Problem-Specific Guides Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Chronic Public 

Inebriation

Matthew Pate

No. 68
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 68

Chronic Public Inebriation

Matthew Pate

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2009-CK-WX-K002 awarded 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 or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References 

to specific agencies, 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. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date 

of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, 

neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current 

validity.

© 2012 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: 978-1-932582-07-9

September 2012

Cover photos: (left) © DoctorKan / Shutterstock; (right) © paul prescott / Shutterstock
Contents

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Problems Associated with Street Disorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Problems Associated with Chronic Inebriation in Private Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Other Problems Associated with Chronic Inebriation in Public Places . . . . . . . . . . . 8

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Evolution of Chronic Inebriation Law and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Harms Caused by Chronic Public Inebriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Factors Contributing to Chronic Public Inebriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Lack of Adequate Alcohol Treatment, Rehabilitation, 

and Counseling Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

High Concentrations of Businesses that Sell Inexpensive Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Densely Populated Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Public Transit Stations, Trains, and Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Laws and Public Drunkenness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A High Rate of Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Predominant Local Standards for and Sensibilities about Public Order . . . . . . . . . 14

Police Department Operational Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

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

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

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

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

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Locations and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Current Responses to the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Process Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chronic Public Inebriation

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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

Specific Responses to Chronic Public Inebriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Restricting Alcohol Sales to Chronic Inebriates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Facilitating Counseling, Treatment, and Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Changing the Way Public Spaces Are Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Responses with Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Chronic Public Inebriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

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

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

| 1 |

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the 

harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and 

to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling 

specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how to implement 

specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to 

officers who:

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The 

guides are not primers in problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the 

initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, 

and means to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They are 

designed to help police decide how best to analyze and address a problem they 

have already identified. (A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools guides has 

been produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

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

you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you 

design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. 

You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must decide 

whether they are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one place 

may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.

• 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.) 
| 2 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 3 |

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. For some types 

of problems, a lot of useful research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing research 

whereas other guides illustrate the need for more research on that particular problem. 

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you 

might have about the problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend 

greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of keeping the 

guides readable, not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed and 

distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

• Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions to the problem. The 

police alone cannot implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. They 

must frequently implement them in partnership with other responsible private and 

public bodies, including other government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. An 

effective problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 

Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that problem. Thorough 

analysis of problems often reveals that individuals and groups other than the police 

are in a stronger position to address problems and that police ought to shift some 

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

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes 

organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problemsolving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” 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. 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, 

the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs, and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent 

that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police 

practice, and 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. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for ProblemOriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:

• The Problem-Specific Guides series

• The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

• Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

• Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics 

• An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

• An interactive Problem Analysis Module

• Online access to important police research and practices

• Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs 
| 5 |

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff, and anonymous peer reviewers 

contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research, and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein (University 

of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and Savannah, Georgia police 

departments provided feedback on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Kimberly Nath oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Phyllis Schultze conducted 

research for the guide at Rutgers University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach 

coordinated the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. Peter Slavin 

edited this guide.
| 7 |

The Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

The Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

This guide begins by describing the problem of chronic public inebriation and reviewing 

factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a series of questions to help you analyze your 

local chronic public inebriation problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and 

what is known about these from evaluative research and police practice.

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

The problem of chronic public inebriation takes many forms and has numerous negative 

social consequences.† While chronic inebriation occurs in many different settings, such as 

the home, workplace, and bars, this guide focuses on chronic inebriation in outdoor public 

spaces, with a particular emphasis on chronic inebriation among those who spend a good 

portion of their daily lives on the street.

As used in this guide, “chronic inebriation,” “chronic inebriate,” or “alcoholic” refer to 

individuals whose lives are dominated by the use or abuse of alcoholic beverages such that 

they have substantially withdrawn from conventional society.1, ‡

Chronic public inebriation is but one aspect of the larger set of problems related to alcohol 

abuse and street disorder. This guide is limited to addressing the particular harms created 

by chronic public inebriation. Related problems not directly addressed in this guide, each 

of which requires separate analysis, include:

† Multiple sources confirm the frequently conjoined issues of mental illness, homelessness, alcoholism and other substance 

abuse. See Bahr (1973), Finn (1985), Finn and Sullivan (1987), Snow and Anderson (1993), and Wiseman (1979).

‡ According to the World Health Organization, a person is alcohol dependent if he or she has three or more of the following 

six manifestations, occurring together for at least one month or repeatedly within one year: compulsion to drink, lack of control, 

withdrawal state, tolerance, salience, and persistent use (WHO 1992). The city of San Diego, California, employs a simple 

measure to classify an individual as a “chronic inebriate.” Their criterion is whether the individual in question has been admitted 

five or more times to the city’s sobering center within a 30-day period.
| 8 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 9 |

Problems Associated with Street Disorder

• Panhandling

• Disorderly behavior by mentally ill persons

• Homeless encampments

• Day laborer sites

• Student party riots

• Disorder in entertainment districts

• Disorderly youth in public places

• Indecent exposure

• Open intoxicants in public

Problems Associated with Chronic Inebriation in Private Places

• Domestic violence

• Child abuse and neglect

• Suicide

• Accidental death and injury

• Accidental fires

• Underage drinking

Other Problems Associated with Chronic Inebriation in Public Places

• Drunken driving

• Pedestrian injuries and fatalities

• Disorder in public libraries

• Disorder in public transportation systems 

• Assaults in and around bars

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.

The Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

General Description of the Problem

When chronically inebriated individuals disruptively or persistently violate community 

standards by being intoxicated, panhandling, acting aggressively, or passing out in places 

not “approved” for such behaviors, the police may be called to intervene. As is also the 

case in dealing with mentally ill and homeless populations, it is important to recognize 

that chronic public inebriation is not, in and of itself, solely a police problem. It is also 

a medical and social services problem. That said, a number of the problems caused 

by, associated with, or resulting from chronically inebriated individuals often manifest 

themselves as police problems, such as disorderly conduct, threats, public urination and 

defecation, passing out in public, thefts, and assaults.

Chronic public inebriates are nearly as likely to be victims of crime and other hazards as 

they are to be offenders, and some of that victimization will not be reported to police. 

Their inebriation leaves them less capable of defending and caring for themselves and their 

property. From a moral, legal, and professional standpoint, it is important to acknowledge 

that chronic inebriates do not forfeit the rights and expectations afforded all other members 

of the community just because they are caught up in a harmful or negative dynamic.

© 1000 Words / Shutterstock

Chronic inebriates such as the one pictured here may become victims of crime, as they are 

less capable of defending and caring for themselves.
| 10 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 11 |

Evolution of Chronic Inebriation Law and Policy

As far back as ancient Egypt, public policymakers battled problems associated with 

chronic public inebriation.2 Public intoxication was first criminalized by the English in 

1606.3 By 1619, criminalization of public drunkenness reached the American colonies, 

but it took until 1810 before treatment of public inebriates began with Benjamin Rush’s 

“sober houses.”4

In the United States, beginning in the mid-1960s, law and public policy began shifting away 

from criminalizing public inebriation to treating it as a medical and public health problem,5, †

a shift that helped foster the idea that effective responses to chronic public inebriation would 

not be solely a police responsibility but would require broader community action. In 1970, 

the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation 

Act went into effect. This act provided state and local governments with financial resources 

to support alcohol-abuse reduction programs. It also created the National Institute on 

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. By 1973, states were being pressed to decriminalize public 

drunkenness in favor of a social model based in treatment.6 In 1987, the federal government 

began funding alcohol-dependency treatment programs for homeless people.7

Harms Caused by Chronic Public Inebriation

Chronic public inebriation is commonly entwined with a number of specific behavioral 

problems and conditions, including the following:

• Sleeping in public‡

• Undiagnosed, untreated, or inconsistently treated mental illness8

• Disorderly conduct (noise, fighting, obstreperous behavior, etc.)

• Inappropriate use of public places (e.g., public libraries, sidewalks, benches, parks)

• Other substance abuse (e.g., use of or addiction to drugs)

• Public urination and defecation

• Panhandling, harassment, or intimidation of others

† U.S. courts have considered whether a homeless person might successfully invoke constitutional protections, such as the 

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment,” because they lacked a private place to drink. See, for 

example, Robinson v. California, 370 US 660 (1962) and Powell v. Texas, 392 US 514 (1968) for leading cases on this issue. See 

also McMorris (2006).

‡ The likelihood of rehabilitation among individuals who are both alcoholics and homeless is exceedingly low (Argeriou and 

McCarty 1993; Podymow et al. 2006; Castaneda et al. 1992; Richman and Smart 1981; Richman and Neuman 1984; Cox et al.

1998). Another body of research, however, observes success among strategies predicated on stabilizing residency as an element 

of substance abuse counseling (Larimer et al. 2009; Grella 1993; Coffler and Hadley 1973).

The Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

• Illegal lodging (e.g., sleeping or passing out in public places, or homeless encampments)

• Thefts and robbery (e.g., pickpocketing, robbery at ATMs, thefts from vehicles) 

• Trash picking (for food or to salvage cans and bottles)

• Litter and increased public sanitation burdens

• Blocking pedestrian traffic (which can disrupt business and access to public 

transportation systems)

• Drug dealing

• Intimidation of other citizens (which can cause some to avoid or retreat from parks and 

other places where chronic inebriates gather)

Beyond street-level consequences, chronic inebriates pose a significant and disproportionate 

drain on public resources. In Anchorage, Alaska, almost 2,000 chronic inebriates accounted 

for approximately 19,000 visits to that city’s sobering center in a single year.† Moreover, 

a mere 200 individuals accounted for 56 percent of all visits to the center during 2007.9

A study in San Diego, California, reached similar conclusions,‡ noting that the episodic 

emergency care demands created by chronic inebriates have a significant cumulative 

impact on the community’s safety-response system through emergency room overcrowding, 

ambulance diversion, and a shortage of available bed space.10, § Roanoke, Virginia, provides 

a similar example: an analysis of that city’s drunk-in-public arrests revealed that 2,642 

different individuals were responsible for 4,099 incidents during 1997. Within this group, 

45 individuals (1.7 percent) were responsible for 919 incidents (22.4 percent).11, ¶

† Throughout this document, the terms “sobering center” and “detoxification center” are used interchangeably to indicate a 

short-term facility where inebriated individuals can sober up in a protected environment.

