Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

To print this guide, click on your web browser's "Print" icon, or go to the menubar and select "File..Print"

Assaults in and Around Bars 2nd Edition

Guide No. 1 (2006)

by Michael S. Scott & Kelly Dedel

Translation(s): As Agressões nos Bares e nas suas Imediações (Portuguese) PDF

The Problem of Assaults in and Around Bars

This guide deals with the problem of assaults in and around bars.† We know a lot about the risk factors for these assaults, and about effective responses to them. We know less about which particular responses are most effective in addressing specific aspects of the problem. Therefore, your challenge will be to conduct a good analysis of the local problem, guided by the information presented here, and put together the right combination of responses to address that problem.

The guide begins by reviewing factors that increase the risks of assaults in and around bars. It then identifies a series of questions that might help you analyze your local problem of assaults in and around bars. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and what is known about them from evaluative research and police practice.

The proliferation of bars in many communities has led to increases in assaults in and around the bars. While many, if not most, of these are alcohol-related , assaults also occur when neither the aggressors nor the victims have been drinking. Most assaults occur on weekend nights. [1] The majority of assaults occur at a relatively small number of places. [2] , †† Not all assaults involve a simple fistfight with a clear beginning and ending; instead, the incidents are often more ambiguous and complicated. For example, some are intermittent conflicts that flare up over time, some evolve into different incidents, and many involve participants who alternate between the roles of aggressor and peacemaker, often drawing additional people into the incident. [3] Some involve lower levels of 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.

† The term “bar” refers to licensed liquor establishments that sell alcohol primarily for consumption on the premises. These include establishments variously known as nightclubs, pubs, taverns, lounges, hotels (in Australia), discotheques, or social clubs. The term “assault” refers to the full range of violent acts, from those that cause minor injury to those that cause death, and from consensual fights to unprovoked attacks.

†† For example, in Sydney, Australia, just 12 percent of bars accounted for almost 60 percent of assaults occurring in licensed drinking establishments (Briscoe and Donnelly 2001b).

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 deserts” 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:

† 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, 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]

Crowing in bars creates the risk of accidental bumping and irritation, which can lead to assults

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] , †

† 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.

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.

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:

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

Victims

† 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).

Offenders

Locations/Times

Bar Management Practices

Regulation and Enforcement Practices

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:†

† 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.††

    † 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).

  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.
    Police inspections of bars and enforcement of liquor laws enocourages bar owners to adhere to responsible managment practices

    Police inspections of bars and enforcement of liquor laws encourages bar owners to adhere to responsible management practices. Kip Kellogg

    Some communities use nuisance-abatement laws and conditional-use permits (business permits with special requirements and restrictions) to compel bar owners to establish and enforce responsible policies and practices that can reduce aggression and violence in and around the premises.†††

    † 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).

    ††† 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:

Reducing Alcohol Consumption

  1. Police inspections of bars and enforcement of liquor laws enocourages bar owners to adhere to responsible managment practices

    Training and encouraging bar staff to serve responsibly and monitor patrons’ drinking can help reduce the risk of violence in the bar. smartserve.org

    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]

    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:

    † 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).

    1. 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]

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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]
    6. 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.
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  1. 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).

  2. 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]

    † 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).

  3. 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.

    † 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; McNeill 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).

  4. Police inspections of bars and enforcement of liquor laws enocourages bar owners to adhere to responsible managment practices

    Occupancy limits should be enforced so that bar patrons do not feel crowded. Kip Kellogg

    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.
  5. 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]
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

    The Merseyside Police (2001) 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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]

    † 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.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

  1. 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.

    † 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.

  2. 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.

    † 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.

  3. 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]

    †† 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.

Additional Resources

Hauritz, Marg, Ross Homel, Gillian McIlwain, Tamara Burrows and Michael Townsley (1998). “Reducing violence in licensed venues: community safety action projects.” Trends and Issues, No. 101 PDF. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Marsh, Peter (2002). Counting the cost: The measurement and recording of alcohol-related violence and disorder. PDF London: The Portman Group.

MCM Research (1990). Conflict and violence in pubs. PDF Oxford, UK: MCM Research Ltd.

