DOJ Seal COPS Logo Assaults in and Around Bars 2nd Edition www.PopCenter.org Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, including: • Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides • Interactive training exercises • Online access to research and police practices • Online problem analysis module. Designed for police and those who work with them to address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource in problem-oriented policing. Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series Guide No. 1 Assaults in and Around Bars 2nd Edition Michael S. Scott Kelly Dedel This project was supported by cooperative agreements #1999CKWXK004 and #2005CKWXK001 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement thereof by the author(s) or the Justice Department. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. www.cops.usdoj.gov ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 August 2006 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.) • 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 policing philosophy that promotes and supports organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of addressing specific public safety problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides. These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders of their own countries. Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police practice and is anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police executives and researchers prior to publication. The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem using responses not considered in these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov. For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This web site offers free online access to: • the Problem-Specific Guides series • the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series • instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics • an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise • an interactive Problem Analysis Module • a manual for crime analysts • online access to important police research and practices • information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs. Acknowledgments The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary author, other project team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research and offering suggestions on matters of format and style. The project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University.) Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the project. Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this guide. Contents About the Problem-Specific Guides Series ..........................i Acknowledgments ...................................................v The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars ........................1 Related Problems ..................................................3 Factors Contributing to Aggression and Violence in Bars . . . . . 4 Alcohol ...........................................................4 Culture of Drinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Type of Establishment .............................................5 Concentration of Bars .............................................5 Bar Closing Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Aggressive Bouncers ...............................................6 High Proportion of Young Male Strangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Price Discounting of Drinks .......................................7 Continued Service to Drunken Patrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Crowding and Lack of Comfort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Competitive Situations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Low Ratio of Staff to Patrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Lack of Good Entertainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Unattractive Décor and Dim Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Tolerance for Disorderly Conduct.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Availability of Weapons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9 Low Levels of Police Enforcement and Regulation ..................10 Understanding Your Local Problem .................................11 Stakeholders .....................................................11 Asking the Right Questions .......................................12 Incident Characteristics .........................................12 Victims ..........................................................13 Offenders ........................................................13 Locations/Times ..................................................14 Bar Management Practices .........................................14 Regulations and Enforcement Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Measuring Your Effectiveness .....................................16 Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars ..........17 General Requirements of an Effective Strategy ....................17 Specific Responses to Reduce Assaults ............................20 Reducing Alcohol Consumption .....................................21 Making Bars Safer ................................................24 Responses With Limited Effectiveness .............................29 Appendix: Summary of Responses to Assaults in and Around Bars . . 31 Endnotes .........................................................37 References .......................................................41 About the Authors ................................................55 Recommended Readings .............................................57 Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police .........................61 The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars This guide deals with the problem of assaults in and around bars.§ We know a lot about the risk factors for these assaults, and about effective responses to them. We know less about which particular responses are most effective in addressing specific aspects of the problem. Therefore, your challenge will be to conduct a good analysis of the local problem, guided by the information presented here, and put together the right combination of responses to address that problem. § The term “bar” refers to licensed liquor establishments that sell alcohol primarily for consumption on the premises. These include establishments variously known as nightclubs, pubs, taverns, lounges, hotels (in Australia), discotheques, or social clubs. The term “assault” refers to the full range of violent acts, from those that cause minor injury to those that cause death, and from consensual fights to unprovoked attacks. The guide begins by reviewing factors that increase the risks of assaults in and around bars. It then identifies a series of questions that might help you analyze your local problem of assaults in and around bars. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and what is known about them from evaluative research and police practice. The proliferation of bars in many communities has led to increases in assaults in and around the bars. While many, if not most, of these are alcohol-related, assaults also occur when neither the aggressors nor the victims have been drinking. Most assaults occur on weekend nights.1 The majority of assaults occur at a relatively small number of places.2, §§ Not all assaults involve a simple fistfight with a clear beginning and ending; instead, the incidents are often more ambiguous and complicated. For example, some are intermittent conflicts that flare up over time, some evolve into different incidents, and many involve participants who alternate between the roles of aggressor and peacemaker, often drawing additional people into the incident.3 Some involve lower levels of aggression (pushing, shoving), some involve more-severe violence (kicking, punching), and still others involve the use of weapons. Many of the injuries treated at hospitals, especially facial injuries, are related to assaults in and around bars. §§ For example, in Sydney, Australia, just 12 percent of bars accounted for almost 60 percent of assaults occurring in licensed drinking establishments (Briscoe and Donnelly 2001b). Those who fight in bars are not deterred by negative consequences (such as minor injuries, tension among friends, or trouble with the police), all of which tend to be delayed. The perceived rewards are more immediate and include feeling righteous about fighting for a worthy cause, increasing group cohesion among friends, getting attention, feeling powerful, and having entertaining stories to tell.4 Although some assault victims do something to precipitate the assault, many do not.5 Most are smaller than their attackers, are either alone or in a small group, and are drunk more often than their attackers.6 Attackers target victims who appear drunker than themselves.7 Many assaults are not reported to the police by either bar staff or the victim. Bar owners have mixed incentives for reporting assaults to the police. On the one hand, they need police assistance to maintain orderly establishments, but on the other hand, they do not want official records to reflect negatively on their liquor licenses. Many fights and disputes that start inside a bar are forced outside by the staff so they do not appear to be connected with the bar. Victims often are drunk, are ashamed, and see themselves as partly responsible, and so do not report assaults. Other victims believe the incidents are too trivial to involve the police.8 Thus police records do not reflect the total amount of violence in and around bars. However, we underestimate the seriousness of the problem if we believe these assaults are just excessive exuberance by young men or “just desserts” for drunken troublemakers. In addition to generating police and community concerns for public safety, bar owners also bear the consequences of the problem in terms of damage to reputations, loss of future customers, staff reluctance to work, damage to property, reductions in profit, and, ultimately, potential loss of license.9 Related Problems Assault is only one of many alcohol-and bar-related problems the police must address. Some of these issues are covered in other guides in this series. These related problems require their own analyses and responses: • assaults around bars motivated by racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or other bias • binge drinking on college campuses • disorderly conduct of public inebriates who drink in bars (e.g., panhandling, public urination, harassment, intimidation, and passing out in public places) • drug dealing in bars • drunken driving by customers leaving bars§ • gambling in bars • illegal discrimination against bar patrons • prostitution in bars • sexual assaults in and around bars • underage drinking.