher violence levels.22 While 

all crowds eventually become mobile, when entering and 

exiting the stadium, it appears that assigned seating helps 

maintain order during the event. When seats are not assigned, 

enthusiastic fans will try to push their way toward the stage, 

and crush those ahead of them.23 Empty spaces without seats 

can encourage moshing or provide places to start bonfires. 

However, individual seats do not guarantee a violence-free 

event. People who move into unoccupied seats or toward 

railings can instigate aggression if they refuse to move when 

the ticket holder arrives or if they block the view of those 

seated directly behind access barriers.24 In addition, temporary 

seats not bolted to the floor can become weapons. 

Place reputation. Some places experience more violence 

than others. Some banks are robbed more. Some bars 

experience more fights between patrons. Therefore, it is 

not surprising to find that some stadiums experience more 

violence than others. If left unaddressed, routine violence 

at a particular venue may contribute to a negative reputation 

or promote the view that violence is tolerated, or even 
8 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

expected, at the location. Stadiums where conflict is seen 

as routine or customary may attract people looking to 

cause trouble or encourage violent behavior among average 

spectators.25 Venues hosting high-profile events that receive 

intensive media coverage can also attract people who will act 

aggressively to see themselves on television or their name in 

print.26

Temperature. Studies have found a positive relationship 

between heat and both spectator and performer aggression. 

As the temperature increases in stadiums and arenas, so 

does the likelihood of violence.27 Spectators may also drink 

more alcohol to “warm up” in cold weather conditions, thus 

increasing the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Enclosed 

venues have an advantage over open-air venues since you can 

regulate the facility’s internal temperature to avoid extreme 

temperatures. 

Stadium location. Residents often oppose the construction 

of new stadiums because they fear increased violence, noise, 

litter, and parking troubles that will drive down residential 

property values.28 While these facilities’ potential negative 

impact is often discussed, the surrounding community’s 

impact on stadium events is not. Stadiums in inner cities 

may face different problems from stadiums in suburban 

neighborhoods. For example, an inner-city facility is more 

likely to experience problems with aggressive panhandling 

than a suburban facility. It is important to consider how 

existing community problems may impact the likelihood of 

violence at stadium events.
The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 9

Event Characteristics 

Every event brings with it a unique set of circumstances. 

A different collection of individual fans, differing numbers 

of attendees, and anticipated or unanticipated outcomes are 

just a few of the factors that vary across events, even when 

the setting remains constant. Below we discuss six event 

characteristics that have been previously associated with 

spectator violence in stadiums. 

Crowd demographics. As mentioned previously, males are 

more likely to engage in violent behaviors. Acts that tend to 

attract more males, particularly younger males, are more likely 

to generate violence than acts that draw demographically 

mixed crowds. Event organizers reduced violence at the 

Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix by promoting the event 

as a family experience.29 Obviously, one would expect less 

violence at a Barry Manilow concert than at a punk or metal 

rock music concert. Sporting events with less “away team” 

supporters’ involvement are less likely to produce violent 

incidents. European soccer matches experience serious 

spectator aggression when some fans “invade the pitch” 

(charge the playing field); fans of one team rush toward fans 

of the other team in the stands. Research also suggests that 

venues hosting teams with highly dedicated fans are also more 

likely to experience spectator violence.30

Event significance. An event considered significant can 

provoke aggression among spectators.31 For example, an 

important victory can produce celebratory rioting within 

the stadium or in adjacent parking lots or neighborhoods.32 

An increase in emergency room visits has been documented 

following celebratory victories after highly charged games.33

Other research has shown that violence is more likely to occur 

at games where the teams have played each other previously in 

the same season, and when intradivisional rivals are playing.34 
10 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Performance quality. Spectators may be more likely to act 

out if their team performs poorly.35 Aggression in sports fans 

has been associated with team performances that did not live 

up to spectator expectations.36 Crowds have been known to 

verbally taunt and throw objects at bad concert performers. 

Audience members at Weird Al Yankovic’s first concert threw 

objects at him and his band and booed loudly until they left 

the stage.37 

Alcohol availability. Special considerations must be made 

if event organizers decide to make alcohol available at a 

particular event. There is a large body of research that 

suggests intoxication is related to aggressive behavior. While 

drinking does not “drive” people to act violently, alcohol 

can impair the judgment of people who are predisposed 

to violent behavior. Excessive drinking can cause people to 

act overconfidently and carelessly, lose awareness of their 

surroundings, and react violently to people they perceive as 

offensive.38 Studies of college students have found a link 

between sports, binge drinking, and problems associated with 

high intoxication levels.39 In addition, if people drink alcohol 

from glass bottles, they can become weapons in an altercation.

Crowding. Another factor contributing to increased levels 

of spectator aggression is crowding.40 Crowding increases 

the likelihood of violence for a variety of reasons: it limits 

mobility, increases the likelihood of unwanted physical 

contact between spectators, and increases wait times for entry, 

purchases, and exiting. A major difference between British and 

North American soccer is that North American venues are 

generally less crowded.41 Larger crowds are also theoretically 

more likely to have more people willing to engage in violent 

behaviors. 
The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 11

Performer behavior. An event’s performers can influence 

spectators’ behavior.42 Artists’ failure to perform has incited 

riots.43 Violence and looting at the Woodstock 1999 concert 

began during Limp Bizkit’s performance of the song “Break 

Stuff.”44 Research has found that spectator violence commonly 

follows player violence during soccer and football games, and 

to a lesser degree, during baseball and hockey games.45 Other 

studies suggest that player fights can attract people who are 

more likely to engage in and escalate spectator aggression.46

Event duration. A stadium event’s actual duration is 

always longer than the time allotted for it. The assembly 

and dispersal process can significantly lengthen the time of 

larger and more popular events and thus allow more time 

for spectators to engage in violent behaviors. Pre- and postevent socialization (e.g., tailgating) is an integral part of many 

sporting and concert events, and spectators often drink large 

quantities of alcohol during that time. A variety of serious 

Michael Scott

Crowding increases the likelihood of 

violence because it limits mobility, 

increases the likelihood of unwanted 

contact between spectators and increases 

wait times for entry, purchases, and exit.
12 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

injuries, including death, have occurred during tailgating 

activities at recent events.47 Failure to develop violence 

prevention strategies that target pre- and post-game activities 

can increase the likelihood of spectator violence. 

Staff Characteristics

Stadium and arena personnel, including security and others 

working at the event, are a critical component of any strategy 

designed to reduce spectator violence. There are four 

important characteristics of stadium personnel that have been 

linked to spectator violence: training, experience, presence, 

and communication. In general, venues that employ staff 

with little training and experience, fail to provide an adequate 

number of personnel, and do not provide personnel with 

clear directives and lines of communication are more likely to 

experience problems with spectator violence. We discuss each 

factor below. 

Training. Security and other employees can reduce or 

increase spectator frustration and aggression. Personnel are 

often asked to perform duties that can instigate fan violence; 

for example, personnel must manage crowded parking 

environments, confiscate contraband from spectators as they 

enter the venue, ensure that fans are sitting in their assigned 

seats, and manage crowds that form to purchase items or 

receive free promotional materials (e.g., free memorabilia on 

fan-appreciation night).48 Private-sector security personnel 

can be less effective if they do not receive adequate training 

on how to manage these situations,49 particularly if they are 

hired to police a single event at an unfamiliar venue. Police 

personnel typically have experience dealing with disorderly 

people, but need specialized training that draws their attention 

to potential points of conflict at the venue. If alcohol is 

served, staff should be trained to recognize intoxication, 

correctly check identification, and handle inebriated fans.50
The Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 13

Experience. Too many inexperienced staff may lessen the 

effectiveness of event management strategies. Inexperienced 

staff who cannot identify potential threats and respond to 

them appropriately may not only allow spectator violence 

to occur, but also instigate or escalate violent situations.51

One of the most famous incidents of violence between fans 

and inexperienced security occurred at California Altamont 

Speedway when the Rolling Stones hired a local Hells Angels 

chapter to provide security for a free concert. An 18-yearold female flashed a gun and was stabbed to death by a 

Hells Angels member.52 Even with training, inexperienced 

personnel may become tense or agitated in high-stress 

situations. Spectators report that challenging or negative 

police attitudes have contributed to fan violence incidents.53

Presence. Staff presence, particularly that of security 

personnel, influences fan violence in several ways. First, 

an adequate number of staff must be present to secure 

the event. The multiple functions of a venue require that 

security be present in a number of locations to handle traffic 

enforcement, entry points, assigned seating, stage or field 

security, performers’ safety as they move throughout the 

venue, and so forth.54

Second, event planners must balance the need for visible 

security as a deterrent with the problem of aggression that 

the presence of too many uniformed officers may instigate.55

There are several types of people who may act to control 

spectator behavior,56 including the following:

•	 Friends or relatives at the event may have a calming effect 

or directly intervene to pacify the spectator if he or she 

gets aggressive

•	 Police or private-contract security who are directly tasked 

with monitoring and controlling spectator behavior can 

respond to the incident
14 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

•	 Stadium staff assigned to nonsecurity functions (e.g., ushers, 

ticket-takers, vendors) can directly intervene or call for security

•	 Other spectators can act as peacemakers or alert security if 

violence occurs. 