St. John-Brooks, Katharine and Kate Winstanley (1998). Keeping the Peace: A guide to the prevention of alcohol-related disorder. PDF London: The Portman Group.

These sources discuss a variety of initiatives related to alcohol licensing and public disorder, including those to control the availability of alcohol, regulate consumption, enforce existing law, and improve the environments where alcohol is consumed.

Reid-Howie Associates, ( 2003). Liquor Licensing and Public Disorder: Review of Literature on the Impact of Licensing and Other Controls/Audits of Local Initiatives, Research Findings, No. 68 PDF

Scottish Executive (2003). Liquor Licensing and Public Disorder: Review of Literature on the Impact of Licensing and Other Controls/Audits of Local Initiatives PDF

Abstracts of publications that have appeared since this guide was written

A monograph for police and policy makers. Doherty, S.J., and A.M. Roche (2003). Payneham, South Australia: Australasian Centre for Policing Research.

This monograph identifies best practice strategies to reduce alcohol-related harms in and around licensed premises. Specifically, it highlights the best practice in international policing to reduce alcohol-related harms associated with licensed premises; identifies innovative practices that aim to reduce alcohol-related harms associated with licensed premises located in rural and remote areas and with a high proportion of indigenous inhabitants; identifies environmental features and serving practices of licensed premises that are associated with low levels of alcohol-related harm, and the methods that police can use to encourage adoption of these; identifies particularly useful legislative tools that are in operation internationally; summarizes policy, operational and project-based documentation from police services concerning their responses to policing licensed premises; and identifies gaps that exist in the knowledge base on this issues and makes recommendations on how these gaps should be addressed. The monograph was developed through a review of the international literature on policing and licensing issues regarded alcohol-related harms in and around licensed premises, assessment of key documents to identify the legislative and organizational frameworks within which the policing of licenses premises occurs in Australia, and consultation with key stakeholders in all Australian jurisdictions. Chapters discuss alcohol use and misuse in Australia; licensed premises, alcohol-related harms and policing; the physical and regulatory issues related to licensed drinking environments; policing licensed drinking environments; problem-solving and intelligence; collaborative strategies; and recommendations for future practice in Australian policing.

Overall, the high prevalence of drinking in Australia is associated with significant individual and social harms. many of these harms place substantial demands on the human and physical resources of police agencies. Yet, in comparison to these demands and their costs, they have received relatively little attention. As a consequence, police agencies have had only a limited impact on alcohol-related crime, disorder and harm reduction especially in relation to licensed premises. Achieving best practice in the policing of licensed premises, therefore, requires a multi-faceted response to this complex area of police work.

The role of the bar context and social behaviors on women’s risk for aggression. Buddie, A.M., and K.A. Parks (2003). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(12): 1378-1393.

This study examines the extent to which the environmental characteristics of bars and social behaviors that women engage in when drinking in this setting are associated with bar-related aggression. The present analysis was part of a larger study of women bar drinkers (Parks & Zetes-Zanatta, 1999). Data consisted of the survey and interview responses of 198 women, between the ages of 18 and 55, who frequented bars one or more times each month during the preceding year. Overall, certain environmental characteristics of bars and specific social behaviors that a woman engaged in at her usual bar were associated with experiencing more severe bar-related aggression. Women experienced more severe aggression when they frequented bars containing younger rather than older patrons. Younger individuals are more likely than older individuals to lack the self-control necessary to avoid becoming involved in aggressive situations, and more likely to engage in violence and aggression in general. Further, both competitive activity (pool playing) and illegal activities (drug sales, prostitution) in a bar were associated with experiencing severe physical aggression. Specific social behaviors were also associated with bar-related aggression, including heavy drinking, going to and leaving the bar with less well-known individuals, and talking to more individuals while in the bar context. Whereas it cannot be inferred from these results that women are to blame for their victimization, women's knowledge regarding the risk factors for experiencing bar-related aggression will aid in future education and prevention efforts.

Summary of Responses

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.

General Requirements
# Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations
1 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 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 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
4 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 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
Reducing Alcohol Consumption
# Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations
6 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 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
6b 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
6c 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 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 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 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 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
8 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
# Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations
9 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 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 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
12 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 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 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 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 Communicating about incidents as they occur Permits early intervention in potentially violent …all local bars participate; police are included Need to distinguish between incidents that require police response and those that do not
17 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
# Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations
18 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 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 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) [Full Text]; Finney (2004) [Full Text].