§§ § See Problem-Specific Guide No. 36, titled Drunk Driving. §§ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 27, titled Underage Drinking. Factors Contributing to Aggression and Violence in Bars Understanding the factors that are known to contribute to your problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select an appropriate set of responses for your particular problem. Alcohol Drinking alcohol is the most obvious factor contributing to aggression and violence in bars, but the relationship is not as simple as it might seem. Alcohol contributes to violence by limiting drinkers’ perceived options during a conflict, heightening their emotionality, increasing their willingness to take risks, reducing their fear of sanctions, and impairing their ability to talk their way out of trouble.10 Many of the alcohol problems police deal with can be attributed to ordinary drinkers who go on binges, drink more than they usually do, or drink on an empty stomach. In general, those who drink excessively are more aggressive and also get injured more seriously than those who drink moderately or not at all.11 Moderate drinkers do not appear to be at significantly higher risk of injury than nondrinkers. Culture of Drinking Cultures that are more accepting of intoxication as an excuse for antisocial or aggressive behavior, and that relax the normal rules of society during drinking time, have higher levels of aggression and violence in and around bars.12 This tolerance for intoxication is often reflected in a society’s laws related to legal defenses to crimes, and to the regulation of drinking and the alcohol industry. In some peer groups, intoxication is an accepted excuse for aggression and violence.13 Type of Establishment Certain types of bars, such as dance clubs, have higher levels of reported violence.14 Neighborhood bars and social clubs have lower levels of reported violence, partly because patrons know one another well, and partly because they usually resolve conflicts privately. Restaurants that serve alcohol also have less violence. Bars that serve as pickup places, cater to prostitutes, traffic in drugs or stolen goods, or feature aggressive entertainment are at higher risk for violence. Concentration of Bars The evidence on the effect of bar concentration is mixed. Some bars attract crime, while others are merely affected by crime in the surrounding neighborhood. Blocks with bars have higher levels of reported crime than blocks with no bars.15 High concentrations of bars can increase barhopping, and if all bars close at the same time, the risks of conflicts on the street increase. But the mere fact that a neighborhood has a high concentration of bars does not necessarily mean there will be higher crime levels in the area.16 Bar Closing Time Bars’ hours of operation contribute to the risk of violence in different ways. When all bars in a given area close at the same time, and large numbers of patrons exit simultaneously, crowds may linger on the sidewalk to wait for transportation or to order food from late- night restaurants, and competition for these services can precipitate assaults. Moreover, large groups of patrons from incompatible social groups might come together, creating conflict.17 Uniform mandatory closing hours also encourage some patrons to drink heavily just before closing, knowing they cannot legally buy another drink for the rest of the night. It is generally the case that bars with later closing hours experience more assaults than those with standard business hours, although additional research on the effects of later or staggered bar closing times is needed.18 Aggressive Bouncers Some security staff see themselves as enforcers, rather than as protectors of customers’ safety.19 The more aggressively the security staff handles patrons, the more aggressively patrons respond. Many security employees and bouncers lack the skills to defuse violence. The presence of large, muscular men dressed in black, which is not uncommon for security staff, encourages confrontations with some patrons, while discouraging them with others. Bouncers’ very presence may subconsciously signal to some patrons that physical confrontation is an acceptable way to resolve disputes in that bar. Bouncers are implicated (whether justifiably so or not) in a significant proportion of assaults.20 However, victims of aggression by security staff may be hesitant to report the assault for several reasons: they may not have an accurate description of the bouncer involved, they may fear retaliation and being banned from the bar, or they may not want their own actions to be scrutinized.21 High Proportion of Young Male Strangers The overwhelming majority of attackers and victims are young men (18 to 29 years old). Many young men gather and drink alcohol to establish machismo, bond with one another, and compete for women’s attention.22 Many incidents of bar aggression start when young men challenge one another.23 This is more likely to happen when they do not know each other. Overall, women’s presence has a calming effect on men’s behavior in crowded bars.24 Price Discounting of Drinks Many bars offer discounted prices for drinks to attract patrons, but price discounting increases patrons’ intoxication levels and thereby increases the risks of aggression. Continued Service to Drunken Patrons Drinkers report that the most common reaction to their drunkenness in bars is continued alcohol service.25 In part, this occurs because staff have difficulty determining whether patrons are drunk, particularly when customers obtain drinks from several sources within the bar (e.g., bartenders, waitresses, and “shot girls”).26 Determining whether patrons are drunk is more difficult in overcrowded bars, as servers are under pressure to serve customers quickly. In addition, crowded venues are noisy, making it difficult for servers to hear verbal cues that would suggest drunkenness.27 Refusing service to drunken patrons often makes them angry. Bartenders and wait staff who do not want this aggression directed at them, and who also may not want to risk losing tips, often continue to serve obviously drunken patrons. Crowding and Lack of Comfort Poor ventilation, high noise levels, and lack of seating make bars uncomfortable. This discomfort increases the risks of aggression and violence.28 Crowding around the bar, in restrooms, on dance floors, around pool tables, and near phones creates the risk of accidental bumping and irritation, which can also start fights.29 Kip Kellogg Image of students at bar Crowding in bars creates the risk of accidental bumping and irritation, which can lead to assaults. Competitive Situations The high emotions that arise during competition in bars—whether patrons are watching sporting events on television or competing themselves in pool, darts, or other typical bar games—can turn to anger and frustration.30 Competitive drinking contests (e.g., “chugging” beer or rolling dice for drinks) contribute to excessive drinking. Sports bars may foster a “macho” atmosphere and may contribute to customers’ sense that aggression is an acceptable part of the social setting.31 Competition outside the bar—for food service, public transportation, walking space, women’s attention, and so forth—can similarly trigger violence. Low Ratio of Staff to Patrons Inadequate staffing increases the competition for service and the frustration of patrons, and reduces opportunities for staff to monitor excessive drinking and aggression.32 Lack of Good Entertainment Entertained crowds are less hostile. Quality music (as defined by the patrons) is more important than the music’s noise level.33, § Unattractive Décor and Dim Lighting Recognizing that attractiveness is highly subjective, obviously unattractive, poorly maintained, and dimly lit bars signal to patrons that the owners and managers have similarly low standards for behavior, and that they will likely tolerate aggression and violence.34 Tolerance for Disorderly Conduct If the bar staff tolerates profanity and other disorderly conduct, it suggests to patrons that the staff will tolerate aggression and violence, as well.35 Availability of Weapons Patrons can use bottles, glasses, pool cues, heavy ashtrays, and bar furniture as weapons. The more available and dangerous these items are, the more likely they will cause serious injury during fights and assaults. § Newspaper articles and reports from some police agencies suggest that certain forms of music, such as hip-hop, attract aggressive and violent crowds, but it is unlikely that the musical form itself generates aggression, at least not directly. Low Levels of Police Enforcement and Regulation Low levels of liquor-law enforcement and regulation reduce owners’ and managers’ incentives to adopt responsible practices.§ We do not know for certain what effect the deployment of off-duty police officers in and around bars has on assault rates. § Some police departments discourage or prohibit uniformed patrol officers from inspecting bars, while other departments encourage it and make it a key element of their efforts to control problems in and around bars. The Charlotte- Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department successfully lobbied for legislative changes to allow police officers to inspect licensed premises. Understanding Your Local Problem The information provided above is only a generalized description of the problem of assaults in and around bars. You must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local problem helps in designing a more effective response strategy. Stakeholders In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have an interest in the assaults-in-and-around-bars problem and ought to be considered for the contribution they might make both to gathering information about the problem and to responding to it: • risk managers/liability insurance agents for bars • local liquor retailer associations • bank officials holding mortgages or business loans on bars • emergency medical personnel/treatment facilities • substance-abuse treatment organizations • neighborhood residents • other business owners • employees in the vicinity of bars. For further information on how police can work effectively with other stakeholders, see the Problem- Solving Tools Guide titled Partnering With Businesses To Address Public Safety Problems. Asking the Right Questions The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular problem of assaults in and around bars, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses later on. The various entities with a stake in the problem and its solution will be helpful in collecting some of these data, as not all of the information will be readily available to police.§ § See Tierney and Hobbs (2003) for guidance on sharing responsibility for data collection among those concerned about assaults in and around bars. In addition, see Hopkins (2004) for an example of using the SARA model to analyze a local problem with assaults in bars. Incident Characteristics • Is the problem primarily one of bar fights, public inebriates assaulting one another, strong-arm robberies, sexual assaults, bias-motivated assaults, or something else? • What precipitates the attacks (e.g., verbal exchanges/insults, threats, disagreements, long-standing disputes, or advances to girlfriends/boyfriends)? • Do the assaults stem from conflicts between individuals or between groups? If groups, are they criminal groups such as gangs? • Do the precipitating conflicts initiate in the bar or elsewhere? • How/why does verbal aggression escalate into physical assaults? • Is there a widespread perception that certain bars or entertainment districts are dangerous because of assaults? • What weapons, if any, do offenders use in assaults? Do either the offenders or the victims bring weapons to the bar, or do they convert items found in the bar into weapons? Victims • Who is assaulted? • Do victims report the assaults to the police? (Surveys of patrons and emergency room admissions may reveal unreported assaults.)