However, our discussion of the costs and benefits associated with 

the presence of security staff relates most directly to police and 

private-contract security who wear uniforms or other attire that 

signifies their role as law enforcers. 

Beyond the simple presence of security staff, the overpolicing of 

an event can increase spectator violence. Searching every vehicle, 

conducting pat downs, requiring spectators to walk through 

metal detectors, and using police dogs, while necessary at only 

a few high-risk events, can cause excessive delays, can increase 

frustration and worry, and may contribute to spectator violence.57

Finally, the type of interaction that takes place between spectators 

and staff can influence fan violence. Low levels of positive 

interpersonal interaction between security and fans have been 

linked to higher levels of spectator misbehavior.58 Encouraging 

positive interactions (e.g., disarming angry spectators by using 

humor) can help staff develop rapport with the crowd and 

maintain order.59

Communication. Almost every study on maintaining stadium 

order stresses the importance of an effective command post. 

A clear chain of command must be established so that staff 

performing various functions can both receive orders to act and 

report potential or immediate threats. Communication breakdowns 

during post-Super Bowl celebrations in Boston have been blamed 

for extensive property damage, serious injuries, and one death.60 

Commanders must be able to effectively collect and analyze 

intelligence relayed from the field.61 Staff also should be clear 

about their assigned roles and what to do in emergency situations 

to avoid creating a chaotic atmosphere. 
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

Understanding Your Local Problem

The summary of what is known about spectator violence in 

stadiums provides a very general overview. To understand 

your local spectator violence problem, you must combine 

this general knowledge with specific facts describing your 

local conditions. Using the spectator violence triangle as a 

framework for problem analysis, you may find other factors 

related to violence unique to the stadiums, event types, or 

staff used in your jurisdiction. Carefully analyzing your local 

problem will help you design an effective response strategy 

that fits your specific needs. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups 

have an interest in the problem of spectator violence in 

stadiums, and you should consult them when gathering 

information about the problem and responding to it.

Traffic and transportation agencies. Local traffic and 

transportation agencies are critical partners in understanding 

and addressing the problem of spectator violence. These 

agencies can change or add traffic signs, redirect or restrict 

traffic flow, alter traffic-light timing to reduce congestion, and 

change when public transportation is available to fans. For 

example, an agency can schedule public transportation to pick 

up fans immediately after an event ends, to reduce loitering. 

Private service companies. Private companies associated 

with the venue may be responsible for providing services such 

as selling food and beverages, staffing and training ushers, 

providing additional security, and managing souvenir sales. 

Staff employed through these companies may have firsthand 

knowledge of factors that tend to instigate spectator violence.
16 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

EMS providers, ambulance services, local hospitals.

Medical personnel often handle the aftermath of spectator 

violence and may recognize factors that contribute to such 

events. These agencies may be able to provide data to use in 

your problem analysis. As experts in injury prevention, they 

can also be useful advocates to implement responses to your 

local problem.

Fire services. Local fire department personnel often attend 

stadium events. In addition to knowledge gained through 

firsthand experience at the venue, they may be aware 

of structural features that may serve to increase crowd 

frustration or pose safety hazards. 

Event promoters, performers. Event promoters 

and performers can share information concerning the 

characteristics of the crowds they are likely to draw. They 

may be able to estimate the number of spectators they expect 

to attract to the event. They can also describe spectator 

behaviors experienced during prior similar events. 

Local government officials. The mayor, city council, city 

manager, and local prosecutors and judges may know of 

city ordinances you can use to regulate event activities. They 

may also know of instances when these ordinances have 

been successfully (or unsuccessfully) used in the past. Local 

government officials can also gather the resources necessary 

to implement costly responses. 

Stadium owners and managers. Stadium owners and 

managers are critical partners in planning violence prevention 

strategies. These people are ultimately responsible for the 

safety of those who use their properties. They can implement 

necessary changes to the property and require that event 

promoters adjust staffing levels. They can require that 

particular violence-reduction strategies be used at individual 
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

events. These restrictions can be placed in the contractual 

agreements performers and their promoters and managers 

must sign. Owners and managers may also be able to provide 

data on the effectiveness of previous violence-reduction 

strategies or descriptions of previous incidents. 

Insurance companies. Since insurance companies have an 

interest in reducing the number of claims associated with their 

insured properties, they may be willing to help develop and 

fund violence-reduction strategies. You can also use them to 

pressure uncooperative owners and managers to respond to 

police requests. 

The community. Research suggests that host communities 

experience more assaults, vandalism, and disorderly 

conduct on event days.62 Residents and business owners in 

neighborhoods adjacent to the event can help to identify and 

respond to potential problems. These individuals may provide 

information about activities that often lead to aggression (e.g., 

scalping of fake tickets, illegal parking, unlawful vending that 

disrupts local business, disorderly or destructive behavior by 

spectators who park off stadium property). They can also act 

as a “force multiplier” by reporting such behavior to police, 

who can intervene before the problem escalates.

Asking the Right Questions

Below is a list of questions you should ask to better 

understand your stadium spectator violence problem. The 

answers to these questions will help you choose the most 

appropriate responses and develop an effective strategy to 

reduce incidents of spectator violence in your local stadiums. 
18 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Incidents

•	 How many incidents of spectator violence occur in your 

stadium or arena of interest? Be aware that, as with most 

crime, witnesses may not report many violent incidents, 

particularly minor incidents, which could indicate future 

trouble if left unaddressed.

•	 What types of spectator violence (i.e., verbal, gesturing, 

missile throwing, swarming, property destruction, physical) 

occur most frequently?

•	 What percentage of violence is between spectators, 

spectators and entertainers, spectators and stadium staff, 

and spectators and the venue?

•	 What are the general circumstances surrounding spectator 

violence (e.g., are the spectators drunk, do spectators use 

items sold in or brought to the stadium as weapons or 

missiles, what other factors escalate the violence)?

•	 How concerned are the various stakeholders with the 

problem of spectator violence? This information can be 

used to build partnerships and organize resources.

•	 Does the problem contribute to any other problems (e.g., 

disorder or riots spilling into nearby neighborhoods)?

•	 How long has spectator violence been a problem at the 

particular stadium? Are there other similar venues that do 

not generate the same level of spectator aggression? What 

is different about these venues?

•	 Are there particular teams or performers associated with 

more spectator violence?
Understanding Your Local Problem 19

Locations/Times

•	 Where does spectator violence occur in the stadium? 

Does it occur close to the stage/field, at entry or exit 

points, in lines, in hallways or staircases, in parking areas, 

or in particular seating sections? 

•	 When does spectator violence most frequently occur (e.g., 

at the beginning, middle, or end of the event)? 

•	 Are there certain times of day when incidents of 

spectator violence increase more frequently (e.g., in the 

morning, afternoon, evening, or late-evening/earlymorning hours)?

Victims

•	 Who are the victims of spectator violence? If people 

target some spectators more frequently, do particular 

demographic patterns (e.g., sex, age, team affiliation) exist 

among the victims? 

•	 What were the victims doing before the spectator violence 

(e.g., waiting in line, standing in their seats, cheering for 

their team, trying to control unruly spectators)?

•	 Are the victims regulars at the venue, or infrequent 

guests?

•	 How serious are the injuries resulting from spectator 

violence? Are they minor or do they tend to require 

medical attention? Keep in mind that many victims may 

not report minor injuries.
20 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Venue Characteristics

•	 How close are the spectators to the performers? What 

physical barriers separate spectators from entertainers? 

(Barriers can include guardrails, moats, stage elevation, and 

so forth).

•	 Does the stadium facilitate pedestrian movement? 

How wide are the aisles and passageways relative to 

the number of spectators using them? Are there signs 

providing directions to important locations and people 

(e.g., seating sections, restrooms, food and beverage 

stands, security staff)? 

•	 Are points of interest (e.g., souvenir shops and food/

beverage distributors) appropriately scattered throughout 

the venue, or are they lumped together in one or a few 

locations?

•	 Are places where people are expected to wait in line clearly 

marked? Do these lines block other pedestrian flow?

•	 Do restrooms, drinking fountains, food and beverage 

stands, and other service areas spectators use become 

overcrowded? Are these areas staffed appropriately and 

kept clean and orderly? 

•	 What type of seating is provided to spectators (e.g., festival 

seating, benches, individual seats)?

•	 Do the access points facilitate the entry and dispersal 

process? Do enough of these points exist to keep 

congestion to a minimum but still allow staff to maintain a 

secure perimeter?