‡ The City of San Diego studied the impact of 529 homeless alcoholics, many of whom also had other medical or mental illness 

issues, on public resources. From 2003 to 2005, 308 individuals (58 percent) were transported by emergency medical personnel 

2,335 times, 409 individuals (77 percent) accounted for 3,318 emergency-room visits, and 217 individuals (41 percent) required 

652 hospital admissions, resulting in 3,361 inpatient days. Health care charges totaled $17.7 million. Payment for only 18 

percent of charges was received.

§ A study in the United Kingdom found that an alcoholic patient’s use of health care services before getting treatment for 

alcohol abuse is up to 15 times greater than that of the general population, but after alcohol treatment these costs decline 

significantly (Malone and Friedman 2005).

¶ While a dated statistic, Bahr (1973:228) recounts that just six “alcoholic” individuals in the mid-1960s had been arrested in 

Washington, D.C., 1,409 times and had been incarcerated a combined total of 125 years. Figures like this are common even today.
| 12 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 13 |

The traditional police approach to the management of chronic inebriates has been 

characterized as “a rare mixture of almost paternal indulgence, strictness and an ad hoc 

decision-making not found elsewhere.”12 Dealing with chronically inebriated individuals 

also exacts an emotional toll on police officers.13 It can lead, for example, to the following:

• Increased frustration stemming from officers’ inability to render meaningful help, while 

at the same time knowing that the public demands they “do something.”14

• Increased stress as a result of being thrust into situations for which they have little or no 

specialized training (e.g., resolving situations where a person is behaving irrationally or is 

mentally ill or under the influence of alcohol or other drugs).15

• Increased stress because they feel they are being asked to handle situations that aren’t 

really “police problems.”16

• Feeling overburdened at having to locate appropriate resources for or facilities willing to 

accept individuals in need of specialized accommodations or treatment.17

Taken together, chronic inebriates create a demand for service widely disproportionate 

to their numbers. Moreover, chronic inebriation (and its companion offenses) is often 

processed rapidly through criminal courts. Because individuals charged under public 

drunkenness statutes typically spend little time in custody, this creates a “revolving door” 

system in which all stakeholders suffer and service demands stay high. Beyond this, the 

prospect of reintegration into mainstream society is a daunting proposition for many 

chronic inebriates. Those individuals, who have spent so much of their lives on the streets, 

must relearn the basics of normal daily living. Many chronic inebriates have long-term 

cognitive damage from their rough lifestyles as well as underlying mental illnesses.18, †

Factors Contributing to Chronic Public Inebriation

The level and degree of harm caused by chronic public inebriation is affected by a number 

of contributing factors, which may include the following: 

Lack of Adequate Alcohol Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Counseling Services

This can compel police to deal with the problem solely as a criminal issue, with less than 

optimal results.

† Deni McLagan with Mental Health Systems in San Diego talks about the difficulties of changing decades of dysfunctional 

behavior among long-time chronic inebriates: “The first 30 days we’re modeling social behaviors with them, such as hygiene, 

riding the bus, feeding themselves, taking medications. We’re just trying to get the guy to shave and bathe in the first month. In 

the second or third, we’ll get them employment.”

The Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

High Concentrations of Businesses that Sell Inexpensive Alcohol 

An area with many retailers of alcoholic beverages may attract chronic inebriates to the area 

and facilitate their problem behavior. However, hot spots—places where inebriates tend 

to concentrate and cause problems (e.g., parks, transit stations, the periphery of shelters, 

near liquor stores)—near businesses that sell alcohol do not necessarily coincide with dense 

clusters of the establishments themselves, nor do they coincide with areas in which general 

crime levels are high or with areas with a high level of lethal violence related to alcohol 

use.19

Densely Populated Areas 

These areas are more likely to attract chronic inebriates, because they often are 

accompanied by better opportunities for procuring alcohol and the money needed to 

purchase it, as well as providing some measure of anonymity for inebriates.

Public Transit Stations, Trains, and Buses 

Public areas tend to often serve as points of congregation for chronic inebriates, and poorly 

designed and managed ones facilitate problem behavior. 

Laws and Regulations 

While normally designed to eliminate problems, sometimes laws and regulations that 

facilitate the sale of single-serving containers, fortified wines, malt liquor, and other low 

cost/higher alcohol-content beverages are likely to increase chronic inebriates’ consumption 

and intoxication levels, and, thereby, their problem behavior.

Laws and Public Drunkenness

The existence of laws that criminalize—and the absence of laws that decriminalize—public 

inebriation provide resources for a medical-treatment response will shape how police and 

others are able to address the problem.

A High Rate of Homelessness 

Whatever its cause, homelessness is likely to coincide with a high level of chronic public 

inebriation, because residential stability is an important predicate for effective substance 

abuse treatment.20
| 14 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 15 |

Predominant Local Standards for and Sensibilities about Public Order 

Each community usually has its local standards and sensibilities about public order. Some 

communities are considerably more tolerant than others of deviant or disorderly behavior in 

public. General community attitudes are usually then reflected in elected officials’ attitudes 

towards the problem.

Police Department Operational Priorities 

Like individual communities, police departments also vary. Some police agencies can afford 

to devote personnel to the careful management of chronic public inebriation; others cannot.

Understanding Your Local Problem

Understanding Your Local Problem

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will help you frame your own 

local analysis questions, determine effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, 

and select appropriate responses.

Stakeholders

Any systematic understanding of your particular local problem also begins with identification 

of those individuals and organizations within your community who are affected by or are 

called to respond when chronically inebriated individuals create a service demand. 

The various groups of community stakeholders will likely have divergent—and sometimes 

conflicting—priorities, perspectives, and goals that will have to be effectively reconciled. In 

addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have an interest in the problem 

of chronic inebriation and should be considered for the contribution they might make in 

gathering information about the problem and forming systematic responses to it:

• Social services agencies. Government agencies and nongovernment organizations serving 

chronic inebriates have an interest in improving living conditions for their clients, but 

they also are interested in reducing the level of resources consumed by relatively few 

chronically needy clients. They also have data specific to certain individuals, service 

areas, and groups that police may not have as well as expertise and resources to improve 

responses. These agencies and organizations may include those focused on issues related 

to the homeless, alcohol or substance abuse and addiction, mental illness, veterans, 

probationers and parolees, the chronically unemployed, and displaced persons.

• Health care and emergency medical service providers. These organizations may be public 

or private. Along with the police, these organizations interact with many chronically 

inebriated individuals on a routine or repeated basis, or both. Like social service 

agencies, they may have data, expertise, and resources otherwise unavailable to other 

system actors. These organizations are frequently the frontline portal through which 

chronic inebriates are offered sobriety counseling; they also identify physical and mental 

health issues that might otherwise go unattended. They also bear a considerable share 

of the financial burden associated with the treatment and care of chronically inebriated 

individuals.
| 16 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 17 |

• Religious and charitable organizations. As with social services agencies, these groups are 

interested in improving the daily lives of the populations they serve. Rather than seeking 

broader solutions to individual problems, religious and charitable organizations may 

tailor their efforts to more immediate needs, such as food, clothing, heat, and shelter. 

These organizations may also provide monetary support for programs. Likewise, their 

staff and congregations can be valuable sources of volunteers. Religious organizations 

may help shape the moral or ethical content of public policy discussions about 

community responses to chronic public inebriation.

• Residents who live near, work, or travel through areas where chronic inebriates routinely 

gather. People who live near parks, liquor stores, public transit stations, clinics, or other 

service locations frequented by chronically inebriated individuals may be especially 

prone to unwanted interaction with this population. This part of the community 

often suffers disproportionately from crimes committed by chronic inebriates. They 

may be the victims of aggressive panhandling, petty theft, property damage, or verbal 

or physical assaults. They may simply experience annoyance or discomfort at their 

“forced” proximity to individuals whom they may take to be irrational, diseased, 

unclean, bothersome, or criminal. Their interests may be satisfied by simply displacing 

or pushing the problem individuals out of their immediate area. Even so, these residents 

may be able to provide you with information about specific chronically inebriated 

individuals and the particular nature of crime and disorder in their area.

• Businesses. Businesses can be both the frequent targets and unwitting enablers of crime 

and disorder that can accompany a population of chronically inebriated individuals. 

Where certain merchants and restaurant owners may regard this population as a liability 

(for having to begrudgingly tolerate the use of their premises or imposition upon their 

clientele), a liquor or convenience store owner may have a vastly different view. Because 

of this duality, local business owners may or may not be motivated to support a given 

local solution. That said, business owners may need to be educated as to how a given 

response might benefit them, even if it appears on its face to hold negative consequences 

(e.g., a decline in sales due to sales restrictions). 

Understanding Your Local Problem

• Media. Local media coverage can influence how the public perceives the problem of 

chronic inebriation. Media reports centered on chronic inebriation and the broad public 

costs associated with it will doubtless raise awareness of the issue. Good investigative 

journalism about chronic public inebriation can supplement your own analysis of the 

problem. Unbalanced or overly editorialized coverage of the problem, however, may 

work against you. Therefore, it is essential to involve members of the press early in your 

planning efforts. If properly managed, the media can be a potent ally in communicating 

program goals and tailoring public expectations to the realities at hand. 

• Chronically inebriated individuals. It is perhaps an obvious point, but the chronically 

inebriated themselves have a central stake in the public response to them. Though 

little publicized, chronic public inebriates may experience victimization at the hands 

of both the public as well as other chronic inebriates, some of which goes unreported. 