§ If victims do not report their assaults, why not? What are the characteristics of victims who report compared with those who do not? • Are victims typically drunk? • Are victims alone or in groups? • Are victims members of any ethnic or other subcultural group? • Are many of the victims underage drinkers? • How serious are victims’ injuries? • Do victims typically instigate assaults? • Are there chronic assault victims? • Do victims typically know their assailants? Offenders • How old are offenders? Do they belong to any particular ethnic, occupational, recreational, or other group? • Are offenders alone or in groups? • Are there repeat offenders? Do they have prior criminal records for assault? • Are offenders typically known as troublemakers in bars? • Are offenders typically drunk? Do they get drunk in the same bar in or around which the assaults occur? • Are offenders themselves injured in the fights/assaults? How seriously? • Are offenders heavy drinkers? Do they have histories of alcohol-related problems (e.g., commitments to detoxification centers)? § A recent study of the problem of assaults in bars relied heavily on data collection from emergency room patients by nurses involved (Maguire and Nettleton 2003). Locations/Times • In or around which bars are assaults concentrated? • Where, specifically, do assaults occur (e.g., inside/outside, restrooms, alleys, streets/sidewalks, parking lots, or around the bar)? • What is the nature of the surrounding neighborhood (e.g., entertainment district or primarily residential/commercial/ industrial)? • Are the bars on or near major roadways? • Do the people in or conditions of the bars themselves appear to generate the violence, or are bars merely affected by other conditions in the surrounding neighborhood? • When do assaults occur (e.g., closing time, happy hour, special events, or weekends)? • What public transportation is accessible after closing hours (e.g., buses, trains, or taxis)? • Is there a high concentration of bars in areas with high reported assault levels? • What are the lighting conditions both inside and outside bars? Do assaults occur in dark areas or areas not easily seen by passers-by? • Are there objects outside bars that offenders can readily use as weapons (e.g., loose stones or trash receptacles)? Bar Management Practices • What is the primary theme of a typical problem bar? • Does the bar serve food, or is it available nearby? • Does the bar offer discounted drinks? • What entertainment, if any, does the bar offer? Does the entertainment contribute to aggression? • Does the bar employ bouncers? If so, do they tend to be aggressive when dealing with troublesome patrons? Do bar managers conduct proper background checks on bouncers before hiring them? Are bar employees properly trained? • What is the ratio of bar employees to patrons? Is it sufficient to provide timely service and monitor patrons’ drinking and behavior? • Do bar employees call the police under appropriate circumstances? Do bar managers encourage or discourage police inspectional visits? • Are employees encouraged to push altercations out of the bar? • Are employees trained to recognize signs of drunkenness, to refuse service diplomatically, and to defuse aggression? Does management have written policies regarding these practices, expect employees to follow them, and support them when they do? • What conduct does the bar prohibit? Do employees effectively enforce those prohibitions? • Is the bar décor attractive, and interior lighting adequate? • Does the bar commonly reach or exceed occupancy limits? • Do competitive events (e.g., playing pool, darts, rolling dice) lead to assaults? • Does the bar discourage barhopping (e.g., restrict reentry, charge entry fees, or prohibit carrying out drinks)? • Does the bar have items that patrons can readily use as weapons? • Does the physical setting (e.g., the presence of sharp-edged bar tops or glass) create risks of serious injuries? Regulation and Enforcement Practices • Do the police or liquor-license regulators routinely inspect bars for compliance with regulations? Do they inspect for serving practices and occupancy limits, in addition to technical license requirements? • Do the police or regulators take enforcement actions? • Do bar owners believe police will enforce laws? Do they perceive enforcement actions as fair? Measuring Your Effectiveness You should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they have been effective. Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the intended results. For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the Problem-Solving Tools guide, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to assaults in and around bars:§ • reduced number of assaults • reduced calls for police service for fights and assaults (assuming you are confident that police are being called when appropriate) • reduced severity of injuries caused by assaults (it may be possible to reduce the degree of injury, even if the number of assaults does not decline) • increased reporting of assaults to police, if you suspect that many assaults are not being reported (you might compare emergency room records with police records) • fewer repeat victims and repeat offenders • greater perception of safety among bar patrons, neighboring merchants, and residents • increased profitability of bars with high assault rates (bars with high assault rates typically lose money). § See Graham (2000) for a model evaluation strategy for interventions to reduce harmful behavior by bar patrons. Responses to the Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors that are contributing to the problem. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem. The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community’s particular problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully consider who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it. General Requirements of an Effective Strategy 1. Enlisting community support for addressing the problem. Broad-based coalitions that incorporate the interests of the community, the bars, and the government are recommended.36 A number of communities, including Vancouver (British Columbia) and Edmonton (Alberta) have organized “bar watch” or “pub watch” programs, while bars and police in a number of Australian communities have negotiated voluntary agreements (known as accords) to promote responsible bar management.37 These programs incorporate the interests of bar owners, community members, and government regulators, including the police. Members meet regularly to discuss incidents that have occurred in the local area, and to craft solutions. While recruiting members can be difficult, the key is to keep all parties motivated and actively involved for extended periods.38 All parties should come to accept ownership for the problem, and for responses to it. Strong leadership, active police involvement, and adequate funding are essential.§ § See Homel (2001) for a thorough discussion of the various types of community action projects, their core components, and their effectiveness. 2. Implementing multifaceted, comprehensive strategies. Multifaceted, comprehensive strategies are more effective than those that address only one or a few of the conditions that increase the risks of aggression and violence. Any response strategy should address as many known risk factors as possible, rather than focusing on the contributions of alcohol alone. Some of the more critical factors include the practices of serving and patterns of consumption, the physical comfort of the environment, the overall permissiveness of the environment, and the availability of public transportation to disperse crowds once bars have closed.39, §§ §§ The Derbyshire, England, Constabulary (2002) engaged local bar owners in a “Safer Pubs and Clubs” campaign whereby each owner agreed to enact a range of “Safer by…” reforms, such as Safer by Dispersal, Safer by Design, Safer by Glass Management, Safer by Doorwatch, etc. The combination of responses led to significant reductions in violence in the targeted areas and improvements in job satisfaction among staff. 3. Getting cooperation and support from bar owners and managers. It is important to secure the cooperation and involvement of all bars in the area to guard against merely moving the problem somewhere else, and against losing the support of owners who feel unfairly targeted.40 Bar owners should agree in writing to codes of good practice, and establish ways to enforce them.41 Rogue bar owners can easily undermine these agreements by refusing to follow the codes of practice. This creates pressure on other operators to do likewise. You should apply basic preventive and enforcement measures to all bars, while applying some special preventive and enforcement measures at high-risk bars. It is critical that you acknowledge the legitimacy of bar owners’ profit motive. 4. Informally monitoring bar policies and practices. You can use voluntary safety audits and risk assessments to identify high-risk locations and conditions.42 Monitoring systems should use data to measure effectiveness. Informal groups, rather than government officials, should oversee and monitor voluntary agreements among bars.§ However, informal police audits are an effective means of sharing knowledge and also carry the implied threat of sanctions, which can encourage compliance. For example, police can provide bar owners with information about disorderly events that occur following consumption on their premises. In addition, after an informal audit, police can provide tailored feedback reports using a harm-reduction, rather than a punitive, focus.§§ 5. Formally regulating and enforcing relevant liquor- licensing laws. Voluntary agreements should be reinforced by formal regulation. Fair and well-enforced liquor-license regulation, with a graded system of penalties including warnings, modest fines, temporary license suspensions, and revocations, is key to ensuring responsible policies and practices.43, §§§ Fair and consistent enforcement of liquor- license laws by the police and liquor-licensing authorities is more effective than relying solely on more-expensive responsible-beverage-service training programs.44, §§§§ More intensive police inspections of licensed bars will also result in higher recorded crime rates, but this encourages bar owners to adhere to good management practices and to obey liquor laws. In many jurisdictions, however, the liquor-licensing authority’s resources are inadequate for enforcement. § For example, several jurisdictions use self-administered checklists to examine potential problem areas (entry, layout, closing time, rule-setting, etc.). Often working with a consultant, bar owners discuss their areas of vulnerability and craft reforms to minimize risk (Graham 2000; Graham et al. 2004; Toomey et al. 2001). §§ The New Zealand Police implemented a system of informal audits, feedback, and recommendations to reduce the risk factors present in local bars and clubs. After a three-month follow-up period, the participating bars saw a 15 percent decrease in alcohol-related incidents. Despite fears that police would judge the approach lacking in severity, two- thirds of police considered the approach acceptable, and 92 percent of bar owners found the process to be both fair and useful (Wiggers et al. 2004). §§§ Madison, Wisconsin adopted a point system in 1986 as the basis for sanctions against liquor licensees to remove some of the arbitrariness of the administrative process, and the police department developed methods for recording and reporting police activities at bars to the liquor-licensing authority. A key feature of the system is that reports of problems by the owners/managers to the police, and cooperation with the police, reflect favorably rather than negatively on the licensee. A police representative serves as a nonvoting member of the alcohol- license review committee. By contrast, the Green Bay (Wisconsin) Police Department (2000) had to change city officials’ attitudes toward liquor-license regulation to close or improve control over problem bars. §§§§ In Sweden, a combination of responsible-beverage-service training and consistent liquor-law enforcement by police led to significant increases in the rate at which servers refused to serve intoxicated patrons (from 5 percent refusals to 70 percent refusals), and a significant decrease (29 percent) in the number of violent crimes occurring in or around participating bars (Wallin, Norstrom, and Andreasson 2003; Wallin, Gripenberg, and Andreasson 2005). Kip Kellogg Image of two police officers Police inspections of bars and enforcement of liquor laws encourages bar owners to adhere to responsible management practices. Some communities use nuisance-abatement laws and conditional-use permits (business permits with special requirements and restrictions) to compel bar owners to establish and enforce responsible policies and practices that can reduce aggression and violence in and around the premises.