•	 Does the venue’s physical structure need repair? For 

instance, can people rip seats up from the floor and throw 

them? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 21

•	 What season or type of weather is associated with incidents 

of spectator aggression?

•	 What is the stadium’s policy on alcohol consumption? Can 

spectators bring alcohol in? What types of containers can 

spectators use? If the arena sells alcohol, at what price and 

in what size containers does it do so?

Current and Previous Responses

•	 What type of security, other than traditional law 

enforcement, is present during stadium events?

•	 When violence occurs, which workers are usually the first 

to respond to the incident (e.g., ushers, private security, 

medical personnel, police)?

•	 What does a spectator have to do to generate a response 

from security? For example, does security tolerate verbal 

taunts, foul language, or obscene gestures?

•	 Do police wait until a violent incident occurs before 

becoming proactive at an event?

•	 What is the standard response to signs of fan aggression?

•	 Are fans notified of potential risks and costs associated 

with engaging in inappropriate and violent behaviors?

•	 What type of training does staff have to deal with 

disruptive or aggressive spectators?

•	 What restrictions have been used to try and prevent 

spectator violence in the past? For instance, do personnel 

search bags before entry? Is staff asked to search for 

and confiscate particular illicit drugs? Have persistent 

troublemakers been banned from the stadium? Is the sale 

of alcohol limited (e.g., service stops before the end of the 

event, there is a one-drink limit per customer)? 
22 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify 

your responses if they are not producing the intended 

results. You should take measures of your problem before you 

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem 

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

have been effective. You should take all measures in both 

the target area and the surrounding area. 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 spectator violence in stadiums:

•	 Fewer violent incidents between spectators

•	 Fewer violent incidents between spectators and entertainers

•	 Fewer violent incidents between spectators and stadium 

personnel

•	 Fewer violent incidents where spectators damage the 

stadium

•	 Reduced seriousness of injuries (e.g., fewer injuries 

requiring medical attention)

•	 Fewer complaints about spectator behavior received by 

security

•	 Fewer complaints about spectator behavior received by 

other stadium staff

•	 Fewer items confiscated at the stadium;

•	 Fewer incidents of refusing alcohol to inebriated spectators

•	 Fewer spectator ejections from the stadium

•	 Improved perceptions of safety by spectators, entertainers, 

and stadium personnel.
Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 23

Responses to the Problem of 

Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better 

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you 

have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline 

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible 

responses to address the problem. 

The following responses provide ideas for addressing 

your particular stadium spectator violence problem. These 

strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies, 

analyses of past spectator violence incidents, and police 

reports. Several of these responses may be applicable to your 

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

to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 

based on reliable analysis of your local conditions. In most 

cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several 

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are 

seldom effective in reducing or solving such a problem. Do 

not limit yourself to considering what police alone can do: 

carefully consider whether others in your community share 

responsibility for the problem and can help police better 

respond to it. In some cases, you may need to shift the 

responsibility to those who can implement more-effective 

responses. For example, it might be that redesigning sections 

of the stadium may be the most effective response. In 

such a circumstance, nonpolice public agencies and private 

organizations will have to do most of the work in carrying 

out the response. (For more detailed information on shifting 

and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting 

and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.)
24 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy

Before reviewing specific responses to spectator violence, we 

offer the following general considerations. These will help you 

develop and implement an effective response strategy.

If we have learned anything from the extreme accounts of 

spectator violence in Europe, it is that prevention is superior 

to the most effective response after fan violence begins. Most 

experts agree that strategies should emphasize prevention 

and never confrontation.63 Successful violence-reduction 

strategies in England have stressed deterrence and opportunity 

reduction.64

It is also important to note that recent findings on crowd 

behavior suggest that police will instigate or escalate violence 

if they treat large groups of people as homogenous entities. 

Assuming that all fans are potentially dangerous will lead to a 

self-fulfilling prophecy.65 Gatherings or crowds do not drive 

people mad or make them lose control. People at gatherings 

have a wide variety of personal agendas, and typically only 

a small minority of people are willing to engage in violent 

behaviors.66

After any stadium event, you should convene an after-action 

meeting that includes representatives of the police and other 

involved organizations. This will allow you to exchange 

information about what worked and what strategies should be 

modified. You can use this meeting to develop an after-action 

report. The after-action report should include qualitative 

information gathered in the meeting, as well as quantitative 

measures of spectator violence-prevention outcomes. You 

should then use this information to improve your local 

strategy for dealing with spectator violence in stadiums. 
Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 25

Specific Responses to Spectator Violence in Stadiums

The following are specific responses to spectator violence 

in stadiums. Some evaluation research studies directly 

examine the problem of spectator violence. Many of 

these analyses, however, report mixed results regarding the 

effectiveness of certain responses. And researchers have not 

evaluated most responses. For these reasons, many of the 

following responses are suggested because of their potential

effectiveness for particular circumstances, rather than for proven

effectiveness or widespread applicability. It is important that 

you continually evaluate your response to assess its impact 

in your particular community. To facilitate your analysis of 

your problem and strategy, the responses are organized based 

on the three elements of the spectator violence triangle 

introduced earlier in this guide: venue-, event-, and staffrelated interventions.

Venue

1. Creating access barriers. It is necessary to prevent 

spectators from gaining access to backstage or performance 

areas, seating areas to which they are not assigned, and 

media rooms, and to prevent entrance of those who do 

not have tickets to the event. Some European countries 

have designed moats around soccer fields to prevent fans 

from interfering with game play; some have even placed 

crocodiles in these pits.67 Such extreme measures are 

generally unnecessary (or permissible) in the United States. 

Simple physical (e.g., gates, fences) and social (e.g., ushers, 

security) barriers are usually sufficient to prevent access 

to restricted locations. However, you should choose the 

locations and barrier types cautiously. An inappropriately 

placed barrier may encourage people to climb or sit on 

the railings, or people may use it as a weapon if it is not 

properly secured.
26 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

2. Providing adequate facilities and proper placement.

Enough toilets should be made available to prevent long lines 

and disputes between distressed spectators. Event planners 

need to consider the number of expected attendees and the 

length of the event.68 Proper facility layout (e.g., restrooms 

available in multiple places around the arena) is also critical.69

Concentrations of restrooms, food and beverage vendors, or 

souvenir stands can result in massive crowds forming in small 

spaces and increase the likelihood of violence.

3. Strategically placing stages, sound equipment, and 

screens. Places where the action can be clearly seen and 

heard naturally draw people to them. Stadium personnel 

can strategically place stages, sound systems, and large video 

screens to control gatherings within the crowd.70 Multiple 

sound systems and video screens can help break up large 

crowds. At larger events, more screens and larger stages can 

help to discourage people from pushing toward the stage 

through the field to get a better view. 

4. Providing adequate and nearby parking. People who 

are forced to walk long distances to arrive at their mode of 

transportation may engage in destructive behaviors along 

the way; particularly after a highly charged event and if there 

is little management along the route to their destination. 

Multiple entry and exit points that lead spectators directly 

to their vehicles or other public transportation will help to 

reduce the likelihood of aggressive behavior.

5. Posting signs. For spectators, properly placed and visible 

signs can serve to inform (e.g., exit only), warn (e.g., 

sidewalk becomes slippery in inclement weather), instruct 

(e.g., only one beer per paying customer), and guide (e.g., 

restrooms behind snack bar).71 When used properly, signs 

can reduce the need for staff and can reduce conflict due to 

frustration or confusion. Signs should be easily readable and 

high enough that they can be seen over a crowd.
Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 27

6. Changing venues for “high-risk” events. When the 

stakes are high, it may be beneficial to change locations or 

switch between locations until an event or series of events 

is completed.72 For football fans, the Super Bowl is typically 

played at an “away” stadium for both participating teams.73

This practice can discourage fans from rushing the field to 

celebrate victories or to act aggressively against members 

of the winning (or losing) team. Baseball fans take turns 

watching their teams play home games during the World 

Series to give fans equal access to the action (despite the 

travel costs associated with moving players and coaches 

between cities). This technique does not always prevent 

violence, as witnessed in the aftermath of the Red Sox 

victory in 2004. 

7. Establishing processing and holding areas for 

spectators who are arrested or refuse to leave the 

premises. When police arrest violent fans or remove them 

from the stands, it is important to have a designated and 

secure area to separate them from the rest of the spectators. 

This can prevent them from provoking other crowd 

members while awaiting transportation.74 Stadiums hosting 

the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles and Baltimore Ravens have 

successfully used makeshift jail cells and courtrooms.75

8. Redesigning stadium features that facilitate violence.

Some stadiums have been remodeled to include protective 

tunnels and seating areas for performers and officials. 