Chronic inebriates themselves have information you need about criminal victimization 

and risky behavior within their community. Understanding chronic public inebriates as 

both “victims” and “offenders” is key to a more effective response. Understanding their 

perspectives, attitudes, and expectations is an important part of developing effective 

strategies to combat the problem.

• Regulatory agencies. The cooperation of organizations that regulate or license the sale of 

alcohol may be crucial to the success of any response predicated on changing alcohol 

availability. Moreover, these agencies may have a familiarity with sales patterns and 

practices that could be useful in understanding your local problem.
| 18 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 19 |

Asking the Right Questions

Based on the data and input from community stakeholders, the nature and scope of local 

problems will start to come into focus. Before planning your response, you need to establish 

the basic scope and dimension of your problem. Some relevant questions might include:

Incidents

• What are the primary types of incidents related to chronic public inebriation (e.g., 

disorderly conduct, medical distress, panhandling, loitering) that generate calls for police 

service?

• How do the nature and seriousness of incidents involving chronic public inebriation 

vary across the service area?

• What is the cost to the local government to respond to these incidents (including police, 

emergency medical services (EMS), and detoxification costs)?

Offenders

• Do a majority (or even a significant number) of incidents involve the same core group 

of chronic inebriates?

• Are there situational or background characteristics common to frequent or recurrent 

offenders (e.g., homelessness, mental illness, veterans’ status)?

• How much prior contact have individual chronic inebriates had with police? What 

has been the nature of that contact (e.g., as victim, serious-crime offender, petty-crime 

offender, nuisance offender)? 

• Are chronic public inebriates long-time residents of your community or recent arrivals? 

Victims

• Who commonly complains about the behavior of or conditions created by chronic 

public inebriates (e.g., merchants, passersby, residents, or other street people)?

• What specifically is the nature of the complaints (e.g., loss of business revenue, reduced 

access to public spaces, intimidation, unsightliness or odor, concern for inebriates’ 

welfare, criminal victimization)?

• How commonly are chronic public inebriates victims?

• What is the nature of chronic public inebriates’ victimization (e.g., theft of their 

property, assault, harassment, exposure to hazards)?

Understanding Your Local Problem

Locations and Times

• Do complaints and incidents tend to cluster around particular places; or around 

particular seasons, days, or times of day? (The identification of chronic inebriation hot 

spots in your community may be apparent upon casual observation, or it may require 

detailed mapping and analysis to discern.)

• What features of identified hot spots or times seem to contribute to the complaints and 

incidents?

Current Responses to the Problem

• How are officers currently authorized, trained, and expected to handle incidents 

involving chronic public inebriation?

• How do officers actually handle incidents involving chronic public inebriation? (Some 

officers might have developed novel ways of handling these incidents; some of these will 

be appropriate and effective, and some will not).

• What facilities and resources are available to officers to assist them in responding to the 

needs of chronic public inebriates? 

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. Even though the seriousness of a given problem may drive a desire for immediate 

action, the most successful responses are borne out of careful planning. As such, 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 Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers and 

Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.
| 20 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 21 |

In thinking about the relative success or failure of a given response, you will want to 

consider exactly what goals and outcomes are desirable, appropriate, and realistic for your 

community. Some communities that have employed the following responses regard success 

as the mere removal of an obvious problem from public view (e.g., reducing the number 

of chronic inebriates in the city parks). Some are much more holistic, defining success not 

only in terms of removing public disorder or lessening certain service demands, but as a 

measure of facilitating positive change in the lives of the chronic inebriates themselves. 

While broad proclamations of success or failure are often difficult to make without some 

qualification, you will likely need to assess any response with a mixture of both qualitative 

and quantitative techniques to gauge your effectiveness.

Evaluation (or assessment) measures are of two types: process measures and outcome 

measures. Process measures show the extent to which responses were properly implemented. 

Outcome measures show the extent to which the responses reduced the level or severity 

of the problem. Because your local circumstances may differ from those of other places, 

you might develop additional questions unique to your local problem. The following are 

potentially relevant measures:

Process Measures

• Improved understanding of providers’ respective roles, responsibilities, and options at 

each point in the process

• Adequacy of resources (e.g., personnel, facilities, vehicles, and programs) to meet the 

service demand

• Reduced volume of intoxicating beverage sales to chronic inebriates

• Increased participation among chronic inebriates in alcohol- or drug-treatment 

programs

• Reduced public costs of responding to chronic public inebriation

Understanding Your Local Problem

Outcome Measures

• Reduced number of arrests or involuntary detentions of chronic public inebriates

• Reduced number of calls for police service related to chronic public inebriation

• Reduced number of incidents in or near homeless shelters and sobering centers

• Reduced victimization of chronic inebriates (e.g., fewer crimes, fewer deaths and 

injuries)

• Reduced number of calls for emergency medical service related to chronic inebriation

• Reduced number of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and hospital stays by 

chronic inebriates

• Reduced recidivism among chronic public inebriates, especially among most frequent 

offenders

• Reduced public costs for chronic public inebriates

• More positive perceptions of the problem of chronic public inebriates in affected 

communities 

• Increased legitimate use of public areas (e.g., parks and sidewalks) once abdicated to 

chronic inebriates
| 23 |

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public 

Inebriation

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors 

contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline 

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your 

particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police 

reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community’s problem. 

It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each 

response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve several 

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing 

or solving the problem. This has proven especially the case in confronting chronic 

inebriation.21

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, the responsibility of responding may need to be shifted toward 

those who have the capacity to implement more effective responses. For more detailed 

information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and 

Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.

For further information on managing the implementation of response strategies, see 

Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 7, Implementing Responses to Problems.
| 24 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 25 |

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

1. Educating the community about the problem. Unless community members are 

directly affected by chronic public inebriation, they may be unaware of the broader 

harms caused by the problem or fail to understand the factors that give rise to it and, 

as a result, fail to support your planned responses. It is especially important to convey 

to local people that arrest and punishment of chronic inebriates alone will not solve 

the problem.

2. Developing community support for your response. Community support is crucial 

to the long-term viability of your response strategy. Many of the specific responses 

described below require changes that will directly affect business, government, and social 

service practices. If, for example, the police response is perceived—rightly or wrongly—

by community advocacy groups, charities, or social service providers as being heavy 

handed or counter to human dignity, community support for your efforts may suffer. 

3. Decriminalizing public inebriation. Many, but not all, states and local jurisdictions 

have shifted toward a medical treatment model to address chronic public inebriation. 

Decriminalizing chronic inebriation shifts the bulk of the processing of this group 

from criminal justice to social service agencies. This can lead to confusion, resentment, 

and misunderstanding among the professionals who are involved. If your jurisdiction 

is newly shifting toward decriminalizing public inebriation, it is important that you 

understand and anticipate the following implications:

Combined responses. Most jurisdictions blend therapeutic and punitive mechanisms for 

processing chronically inebriated persons.22 Try to avoid allowing decriminalization and a 

medical treatment model to be characterized as a soft or weak approach to the problem. 

Diverse special populations. Local populations of chronic inebriates are diverse in 

composition. Some chronic inebriates will be homeless; others will not (conversely, some 

homeless persons will be chronically inebriated, and others will not). Some members 

of both the homeless and chronic-inebriate populations will also have mental illnesses, 

other substance abuse problems, or other serious problems. In short, the homeless and 

the chronically inebriated are neither wholly discrete nor wholly overlapping groups. 

Decriminalization efforts should recognize the diverse and complicated issues these special 

populations present.23

Dispersed problem areas. In a previous era, “skid rows” served as a concentration point for 

the destitute, drunk, and disaffiliated. The combined forces of urban renewal, gentrification, 

and preservation have led these concentrations to disperse. Instead, smaller “mini-skid rows” 

have emerged in many places.24

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

Local enforcement attitudes. Those responsible for enforcing applicable laws have differing 

sensibilities and priorities. Many factors influence the character of local law enforcement: 

community culture, dominant policing style, administrative priorities and style, individual 

officers’ priorities, beat conditions for patrol officers, and so forth.25

Inadequacy of judicial action alone. Decriminalization of chronic inebriation tends to reduce 

rather than end the use of criminal processing to deal with public drunkenness.26 When 

chronic inebriation is effectively decriminalized by court decrees alone, rather than by 

carefully planned legislation and properly resourced alternatives, it can cause confusion 

among police who might perceive decriminalization as undermining their capacity to deal 

with the problem. Deprived of the ability to charge individuals with public drunkenness, 

police may simply reclassify other behaviors to align with available sanctions (e.g., 

charging inebriates with such catch-all offenses as disorderly conduct), thus defeating the 

diversionary goal of decriminalization.27, † Ideally, police should be involved in planning 

a decriminalization model and be continually involved as implementation strategies are 

developed.28

Organized change. For decriminalization of chronic inebriation to have sustainable and 

positive outcomes, it must be undertaken by a group of organizational-level stakeholders 

whose shared goals are mirrored in the policy change.29

Anticipating and resolving goal conflict. Because interorganizational goals may not be aligned 

or reflected in the simple act of decriminalization, it can result in conflict or confusion as to 

new roles and responsibilities.30 Decriminalization invariably places police in closer contact 

with therapeutic service providers (i.e., sobering centers, hospitals, and social workers). 

Criminal justice and social service staff often have differing operational mandates, and the 

tension between the two spheres must be addressed.31

Shifting costs. Reducing the role of the criminal justice system in processing chronic 

inebriates implies that other actors and organizations in society will assume the associated 

costs.32 Some of the costs that might have to be redistributed in a decriminalization model 

are: personnel to provide custodial and medical care of inebriates and perhaps to actively 

seek out chronic inebriates in public places; detoxification facilities in lieu of jail cells; 

transportation of inebriates to sobering centers; judicial hearing officers to hear contested 

involuntary commitments; and new recordkeeping systems.

† The police manage Skid Row residents in ways that are often only obliquely matters of law enforcement (Bittner 1967).