§ § Fresno, California makes extensive use of conditional- use permits to regulate liquor establishments. Sacramento, California, prepared a Model Conditional-Use Permit Ordinance for Retail Alcohol Outlets (Wittman 1997). The Hayward (California) Police Department helped private residents file a civil lawsuit against a problem bar, ultimately resulting in the revocation of its liquor license (Sampson and Scott 2000). Specific Responses To Reduce Assaults You will need to combine two groups of responses in any effective strategy: • responses to reduce how much alcohol patrons drink, thereby reducing aggression and vulnerability to assault • responses to make the bar safer, regardless of how much alcohol patrons drink. Reducing Alcohol Consumption 6. Establishing responsible beverage service programs.§ Responsible beverage service training can be effective in reducing intoxication and assaults, especially where there is community support for these requirements and adequate enforcement of them.45 Responsible beverage service can be promoted through voluntary or mandatory training programs. Bar owners and managers, as well as serving staff, should receive training. These programs are effective in changing servers’ knowledge and attitudes, but do not affect how often they deny service to drunken customers, unless they are supported by regular monitoring and consistent sanctions for violations.46 § As of 2000, at least 23 states had server-training legislation. In 11 of these states, the laws provide incentives for establishments that provide training to their employees, while in the remaining 12 states, server training is mandatory (Mosher et al. 2002). https://smartserve.org Image of bar staff guidebook Training and encouraging bar staff to serve responsibly and monitor patrons’ drinking can help reduce the risk of violence in the bar. Responsible beverage service programs include training bar staff to adopt responsible serving practices, and encouraging bar owners and managers to adopt responsible business practices and policies. The most common elements of these programs include the following: 6a. Monitoring drinking to prevent drunkenness. In general, servers are not good at determining whether customers are drunk because the signs and signals used in that assessment are largely subjective (slurred speech, clumsiness, mood changes). The best estimator of a customer’s blood alcohol content is the number of drinks served, but given the size and layout of many bars, the amount of alcohol consumed is very difficult to track.47 Further, servers cannot know how much a customer has drunk before arriving, what or if he or she has eaten, or how long he or she intends to stay at the bar—all of which will affect the server’s judgments about continued service.48 Training should focus on the most obvious and reliable indicators of drunkenness and improved communication among multiple servers to enable better monitoring. While it may take a long time for enforcement officials to witness bar staff serving drunken patrons, the benefits appear to be worth the costs.49 For the most part, it is still too easy for both drunken and underage drinkers to get served in bars.50 6b. Promoting slower drinking rates. Several practices encourage patrons to drink quickly, such as announcing “last call,” having happy hours, serving multiple drinks at one time, and tolerating “chugging” contests and other drinking games. Eliminating these practices can slow the rate at which patrons feel compelled to drink. 6c. Prohibiting underage drinking. This response prevents less physically and emotionally mature patrons from getting drunk. It is unclear, though, what effect allowing underage patrons into bars, even if they are not served alcohol, has on the assault problem. 6d. Providing reduced-alcohol or nonalcoholic beverages. Offering reduced-alcohol or nonalcoholic beverages can lower patrons’ drunkenness level, patrons who might otherwise be potential assailants and/or victims. Regardless, the risk of injury from assault is reduced. There are virtually no drawbacks to this response as long as some patrons will drink these beverages. 6e. Requiring or encouraging food service with alcohol service. Eating while drinking slows the rate of alcohol absorption into the bloodstream. Serving food also helps create an atmosphere that is not exclusively centered on alcohol consumption, and can attract a more diverse, and possibly less aggressive, clientele.51 6f. Discouraging alcohol price discounts. Reducing the price of drinks during happy hours significantly increases consumption by both light and heavy drinkers.52 The competitive pressure to reduce drink prices actually threatens many bars’ profitability, so some owners actually appreciate restrictions on price discounting. 7. Establishing and enforcing server liability laws. In many jurisdictions, alcohol servers and bar owners can be held legally liable either for the harm drunken patrons cause (through private civil suits) or for merely serving drunken people (through statute enforcement by the police or liquor-license regulators).§ Server liability laws alone have had mixed results as an incentive for bar owners to adopt and enforce responsible (beverage) service policies and practices.53 In particular, the relatively low enforcement rate, the owner’s profit motive, and the server’s reliance on tips as income can decrease these laws’ deterrent effect.54 § Erenberg and Hacker (1997) report that 36 states have some form of dram-shop liability law, and refer to the Model Alcoholic Beverage Retail Licensee Liability Act of 1985. 8. Reducing the concentration and/or number of bars. There is growing evidence that the concentration of bars in an area is related to that area’s crime levels and patterns, although the exact nature of the relationship is not yet clear.55 We cannot yet say how many bars in a small area are too many, but evidence does suggest there is such a threshold. Police agencies can support efforts to reduce the concentration or number of bars through zoning and liquor-license enforcement. Making Bars Safer 9. Training staff to handle patrons nonviolently. Some assaults in bars have less to do with alcohol and more to do with unprofessional or unskilled staff. There are conflicting views about the effectiveness of employing security staff (bouncers and doormen) as a way to reduce assaults in and around bars.56 Well-trained bar staff can function as guardians (protecting victims), handlers (modifying behavior of offenders, particularly those who are regular customers), and place managers (exerting social control over people in places).57 However, they may react ineffectively to incidents or, at worst, may overreact or antagonize customers and precipitate an incident. Skill development programs to reduce aggression are often easier to market to bar owners than interventions focused on serving less alcohol.58 The programs are most effective when focused on portable skills using real-world scenarios, drawing on participants’ experience. The following particular techniques can defuse aggressive incidents:59 • Remove the audience (get aggressors away from onlookers) • Employ calming strategies –Verbal skills * Allow the aggressor to talk and express anger * Use role-appropriate language * Avoid hostile or angry remarks * Respond indirectly to hostile questions * Express an understanding of the aggressor’s mood –Nonverbal skills * Increase the distance between oneself and the aggressor * Avoid sustained eye contact with the aggressor * Move slowly and avoid sudden movements * Maintain calm, relaxed facial expressions * Control the vocal signals of anxiety and stress • Employ control strategies * Clearly establish the situation requirements * Depersonalize the encounter * Emphasize one’s role requirements * Encourage the aggressor’s decision-making * Offer the aggressor face-saving possibilities A number of communities require security staff to be trained, licensed, and registered, a measure several researchers endorse.60, § The United Kingdom uses “door staff registration schemes” extensively, requiring all door staff at bars to be trained and vetted.§§ The many local variances in policy can be frustrating to those wishing to work in multiple jurisdictions.61 These schemes are most effective when staff receive individually numbered badges; registering agencies maintain a comprehensive name, photograph, and address register; and bars keep premise- specific staff assignment logs.62 § The San Diego (California) Police Department’s In-House Security Training Program offers training courses for instructors from local venues who, once endorsed, teach and certify in-house security personnel. The program includes an evaluation component to determine reductions in the numbers of complaints, disturbances, violent incidents, and drug use; the quality of training content, delivery, and materials; and whether the program contributes to the ability to identify problematic security personnel (San Diego Police Department Vice Unit n.d.). §§ The United Kingdom’s Private Security Act 2001 requires all private- sector security staff to obtain an occupational license before working in the industry. This act supersedes all local door-staff registration schemes (Hobbs et al. 2003). § Increasing the availability of taxis and buses to patrons leaving nightclubs in Douglas, Isle of Man was an important dimension of a larger successful strategy to reduce violence and disorder around bars (Isle of Man Constabulary 2005). §§ The United Kingdom’s Licensing Act 2003 eliminated mandatory pub closing hours. The new liquor- licensing legislation gave police more authority to close rowdy pubs, allowed for lengthy bans of troublemakers and habitual drunkards from pubs, and allowed local authorities to impose environmental conditions on liquor licenses. Several organizations had strong concerns about the legislation (Civic Trust and the Institute of Alcohol Studies 2002; Roberts et al. 2002; McNeil 2005). To date, the relaxed closing hours’ impact on the assault and disorder rates has not been evaluated. §§§ A Grand Rapids, Iowa proposal would allow bars to stay open later, although they would still be required to stop serving alcohol at the usual time. The purpose of these extended hours would be to allow customers to “cool down and sober up” before leaving the bar (Ronco and Quisenberry 2005). In Australia, a group of local bars agreed to a “patron lockout” to reduce barhopping. Although bars remained open until 3 or 5 a.m., customers were not allowed to enter or reenter bars after 2 a.m. (University of Ballarat Center for Health Research and Practice 2004). 