Others have created “family” enclosures to separate 

vulnerable populations from rowdy fans.76 Italian soccer 

stadiums have been fitted with Plexiglas barriers or fences 

to separate fans from the field and players.77 Other 

stadiums in Europe have separate seating areas for fans of 

opposing teams. You may consider structural changes to 

your stadium if your analysis finds that violence repeatedly 

occurs in a particular location there. 
28 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

9. Providing sectioned and personal seating. It was 

mentioned previously that personal seating can reduce 

the likelihood of spectator violence. Personal seating can 

further reduce violence if the seating is segregated into 

well-defined areas. Breaking crowds down into smaller 

groups helps to facilitate crowd control.78 This seating 

arrangement can also help to facilitate quick isolation and 

removal of violent spectators, with minimal disruption to 

other spectators’ experience. 

Event

10. Restricting alcohol sales. Most stadiums generally 

do not allow fans to bring their own alcohol to events. 

Still, some spectators will pay the high alcohol prices at 

U.S. stadium events and get drunk. To avoid problems 

associated with spectator intoxication, security should be 

positioned near alcohol vendors, should refuse entry and 

service to intoxicated spectators, and should establish a 

purchase limit.79 Complete bans are usually unnecessary, 

unless a particular event carries a long history of serious 

violence.80 The NBA recently issued guidelines limiting 

the size and number of beers that can be sold at games 

in an attempt to prevent spectator misconduct.81 Most 

stadiums have a one- or two-drink-per-customer policy 

and stop selling alcohol before the game ends (e.g., at the 

end of the seventh inning of a baseball game or the third 

quarter of a football game) to prevent intoxication and/

or allow fans to sober up before leaving. Also, serving beer 

in plastic cups instead of glass containers and removing 

bottle caps can prevent drink containers from becoming 

weapons. See, in this series, the guides titled Assaults in and 

Around Bars and Underage Drinking for more strategies to 

reduce alcohol consumption. 
Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 29

11. Removing disruptive spectators. Fans may have a right 

to cheer and shout—certainly event promoters encourage 

such behavior—but more and more stadiums are 

prohibiting incessant heckling.82 Cincinnati Bengals fans 

can now call a hotline (381-JERK) on their cell phones to 

report aggressive spectators or those who use excessive 

foul language, and to request staff intervention.83

Removing and isolating aggressive spectators can prevent 

relatively minor incidents from escalating into moreserious forms of violence.

12. Refusing entrance to known troublemakers and 

inebriated spectators. Stadiums can ban spectators who 

engage in serious violence or disruptive behavior from 

the premises for the rest of the event, the rest of the 

season, or for life.84 Some stadiums routinely confiscate or 

suspend season tickets belonging to violent spectators.85

To prevent violent incidents, security should refuse entry 

to the stadium to known and potential troublemakers 

(e.g., highly intoxicated people).86 Students who have been 

ejected from University of Wisconsin-Madison football 

games have been required to pass a Breathalyzer test 

before being granted access to the college’s stadium.87

Michael Scott

Security checks of spectator’s bags, pockets 

and jackets reduce the likelihood that potential 

weapons will be brought into stadiums.
30 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

13. Screening items brought into the stadium. The risk 

of serious injury can be lessened if security confiscates 

potential weapons from spectators before they enter the 

stadium. Few stadiums still allow beverages to be served 

in glass containers, but spectators can break and use their 

own beer bottles as weapons (or otherwise produce a safety 

hazard). Security should check spectators’ bags, pockets, 

and jackets through hand searches (i.e., pat downs), metal 

detectors, or X-ray machines.88

14. Reducing situational instigators of violence. Reducing 

noise and heat levels can reduce the risk of spectator 

violence. However, you should identify and address 

other situational instigators. For instance, if students 

wear T-shirts bearing obscene messages, University of 

Maryland ushers will trade socially acceptable T-shirts 

for them. The university also prohibits the band from 

playing songs that encourage fans to shout vulgarities.89

Personnel should also plan for unexpected weather, such 

as thunderstorms that may send a crowd running for 

shelter and encourage conflicts.90

15. Controlling the dispersal process. Mass exodus from a 

venue sets the stage for crowded conditions and spectator 

violence. Postgame events, such as autograph signings, 

help to stagger the dispersal process. The University of 

Wisconsin marching band began performing a postgame 

show known as the Fifth Quarter. This performance 

attracts a significant number of fans and reduces the 

number of people leaving the stadium at the same time. 

Fifty percent or more of crowds attending Saturday night 

baseball games at Dolphin Stadium stay after the game to 

watch a free concert and fireworks.91 Strategic dispersal 

times (e.g., not during rush hour) may also help to prevent 

traffic congestion and related accidents.92
Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 31

16. Requiring permits and adherence to entertainment 

ordinances. The permit review process can help 

to deny access to those wishing to hold potentially 

volatile events, or to put restrictions on these high-risk 

events.93 Permits may require adherence to noise-level 

requirements, demand a particular number of staff, or 

place restrictions on the number of attendees. Police may 

use entertainment ordinances to penalize event organizers 

or performers who fail to adhere to local permit laws and 

other city requirements.94

17. Advertising penalties for violent behavior. Media 

coverage and other campaigns aimed at educating both 

spectators and performers about sanctions associated 

with aggressive behavior may deter such behavior.95 Fans 

have been sentenced to jail and forced to pay fines for 

pouring beer on players. Players have been sanctioned 

for rough contact or overexuberant celebrations after 

scoring, either through fines or game penalties. Awareness 

of consequences may reduce incidents or the seriousness 

of incidents when they do occur. The University of 

Wisconsin ended body passing at football games in the 

1970s by announcing on the PA system that this behavior 

could constitute fourth-degree sexual assault (groping of 

women) and making some arrests. In recent efforts to 

prevent trash-throwing at opposing players, the University 

of Alabama notified students that a first offense would 

result in losing ticket privileges to three consecutive 

games; a second offense would result in losing ticket 

privileges indefinitely for that particular sport; and a third 

offense would result in losing ticket privileges indefinitely 

for all sporting events.96
32 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

18. Encouraging marketing to gender- and age-diverse 

crowds. We have already discussed the fact that younger 

males are more likely to engage in violent behavior. In 

fact, most male spectators in Finland reported that they 

would watch (61.1%), encourage (4.7%), or join in (2.7%) 

if a fight broke out.97 Promoting the attendance of 

more “peacemakers” by portraying the event as a family 

experience may help to reduce the likelihood of spectator 

violence. As noted previously, this tactic proved successful 

for organizers of the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix.98 

Most sporting events provide continual entertainment 

(e.g., dancing mascots, synchronized clapping and singing, 

shooting T-shirts into the stands), leaving very little time 

that something interesting or entertaining isn’t happening. 

This keeps fans continually occupied and makes what 

might otherwise be tedious events attractive to families 

with young children. So, even if you do not much care for 

the sport, the event is fun.

Staff

19. Establishing an effective command post. Interested 

parties should design a command post to quickly and 

efficiently relay information between various groups (e.g., 

police officers; medical, fire, and stadium personnel; event 

organizers).99 This control/command center will be most 

effective if it is centrally located and a representative 

from each group is present. It should also be secure from 

potential hazards (e.g., fires, riots).100 An experienced 

crowd observer placed in this centralized location can 

monitor camera images or directly view the crowd 

and spot potential threats before they become actual 

problems.101 Plainclothes officers can also pass along 

intelligence to the central command post and call for a 

uniformed presence, if necessary.102
Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 33

20. Training staff to respond appropriately. No two crowds 

are exactly the same. Therefore, the tactics used to prevent 

spectator violence must be flexible. Police must understand 

spectator behavior to avoid pitting them against those who are 

working to maintain order.103 Proactive contact with spectators 

can help police to accomplish this task. Officers should 

recognize when to intervene and when just to let the crowd 

tire itself out.104 In addition, all staff must fully comprehend 

their responsibilities and be familiar with contingency plans if 

preventive efforts fail.105 Some departments and officers within 

departments have more experience and see the prevention 

of spectator violence as just another part of their everyday 

duties; others may require more extensive training.106 Practice 

exercises can help inexperienced staff better cope with extreme 

spectator aggression and help organizers identify problems 

with communication and staffing levels.107

21. Using different security “levels.” You can use other staff, 

besides uniformed officers, to prevent spectator violence. You 

can train ushers or “stewards,” vendors, medical personnel, 

other stadium personnel (e.g., janitors), and plainclothes 

“place managers” to control spectator behavior. Directions 

from nonuniformed personnel can reduce the tensions that 

the presence of many uniformed officers may instigate.108

Using other personnel can also reduce costs, since they tend 

to be paid less than sworn officers. Finally, using women 

or older staff as frontline personnel may display a less 

threatening security presence and reduce tensions between 

fans and security. 
34 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

22. Increasing the visibility of security. While an 

overabundance of uniformed officers may not be 

necessary, some level of visibility can provide a deterrent 

effect. Some event organizers have prevented violence 

by positioning more uniformed officers at entrances 

(as a show of force) and decreasing their presence as 

people move into the event.109 Increased visibility may be 

particularly effective at high-risk events, but officers should 

remain cognizant of the effect their appearance may have 

on crowd behavior.110

23. Incorporating technology. CCTV (closed-circuit 

television) cameras and nonlethal weapons can be useful 

crowd-monitoring and control devices.111 Cameras reduce 

the number of personnel needed to monitor large crowds 

and direct personnel to places where assistance may be 

needed. Police can use nonlethal weapons to immobilize 

extremely violent spectators and reduce the likelihood 

of serious injury or death to the spectators and others 

nearby. However, “nonlethal” weapons can be deadly, as 

witnessed by Boston police who used pepper spray balls 

Michael Scott

While an overabundance of uniformed officers 

may not be necessary, some level of visibility 

can provide a deterrent effect.
Responses to the Problem of Spectator Violence in Stadiums 35

to subdue a crowd outside of Fenway Park. A 21-year-old 

college student was struck in the eye by a pepper ball and 

was killed.112 Use of nonlethal weapons requires specialized 

training, and police should use them only when other 

strategies have failed.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

24. Relying on reactive tactics. Although it is outside the 

scope of this guide, it is necessary to develop a detailed 

contingency plan to respond to spectators or groups of 

spectators who become violent. However, these tactics 

will not prevent violence and can often serve to escalate 

negative situations. 