Police often rely on “outdated, ambiguous and possibly unconstitutional laws” in dealing with chronic inebriates (Gammage, 

Jorgensen, and Jorgensen 1972:39).
| 26 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 27 |

Legal interpretations. Even as legal and social sensibilities have changed with regard to 

the problem of chronic inebriation, the decriminalization question has not been settled 

fully. Some courts continue to see police enforcement of various laws prohibiting conduct 

associated with routine life activities (such as sleeping and bathing) in public places as 

unconstitutional.† Such legal decisions greatly influence and complicate the police role in 

dealing with chronically inebriated individuals.33

Community attitudes. Efforts to address chronic inebriation as a social problem may be 

met with hostility or indifference from the public. Some community members may regard 

chronic inebriation as self-induced and resent the allocation of public resources to address 

it. Because the chronic inebriate is seen as unproductive (and by extension, morally flawed) 

or “infectious,”34 rendering assistance may be regarded as enabling the negative behavior. As 

such, some community members may prefer that chronic inebriates be kept “out of sight 

and out of mind.” 

4. Tailoring interventions to individual needs. Because not all chronic inebriates have 

the same medical, psychological, and social needs, the system must have sufficient 

flexibility if it is to effectively address individual circumstances. 35, ‡ At a minimum, 

interventions should differentiate among individuals in each of the four general 

behavioral/need classifications of chronically inebriated persons described below.§

† In Jones v. City of Los Angeles [444 F.3rd 1118 (2006)], the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the homeless 

plaintiffs had been subject to “cruel and unusual punishment” as a result of the city’s enforcement of a local ordinance aimed at 

preventing people from sitting or sleeping on city streets, sidewalks, and alleys.

‡ Chronic alcohol abuse is known to cause or contribute to the following health problems: Central nervous system: alcoholic 

dementia, blackouts (anterograde amnesia), central pontine myelinosis, cerebellar degeneration, epilepsy, Marchiavia-Bignami 

syndrome, polyneuropathy, sleep impairment, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, withdrawal, and delirium tremens; Muscles: acute 

or chronic myopathy, cardiovascular system, Beriberi heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, cardiomyopathy, and hypertension; 

Metabolism: hyperlipidaemia, hyperuricaemia, hypoglycaemia, and obesity; Endocrine system: pseudo-Cushings syndrome; 

Respiratory system: chest infections; Gastrointestinal system: acute gastritis: carcinoma of mouth, oesophagus, or large bowel; 

liver disease; and pancreatic disease; Haemopoiesis: macrocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and leucopenia; Bone: osteoporosis and 

osteomalacia (Kumar and Clark 2002).

§ While a more comprehensive taxonomy might be possible, this simple distinction is sufficient to distinguish among the major 

categories of client need. For a fuller explanation of this scheme, see Vermont Public Inebriate Task Force (2010).

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

A Sample Triage Plan

To determine an inebriated individual’s needs, first responders should ascertain whether:

1. Subject is inebriated, but not incapacitated. Subject may be processed without medical 

or mental health placement.

2. Subject is medically unstable due to physical or mental health issues (or 

co-occurring diagnoses). A medical or mental health placement is needed.

3. Subject is incapacitated, medically stable, and cooperative. Subject could be held at 

supervised shelter or sobering center.

4. Subject is incapacitated, medically stable, but exhibits aggressive, uncooperative, 

unpredictable, or violent behavior. Protective custody should be available as a 

placement option.

While the four categories of the Sample Triage Plan do not address all contingencies—such 

as pending criminal charges or warrants—policy makers should ask whether decision-making 

mechanisms of this kind are in place to direct inebriated subjects to the proper level of service and 

supervision. As above, this also implies that relevant system staff will be trained to perform this 

triage and that all parties adhere to a consistent scale for assignment.

Source: Adapted from Vermont Public Inebriate Task Force (2010).

5. Providing integrated social and health services. Because many chronic public 

inebriates are homeless as well as having other physical and mental health issues, 

any effective program of responses must recognize this broad constellation of needs. 

Necessarily then, a well-conceived response to the problem of chronic inebriation must 

also include elements that address these other issues. For example, responses focused 

on reducing homelessness—that lead to greater residential stability for an individual—

might also position that person to receive regular alcoholism counseling and mental 

and physical health care. Increased residential stability, receipt of regular counseling, 

and health care, in turn, might reduce that person’s motivation to commit petty crimes 

or to engage in inappropriate uses of public space and other negative acts.36
| 28 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 29 |

6. Training service providers to respond appropriately. While many community 

service providers—such as police officers, EMTs, doctors, social workers, and 

lawyers—already possess extensive technical and specialized training in their particular 

area of competency, most successful responses involve a level of coordination, shared 

goals and integrated procedures across professional boundaries. With any changes 

to a given agency’s standard operating procedures—especially those that require 

the cooperation of individuals in other organizations—a period of retraining to 

establish new policy or procedural guidelines will be necessary. As with community 

and business leaders, those individuals who are responsible for implementing your 

programs will need to be educated as to what the new expectations and procedures 

are, and why these changes are necessary and important. 

Building on the research concerning alcoholism and homelessness,

stakeholders in Seattle, Washington, developed a unique response that took aim at the enormous 

resource burdens chronically inebriated individuals were placing on the area. A group of 199 

individuals who presented among the highest costs on the system were selected for no-cost 

housing in the Housing First residential facility. They were offered free meals and on-site 

health services, but there was no requirement for substance abuse treatment placed on them.

Costs associated with these services averaged $1,220 per person per month. After one year, a 

program evaluation revealed that in the year preceding placement at Housing First, the program 

participants had incurred over $8 million in collective costs (jails, EMS, hospital, emergency 

department, detoxification, Medicare, and so forth). After one year in the program, participants’ 

costs had dropped to $4 million. The average daily alcohol consumption among residents had 

dropped from 15.7 to 10.6 drinks per day. From these results, researchers concluded that stable 

housing, coupled with ready access to health services, while posing considerable up-front 

expense, could yield marked reduction in several related system costs (Levin 2009). A subsequent 

study observed similar results: after one year in the Housing First residential program, average 

associated monthly costs per person dropped from $4,066 to $958. The total average monthly cost 

per person—after factoring in housing costs—was $2,449 (Larimer et al. 2009).

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

Specific Responses to Chronic Public Inebriation

Restricting Alcohol Sales to Chronic Inebriates

7. Prohibiting alcohol sales to chronic inebriates. The central element of this response 

is to prohibit the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages to specific individuals 

deemed to be chronic inebriates and who engage in a disproportionate amount of 

undesirable behavior. Decreased alcohol availability should yield a similar decrease in 

problems caused by chronic inebriates.†

Some communities implementing this response have “dusted off” existing, but 

unenforced, laws prohibiting alcohol sales to “habitual drunkards.”37 For others, new 

enabling legislation may be required. The Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department 

established a “no-serve” list as one element of their overall response to chronic public 

inebriation.38 The criteria for being placed on their no-serve list included: having three 

or more alcohol-involved arrests in a 3-month period; being incapacitated by alcohol, 

requiring detoxification three or more times in a 3-month period; or involvement in 

behavior within a particular area of town that resulted in a police call for service. The 

police then sought to educate business owners in the area as to their legal responsibility 

to decline service to listed individuals. An interesting dimension of Green Bay’s 

response is that the initiative survived a challenge by a local civil rights group, although 

not through a formal court ruling.39 You should consult your legal counsel to ensure 

that a similar approach would be valid in your jurisdiction.

A similar approach was taken by the Pinellas Park (Florida) Police Department.40

Its analysis of the problem revealed that a very small group of individuals (28) was 

responsible for the bulk of arrests and other alcohol-involved calls for service. Pinellas 

Park police similarly relied on a disused “habitual drunkard” ordinance to target 

individuals. To be placed in what the Pinellas Park police refer to as “the Book,” one 

must have been convicted of driving under the influence, or have three convictions for 

disorderly intoxication.41 Once compiled, the Book was annotated with photographs 

of the identified individuals. As in Green Bay, the police then educated area business 

owners as to their legal obligations. The Book was presented to 25 area alcohol 

vendors. As enforcement of the ordinance began, there was an immediate drop in calls 

for service related to chronic inebriation. To make certain the information contained in 

the Book was current, it was reviewed on a monthly basis and revised as necessary.

† Although the circumstances were somewhat unique, a total ban on alcohol sales and possession in Barrow, Alaska, provided 

further evidence that reducing the availability of alcohol reduced alcohol consumption and attendant problems, even among 

chronic public inebriates (North Slope Borough Department of Public Safety 1995).
| 30 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 31 |

©Wikimedia Commons

Many cities have instituted alcohol impact 

areas that either restrict or prohibit alcohol 

consumption. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

File:Streetdrinking24102008148.jpg

8. Establishing alcohol impact areas. Alcohol Impact Areas (AIAs) are designed 

to address the problem of chronic inebriation by placing geographically linked 

restrictions on the sale, consumption, purchase privileges, or licensing related to 

alcoholic beverages. Cities that have established AIAs include Spokane, Seattle, and 

Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. 

There are a number of different strategies by which cities have approached AIA 

regulation. Perhaps the most common response is to enact restrictions on the sale 

of particular types and sizes of alcoholic beverages—with an emphasis on those 

most commonly purchased by chronic inebriates—within a specific geographic area. 

Restricted items might include fortified wine, high-alcohol-content beer,42 malt liquor, 

and beverages packaged as single servings or containers under a certain volume.†

Generally, what evolves is a list of banned beverage brands, types, and sizes that is 

disseminated to liquor vendors in the AIA. Once developed and distributed, the list 

must be monitored and amended as new products enter the market. 

Responsibility for enforcing AIA regulations might shift from police to an alcohol 

license regulating agency. Establishing an AIA may require changes in laws at both a 

state and local level. In Washington State, the state legislature enacted guidelines for 

AIAs that were then implemented by local governments.43

† Under Washington State law regarding AIAs, restricted beer and wine products must have minimum alcohol content of 5.7 

percent by volume and 12 percent by volume, respectively.