10. Establishing adequate transportation. Adequate public transportation to and from bars, especially after closing hours, can reduce competition for transportation, more quickly clear the streets of drunken people, and reduce the hazards of drunken driving.63, § Separating taxi stands and bus stops from each other can reduce the size of groups congregating on the sidewalks.64 11. Relaxing or staggering bar closing times. Allowing bars to determine their own closing times or staggering the mandatory closing times results in fewer drunken people on the streets competing for food, transportation, and attention.65 In addition, more people are on the streets, though in lower concentrations, for longer periods—a factor that improves natural surveillance and makes people feel safer.§§ However, it is also possible that staggered closing hours will increase barhopping, as patrons roam the streets looking for open bars.§§§ In addition, eliminating mandatory closing times could create an environment where alcohol is almost continuously available and could increase assault rates at venues with extended hours.66 So, while staggered closing times show promise in reducing assault levels, more evidence of its impact is needed. Changes to operating hours, alone, are unlikely to decrease the assault rates. The change must also be accompanied by high-quality efforts to control, manage, and regulate the properties.67 If this response is implemented, it should first be done in a controlled pilot effort to gauge the overall effect. 12. Controlling bar entrances, exits, and immediate surroundings. In addition to employing bouncers or doormen, some bars install surveillance cameras at entrances and exits to discourage altercations. Prohibiting reentry after exit or charging reentry fees can discourage barhopping, which can reduce the risks of assaults among drunken patrons on the streets.68 Regulating parking outside bars is a way to control the movement of patrons and their vehicles, and enhancing lighting in alleys and parking lots improves natural surveillance. 13. Maintaining an attractive, comfortable, entertaining atmosphere in bars. Attractive, well-maintained bars suggest to patrons that the owners care about their property and will not tolerate disorderly and violent conduct that might destroy it.69 A comfortable and entertaining atmosphere reduces both frustration and boredom among patrons, which can reduce aggression levels. Lighting should not be so bright that it acts as an irritant, but also not so dim that it can conceal customers’ activities.70 An important environmental consideration is the crowding level. Police in some jurisdictions enforce occupancy limits (primarily adopted for fire safety) as a means to control the bar crowding that can lead to fights. Redesigning a bar’s interior to improve traffic flow and prevent congestion can reduce the opportunities for accidental bumps and drink spills that may escalate into fights.71 Kip Kellogg Image of students at a bar Occupancy limits should be enforced so that bar patrons do not feel crowded. 14. Establishing and enforcing clear rules of conduct for bar patrons. Restrictions on swearing, sexual activity, prostitution, drug use and dealing, and rowdiness can reduce aggression. A more permissive atmosphere with little control over patrons’ behavior is associated with higher aggression levels.72 Raising the bar area’s height is one way to improve servers’ capacity to monitor patrons’ behavior. 15. Reducing potential weapons and other sources of injury. Drink glasses that shatter in small pieces when broken minimize the seriousness of injuries from assaults with glasses. They may also be cheaper and more durable than more dangerous glassware.73 Discouraging or prohibiting patrons from taking glass containers out of bars reduces the likelihood patrons will use them as weapons in street fights.§ Padded furniture or rounded corners on tables and bars can also reduce the risk of serious injury. Requiring identification to check out pool cues can enhance accountability for their proper use and reduce the likelihood patrons will use them as weapons. 16. Communicating about incidents as they occur. Using handheld radios or cellular telephones, bar managers in a local area can pass on real-time information about problems, incidents, or patrons that may require a police response.74 Armed with this information, door staff at nearby clubs can help contain the incident and can deny entry to the patrons in question. Some bars include police directly in these communications. § The Merseyside Police (2000) in England coordinated a plan that promoted the use of toughened glass containers, added litter containers outside bars, and had bar staff and police discourage patrons from taking glass containers out of bars in downtown Liverpool. Serious assaults involving glass injuries in and around bars in the target area declined significantly. The police subsequently convinced the city council to authorize police to confiscate glass containers outside bars. The city of Savannah, Georgia allows patrons to take alcoholic beverages out of bars in the entertainment district, but requires that they be in plastic cups. Patrons use the so-called “to-go cups” extensively. 17. Banning known troublemakers from bars. Banning known troublemakers from bars takes them out of situations where fights and assaults are likely to occur.§ Bar owners and the police should get legal guidance on the required process for banning people, the length of time such bans are effective, and the role police should play in enforcing the bans. For this response to be effective, the police and the bar management must cooperate to identify—preferably with a photograph— those who have been banned.§§ Some bars may be reluctant to enforce police-requested bans of their regular customers.75 Responses With Limited Effectiveness 18. Using extra police patrols in and around bars. Many police departments concentrate on the streets outside bars rather than the conditions inside bars. They do so by providing a heavy police presence outside bars and, in some instances, in the bars themselves, with regular on- duty patrols through the bars or off-duty police officers working there. The main result seems to be an increase in the rates of reported and recorded offenses, if for no other reason than the police witness offenses that might otherwise go unreported.76, §§§ Heavy police involvement through patrols and enforcement is not essential if there is sufficient community, peer, and regulatory pressure on licensees to manage bars responsibly. The police are neither able, nor fully authorized, to regulate every aspect of bar management, but they can encourage, support, and insist on responsible management policies and practices. § The city of Portland, Oregon explained the procedures for banning troublemakers from liquor establishments in a guidebook for liquor establishment owners and managers (Campbell Resources Inc. 1991). The Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department uses what it calls an “Unruly Patron Complaint.” They remove unruly customers from bars and serve them a form telling them they are banned from entering the bar again due to their behavior. They file a report and give the bar a copy of the complaint, with the offender’s name and information, and a case number. Should the patron return to the bar, the bar staff calls the police, who arrest the patron for trespassing. Madison police have found this tactic especially helpful in bars with a regular clientele who fear losing the privilege of going there. This tactic is also a common feature of “PubWatch” schemes in the United Kingdom (Pratten and Greig 2005). §§ The Arlington (Texas) Police Department (1997) helped one especially problematic bar develop a computer database to record all people ejected from or arrested at the bar, and to make this information available to door security staff. §§§ One sensible response related to police enforcement is to pass legislation making public fighting an offense, as was done at the recommendation of the Edmonton (Alberta) Police in 1999. This allows police to arrest offenders even when they cannot establish the elements of assault and battery. 19. Marketing responsible consumption and service practices. Efforts to reduce consumption by educating people about responsible drinking do not appear effective.77 In general, drinkers do not view messages about responsible drinking as relevant to their own experiences.78 Media messages to young audiences about the dangers of drinking are counteracted by news about the health benefits of drinking modest amounts of alcohol, and by alcohol industry promotions. While major alcohol manufacturers and distributors have toned down their marketing campaigns in recent years, promoting responsible drinking, local bars have filled the void in the competition to attract patrons.79, § Police can target their enforcement efforts toward irresponsible bar advertising. 20. Prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol. Alcohol prohibition can be effective under certain conditions, such as in unique cultural contexts where there is widespread public support for it, or in isolated communities where there are no nearby jurisdictions where one can drink.80, §§ However, in most communities, prohibition is politically impractical and can create a new set of problems. For example, strict prohibition creates an illegal alcohol market, and violence is often used to enforce that market.81 § The North American Partnership for Responsible Hospitality and the National Licensed Beverage Association set standards for responsible beverage service, even though they have little direct influence over individual licensed premises. Sources of U.S. alcohol industry advertising codes include the Beer Institute, the Wine Institute, and the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. State and local laws, newspaper advertising policies, and college campus advertising policies may also govern alcohol marketing. §§ Barrow, Alaska, an isolated Arctic community, experienced dramatic decreases in alcohol-related assaults, as well as many other alcohol-related problems, when it banned the sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol (Sampson and Scott 2000). Some cities, such as Chicago, Illinois, have provisions allowing residents to vote to prohibit alcohol sales in specific areas—in effect, to create dry zones within the larger community. Appendix: Summary of Responses to Assaults in and Around Bars The table below summarizes the responses to assaults in and around bars, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Response No. Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations General Requirements of an Effective Strategy 1 17 Enlisting community support for addressing the problem Establishes joint ownership of the problem …there is sufficient public interest in and political support for addressing the problem Requires a high degree of project management to sustain coalitions over time 2 18 Implementing multifaceted, comprehensive strategies Addresses many of the known risk factors that contribute to assaults …responses are properly implemented (in the right sequence and strength) Difficult to isolate the effect of specific interventions; requires a high degree of project management 3 18 Getting cooperation and support from bar owners and managers Prevents displacement of the problem; prevents perceptions of unfairness; addresses problems at lower-risk bars …there are mechanisms to enforce agreements, and regulators acknowledge the legitimacy of owners’ profit motive Rogue operators can easily undermine cooperative agreements Response No. Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 4 19 Informally monitoring bar policies and practices Identifies high-risk locations and practices; enforces cooperative agreements; monitors progress and effectiveness …participating bar owners cooperate and support the oversight system; constructive feedback is offered to participating bar owners, along with potential solutions Lacks the force of law; requires a high degree of project management 5 19 Formally regulating and enforcing relevant liquor-licensing laws Motivates owners/ managers to adopt and enforce responsible serving policies and practices …done in conjunction with more cooperative and voluntary efforts, and enforcement is consistent, routine, and perceived to be fair Labor-intensive and costly; increases rates of detected and reported offenses Specific Responses To Reduce Assaults Reducing Alcohol Consumption 6 21 Establishing responsible- beverage-service programs Addresses a range of risk factors, especially reducing drunkenness levels …servers, managers, and owners are provided with concrete examples of responsible practices; combined with sanctions and enforcement Evidence of effectiveness is mixed; requires enforcement to be taken seriously; costly to establish 6a 22 Monitoring drinking to prevent drunkenness Reduces drunkenness levels …servers know how to detect intoxication, they have sufficient incentives to stop serving, and there is adequate opportunity to monitor patrons Refusing service to intoxicated patrons can instigate aggression; difficult to monitor drinking in large bars Response No. Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 6b 22 Promoting slower drinking rates Reduces drunkenness levels …bars prohibit serving multiple drinks to a single customer Runs counter to licensees’ short-term profit motive 6c 23 Prohibiting underage drinking Prevents drunkenness of vulnerable population …jurisdiction has identification cards that are difficult to falsify Easy to provide false proof of age in some jurisdictions 6d 23 Providing reduced-alcohol or nonalcoholic beverages Reduces drunkenness levels …patrons will drink reduced- or nonalcoholic beverages Some bar owners may be reluctant to stock reduced- or non- alcoholic beverages, believing they are less profitable 6e 23 Requiring or encouraging food service with alcohol service Reduces drunkenness levels; attracts a more diverse, less aggressive clientele; creates a calmer atmosphere …patrons will buy and eat food, and food service is adequate so as not to create additional frustration and conflict Increases costs to licensees, but does not necessarily reduce profitability 6f 23 Discouraging alcohol price discounts Reduces volume of consumption …all bars are prohibited from discounting prices Easily undermined by the pressures of business competition; potential legal restrictions to price agreements 7 23 Establishing and enforcing server liability laws Provides incentives for servers to control excessive consumption …there is sufficient community support for liability laws, and laws are enforced adequately Difficult to establish server’s knowledge of drunkenness; judgments are rare Response No. Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 8 24 Reducing the concentration and/or number of bars Reduces barhopping; reduces the potential for conflicts at closing time …the concentration and/ or number of bars is high Not conclusively proven effective at reducing violence levels Making Bars Safer 9 24 Training staff to handle patrons nonviolently Reduces levels of aggression; encourages staff to intervene before assaults occur …there are high- quality training programs available; skill development is emphasized; real-world scenarios are used Increases costs to either licensees or local government to administer training; training is often of poor quality 10 26 Establishing adequate transportation Reduces numbers of drunken people on streets after closing hours; reduces competition for transportation …the transportation infrastructure is adequate to the demand May increase costs to local government 11 26 Relaxing or staggering bar closing times Reduces the concentration of drunken people on streets after closing hours …there are multiple bars in the area, with large crowds Requires legislation to authorize; seems counterintuitive and therefore easily opposed Response No. Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 12 26 Controlling bar entrances, exits, and immediate surroundings Reduces the entry of underage, drunken, and belligerent patrons; reduces barhopping; controls conflict at key locations …the security staff is properly trained and nonaggressive, and patrons often get into conflicts in the alleys and parking lots outside bars May increase short- term costs to licensees (for security staff, surveillance cameras, lighting) 13 27 Maintaining an attractive, comfortable, entertaining atmosphere in bars Reduces the frustration and boredom that can precipitate aggression …bar owners are willing to invest in maintenance and entertainment Increases short-term costs to licensees 14 28 Establishing and enforcing clear rules of conduct for bar patrons Reduces the potential for conflicts among patrons; promotes a calmer atmosphere …bar owners have sufficient incentives to promote peaceful and legal conduct May run counter to patrons’ expectations and desires 15 28 Reducing potential weapons and other sources of injury Reduces the likelihood and/or severity of injury …bar owners know where to buy safer materials May increase short- term costs to licensees 16 28 Communicating about incidents as they occur Permits early intervention in potentially violent situations …all local bars participate; police are included Need to distinguish between incidents that require police response and those that do not Response No. Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 17 29 Banning known troublemakers from bars Removes high- risk offenders from situations where altercations are likely …police and bar management cooperate to identify banned patrons, and enforce the terms of the banishment Legal restrictions; may be difficult to ensure compliance from bar owners if regular customers are banned Responses With Limited Effectiveness 18 29 Using extra police patrols in and around bars Intended to deter assaults and allow police to intervene in disputes Little evidence in the research that extra police presence is effective or efficient 19 30 Marketing responsible consumption and service practices Intended to heighten general awareness of the problem and discourage excessive consumption Excessive-consumption- warning campaigns do not appear effective; irresponsible marketing can be used to identify high-risk bars 20 30 Prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol Reduces consumption Difficult to obtain widespread public support; reduces the positive effects of social drinking; creates illegal and potentially violent black markets Endnotes 1 Budd (2003); Finney (2004). 2 Forsyth, Cloonan, and Barr (2005); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b). 3 Graham and Wells (2001). 4 Graham and Wells (2003). 5 Homel and Tomsen (1991). 6 Stockwell (1997), citing Homel et al. (1992); Homel and Clark (1994). 7 Parks and Zetes-Zanatta (1999), citing Homel, Tomsen, and Thommeny (1992). 8 Budd (2003). 9 Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). 10 Engineer et al. (2003). 11 Graham, Schmidt, and Gillis (1996); Richardson and Budd (2003). 12 Graham, Schmidt, and Gillis (1996); Pernanen (1998); Marsh and Kibby (1992); Homel and Clark (1994). 13 Richardson et al. (2003); Engineer et al. (2003). 14 Block and Block (1995). 15 Zhu, Gorman, and Horel (2004); Lipton and Gruenewald (2002); Reid, Hughey, and Peterson (2003). 16 Block and Block (1995). 17 Berkley and Thayer (2000). 18 Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b); Chikritzhs and Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant (2005). 19 Graham et al. (2005). 20 Tomsen, Homel, and Thomenny (1991); Tomsen (2005); Macintyre and Homel (1997); Stockwell (1997); Homel and Clark (1994). 21 Lister et al. (2000). 22 Marsh and Kibby (1992). 23 Tomsen (2005); Graham and Wells (2001). 24 Macintyre and Homel (1997). 25 Donnelly and Briscoe (2003). 26 Roberts (2002). 27 Doherty and Roche (2003). 28 Graham et al. (1980); Quigley, Leonard, and Collins (2003). 29 Macintyre and Homel (1997). 30 Graham et al. (1980). 31 Graham, West, and Wells (2000). 32 Doherty and Roche (2003). 33 Graham and Homel (1997). 34 Graham et al. (1980). 35 Graham et al. (1980); Graham, West, and Wells (2000). 36 Homel (1998); Wittman (1997); Homel et al. (1997); Deehan (1999); Erenberg and Hacker (1997); Calgary Police Service (1994). 37 Pratten and Bailey (2005); Deehan (2004); Graham (2000); Stockwell (1997); Felson et al. (1997). 38 Graham (2000). 39 Homel et al. (2004). 40 Roberts (2002). 41 Homel et al. (1997); Graham (2000). 42 Homel et al. (1997). 43 Stockwell (2001). 44 Holder et al. (1997). 45 Stockwell (1997); Homel and Clark (1994); Erenberg and Hacker (1997); Saltz (1997). 46 Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003); Graham (2000); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b). 47 Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003). 48 Sloan et al. (2000). 49 McKnight and Streff (1994). 50 Stockwell (1997); Donnelly and Briscoe (2003). 51 Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999); Marsh and Kibby (1992). 52 Single (1988). 53 Saltz (1997). 54 Liang, Sloan, and Stout (2004); Sloan et al. (2000). 55 Stockwell (1997); Block and Block (1995); Saville (1996). 56 Wells, Graham, and West (1998); Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999); Homel and Clark (1994); Marsh and Kibby (1992). 57 Fox and Sobol (2000); Graham et al. (2004). 58 Graham et al. (2004). 59 Marsh and Kibby (1992). 60 Deehan (1999); Homel and Clark (1994); Marsh and Kibby (1992). 61 Hobbs et al. (2003). 62 Lister et al. (2000). 63 Greater London Authority (2002). 64 Roberts (2004). 65 Marsh and Kibby (1992); Deehan (1999); Lovatt (1994); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a). 66 Chikritzhs and Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant (2005). 67 Roberts et al. (2002). 68 Felson et al. (1997). 69 Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999). 70 Doherty and Roche (2003). 71 Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). 72 Marsh and Kibby (1992); Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (2004,1999). 73 Shepherd, Huggert, and Kidner (1993); Deehan (1999). 74 Great Britain Home Office (2004); Roberts (2004). 75 Roberts (2002). 76 Burns and Coumarelos (1993); Pernanen (1998); Stockwell (2001). 77 Single (1988). 78 Tomsen (2005). 79 Erenberg and Hacker (1997). 80 Wood and Gruenewald (2004). 81 Pernanen (1998). References Arlington Police Department (1997). “Taming the ‘Cowboys’: Arlington Police Reduce Calls for Service From Local Nightclub.” Problem-Solving Quarterly 10(3) (Fall):1–2. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005). Managing and Designing Out Crime and Disorder at Licensed Premises: A Guide for Licensees. Portishead (England): Avon and Somerset Constabulary. Berkley, B., and J. Thayer (2000). “Policing Entertainment Districts.” Policing 23(4):466–491. Block, R., and C. Block (1995). “Space, Place, and Crime: Hot- Spot Areas and Hot Places of Liquor-Related Crime.” In J. Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.), Crime and Place. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 4. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press; and Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Briscoe, S., and N. Donnelly (2001a). Temporal and Regional Aspects of Alcohol-Related Violence and Disorder. Alcohol Studies Bulletin, No. 1. Sydney (Australia): New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug Research Institute of Curtin University. ———— (2001b). Assaults on Licensed Premises in Inner-Urban Areas. Alcohol Studies Bulletin, No. 2. Sydney (Australia): New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug Research Institute of Curtin University. Budd, T. (2003). “Alcohol-Related Assault: Findings From the British Crime Survey.” Home Office Online Report 35/03. London: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate. Burns, E., M. Nusbaumer, and D. Reiling (2003). “Think They’re Drunk? Alcohol Servers and the Identification of Intoxication.” Journal of Drug Education 33(2):177–186. Burns, L., and C. Coumarelos (1993). Policing Pubs: Evaluation of a Licensing Enforcement Strategy. Sydney (Australia): New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Calgary Police Service (1994). “Police Lead Effort To Improve Safety of Popular Nightspot. Electric Avenue— ‘The Place To Go.’” Problem-Solving Quarterly 7(3/4) (Fall):1,6–8. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Campbell Resources Inc. (1991). Alcohol and Problem Customers. Controlling Drug Activity and Other Illegal Behavior in Taverns and Retail Liquor Outlets: What Owners and Managers Need To Know. Portland (Oregon): City of Portland. Chikritzhs, T., and T. Stockwell (2002). “The Impact of Later Trading Hours for Australian Public Houses (Hotels) on Levels of Violence.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(5):591– 599. Civic Trust and The Institute of Alcohol Studies (2002). Open All Hours? A Report on Licensing Deregulation by the Open All Hours? Campaign. London: Civic Trust and the Institute of Alcohol Studies. Deehan, A. (2004). “The Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime: Operationalising Situational and Environmental Strategies.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 6(1):43–52. References ———— (1999). Alcohol and Crime: Taking Stock. Crime Reduction Research Series, Paper 3. London: Great Britain Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Derbyshire Constabulary (2002). “Peaks and Dales Safer Pubs and Clubs.” Submission for the Tilley Award for Problem-Oriented Policing. Doherty, S., and A. Roche (2003). Alcohol and Licensed Premises: Best Practice in Policing. Payneham (Australia): Australasian Center for Policing Research. Donnelly, N., and S. Briscoe (2003). “Signs of Intoxication and Server Intervention Among 18–39-Year-Olds Drinking at Licensed Premises in New South Wales, Australia.” Addiction 98(9):1287–1295. Engineer, R., A. Phillips, J. Thompson, and J. Nicholls (2003). Drunk and Disorderly: A Qualitative Study of Binge Drinking Among 18-to 24-Year-Olds. Home Office Research Study, No. 262. London: Great Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate. Erenberg, D., and G. Hacker (1997). Last Call for High-Risk Bar Promotions That Target College Students: A Community Action Guide. Washington, D.C.: Center for Science in the Public Interest. www.health.org/pubs/lastcall/index. Felson, M., R. Berends, B. Richardson, and A. Veno (1997). “Reducing Pub Hopping and Related Crime.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. Finney, A. (2004). Violence in the Nighttime Economy: Key Findings From the Research. Home Office Findings, No. 214. London: Great Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate. Forsyth, A., M. Cloonan, and J. Barr (2005). “Factors Associated With Alcohol-Related Problems Within Licensed Premises.” Report to the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Glasgow, Scotland: Glasgow Center for the Study of Violence, Glasgow Caledonia University; and Center for Research Development in Adult and Lifelong Learning, University of Glasgow. Fox, J., and J. Sobol (2000). “Drinking Patterns, Social Interaction, and Barroom Behavior: A Routine-Activities Approach.” Deviant Behavior 21(5):429–450. Graham, K. (2000). “Preventive Interventions for On-Premise Drinking: A Promising But Underresearched Area of Prevention.” Contemporary Drug Problems 27(3):593–668. Graham, K., S. Bernards, D. Osgood, R. Homel, and J. Purcell (2005). “Guardians and Handlers: The Role of Bar Staff in Preventing and Managing Aggression.” Addiction 100(6):755– 766. Graham, K., and R. Homel (1997). “Creating Safer Bars.” In M. Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell (eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm: What Works? London and New York: Free Association Books. Graham, K., D. Osgood, E. Zibrowski, J. Purcell, L. Gliksman, K. Leonard, K. Pernanen, R. Saltz, and T. Toomey (2004). “The Effect of the Safer Bars Program on Physical Aggression in Bars: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Drug and Alcohol Review 23(1):31–41. Graham, K., L. Rocque, R. Yetman, T. Ross, and E. Guistra (1980). “Aggression and Barroom Environments.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 41(3):277–292. Graham, K., G. Schmidt, and K. Gillis (1996). “Circumstances When Drinking Leads to Aggression: An Overview of Research Findings.” Contemporary Drug Problems 23(3):493–557. Graham, K., and S. Wells (2003). “‘Somebody’s Gonna Get Their Head Kicked in Tonight!’ Aggression Among Young Males in Bars—A Question of Values?” British Journal of Criminology 43(3):546–566. ———— (2001). “Aggression Among Young Adults in the Social Context of the Bar.” Addiction Research & Theory 9(3):193–219. Graham, K., P. West, and S. Wells (2000). “Evaluating Theories of Alcohol-Related Aggression Using Observations of Young Adults in Bars.” Addiction 95(6):847–863. Great Britain Home Office (2004). Violent Crime: Tackling Violent Crime in the Nighttime Economy. London: Police Standards Unit and Crime Directorate. Greater London Authority (2002). Late-Night London: Planning and Managing the Late-Night Economy. SDS Technical Report Six. London: Greater London Authority. Green Bay Police Department (2000). “Street Sweeping, Broadway Style.” In Police Executive Research Forum, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Hobbs, D., P. Haedfield, S. Lister, and S. Winlow (2003). Bouncers: Violence and Governance in the Nighttime Economy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Holder, H., R. Saltz, J. Grube, R. Voas, P. Gruenewald, and A. Treno (1997). “A Community Prevention Trial To Reduce Alcohol-Involved Accidental Injury and Death: Overview.” Addiction 92(Supplement 2):S155–S171. Homel, R. (2001). Preventing Violence: A Review of the Literature on Violence and Violence Prevention. A Report Prepared for the Crime Prevention Division of the NSW Attorney General’s Department. Sydney (Australia): NSW Department of the Attorney General. ——— (1998). “Policing Alcohol Problems.” In T. O’Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Homel, R., R. Carvolth, M. Hauritz, G. McIlwain, and R. Teague (2004). “Making Licensed Venues Safer for Patrols: What Environmental Factors Should Be the Focus of Interventions?” Drug and Alcohol Review 23(1):19–29. Homel, R., and J. Clark (1994). “The Prediction and Prevention of Violence in Pubs and Clubs.” In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. Homel, R., M. Hauritz, R. Wortley, G. McIlwain, and R. Carvolth (1997). “Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Through Community Action: The Surfers-Paradise Safety Action Project.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. Homel, R., and S. Tomsen (1991). “Pubs and Violence.” Current Affairs Bulletin 68(7):20–27. Homel, R., S. Tomsen, and J. Thommeny (1992). “Public Drinking and Violence: Not Just an Alcohol Problem.” Journal of Drug Issues 22(3):679–697. Hopkins, M. (2004). “Targeting Hotspots of Alcohol-Related Town Center Violence: A Nottinghamshire Case Study.” Security Journal 17(4):53–66. Isle of Man Constabulary (2005). “Project Centurion: Reducing Crime and Disorder on Douglas Promenade.” Submission to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Liang, L., F. Sloan, and E. Stout (2004). “Precaution, Compensation, and Threats of Sanction: The Case of Alcohol Servers.” International Review of Law and Economics 21(1):49–69. Lipton, R., and P. Gruenewald (2002). “The Spatial Dynamics of Violence and Alcohol Outlets.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(2):187–195. Lister, S., D. Hobbs, S. Hall, and S. Winlow (2000). “Violence in the Nighttime Economy: Bouncers: The Reporting, Recording, and Prosecution of Assaults.” Policing and Society 10(4):383–402. Lovatt, A. (1994). “The More the Merrier: A Manchester Experiment Suggests That Abandoning Traditional Licensing Hours Reduces Crime and Rowdyism.” Policing 10(4):268–275. Macintyre, S., and R. Homel (1997). “Danger on the Dance Floor: A Study of Interior Design, Crowding, and Aggression in Nightclubs.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. Maguire, M., and H. Nettleton (2003). Reducing Alcohol-Related Violence and Disorder: An Evaluation of the ‘TASC’ Project. Home Office Research Study, No. 265. London: Great Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate. Marsh, P., and K. Kibby (1992). Drinking and Public Disorder. London: Alden Press, Oxford. McKnight, A., and F. Streff (1994). “The Effect of Enforcement Upon Service of Alcohol to Intoxicated Patrons of Bars and Restaurants.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 26(1):79–88. McNeill, A. (2005). “Occasional Paper: Crime and Disorder, Binge Drinking, and the Licensing Act 2003.” London: Institute for Alcohol Studies. Merseyside Police (2000). “Operation Crystal and the 24-Hour City.” Submission for the Tilley Award for Problem-Oriented Policing. www.popcenter.org/library/ tilley/2001/01-49(W-cdrc).pdf. Mosher, J., T. Toomey, C. Good, E. Harwood, and A. Wagenaar (2002). “State Laws Mandating or Promoting Training Programs for Alcohol Servers and Establishment Managers: An Assessment of Statutory and Administrative Procedures.” Journal of Public Health Policy 23(1):90–113. Parks, K., and L. Zetes-Zanatta (1999). “Women’s Bar- Related Victimization: Refining and Testing a Conceptual Model.” Aggressive Behavior 25(5):349–364. Pernanen, K. (1998). “Prevention of Alcohol-Related Violence.” Contemporary Drug Problems 25(3):477–509. Plant, E., and M. Plant (2005). “A ‘Leap in the Dark?’ Lessons for the United Kingdom From Past Extensions of Bar Opening Hours.” International Journal of Drug Policy 16(6):363–368. Pratten, J., and N. Bailey (2005). “Pubwatch: Questions on Its Validity and a Police Response.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17(4):359–364. Pratten, J., and B. Greig (2005). “Can Pubwatch Address the Problems of Binge Drinking? A Case Study From the Northwest of England.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17(3):252–260. Quigley, B., K. Leonard, and R. Collins (2003). “Characteristics of Violent Bars and Bar Patrons.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64(6):765–772. Reid, R., J. Hughey, and N. Peterson (2003). “Generalizing the Alcohol Outlet—Assaultive Violence Link: Evidence From a U.S. Midwestern City.” Substance Use & Misuse 38(14):1971–1982. Richardson, A., and T. Budd (2003). “Young Adults, Alcohol, Crime, and Disorder.” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 13(1):5–16. Richardson, A., T. Budd, R. Engineer, A. Phillips, J. Thompson, and J. Nicholls (2003). Drinking, Crime, and Disorder. Home Office Findings, No. 185. London: Great Britain Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate. Roberts, J. (2002). “Serving Up Trouble in the Barroom Environment.” Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, School of Criminal Justice. Roberts, M. (2004). Good Practice in Managing the Evening and Late-Night Economy: A Literature Review From an Environmental Perspective. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Roberts, M., C. Turner, S. Greenfield, G. Osborn, N. Bailey, and T. Edmundson (2002). Licensing Reform: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Rights, Responsibilities, and Regulation. London: Central Cities Institute, University of Westminster. Ronco, E., and D. Quisenberry (2005). “Bar Patrons Could Get Extra Time To Sober Up.” The Grand Rapids Press, July 1, p. A1. Saltz, R. (1997). “Prevention Where Alcohol Is Sold and Consumed: Server Intervention and Responsible Beverage Service.” In M. Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell (eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm: What Works? London and New York: Free Association Books. Sampson, R., and M. Scott (eds.) (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (2000). San Diego Police Department Vice Unit (n.d.). In-House Security Program: Instructor Course. San Diego: San Diego Police Department. Saville, G. (1996). “Searching for a Neighborhood’s Crime Threshold.” Subject to Debate 10(10):1,7. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Shepherd, J., R. Huggert, and G. Kidner (1993). “Impact Resistance of Bar Glasses.” The Journal of Trauma 35(6):936–938. Single, E. (1988). “The Availability Theory of Alcohol- Related Problems.” In C. Chaudron and D. Wilkinson (eds.), Theories on Alcoholism. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation. Sloan, F., E. Stout, K. Whetten-Goldstein, and L. Liang (2000). Drinkers, Drivers, and Bartenders: Balancing Private Choices and Public Accountability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stockwell, T. (2001). “Responsible Alcohol Service: Lessons From Evaluations of Server Training and Policing Initiatives.” Drug and Alcohol Review 20(3):257–265. ———— (1997). “Regulation of the Licensed Drinking Environment: A Major Opportunity for Crime Prevention.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication, and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. Tierney, J., and D. Hobbs (2003). “Alcohol-Related Crime and Disorder Data: Guidance for Local Partnerships.” Home Office Online Report 08/03. London: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate. Tomsen, S. (2005). “‘Boozers and Bouncers’: Masculine Conflict, Disengagement, and the Contemporary Governance of Drinking-Related Violence and Disorder.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 38(3):283– 297. Tomsen, S., R. Homel, and J. Thommeny (1991). “The Causes of Public Violence: Situational ‘Versus’ Other Factors in Drinking-Related Assaults.” In D. Chappell, P. Grabosky, and H. Strang (eds.), Australian Violence: Contemporary Perspectives. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Toomey, T., A. Wagenaar, J. Gehan, G. Kilian, D. Murray, and C. Perry (2001). “Project ARM: Alcohol Risk Management To Prevent Sales to Underage and Intoxicated Patrons.” Health Education & Behavior 28(2):186–199. University of Ballarat Center for Health Research and Practice (2004). Operation Link: Be Safe Late Program: A Partnership Approach to Responsible Patrol Management at Nightclubs to Reduce the Occurrence of Alcohol-Related Crime, Disorder, and Nuisance Within the Central Business District of the City of Ballarat. Mt. Helen, Victoria (Australia): University of Ballarat. Wallin, E., J. Gripenberg, and S. Andreasson (2005). “Overserving at Licensed Premises in Stockholm: Effects of a Community Action Program.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 66(6):806–814. Wallin, E., T. Norstrom, and S. Andreasson (2003). “Alcohol Prevention Targeting Licensed Premises: A Study of Effects on Violence.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64(2):270– 277. Wells, S., K. Graham, and P. West (1998). “‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’: Responses by Security Staff to Aggressive Incidents in Public Drinking Settings.” Journal of Drug Issues 28(4):817–836. Wiggers, J., M. Jauncey, R. Considine, J. Daly, M. Kingsland, K. Purss, S. Burrows, C. Nicholas, and R. Waites (2004). “Strategies and Outcomes in Translating Alcohol Harm- Reduction Research Into Practice: The Alcohol Linking Program.” Drug and Alcohol Review 23(3):355–364. Wittman, F. (1997). “Local Control To Prevent Problems of Alcohol Availability: Experience in California Communities.” In M. Plan, E. Single, and T. Stockwell (eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm: What Works? London and New York: Free Association Books. Wood, D., and P. Gruenewald (2004). “Alcohol Availability, Police Presence, and Violence in Isolated Alaskan Villages.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas. Zhu, L., D. Gorman, and S. Horel (2004). “Alcohol Outlet Density and Violence: A Geospatial Analysis.” Alcohol & Alcoholism 39(4):369–375. About the Authors Michael S. Scott Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for Problem- Oriented Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was formerly chief of police in Lauderhill (Florida); served in various civilian administrative positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce (Florida), and New York City police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department. Scott developed training programs in problem-oriented policing at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). He was the 1996 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation and leadership in policing. He is a judge for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kelly Dedel Kelly Dedel is the director of One in 37 Research, Inc., a criminal justice consulting firm based in Portland, Oregon. As a consultant to federal, state, and local agencies, she contributes to research on the juvenile and criminal justice systems by 1) developing written tools to enhance practice or inform public policy; 2) conducting investigations of confinement conditions in juvenile correctional facilities; and 3) undertaking rigorous evaluations of various juvenile and criminal justice programs to assess their effectiveness. She has provided evaluation-related technical assistance to more than 60 jurisdictions nationwide for the Bureau of Justice Assistance. In this capacity, she has worked with a broad range of criminal justice programs implemented by police, prosecutors, public defenders, juvenile detention and confinement facilities, local jails, community corrections, and prisons. She consults with the Justice Department as a monitor/investigator of civil rights violations in juvenile correctional facilities, most often in the areas of education and protection from harm. Among her other research interests are prisoner reentry, risk assessment and offender classification, and juveniles in adult correctional facilities. Before working as a consultant, she was a founder and senior research scientist at The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at The George Washington University, and a senior research associate at the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Dedel received bachelor’s degrees in psychology and criminal justice from the University of Richmond, and a doctorate in clinical psychology from the Center for Psychological Studies, in Berkeley, California. Recommended Readings • A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It provides guidance on whether and how to conduct cost- effective surveys. • Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing problem-oriented policing efforts. • Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel (Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. • Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke (Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. • Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document produced by the National Institute of Justice in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the annual award program that recognizes exemplary problem- oriented responses to various community problems. A similar publication is available for the award winners from subsequent years. The documents are also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. • Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in England and Wales. • Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have practical implications for the police in their efforts to prevent crime. • Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis can be integrated and institutionalized into modern policing practices. • Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein (McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses how a police agency can implement the concept. • Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). Provides a thorough review of significant policing research about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and securing productive partnerships. • Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000). Describes how the most critical elements of Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. • Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman (Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the problem-solving process, and provides examples of effective problem-solving in one agency. • Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj. gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process. • Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke (Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. • Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder problems. • Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for police to analyzing problems within the context of problem-oriented policing. • Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains many of the basics of research as it applies to police management and problem-solving. Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides series: 1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7 36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8 38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2 39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6 40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-63-0 41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7 42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 Response Guides series: • The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X • Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X • Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5 • Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X • Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4 Problem-Solving Tools series: • Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 • Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 • Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5 • Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Domestic Violence Bank Robbery Drive-by Shootings Disorder at Day Laborer Sites Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues Traffic Congestion Around Schools Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses Robbery of Convenience Stores Theft from Cars on Streets Problem-Solving Tools Risky Facilities Implementing Responses to Problems Designing a Problem Analysis System Response Guides Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. For More InForMatIon: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 To obtain details on COPS programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. e08064507 Updated: August 16, 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-00-2