25. Presenting extreme shows of force. While some police 

visibility can work as a deterrent to spectator violence, 

excessive shows of force can create a militaristic and highly 

hostile atmosphere. Police in riot gear with face shields 

and batons are usually not necessary to address officer 

safety concerns, and can stunt efforts to develop a positive 

rapport with event attendees.113

Michael Scott

Cameras can reduce the number of persons needed 

to monitor large crowds and direct personnel to 

places where assistance may be needed.
36 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

26. Segregating fans. Segregating fans from opposing teams 

has worked to reduce spectator violence in Europe.114

However, since North American game locations are more 

widespread, fewer “away” team fans usually attend games; 

thus special seating isn’t normally justified. 
Appendix A 37

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to 

Spectator Violence in Stadiums

The table below summarizes the responses to abandoned 

vehicles, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, 

the conditions under which they ought to work best, and 

some factors you should consider before implementing a 

particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to 

local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 

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

will involve implementing several different responses. Law 

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing 

or solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Venue

1 25 Creating access 

barriers

Prevents fans 

from interfering 

with performances 

and protects both 

performers and 

spectators

...fans cannot easily 

overcome barriers

The barriers should not 

reduce visibility or cause safety 

hazards—they can become 

death traps if a stampede 

or similar event occurs, so 

barriers should be constructed 

to give way safely under 

extreme pressure

2 26 Providing 

adequate 

facilities 

and proper 

placement

Reduces long lines 

and crowding 

...facilities are equally 

accessible to all 

spectators

Reducing beverage lines could 

increase alcohol consumption
38 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

3 26 Strategically 

placing 

stages, sound 

equipment, and 

screens

Helps to break up 

larger crowds and 

maintain seating 

assignments

...spectators can easily 

view the stages and 

screens from their 

assigned seats

More sound systems may 

increase volume levels and 

noise-related frustrations

4 26 Providing 

adequate and 

nearby parking

Reduces 

opportunities to 

engage in violent 

behaviors 

...multiple entry and 

exit points exist

Large parking areas provide 

opportunities for car theft and 

vandalism. They also create 

traffic jams and the possibility 

of conflicts due to frustration 

at not being able to enter or 

exit quickly

5 26 Posting signs Conveys information 

to spectators to 

maintain safety and 

facilitate movement 

and activities 

throughout the 

stadium

...the signs are clearly 

visible above the crowd 

but are out of vandals’ 

reach

You may need to have signs 

printed in other languages, 

depending on spectator 

demographics

6 27 Changing 

venues for 

“high-risk” 

events

Creates a “neutral” 

environment and 

reduces tensions 

between fans and 

away teams

...fans who cannot get 

to the alternative venue 

can watch the event on 

television

Event promoters may lose 

money if residents near the 

alternative venue are less 

interested in attending the 

event; it does not help to 

prevent post-event celebrations 

outside the stadium

7 27 Establishing 

processing 

and holding 

areas for 

spectators who 

are arrested or 

refuse to leave 

the premises

Provides a place 

to isolate violent 

spectators from the 

rest of the crowd

...other crowd 

members cannot see or 

access the areas 

You must make arrangements 

to transfer the spectators to 

the local jail or courthouse 

without disrupting the event
Appendix A 39

Response 

No

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

8 27 Redesigning 

stadium 

features that 

facilitate 

violence

Shields possible 

targets of spectator 

aggression

...spectator aggression 

is concentrated in 

particular places in the 

stadium 

Major renovations can be 

costly, and owners may not 

want to invest their resources 

or shut down their venue to 

allow these changes

9 28 Providing 

sectioned 

and personal 

seating

Helps to break 

crowds down 

into smaller and 

more-manageable 

groups, reducing the 

crowding commonly 

associated with 

festival seating

...tickets are sold for 

each individual seat, 

and ushers can guide 

spectators to the 

appropriate seats to 

avoid disputes

This can reduce the venue’s 

overall capacity and result in 

revenue loss 

Events

10 28 Restricting 

alcohol sales

Reduces 

intoxication-related 

violence

...staff are trained 

to recognize signs of 

intoxication 

Alcohol sales generate revenue, 

so the venue may have to raise 

prices to compensate for a 

decrease in sales; this increases 

spectators’ incentive to arrive 

intoxicated or to smuggle 

alcohol into the event 

11 29 Removing 

disruptive 

spectators

Limits the harm 

that results from 

their action and 

prevents the further 

instigation of other 

spectators

...police target only 

those engaged in 

disruptive behaviors 

Removing spectators may 

require use of force and can 

instigate other spectators

12 29 Refusing 

entrance 

to known 

troublemakers 

and intoxicated 

spectators

Reduces the pool 

of people willing 

to engage in violent 

behavior at the event

...staff can recognize 

those who have been 

banned and the signs 

of intoxication

Some fans may not show 

overt signs of intoxication, 

despite having consumed large 

quantities of alcohol 
40 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Response 

No

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

13 30 Screening items 

brought into 

the stadium

Prevents spectators 

from bringing in 

items that they can 

use as weapons 

during altercations

...staff can quickly 

search spectators 

without delaying entry 

to the stadium

Female staff may be needed to 

search female spectators; metal 

detectors are expensive

14 30 Reducing 

situational 

instigators of 

violence

Eliminates 

situational factors, 

both physical and 

social, that can 

encourage spectator 

violence

...police are familiar 

with a particular 

stadium’s “fan culture” 

and can identify the 

emergence of new 

instigators

It is difficult to control 

temperatures in open-air 

stadiums and noise levels in 

enclosed arenas

15 30 Controlling 

the dispersal 

process

Prevents the 

crowding that results 

as spectators leave 

the stadium

...after-event activities 

attract some, but not 

all, spectators

After-event activities will 

require additional staffing or 

personnel hours

16 31 Requiring 

permits and 

adherence to 

entertainment 

ordinances

Notifies authorities 

in advance of 

upcoming events, 

sets restrictions and 

standards for the 

events, and holds 

hosts accountable 

for meeting basic 

requirements

...city ordinances 

governing stadium 

events are already in 

place

The city council may have to 

pass new legislation

17 31 Advertising 

penalties 

for violent 

behavior

Deters spectatorrelated violence...laws and sanctions 

for such behaviors are 

in place, and spectators 

view the sanctions as 

credible

Penalties must be severe 

enough to offset the perceived 

benefits of engaging in violent 

behavior

18 32 Encouraging 

marketing 

to age- and 

gender-diverse 

crowds

Reduces the pool of 

young adult males

...the event can be 

marketed as “family 

friendly”

This may decrease the 

popularity of some events. 

If the family groups are 

in a completely different 

part of the stadium from 

where the young men are, 

then the advantages are lost. 