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

9. Restricting panhandling.† Controlling panhandling in areas where chronic public 

inebriation is prevalent can reduce a primary source of money that chronic inebriates 

use to purchase alcohol. Some police agencies have discovered that increasing the time 

and effort required of chronic inebriates to acquire the money needed to buy alcohol 

has the effect of reducing the quantity of alcohol they consume in a day, reducing the 

likelihood that they will reach levels of alcohol incapacitation on any given day.44

Facilitating Counseling, Treatment, and Social Services

Programs that offer counseling, treatment, and/or social services in lieu of incarceration 

often identify program candidates on the basis of their histories of alcohol-related 

offenses.45 Whereas enforcement responses rely on police action, diversion interventions 

usually occur during, after, or in lieu of a period of incarceration, and accordingly, 

prosecutors, courts, or corrections agencies are more likely to assume responsibility for 

administering and managing diversion programs. 46 These programs vary greatly in their 

duration and level of comprehensiveness. They may be brief intervention strategies with 

a reduction in alcohol consumption as the primary goal.47 They may focus on increasing 

residential stability,48 providing medical and therapeutic services,49 or some combination 

of efforts designed to align the interests of the criminal justice system with the social service 

and therapeutic community. Two common response techniques are described below.

10. Using sobering centers. Sobering centers are short-term (a few hours to overnight) 

facilities where individuals not in need of medical treatment can safely sober up. 

Sobering centers may be publicly or privately run, or some combination of the two. 

Under the facility’s supervision, inebriated individuals use sobering centers in lieu 

of “sleeping it off” in local jail “drunk tanks” or out in public. These facilities afford 

temporary protection from predators while the individual has a diminished capacity 

to care for himself. Individuals are often taken to a sobering center by a special shuttle 

or police patrol. There they may be screened for medical problems and can be referred 

for medical treatment, if necessary. Many facilities provide case management services 

and referrals to substance abuse counseling. Sobering centers offer alternatives to more 

expensive hospital emergency departments and often-overcrowded jails.50

† See Problem-Specific Guide No. 13, Panhandling, for further information.
| 32 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 33 |

While many communities have found sobering centers to be an important element 

of their response strategies, when they are the primary response (or combined with 

a predominantly criminalization model), there is evidence they do little to interrupt 

the problem of chronic inebriation.51 Other researchers have argued that the success 

of so-called “brief intervention” strategies is strongly dependent upon the willingness 

of the individual to change and the context in which the intervention is made.52

Regardless of that debate, there is evidence that providing a safe place for chronic 

inebriates to sober up can help reduce calls for service and reduce victimization of the 

inebriates. On the other hand, inadequate detoxification resources (either the number 

of sobering centers or the bed space in them) is likely to result in increased behavioral 

problems on the street, such as panhandling.53

A common strategy for integrating sobering centers into the process of dealing with 

chronic inebriates positions these facilities as a point of assessment and decision-making 

for responders. For example, Escondido Community Sobering Service, run by the 

nonprofit group, Interfaith Community Services in Escondido, California, provides a 

place for noncombative and other low-risk inebriates to “sleep it off.” The center enjoys 

both police and community support, because it reduces taxpayer expenditure associated 

with inebriates and frees the police to attend to other matters.54 This partnership 

demonstrates one way in which public-private partnerships can facilitate mutual goals. 

Prior to the center’s opening, officers might spend as much as 3 hours booking an 

inebriate into jail. The availability of this center greatly shortens the officer’s investment 

of time. Moreover, inebriates who agree to sober up at the center aren’t necessarily given 

a criminal citation, so long as they are cooperative. Faced with the choice between 

4 hours at the center or 12 hours (or more) in jail, many find the center attractive. 

The center also represents considerable savings for the community. According to the 

nonprofit that manages the center, the average cost per intake is approximately $38, 

compared to $138 for jail housing and an additional $100 in police salaries associated 

with processing.

Permitting an inebriate use of this alternative is, in part, a matter of police discretion. 

Not everyone taken into custody has the option of going there. They cannot be a flight 

risk nor can they have been taken into custody as the result of fighting. Additionally, 

the inebriate must heed the direction of center staff, which includes waiting for 

clearance to leave.

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

Many communities have used analysis of sobering-center admissions to develop more 

informed strategies. Analysts for the San Diego Serial Inebriate Program discovered 

that detoxification of chronic inebriates in area hospital emergency rooms created 

an overflow crisis; inebriates used so much bed space that emergency rooms had 

to divert incoming patients to other hospitals. Moreover, they discovered that local 

detoxification center policy was inadvertently fostering a “revolving door” of serial 

offenders by refusing to admit individuals who had been through its intake five times 

within the past 30 days; those individuals would then commonly be booked into jail, 

only to be released 4 to 24 hours later, without criminal charges. Realization of the 

detoxification crisis prompted the police and community to develop a program in 

conjunction with a local detoxification center, the prosecutor’s office, and local courts. 

The program was based on a model developed for drug courts in which reduction 

of repeated offending was a primary goal. This was accomplished through graduated 

sentencing in which mandatory attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings was 

a central feature. In so doing, the demand was reduced both on sobering centers and 

area emergency rooms.55

11. Providing alcohol treatment in jail or under court order. The place of 

rehabilitation and substance abuse treatment as an alternative or adjunct to 

incarceration has been studied for many decades.56 Arrest and prosecution can be the 

gateway to treatment. 

In a study of responses that presage modern drug courts, researchers near Los Angeles 

tracked the re-arrest rates of individuals who, in exchange for a suspended sentence, 

agreed to enter residential treatment for alcoholism.57 The recommended length of 

stay was 90 days, and the facility could not legally compel an individual to remain 

for the duration. If individuals successfully completed treatment, they were given 177 

days’ credit. If they were rearrested within 12 months from the date of referral, the 

suspended sentence was enforced. The researchers found a nearly 15 percent decline 

in the re-arrest rate of people who completed the program. Interestingly though, the 

average number of days spent incarcerated during the first post-treatment year rose 

markedly. The researchers note that judges had a tendency to impose longer jail terms 

after discharge from a rehabilitation center, but there were nonetheless significant 

savings for the justice system. The researchers attribute these savings to less frequent 

arrests and arraignments.58
| 34 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 35 |

Some research also notes a connection between initial sentence length and receptivity to 

treatment. In a study of the San Diego Serial Inebriate Program, researchers found that 

the threat of jail is an important inducement for treatment. Only about half of those 

who entered the system chose treatment, but they chose it more often when the jail 

term they faced was longer. Treatment was accepted by 20 percent of those who faced a 

sentence of 30 days or fewer as opposed to 63 percent of those looking at 150 days or 

more in jail.59

Another example of jail diversion treatment can be found in St. Louis. Mirroring 

what has already been well established, almost half of the St. Louis study subjects 

reported “stable housing” as the one area of life in which they most needed help. This 

was followed very closely by “problems of mental stability and coping with everyday 

life.”60 The St. Louis jail diversion project was successful in fostering many positive 

outcomes for individuals, and also produced improved organizational cooperation and 

coordination between criminal justice system staff and mental health/substance abuse 

treatment providers.61

Changing the Way Public Spaces Are Used

12. Restricting chronic public inebriates’ access to public spaces. Managers of 

public spaces, including police, using the legal principles of eviction, trespass, and 

conditional release from incarceration, might ban targeted chronic inebriates from 

specific public spaces.62 Banishment might, with the cooperation of merchants and 

facility managers, extend to businesses and social service facilities, such as homeless 

shelters, so as to avoid simply displacing the serial offenders and their problematic 

behavior. You should consult with local legal counsel to ensure that any place bans 

are implemented lawfully.

In instances where a very small number of individuals is at issue, responses that simply 

disperse or move the problem may be acceptable on some level. In situations where 

larger groups of individuals are involved, more comprehensive responses may be 

necessary.

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

An analysis by San Diego police revealed that the bulk of problems 

related to chronic inebriation at the Clairemont Town Mall was traceable to the actions of just four 

individuals. Moreover, it was discovered that officers from the private security company (contracted 

by mall management) had developed a complacent attitude with regard to these four people.

The police worked with the property manager and interviewed merchants, mall patrons, and the 

inebriates themselves, and devised a solution. The interviews disclosed that the inebriates used 

the mall because panhandling, drinking, and improper lodging were tolerated there. Remarkably, 

the private security officers had permitted the individuals to live in an inoperable motor home 

located in an adjacent parking lot. When those involved took a series of measures—educating 

mall business owners and staff about appropriate responses to the problem, analyzing the 

environmental conditions that facilitated property misuse, replacing the security company, and 

obtaining restraining orders—the four individuals left the property and did not return.

Source: San Diego Police Department, Northern Division (2001).

13. Altering environmental conditions to discourage chronic inebriates’ offensive 

behavior. Managers of places where chronic inebriates tend to congregate or cause 

substantial problems should analyze and alter the characteristics of a given location 

to reduce opportunities for its inappropriate use.† Stakeholders should give particular 

thought to those environmental features of known hot spots that might make it more 

or less inviting to chronic inebriates as a place to drink (e.g., proximity to alcohol 

outlets, seclusion from eyes of police, sufficient privacy to relieve themselves, access 

to foot traffic for panhandling, comfortable seating, protection from the elements). 

In short, responses should be informed by asking what changes to a given area might 

discourage misuse. 

† For more detailed guidance on analyzing crime opportunities at particular places, see Problem-Solving Tools Series Guide No.

8, Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving. 
| 36 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 37 |

Responses to the Problem of Chronic Public Inebriation

15. Conducting enforcement sweeps or crackdowns alone.† As with increased criminal 

penalties, any police response that is predicated solely on a deterrence model typically 

has little lasting value in addressing chronic inebriation. Crackdowns on chronic 

inebriates often focus on “hot spots” like parks, transit stations, and near shelters and 

liquor stores where inebriates tend to cluster and cause problems.‡

An increase in crackdowns and “zero tolerance” policing of uncivil behavior 

(drunkenness, loitering, and so on) gained favor as police agencies moved away from 

traditional-style policing and embraced “broken windows” approaches.67 While 

crackdowns and similar approaches can produce change that is sudden, obvious and 

drastic, as a stand-alone response, they hold little promise of engendering a lasting 

impact on chronic inebriation.§ As noted above about increases in jail time, in some 

instances crackdowns might be used to put a large number chronic inebriates in (albeit 

coerced) contact with treatment and other therapeutic, medical, or social service 

resources, provided jail-based programs are in place to receive them.

† See Response Guide No. 1, The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns, for further information.

‡ While beyond the scope of this guide, an expansive literature on the subject of “hot spot” policing exists. See Weisburd, 

Maherand, and Sherman (1991), Clarke (1983), Brantingham and Brantingham (1981, 1984), Bursik and Grasmick (1993).

§ See Response Guide No. 1, The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns, for further information.

Police in Santa Ana, California, addressed a significant set of problems in the Harbor 

Plaza Shopping Center through a combination of efforts, including changes to the 

surroundings that facilitated misuse of the area. Most of the latter changes were simple: 

locking a dumpster that had been used as shelter and for foraging, closing access to 

secluded areas with locked gates, encouraging merchants to lock and restrict use of 

restrooms to customers, replacing burned-out lights, and removing pay phones that 

were serving as a “business center” for prostitution and other undesirable activities. 

None of these actions was particularly expensive or logistically complex, but in concert, 

they had an impact.63

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

14. Increasing criminal penalties. Increased criminal penalties in and of themselves 

do little to curb crime associated with chronic inebriation.64 The primary flaw in 

this approach owes to the simple fact that the deterrence supposedly induced by 

harsher sanctions assumes the would-be offender is engaged in a calculation of costs 

and benefits, either before making the decision to become a chronic inebriate or in 

deciding to sustain that pattern of behavior. 

There is, however, one caveat to the general ineffectiveness of increased jail terms for 

alcohol-related offenses. In jails where chronic inebriates may receive alcohol counseling 

while serving time, they need to be incarcerated long enough that the treatment can 

be effective.65 Where this is possible, longer incarceration might position the inebriate 

to receive more sustained counseling than otherwise. For some treatment models, legal 

coercion may be a necessary component,66 but coercion or extended incarceration, 

except under carefully defined circumstances and usually in conjunction with other 

responses, appears insufficient to cause meaningful change.†

† When the St. Petersburg (Florida) Police Department began aggressively enforcing chronic inebriation laws in the city’s 

downtown, many of the “regulars” relocated to other jurisdictions. When interviewed about their decision, these regulars 

reported what motivated them to move was not the threat of more jail time but the fact no smoking was permitted in the St.

Petersburg jail (St. Petersburg Police Department 1997).
| 39 |

Appendix 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Chronic 

Public Inebriation

The table below summarizes the responses to chronic inebriation, 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

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

1 24 Educating the 

community 

about the 

problem

Increases 

stakeholder 

acceptance 

of responses; 

improves police 

understanding of 

community needs 

and concerns

...done consistently 

and broadly at each 

stage of response 

planning and 

execution

Community is not 

single-minded; 

may be multiple 

constituencies with 

divergent perceptions 

of the problem and 

different sensibilities as 

to what constitutes an 

appropriate response

2 24 Developing 

community 

support for your 

response

Enhances resources 

needed to address 

problem; reduces 

criticism of police 

efforts to address 

problem

...done consistently 

and broadly across 

many parts of the 

community and 

at each stage of 

response planning 

and execution

May require 

considerable resources 

and effort to develop 

mutual understanding 

of the problem’s scope 

and appropriateness of 

the proposed response; 

requires continual 

reinforcement and 

cultivation
| 40 |

Chronic Public Inebriation Appendix 

| 41 |

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

3 24 Decriminalizing 

public 

inebriation

Shifts resources 

from punishment to 

medical treatment 

which is more likely 

to reduce chronic 

inebriation

...if undertaken 

by organizationlevel stakeholders 

whose shared goals 

are mirrored in the 

change

System staff may 

have conflicting 

organizational cultures 

that are resistant to 

change; staff may not 

accept new procedures 

or responsibilities 

without considerable 

retraining; can be cost 

intensive and logistically 

complicated; public 

may perceive change 

as condoning negative 

behavior

4 26 Tailoring 

interventions to 

individual needs

Differentiates 

between the various 

needs of chronic 

inebriates

...resources and 

procedures are in 

place to address the 

demands created by 

each group

Can be resource 

intensive; may require 

a great deal of planning 

to make categoryappropriate responses 

available

5 27 Providing 

integrated social 

and health 

services

Addresses various 

issues that 

compound one 

another

...mental health, 

housing, and other 

social services are 

integrated into the 

broader strategy

Requires that system 

staff coordinate 

responses to ensure 

individuals are given 

access to whatever 

services or treatment 

they need

6 28 Training service 

providers 

to respond 

appropriately

Improves 

understanding 

of goals and 

organizational roles 

and responsibilities 

which improves 

overall response

...each responder 

understands his/

her role and 

responsibilities in 

the process as well 

that of others

as 

May require a great 

deal of planning and 

education of system 

staff, some of whom 

may be resistant to new 

duties or procedures

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Specific Responses to Chronic Public Inebriation

Restricting Alcohol Sales to Chronic Inebriates

7 29 Prohibiting 

alcohol sales 

to chronic 

inebriates

Increases chronic 

inebriates’ difficulty 

in procuring alcohol 

which reduces 

overall consumption 

and intoxication 

levels

...police and 

alcohol merchants 

coordinate 

efforts to identify 

restricted 

individuals and 

restrictions are 

honored and 

enforced

May be resource intensive 

to identify and process 

restricted individuals; 

typically requires 

enabling legislation; 

requires compliance of 

alcohol vendors, who 

may perceive restrictions 

as detrimental to their 

business; requires 

consistent database 

management of restricted 

individuals

8 30 Establishing 

alcohol impact 

areas

Increases chronic 

inebriates’ difficulty 

in procuring alcohol 

which reduces 

overall consumption 

and intoxication 

levels

...supported by 

alcohol vendors in 

the alcohol impact 

area and if done 

in conjunction 

with the provision 

of other social, 

medical, and 

treatment services 

Typically requires 

enabling legislation; 

requires compliance of 

alcohol vendors who may 

perceive the restrictions 

as detrimental to their 

business; requires regular 

updates to banned 

products lists; requires 

additional oversight of 

alcohol vendors; some 

displacement of problem 

to other areas may occur
| 42 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 43 |

Appendix 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Changing the Way Public Spaces Are Used

12 34 Restricting 

chronic 

inebriates’ access 

to public spaces

Removes inebriates 

from places where 

their behavior 

causes problems for 

others; discourages 

inebriates from 

misbehaving in 

public

...small groups 

of individuals 

cause the bulk 

of problems 

and if done in 

conjunction with 

the provision 

of other social, 

medical, and 

treatment services

May be resource intensive 

to identify and process 

the formal removal of 

each individual; requires 

careful attention to 

individuals’ due process 

rights; some displacement 

of problem individuals to 

other areas may occur

13 35 Altering 

environmental 

conditions 

to discourage 

chronic 

inebriates’ 

offensive 

behavior

Alters the 

characteristics of an 

area that facilitate 

undesirable behavior

...changes are 

predicated on a 

systematic analysis 

of problem area 

with consultation 

of design, 

engineering, or 

transportation 

specialists

Environmental changes 

can be costly; may 

require major changes in 

traffic flow, architecture, 

or other system-level 

features; underlying 

design problems can be 

difficult to detect

Responses with Limited Effectiveness 

14 36 Increasing 

criminal 

penalties

Intended to deter 

public intoxication 

and disorderly 

behavior

...used as leverage 

to promote alcohol 

treatment 

Chronic alcoholism 

undermines deterrent 

effect of punishment; 

most problematic 

individuals already 

spend lengthy periods 

incarcerated with little 

deterrent effect

15 37 Conducting 

enforcement 

sweeps or 

crackdowns 

alone

Can quickly remove 

large numbers of 

inebriates from 

public view

...done in 

conjunction with 

the provision 

of other social, 

medical, and 

treatment services 

May be perceived as 

unduly harsh and risks 

violations to individuals’ 

due process rights; may 

be resource intensive; 

likely only to remove 

inebriates from public 

view for short term 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

9 31 Restricting 

panhandling

Increases chronic 

inebriates’ difficulty 

in procuring alcohol 

which reduces 

overall consumption 

and intoxication 

levels

...panhandling 

restrictions are 

enforced

Laws prohibiting 

panhandling should 

be carefully drafted to 

survive legal challenges; 

some displacement of 

chronic inebriates to 

other areas might occur; 

some increased theft of 

alcohol might occur

10 31 Using sobering 

centers

Reduces inebriates’ 

risks to themselves 

and others; promotes 

follow-up alcohol 

treatment; reduces 

criminal justice 

system costs

...done in 

conjunction with 

the provision 

of other social, 

medical, and 

treatment services 

May be resource 

intensive to provide 

shelter for a large 

population of inebriates; 

often requires publicprivate coordination; 

may be negatively 

perceived as facilitating 

chronic inebriation; 

short-term treatment 

may be perceived as 

wasteful of resources by 

treatment staff 

11 33 Providing alcohol 

treatment in jail 

or under court 

order 

Increases inebriates’ 

motivation to accept 

treatment

...the inebriate is 

receptive to the 

treatment and 

the treatment 

is provided in 

a sustained and 

consistent manner

May be resource intensive 

to provide treatment 

for a large population 

of inebriates; success 

may depend heavily on 

inebriates’ motivation 

to participate in the 

program
| 45 |

References

References

Aaronson, David E., C. Thomas Dienes, and Michael C. Musheno. 1977. “Policing 

Public Inebriates in Decriminalized Cities: A Summary of Methods and Findings.” 

Contemporary Drug Problems 6 (Winter): 607–627.

Aaronson, David E., C. Thomas Dienes, and Michael C. Musheno. 1982. 

Decriminalization of Public Drunkenness: Tracing The Implementation of a Public Policy.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice.

Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services. 2008. “Sobering Center: Safe House.” 

Argeriou, Milton, and Dennis McCarty. 1993. “The Use of Shelters as Substance Abuse 

Stabilization Sites.” Journal of Mental Health Administration 20:126–137.

Bahr, Howard M. 1973. Skid Row: An Introduction to Disaffiliation. New York: Oxford 

University Press.

Baumhol, Jim. 1990. “Inebriate Institutions of North America, 1840-1920.” British 

Journal of Addiction 85:1187–1204.

Bayley, David H. 1990. Patterns of Policing. Newark, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Beavan, Stephen. 2008. “A More Complex Detox. Downtown Bar Patrols Join the 

Chronic Drinkers and Drug Abusers Who Land at Central City Concern’s Sobering 

Station.” The Oregonian, July 3.

Bittner, Egon. 1967. “The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peacekeeping.” American 

Sociological Review 32(5): 699–715.

Block, Richard L., and Carolyn R. Block. 2007. “Space, Place and Crime: Hot Spot Areas 

and Hot Places of Liquor-Related Crime.” In Crime and Place. Crime Prevention 

Studies, vol. 4. Eds. John E. Eck and David Weisburd. Monsey, New York: Criminal 

Justice Press and Police Executive Research Forum. 

Blumberg, Leonard U. 1978. Liquor and Poverty: Skid Row as a Human Condition. New 

Brunswick, New Jersey: Publications Division, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.

Brantingham, Paul J., and Patricia L. Brantingham, eds. 1981. Environmental Criminology. 

Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

————. 1984. Patterns in Crime. New York: Macmillan.

Bursik, Robert J., Jr., and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The 

Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York: Lexington Books.
| 46 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 47 |

Castillo, Edward M., Suzanne P. Lindsay, Kanako N. Sturgis, Stephan J. Bera, and James 

V. Dunford. 2008. An Evaluation of the Impact of San Diego’s Serial Inebriate Program 

(SIP). Report to the California Program on Access to Care, California Policy Research 

Center, University of California. San Diego: Institute for Public Health, Graduate 

School of Public Health, San Diego State University.

Castaneda, Ricardo, Harold Lifshutz, Marc Galanter, Alice Medalia, and Hugo Franco. 

1992. “Treatment Compliance After Detoxification Among Highly Disadvantaged 

Alcoholics.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 18:223–234.

Clark, S. George. 1975. “Public Intoxication and Criminal Justice.” Journal of Drug Issues

5:220–232.

Coffler, David B. and Hadley, Robert G. 1973. “The Residential Rehabilitation Center 

as an Alternative to Jail for Chronic Drunkenness Offenders.” Quarterly Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol 34(4-A): 1180–1186.

Cox, Gary B., Roger Dale Walker, Steven A. Freng, Bruce A. Short, Lucia Meijer, and 

Lewayne Gilchrist. 1998. “Outcome of a Controlled Trial of the Effectiveness of 

Intensive Case Management for Chronic Public Inebriates.” Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol 59:523–532.

Daggett, Lorin R., and Edward J. Rolde. 1980. “Decriminalization of Drunkenness: Effects 

on the Work of Suburban Police.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 41(9): 819–828.

————. 1977. “Decriminalization of Public Drunkenness: The Response of Suburban 

Police.” Archives of General Psychiatry 34(8): 937–941.

Dunford, James V., Edward M. Castillo, Theodore C. Chan, Gary M. Vilke, Peter Jenson, 

and Suzanne P. Lindsay. 2006. “Impact of the San Diego Serial Inebriate Program on 

Use of Emergency Medical Resources.” Annals of Emergency Medicine 47(4): 328–336.

Ellickson, Robert C. 1996. “Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City Spaces: Of 

Panhandlers, Skid Rows, and Public-Space Zoning.” The Yale Law Journal 105(5): 

1165–1248.

Fagan, Ronald W., Jr., and Armand L. Mauss. 1978. “Padding the Revolving Door: An 

Initial Assessment of the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act in 

Practice.” Social Problems 26(2): 232–246.

Finn, Peter. 1985. “Decriminalization of Public Drunkenness: Response of the Health 

Care System.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 46(1): 7–23.

References

Finn, Peter, and Monique Sullivan. 1987. Police Response to Special Populations: Handling 

the Mentally Ill, Public Inebriate and the Homeless. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Community and 

Research Utilization.

Gammage, Allen Z., David L. Jorgensen, and Eleanor M. Jorgensen. 1972. Alcoholism, 

Skid Row and the Police. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

Goodman, Peter, and Richard Idell. 1975. “The Public Inebriate and the Police in 

California: The Perils of Piece-Meal Reform.” Golden Gate University Review 5(2): 

259–304.

Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department. 1999. “Street Sweeping, Broadway Style: 

Revitalizing a Business District from the Inside Out.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Greene, Jan. 2007. “Serial Inebriate Programs: What to Do About Homeless Alcoholics in 

the Emergency Department.” Annals of Emergency Medicine 49(6): 791–793.

Gregoire, Thomas K., and Anna C. Burke. 2004. “The Relationship of Legal Coercion to 

Readiness to Change Among Adults with Alcohol and Other Drug Problems.” Journal 

of Substance Abuse Treatment 26(1): 35–41.

Grella, Christine E. 1993. “A Residential Recovery Program for Homeless Alcoholics: 

Differences in Program Recruitment and Retention.” Journal of Mental Health 

Administration 20(2): 90–99.

Heather, Nick, and Eileen Kaner. 2001. “Brief Intervention Against Excessive Alcohol 

Consumption.” In D. Warrell, J. Fox and E. Benz (eds.) Oxford Textbook of 

Consumption. 4th ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Medical Publications. 

Hopkins, Matt, and Paul Sparrow. 2006. “Sobering Up: Arrest Referral and Brief 

Intervention for Alcohol Users in the Custody Suite.” Criminology and Criminal 

Justice 6(4): 389–410.

Huebner, Robert B., Harold I. Pearl, Peggy M. Murray, Jack E. Scott, and Beth Ann 

Tutunjian. 1993. “The NIAAA Cooperative Agreement Program for Homeless 

Persons with Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: An Overview.” Alcoholism Treatment 

Quarterly 10(3/4): 5–20.

Jackson, Joan K., Ronald J. Fagan, and Roscoe C. Burr. 1958. “The Seattle Police 

Department Rehabilitation Project for Chronic Alcoholics.” Federal Probation

22(2): 36–41.
| 48 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 49 |

King County (Washington) Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. “The 

Dutch Shisler Sobering Support Center.” www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/

SubstanceAbuse/Services/Intervention/DutchShisler.aspx. 

Kingsley, Sue, and George Mair. 1983. Diverting Drunks from the Criminal Justice 

System: A Study of an Experimental “Wet Shelter” in Birmingham. Research and 

Planning Unit Paper 21. London: Home Office.

Kumar, Parveen, and Michael Clark. 2002. Clinical Medicine. Edinburgh: Saunders.

Landsman, S. 1973. “Massachusetts Comprehensive Alcoholism Law – Its History and 

Future.” Massachusetts Law Quarterly 58:273–290.

Larimer, Mary E., Daniel K. Malone, Michelle D. Garner, David C. Atkins, Bonnie 

Burlingham, Heather S. Lonczak, Kenneth Tanzer, Joshua Ginzler, Seema L. Clifasefi, 

William G. Hobson, and G. Alan Marlatt. 2009. “Health Care and Public Service Use 

and Costs Before and After Provision of Housing for Chronically Homeless Persons 

with Severe Alcohol Problems.” Journal of the American Medical Association 301(13): 

1349–1357.

Levin, Aaron. 2009. “Housing Homeless Alcohol Abusers Brings Substantial Cost 

Savings.” Psychiatric News 44(10): 9.

Lowery, Brandon. 2011. “Escondido: Sobering Center Offers ‘Sleep-it-off’ Option, Helps 

Some Avoid Jail.” North County Times, Sept. 13. 

Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department. 2006. “State Street Spare Change: Solution 

for Rampant Menacing and Aggressive Panhandling.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Malone, D., and T. Friedman. 2005. “Drunken Patients in the General Hospital: Their 

Care and Management.” Postgraduate Medical Journal 81:161–166.

McDonald, Danielle Y. 2001. “An Evaluation of a Jail-Based Public Inebriate Intervention 

and Treatment Program.” Unpublished thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University.

McMorris, Emily N. 2006. “Jones v. City of Los Angeles: A Dangerous Expansion of 

Eighth Amendment Protections Stifles Efforts to Clean Up Skid Row.” Loyola of Los 

Angeles Law Review 40(3): 1149–1168.

Nimmer, Raymond T. 1971. Two Million Unnecessary Arrests: Removing a Social Service 

Concern from the Criminal Justice System. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.

References

North Slope Borough (Alaska) Department of Public Safety. 1995. “The Barrow 

Temperance Project: Reducing Alcohol-Related Crime and Disorder With Prohibition 

in an Alaskan Community.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Orihuela, Michael M., and L. Anthony Loman. 2010. City of St. Louis Jail Diversion 

Project: Final Evaluation Report. St. Louis, Missouri: Institute of Applied Research.

Pinellas Park (Florida) Police Department. 1998. “Habitual Drunkard Ordinance.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing.

Pittman, David J., and C. Wayne Gordon. 1967. Revolving Door: A Study of the Chronic 

Police Case Inebriate. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Podymow, Tiina, Jeff Turnbull, Doug Coyle, ElizabethYetisir, and George Wells. 2006. 

“Shelter-Based Managed Alcohol Administration to Chronically Homeless People 

Addicted to Alcohol.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 174(1): 45–49.