Comingling within the venue 

may be necessary
Appendix A 41

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Staff

19 32 Establishing 

an effective 

command post 

Aids prevention 

efforts by facilitating 

information flow

...representatives 

from all agencies are 

stationed at the post

One agency will need to lead 

the communication efforts 

20 33 Training staff 

to respond 

appropriately

Prepares staff 

to deal with the 

complexities of 

differing crowd 

dynamics

...experienced 

personnel are on-hand 

to help those with less 

crowd experience

Some departments may require 

more extensive training

21 33 Using different 

security 

“levels”

Reduces the need for 

police personnel

...stadium staff 

members remain 

consistent from event 

to event

Police must be available to 

provide backup if other 

personnel cannot effectively 

handle spectator concerns or 

conflicts

22 34 Increasing the 

visibility of 

security

Provides a visual 

deterrent to those 

considering violent 

behavior

...uniformed personnel 

are placed at strategic 

points throughout the 

stadium

Too many uniformed 

officers may create a hostile 

atmosphere

23 34 Incorporating 

technology

Improves 

surveillance and can 

eliminate the need 

for deadly force

...security can monitor 

cameras from a 

centralized location

Use of nonlethal weapons 

requires specialized training 

and can pose safety risks

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

24 35 Relying on 

reactive tactics

Can limit the extent 

of injury/damage 

after violence occurs

...violence is an 

immediate concern

It does little to prevent future 

violence

25 35 Presenting 

extreme shows 

of force

Demonstrates the 

consequences of 

behaving violently

...the chances of 

violence are high and 

well known

It can increase negative 

spectator reaction, which may 

include violence

26 36 Segregating 

fans

Separates fans of 

opposing teams

...an equal number of 

fans will be present for 

both teams

This may draw attention to the 

opposing team’s supporters, 

making them more likely to 

become targets of violence

Appendix B 43

Appendix B: Developing a Comprehensive 

Response to Spectator Violence in 

Stadiums

You should consider each stadium event a five-stage process, 

comprising (1) the initial planning, (2) the preassembly 

preparation, (3) the assembly process, (4) the assembled 

gathering, and (5) the dispersal process. Initial planning 

involves decisions to schedule the event, including the date, 

time, and contractual arrangements between the venue and 

the event organizers. Initial planning can begin months or 

even years before the event. Preassembly preparations include 

actions just preceding the event, including carrying out plans 

created during initial planning, marketing, staffing, training, 

and other preparation activities. How people sell tickets is 

particularly important. The assembly process begins the 

day of the event and involves the movement of people to 

the stadium, through the stadium, and to their seats. Traffic 

congestion, parking, admission, and other activities occurring 

before the event are important during this stage. The 

assembled gathering is the stage when the event is actually 

taking place—the teams are playing, the band is performing, 

and so forth. The final stage is the dispersal process, during 

which the concern is the safe emptying of the stadium and is 

the reverse of the assembly process.

You should consider potential problems that may arise at each 

stage when planning for an event. Once identified, you can 

address these problems using one of the responses listed in 

this guide, or you may develop your own unique response. 

Table 1 lists the five stages. Three examples of potential 

problems and interventions are listed next to each stage. 

These illustrate the types of activities that typically occur at 

each stage—they are not exhaustive lists of problems and 

interventions. 
44 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Stage Potential Problems Potential Interventions

Initial Planning •	 Decision to host an event 

where violence is likely to 

occur

•	 Lack of adequate controls 

included in the contract/

permits

•	 Inadequate staff scheduled to 

manage the event

•	 Screening requests to host the 

event

•	 Including restrictions in the 

contracts/permits

•	 Setting minimum staffing 

requirements

Preassembly 

Preparation •	 Inexperienced staff hired to 

manage the event

•	 Promotional efforts attract 

aggressive spectators 

•	 Event is oversold

•	 Training staff

•	 Working with a media/

promotion company to attract 

families

•	 Selling only one ticket per 

assigned seat

Assembly Process •	 Inadequate parking

•	 Long lines at entrance

•	 Contraband (e.g., weapons, 

drugs) brought into the 

stadium

•	 Timing public transportation 

to relieve traffic congestion 

•	 Hiring enough ticket-takers to 

facilitate spectator entry

•	 Screening items brought into 

the stadium

Assembled 

Gathering •	 Spectators crushed as the 

crowd moves toward the 

performance area

•	 Spectators get drunk

•	 Spectators attack the 

performers

•	 Providing sectioned and 

personal seating

•	 Restricting alcohol sales

•	 Creating access barriers

Dispersal Process •	 Spectators delayed as they all 

try to leave the venue at the 

same time

•	 Pedestrian pushing and 

trampling at the exit area

•	 Public urination when 

the restrooms become 

overcrowded

•	 Offering after-event activities

•	 Redesigning the venue to 

include multiple exit points

•	 Providing adequate facilities 

and proper placement

Table 1 

Potential Problems and Interventions During an Event’s Five Stages
Appendix B 45

The five-stage framework’s practical implication is that a 

comprehensive response should address the potential for 

violence at the last three stages: the assembly process, the 

assembled gathering, and the dispersal process. You should 

consider how you can block opportunities for violence by 

implementing interventions at each stage. For example, you 

may more easily prevent conflicts involving seating—at the 

assembly process—during the initial planning or preassembly 

preparation stages.

As you think about potential problems you can address at 

each stage, remember that six potential forms of violence 

are possible: verbal, gestures, missile throwing, swarming, 

property destruction, and physical. These forms of violence 

can occur at the assembly, gathering, and dispersal stages. 

Below we present a checklist for developing a strategy to 

prevent these forms of violence. 

The checklist considers the six forms of violence and 

incorporates the five main categories of situational crime 

prevention responses (for more information, see www.

popcenter.org): increasing efforts, increasing risks, reducing 

rewards, reducing provocations, and removing excuses. 

1. Increasing efforts involves making it harder to misbehave. 

For example, access barriers make it more difficult for 

spectators to reach their targets. 

2. Increasing risks involves making the perceived penalty for 

misbehavior more likely. For example, advertising the use 

of CCTV cameras informs spectators that they are under 

constant surveillance. 

3. Reducing rewards decreases the gain from misbehavior. For 

example, sectioning seating with access barriers decreases 

the benefits of rushing forward. 
46 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

4. Reducing provocations involves decreasing inducements to 

misbehave. For example, assigning seats with tickets and 

not selling more tickets than there are available seats 

reduces the incentives for patrons to crowd the ticket 

booths, gates, and seating sections.

5. Removing excuses involves making it harder for people 

to justify their misbehavior. For example, stationing 

ushers at each seating section removes excuses that 

spectators could not find their own seats, and removing 

noise meters makes it less likely that spectators will view 

forceful heckling as acceptable behavior.

Combining the six forms of violence with the five situational 

prevention techniques reveals 30 intervention categories (see 

Table 2). A comprehensive response involves using multiple 

situational approaches against multiple forms of violence. 

This approach ensures that one intervention’s weaknesses are 

offset by other interventions’ strengths.

In the example shown in the table, the response consists of 

eight interventions aimed at reducing each form of violence. 

These eight interventions involve all five different situational 

prevention types and target each form of violence at the 

gathering stage. Notice that some of the interventions 

can address more than one form of violence (e.g., CCTV 

cameras) at more than one stage (e.g., assembly and 

gathering). 
Appendix B 47

Types Verbal Gesture Missile Swarm Property Physical

Increase 

Efforts

Erect access 

barriers

Bolt seats 

down

Increase Risks Set up a 

hotline

Install CCTV 

cameras

Reduce 

Rewards

Erect stage 

out of target 

range

Reduce 

Provocations

Have 

personal 

seating

Remove 

Excuses

Prohibit 

obscene and 

violent hand 

signals

Table 2

Example of a Comprehensive Response

Gathering Stage

Last, we designed the “Planning Framework for Preventing 

Spectator Violence in Stadiums” checklist to provide you 

with a useful planning tool when developing a response. 

Supervisors can also use it for approving a response before 

implementation. A matrix of situational interventions and 

the six forms of violence are presented for the assembly, 

gathering, and dispersal stages. Again, while violence may 

occur at these stages, you may implement the interventions 

at an earlier stage (i.e., initial planning or preassembly 

preparation).
48 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Assembly

Types Verbal Gesture Missile Swarm Property Physical

Increase Efforts

Increase Risks

Reduce Rewards

Reduce Provocations

Remove Excuses

Total

Gathering

Increase Efforts

Increase Risks

Reduce Rewards

Reduce Provocations

Remove Excuses

Total

Dispersal

Increase Efforts

Increase Risks

Reduce Rewards

Reduce Provocations

Remove Excuses

Total

Planning Framework for Preventing Spectator Aggression in Stadiums

Event:__________________________________ Date:_______________
Appendix B 49

Planning Assessment*

1. Have you used at least one intervention type for each form of violence at each stage? 

Yes  No 

2. If not, at which stage are forms of violence lacking interventions? 

 _____________________________________________________________

3. Have you used at least two situational types for the intervention? 

Yes  No 

4. If not, which situational prevention types are not used?

 _____________________________________________________________

*You should consider changes or additions to your overall action plan if you answered “No” to the above 

questions.

Endnotes 51

Endnotes

See Connors (2007) for a list of other law enforcement 1.

concerns when policing major events.

Eugene Police Commission (2001). 2.

Jayson (2004). 3.

Marsh et al. (1996). 4.

Duke and Crolley (1996). 5.

Russell (2004). 6.

Ward (2002). 7.

Ballard (2004). 8.

O’Reilly (1999). 9.

Lewis (2007); Sharp (1992); Ward (2002); Young (2002). 10.

Young (2002). 11.

Wann et al. (2003). 12.

Gramling (2001); Young (1988). 13.

O’Reilly (1999). 14.

Number of venues taken from list published at 15.

www.sportsvenues.com.

Smith (2007). 16.

McCallum (2004). 17.

Price (2003). 18.

Sappenfield (2004). 19.

See literature review in Russell (2004). 20.

Branscombe and Wann (1992). 21.

Branscombe and Wann (1992); Poulin (1992); Roberts 22.

and Benjamin (2000); Russell (2004).

One example is the 2000 Roskilde Festival where 23.

nine fans were crushed to death during a Pearl Jam 

performance.

Arbetter and Holy (1994). 24.

Stott and Adang (2005). 25.

Price (2003). 26.

Dewar (1979); Reifman, Larrick, and Fein (1991). 27.

Bale (2000). 28.
52 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Veno and Veno (1993). 29.

Wann et al. (2003). 30.

Courakis (1999). 31.

Madensen and Eck (2006). 32.

Sivarajasingam, Moore, and Shepherd (2004). 33.

Russell (1983). 34.

Russell (2004). 35.

Wann et al. (2003). 36.

McNamara (1999). 37.

Johnson (2004). 38.

Neal et al. (2005); Nelson and Wechsler (2003). 39.

Russell (2004). 40.

Roadburg (1980). 41.

Waddell (2000). 42.

Getlen (2006). 43.

Stark (1999). 44.

Russell (2004). 45.

Arms and Russell (1997). 46.

See Miller and Gillentine’s (2006) review of recent cases. 47.

Arbetter and Holy (1994). 48.

Garland and Rowe (1999). 49.

Arbetter and Holy (1994). 50.

Stott and Reicher (1998). 51.

Getlen (2006). 52.

Courakis (1999). 53.

Connors (2007). 54.

Courakis (1999). 55.

See Felson’s (1995) discussion of different types of 56.

controllers.

Alpert and Flynn (2000). 57.

Stott and Adang (2005). 58.

Coates (1972). 59.

Estes (2004). 60.

Connors (2007). 61.
Endnotes 53

Rees and Schnepel (2008). 62.

Human Effects Advisory Panel (2001). 63.

Garland and Rowe (2000). 64.

Stott and Reicher (1998). 65.

Berk (1974); McPhail (1991). 66.

Russell (2004); Westin (2003). 67.

Cox (1998). 68.

Abbott and Geddie (2001). 69.

Cox (1998). 70.

Abbott and Geddie (2001). 71.

Abbott and Geddie (2001). 72.

No NFL team has ever had the home field advantage, 73.

although it is possible since the location is chosen three 

to five years before the actual game is played. 

University of California Police Department-Berkeley 74.

(2000).

Young (2002). 75.

Young (2002). 76.

Yonker (2007). 77.

Brindley (1982). 78.

Abbott and Geddie (2001); Dimmock and Grove (2005). 79.

Russell (2004); Sir Norman Chester Center for Football 80.

Research (2001).

Associated Press (2005). 81.

Rushin (2004). 82.

Associated Press (2006). 83.

Sir Norman Chester Center for Football Research (2001). 84.

Young (2002). 85.

Abbott and Geddie (2001). 86.

LaRoi (2007). 87.

Goodman (2001); Weiss and Davis (2005). 88.

MacDonald (2004). 89.

Abbott and Geddie (2001). 90.

Talalay (2007). 91.

Dimmock and Grove (2005). 92.
54 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Cox (1998). 93.

Westin (2003). 94.

Young (2002). 95.

Bralley (2007). 96.

Russell and Mustonen (1998). 97.

Veno and Veno (1993). 98.

Cox (1998). 99.

Abbott and Geddie (2001). 100.

Metscher (1996). 101.

Stott and Adang (2005). 102.

Nylen (1994). 103.

O’Reilly (1999). 104.

Morrone (1994). 105.

Sharp (1992). 106.

Morrison and Airey (2002). 107.

Weiss and Davis (2005). 108.

Weiss and Davis (2005) 109.

Eugene Police Commission (2001). 110.

Begert (1998); Eugene Police Commission (2001); 111.

Russell (2004); Weiss and Davis (2005).

Zezima (2005). 112.

Eugene Police Commission (2001). 113.

Dimmock and Grove (2005). 114.
References 55

References

Abbott, J., and M. Geddie (2001). “Event and Venue 

Management: Minimizing Liability Through Effective 

Crowd Management Techniques.” Event Management

6(4):259–270.

Alpert, G., and D. Flynn (2000). “Community Policing and 

Major Special Events: A Case Study of Super Bowl 

XXXIII.” In C. Brito and E. Gratto (eds.), Problem-Oriented 

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

POP Work, Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 

Research Forum.

Arbetter, L., and P. Holy (1994). “Major League Security Hits 

the Minors.” Security Management 38:40–45.

Arms, R., and G. Russell (1997). “Impulsivity, Fight History, 

and Camaraderie as Predictors of a Willingness To 

Escalate a Disturbance.” Current Psychology 15:279–285.

Associated Press (2006). “Annoyed by Jerks in Stands? Call 

381-JERK: Bengals Fans Can Call Special Line To Report 

Unruly Behavior.” “MSNBC News,” August 8.

——— (2005). “NBA To Limit Size, Amount of Beer Sold.” 

“MSNBC News,” February 17.

Bale, J. (2000). “The Changing Face of Football: Stadiums and 

Communities.” Soccer & Society 1(1):91–101.

Ballard, C. (2004). “The Eye of a Perfect Storm.” Sports 

Illustrated 101:50.

Begert, M. (1998). “Crowd Control Measures.” The Police Chief

(June):42–51.
56 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Berk, R. (1974). “A Gaming Approach to Crowd Behavior.” 

American Sociological Review 39:355–373.

Bralley, B. (2007). “Sanctions Enforced for Students 

Throwing Objects at Games.” media.www.cw.ua.edu/

media/storage/paper959/news/2007/10/04/News/

Sanctions.Enforced.For.Students.Throwing.Objects.

At.Games-3011029.shtml. 

Branscombe, N., and D. Wann (1992). “Role of Identification 

With a Group, Arousal, Categorization Processes, and 

Self-Esteem in Sports Spectator Aggression.” Human 

Relations 45(10):1013–1033.

Brindley, J. (1982). “Disruptive Crowd Behavior—A 

Psychological Perspective.” Police Journal 55(1):28–37.

Coates, J. (1972). “Wit and Humor: A Neglected Aid 

in Crowd and Mob Control.” Crime and Delinquency

18(2):184–191.

Connors, E. (2007). Planning and Managing Security for Major 

Special Events: Guidelines for Law Enforcement. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Courakis, N. (1999). “Football Violence: Not Only a British 

Problem.” In R. Hood and N. Courakis (eds.), The 

Changing Face of Crime and Criminal Policy in Europe. 

Oxford, England: University of Oxford.

Cox, J. (1998). “Strategies for Effective Crowd Control.” 

Police Chief 65:26–41.

Dewar, C. (1979). “Spectator Fights at Professional Baseball 

Games.” Review of Sport and Leisure 4:12–25.

Dimmock, J., and R. Grove (2005). “Relationship of Fan 

Identification to Determinants of Aggression.” Journal of 

Applied Sport Psychology 17(1):37–47.
References 57

Duke, V., and L. Crolley (1996). “Football Spectator Behavior 

in Argentina: A Case of Separate Evolution.” The 

Sociological Review 44:272–293.

Estes, A. (2004). “Super Bowl Chaos Detailed in Transcripts.” 

The Boston Globe, April 23, p. A1.

Eugene Police Commission (2001). An Analysis of Police 

Response to Public Assemblies, Demonstrations, and Civil 

Disturbance Events. Eugene, Oregon: Eugene Police 

Commission.

Felson, M. (1995). “Those Who Discourage Crime.” In J. Eck 

and D. Weisburd (eds.), Crime and Place, Vol. 4. Monsey, 

New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Garland, J., and M. Rowe (2000). “The Hooligan's Fear of the 

Penalty.” Soccer and Society 1(1):144–157.

——— (1999). “The ‘English Disease’—Cured or in 

Remission? An Analysis of Police Responses to Football 

Hooliganism in the 1990s.” Crime Prevention and Community 

Safety: An International Journal 1(4):35–47.

Getlen, L. (2006). “There's a Riot Going On: The 10 Biggest 

Onstage Meltdowns in Rock History.” Retrieved May 

30, 2007 from www.nypost.com/seven/11052006/

entertainment/music/theres_a_riot_goin_on_music_

larry_getlen.htm.

Goodman, F. (2001). “Making Concerts Secure.” Rolling Stone

882:27–28.

Gramling, S. (2001). “The FHM Definitive Guide to Football 

Fanatics.” FHM Magazine (September):140–148.