Pratt, Arthur D., Jr. 1975. “A Mandatory Treatment Program for Skid Row Alcoholics: Its 

Implication for the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act.” Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol 36(1): 166–170.

Richman, Alex, and Brigitte Neumann. 1984. “Breaking the ‘Detoxification Loop’ for 

Alcoholics with Social Detoxification.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 13(1): 65–73.

Richman, Alex, and R.G. Smart. 1981. “After How Many Detoxications is Rehabilitation 

Probable?” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 7(3): 233–238.

 Rubington, Earl. 1970. “Post Treatment Contacts and Lengths of Stay in a Halfway 

House.” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 31:167.

San Diego (California) Police Department, Northern Division. 2001. “Transient Problems 

at the Clairemont Square Mall in San Diego, California.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

—––––—. 2001. “Serial Inebriate Program.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Santa Ana (California) Police Department. 1993. “Harbor Plaza: Saving a Commercial 

District Through Targeted Enforcement, Environmental Adjustments and Public 

Awareness.” Submission to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing. 

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless 

Street People. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
| 50 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 51 |

Stark, Louise. 1992. “From Lemons to Lemonade: An Ethnographic Sketch of Late 20th 

Century Panhandling.” New England Journal of Public Policy 8(1): 341–352. 

St. Petersburg (Florida) Police Department. 1997. “Repeat Alcoholic Offenders in 

Downtown St. Petersburg.” Submission to the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Thornquist, Lisa, Michelle Biros, Robert Olander, and Steven Sterner. 2002. “Health Care 

Utilization of Chronic Inebriates.” Academy of Emergency Medicine 9(4): 300–308.

Tuncks, Jonathan. 1990. “Decriminalisation of Drunkenness.” In Alcohol and Crime, ed. J. 

Vernon. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

University of Alaska Anchorage, Behavioral Health Research & Services. 2005. Evaluation 

of the Pathways to Sobriety Project: Exploratory Analysis of the Municipality of 

Anchorage’s Community Transfer Station Database. BHRS Pathways-Related 

Technical Report No. 3. Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department. 1997. “UW Police Response to 

Alcoholic Vagrants.” Submission to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Vermont Public Inebriate Task Force. 2010. 2010 Public Inebriate Task Force Report. 

Montpelier, Vermont: The Public Inebriate Task Force. 

Washington State Legislature. n.d. WAC 314-12-215 Alcohol Impact Areas Definitions – 

Guidelines. 

Western Australia Drug and Alcohol Office. 2007. “Utilisation of Sobering Up Centres, 

1990-2005.” Statistical Bulletin No. 36. Perth, Australia: Drug and Alcohol Office.

Weisburd, David, Lisa Maherand, and Lawrence Sherman, with Michael Buerger, Ellen 

Cohn, and Anthony Petrosino. 1991. “Contrasting Crime General and Crime Specific 

Theory: The Case of Hot Spots of Crime.” In Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 

2, eds. W. Laufer and F. Adler. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.

Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. 1982. “Broken Windows: The Police and 

Neighborhood Safety.” The Atlantic Monthly (March): 29–38.

Wiseman, C. 1980. Alcohol Related Problems: A Study of Inter-organizational Relations. Final 

Report to the Social Science Research Council, Grant No. HR 6199. 

Wiseman, Jacqueline. 1979. Stations of the Lost: The Treatment of Skid Row Alcoholics.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

World Health Organization. 1992. “Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: 

Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines.” International Classification of 

Diseases. 10th ed., Geneva: World Health Organization. 

Endnotes

Endnotes

1. Bahr (1973).

2. Goodman and Idell (1975): 259.

3. Clark (1975): 220; Pratt (1975): 66.

4. Baumhol (1990).

5. Ellikson (1996). 

6. Clark (1975). 

7. Huebner et al. (1993).

8. Snow and Anderson (1993).

9. University of Alaska Anchorage, Behavioral Health Research & Services (2005): 13.

10. Castillo et al. (2008):13.

11. McDonald (2001): 4.

12. Wiseman (1979): 65.

13. Fagan and Mauss (1978). 

14. Finn and Sullivan (1987): 4.

15. Finn and Sullivan (1987).

16. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977): 616–617.

17. Finn and Sullivan (1987): 4.

18. Greene (2007).

19. Block and Block (2007).

20. Argeriou and McCarty (1993); Podymow et al. (2006); Castaneda et al. (1992); 

Richman and Smart (1981); Richman and Neumann (1984); Cox et al. (1998); 

Larimer et al. (2009); Grella (1993); Coffler and Hadley (1973). 

21. Bittner (1967); Nimmer (1971); Pittman and Gordon (1967); Rubington (1970).

22. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977).

23. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977); Blumberg (1978); Snow and Anderson 

(1993); Finn and Sullivan (1987); Gammage, Jorgensen, and Jorgensen (1972). 

24. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977).
| 52 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 53 |

25. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977); Bayley (1990); Bittner (1967). 

26. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977).

27. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1982). 

28. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977).

29. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977).

30. Kingsley and Mair (1983); Wiseman (1980).

31. Aaronson, Dienes, and Musheno (1977).

32. Tuncks (1990).

33. Daggett and Rolde (1977, 1980); Landsman (1973); McMorris, (2006).

34. Blumberg (1978):196.

35. University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department (1997).

36. Larimer et al. (2009); Levin (2009); Thornquist et al. (2002).

37. Pinellas Park (Florida) Police (1998); Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department 

(1999).

38. Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department (1999).

39. Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department (1999).

40. Pinellas Park (Florida) Police (1998).

41. Pinellas Park (Florida) Police (1998).

42. Washington State Legislature (no date).

43. Washington State Legislature (no date).

44. Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department (2006).

45. McDonald (2001).

46. McDonald (2001).

47. Hopkins and Sparrow (2006): 395.

48. Levin (2009); Larimer et al. (2009).

49. Dunford et al. (2006); Gregoire and Burke (2004).

Endnotes

50. Western Australia Drug and Alcohol Office (2007); Beavan (2008); King County 

(Washington) Department of Health and Human Services (2011); Alameda County 

Behavioral Health Care Services (2008). 

51. Podymow et al. (2006).

52. Heather and Kaner (2001).

53. Stark (1992).

54. Lowery (2011).

55. San Diego (California) Police Department (2001).

56. Wiseman (1980); Coffler and Hadley (1973); Jackson, Fagan and Burr (1958).

57. Coffler and Hadley (1973).

58. Coffler and Hadley (1973).

59. Dunford et al. (2006).

60. Orihuela and Loman (2010): 18.

61. Orihuela and Loman (2010): 27.

62. University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department (1997).

63. Santa Ana (California) Police Department (1993).

64. Wiseman (1980).

65. Gregoire and Burke (2004).

66. Dunford et al. (2006); Gregoire and Burke (2004).

67. Wilson and Kelling (1982).
| 55 |

About the Author

About the Author

Matthew Pate

Matthew Pate is senior research fellow with the Violence Research Group in the School 

of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany. He was formerly director of institutional 

security with the Department of Arkansas Heritage; a field agent with the Arkansas Crime 

Information Center; and an officer with the Pine Bluff (Arkansas) Police Department. 

He has served as an advisor and consultant to hundreds of police agencies. He is also the 

former editor of the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. Pate holds a doctoral 

degree in criminal justice from the University at Albany, where his dissertation was selected 

as the Distinguished Doctoral Dissertation for 2010-2011. Pate also holds master’s degrees 

in criminal justice from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, in environmental design 

from the University of Georgia, and in sociology from the University of Central Arkansas 

as well as a bachelor’s degree in history from Hendrix College.

Correspondence should be sent to pate.matthew@gmail.com.
| 57 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series:

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

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott with David K. 

Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. 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. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

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

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

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

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
| 58 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 59 |

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

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

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

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

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

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

Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

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

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

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 T. 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

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and Adam Thorpe. 2008. 

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

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and John E. Eck. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers’ Personal Property in Cafés and Bars. Shane D. Johnson, Kate 

J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen Mamerow, and Anna Warne. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

61. Aggressive Driving. Colleen Laing. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

62. Sexual Assault of Women by Strangers. Kelly Dedel. 2011. ISBN: 978-1-935676-43-0

63. Export of Stolen Vehicles Across Land Borders. Gohar Petrossian and Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-935676-59-1 

64. Abandoned Buildings and Lots. Jon M. Shane. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-01-7

65. Animal Cruelty. Kelly Dedel. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-05-5

66. Missing Persons. Kenna Quinet. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-20-8

67. Gasoline Drive-Offs. Bruno Meini and Ronald V. Clarke. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-15-4

68. Chronic Public Inebriation. Matthew Pate. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-07-9

69. Drug-Impaired Driving. Joe Kuhns. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6

70. Home Invasion Robbery. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1

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
| 60 |

Chronic Public Inebriation

| 61 |

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. Jim Hilborn. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0

Problem-Solving Tools Series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultze. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving. 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

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

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Rob T. Guerette. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Ronald V. Clarke and 

John E. Eck. 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive’s Guide. Graeme R. Newman and 

Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented Guide for Mayors, 

City Managers, and County Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 

Implementing POP: Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police 

Agency. Michael S. Scott and Stuart Kirby. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-61-1

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Prescription Fraud and Abuse, 2nd Edition

Physical and Emotional Abuse of the Elderly

Insurance Fraud by Arson

Hate Crimes

Robbery of Pharmacies

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Understanding Hot Products

Identifying and Defining Policing Problems

Response Guides

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP Guides, see the Center for 

Problem-Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org.

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, 

via e-mail at AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

Got a problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

•	 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.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).
Chronic Public Inebriation begins by describing the problem of chronic public 

inebriation and reviewing factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a series 

of questions to help you analyze your local chronic public inebriation problem.

Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and what is known about these from 

evaluative research and police practice.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

September 2012

ISBN: 978-1-932582-07-9 e051231479

Scan this QR code with your 

smartphone for more information 

about the POP Guides Series, or visit 

www.popcenter.org.