Human Effects Advisory Panel (2001). Crowd Behavior, Crowd 

Control, and the Use of Nonlethal Weapons. University Park, 

Pennsylvania: Penn State Institute for Nonlethal Defense 

Technologies.
58 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Jayson, S. (2004). “On or off the Field, It's a ‘Civility’ War out 

There.” USA Today, November 30, p. 9D.

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

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services.

LaRoi, H. (2007). “Breath Test Is Ticket to Game for Some 

Fans.” Wisconsin State Journal, September 22, p. A1.

Lewis, J. (2007). Sport Fan Violence in North America. Lanham, 

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

MacDonald, G. (2004). “After the Big Game, Why Is There a 

Riot Going On?” USA Today, November 1, p. 6D.

Madensen, T., and J. Eck (2006). Student Party Riots.

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

Marsh, P., K. Fox, G. Carnibella, J. McCann, and J. Marsh 

(1996). Football Violence in Europe. Amsterdam, the 

Netherlands: The Amsterdam Group.

McCallum, J. (2004). “The Ugliest Game.” Sports Illustrated

101:44–50.

McNamara, M. (director) (1999). “Behind the Music: ‘Weird 

Al’ Yankovic.”

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

Aldine De Gruyter.

Metscher, R. (1996). “A Room With a View.” Security 

Management 40:79.

Miller, J., and A. Gillentine (2006). “An Analysis of Risk 

Management Policies for Tailgating Activities at Selected 

NCAA Division I Football Games.” Journal of Legal 

Aspects of Sport 16(2):197–215.
References 59

Morrison, G., and J. Airey (2002). “Special Event Safety 

and Security: Protecting the World Alpine Ski 

Championships.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 71:1–5.

Morrone, F. (1994). “Special Event Management and the 

Terrorist Threat.” Police Chief 61:46–47, 50.

Neal, D., D. Sugarman, J. Hustad, C. Caska, and K. Carey 

(2005). “It's All Fun and Games, or Is It? Collegiate 

Sporting Events and Celebratory Drinking.” Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol 66(2):291–294.

Nelson, T., and H. Wechsler (2003). “School Spirits: Alcohol 

and Collegiate Sports Fans.” Addictive Behaviors 28:1–11.

Nylen, L. (1994). “Policing Major Soccer Events.” Police Chief

61:42–45.

O'Reilly, S. (1999). “World Cup 2006? An Examination of 

the Policing of Risk in the Context of Major Football 

Events.” Risk Management: An International Journal

1(2):21–33.

Poulin, K. (1992). “Homecoming to Remember.” Security 

Management 36:103, 105–107.

Price, S. (2003). “When Fans Attack.” Sports Illustrated

98:48–53.

Rees, D., and K. Schnepel (2008). “College Football Games 

and Crime.” Working Paper Series No. 08-01. Boulder: 

University of Colorado.

Reifman, A., R. Larrick, and S. Fein (1991). “Temper and 

Temperature on the Diamond: The Heat-Aggression 

Relationship in Major-League Baseball.” Personality and 

Social Psychology Bulletin 17:580–585.

Roadburg, A. (1980). “Factors Precipitating Fan Violence: A 

Comparison of Professional Soccer in Britain and North 

America.” The British Journal of Sociology 31(2):265–276.
60 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Roberts, J., and C. Benjamin (2000). “Spectator Violence in 

Sports: A North American Perspective.” European Journal 

on Criminal Policy and Research 8:163–181.

Rushin, S. (2004). “Hey, Fan, Put a Cork in It.” Sports Illustrated

101:17.

Russell, G. (2004). “Sport Riots: A Social-Psychological 

Review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 9:353–378.

——— (1983). “Crowd Size and Density in Relation to 

Athletic Aggression and Performance.” Social Behavior and 

Personality 11(1):9–15.

Russell, G., and A. Mustonen (1998). “Peacemakers: Those 

Who Would Intervene To Quell a Sports Riot.” Personality 

and Individual Differences 24(3):335–339.

Sappenfield, M. (2004). “Sports Violence Fed by Both Fans, 

Athletes; Incidents Throw Harsh Light on a Culture Fed 

by Talk Radio and Disrespect for Authority.” Christian 

Science Monitor, November 24, p. 3.

Sharp, A. (1992). “Rock Concerts.” Law and Order 40:149–154.

Sir Norman Chester Center for Football Research (2001). 

"Fact Sheet 1: Football and Football Hooliganism." www.

le.ac.uk/footballresearch/resources/factsheets/fs1.html

(last updated January 1, 2001).

Sivarajasingam, V., S. Moore, and J. Shepherd (2004). 

“Winning, Losing, and Violence.” Injury Prevention

11(2):69–70.

Smith, H. (2007). “Faith Hill Causes Stir After Fan Gets a 

Handful.” Retrieved August 6, 2007, from www.cmt.com. 

Stark, J. (1999). “What a Riot: Diary of a Woodstock 

Survivor.” Retrieved August 31, 2007 from www.salon.

com/ent/music/feature/1999/07/27/woodstock/index.

html.
References 61

Stott, C., and C. Adang (2005). Crowd Dynamics, Policing, 

and “Hooliganism” at “Euro2004.” Research Report 

for the Economic and Social Research Council. Grant 

reference: RES-000-23-0617. 

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

Process: Introducing the Police Perspective.” European 

Journal of Social Psychology 28:509–529.

——— (1998). “How Conflict Escalates: The Intergroup 

Dynamics of Collective Football Crowd ‘Violence.’” 

Sociology 32(2):353–377.

Talalay, S. (2007). “Marlins’ Super Saturdays Boost 

Attendance.” Retrieved June 17, 2007, from blogs.trb.

com/sports/custom/business/blog/2007/06/marlins_

super_saturdays_boost.html. 

University of California Police Department-Berkeley (2000). 

“Crowd Management Policy.” Berkeley, California: 

University of California Police Department.

Veno, A., and E. Veno (1993). “Situational Prevention of 

Public Disorder at the Australian Motorcycle Grand 

Prix.” In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 1. 

Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Waddell, R. (2000). “Security Is the Issue for This Concert 

Season.” Billboard 112:1–2.

Wann, D., G. Haynes, B. McLean, and P. Pullen (2003). 

“Sport Team Identification and Willingness To Consider 

Anonymous Acts of Hostile Aggression.” Aggressive 

Behavior 29:406–413.

Ward, R.(2002). “Fan Violence: Social Violence of Moral 

Panic.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 7:453–475.

Weiss, J., and M. Davis (2005). “Policing the Oktoberfest.” 

Law and Order 53:77–80.
62 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Westin, C. (2003). What Strategies Will a Large Urban Police 

Department Use To Ensure Effective Police Response to 

Disturbances at Large Entertainment Venues by 2008?

Sacramento, California: Sacramento Police Department.

Yonker, T. (2007). “Woe to Calcio Italiano.” Retrieved 

November 14, 2007, from soccerprose.com/soccer-fans/

woe-to-calcio-italiano. 

Young, K. (2002). “Standard Deviations: An Update on North 

American Sports Crowd Disorder.” Sociology of Sport 

Journal 19:237–275.

——— (1988). Sports Crowd Disorder, Mass Media, and Ideology.

Ontario: McMaster University.

Zezima, K. (2005). “Panel Blames Boston Police for Errors in 

Fan's Death.” The New York Times, May 26, p. 18.
About the Authors 63

About the Authors

Tamara D. Madensen

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

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

Criminal Justice Department faculty as an Assistant Professor. Her 

research interests are the opportunity structures of drug markets, 

violence, white collar crime and crowd disturbances. While working 

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

effectiveness of policing strategies to reduce juvenile crime. She 

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

Opportunity Reduction (OSCOR) project, which helps police and 

communities develop crime reduction strategies and conduct project 

evaluations. Ms. Madensen received her bachelors and masters 

degrees from the California State University, San Bernardino.

John E. Eck

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

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

attempt to implement the concept in the United States at Newport 

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

techniques in problem-oriented policing, including the SARA model 

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

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

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

member of the Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and 

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

be reached at: john.eck@uc.edu.

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 65

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

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

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

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

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

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

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

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

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

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

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

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

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

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

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
66 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

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

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. 

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

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

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and 

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

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

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

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

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

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel 

Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

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

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

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

2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

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

B. Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1932582-56-8
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 67

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

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

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

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction 

Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

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

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007.

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and

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

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. 

Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. 

Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007.

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and 

Adam Thorpe. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008.

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. 

Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2008.

ISBN: 1-932582-89-4
68 Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

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

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance 

of Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

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

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

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

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

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and 

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

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown 

and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 69

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental 

Design in Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime 

Analysis Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Transient Encampments

Street Robbery

Fencing Stolen Property

Thefts from Cafés and Bars

Aggressive Driving

Theft of Scrap Metal

Problem-Solving Tools

Displacement

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Asset Forfeiture

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

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:

•	 Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention

•	 A complete listing of other POP Guides

•	 A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
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.

August 2008

e080828167

ISBN:1-932582-89-4 

www.cops.usdoj.gov