[2] Forsyth, Cloonan, and Barr (2005) [Full Text]; Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b) [Full Text].

[3] Graham and Wells (2001).

[4] Graham and Wells (2003).

[5] Homel and Tomsen (1991).

[6] Stockwell (1997) [Full Text], citing Homel et al. (1992); Homel and Clark (1994) [Full Text].

[7] Parks and Zetes-Zanatta (1999), citing Homel, Tomsen, and Thommeny (1992).

[8] Budd (2003) [Full Text].

[9] Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005) [Full Text].

[10] Engineer et al. (2003) [Full Text].

[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) [Full Text].

[13] Richardson et al. (2003) [Full Text]; Engineer et al. (2003) [Full Text].

[14] Block and Block (1995) [Full Text].

[15] Zhu, Gorman, and Horel (2004); Lipton and Gruenewald (2002); Reid, Hughey, and Peterson (2003).

[16] Block and Block (1995). [Full Text]

[17] Berkley and Thayer (2000).

[18] Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b) [Full Text]; Chikritzhs and Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant (2005).

[19] Graham et al. (2005).

[20] Tomsen, Homel, and Thomenny (1991) [Full Text]; Tomsen (2005); Macintyre and Homel (1997) [Full Text]; Stockwell (1997) [Full Text]; Homel and Clark (1994) [Full Text].

[21] Lister et al. (2000).

[22] Marsh and Kibby (1992).

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

[24] Macintyre and Homel (1997) [Full Text].

[25] Donnelly and Briscoe (2003).

[26] Roberts (2002).

[27] Doherty and Roche (2003) [Full Text].

[28] Graham et al. (1980); Quigley, Leonard, and Collins (2003).

[29] Macintyre and Homel (1997) [Full Text].

[30] Graham et al. (1980).

[31] Graham, West, and Wells (2000).

[32] Doherty and Roche (2003) [Full Text].

[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) [Full Text]; Deehan (1999) [Full Text]; Erenberg and Hacker (1997) [Full Text]; Calgary Police Service (1994).

[37] Pratten and Bailey (2005); Deehan (2004); Graham (2000); Stockwell (1997) [Full Text]; Felson et al. (1997). [Full Text]

[38] Graham (2000).

[39] Homel et al. (2004).

[40] Roberts (2002).

[41] Homel et al. (1997) [Full Text]; Graham (2000).

[42] Homel et al. (1997) [Full Text].

[43] Stockwell (2001).

[44] Holder et al. (1997).

[45] Stockwell (1997) [Full Text]; Homel and Clark (1994) [Full Text] ; Erenberg and Hacker (1997) [Full Text]; Saltz (1997).

[46] Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003); Graham (2000); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a) [Full Text]; Briscoe and Donnelly (2001b) [Full Text].

[47] Burns, Nusbaumer, and Reiling (2003).

[48] Sloan et al. (2000).

[49] McKnight and Streff (1994).

[50] Stockwell (1997) [Full Text]; Donnelly and Briscoe (2003).

[51] Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999) [Full Text]; Marsh and Kibby (1992).

[52] Single (1988).

[53] Saltz (1997).

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

[55] Stockwell (1997) [Full Text]; Block and Block (1995) [Full Text]; Saville (1996).

[56] Wells, Graham, and West (1998); Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999) [Full Text]; Homel and Clark (1994) [Full Text]; 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) [Full Text]; Homel and Clark (1994) [Full Text]; Marsh and Kibby (1992).

[61] Hobbs et al. (2003).

[62] Lister et al. (2000).

[63] Greater London Authority (2002) [Full Text].

[64] Roberts (2004) [Full Text].

[65] Marsh and Kibby (1992); Deehan (1999) [Full Text]; Lovatt (1994); Briscoe and Donnelly (2001a) [Full Text].

[66] Chikritzhs and Stockwell (2002); Plant and Plant (2005).

[67] Roberts et al. (2002).

[68] Felson et al. (1997). [Full Text]

[69] Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (1999) [Full Text].

[70] Doherty and Roche (2003) [Full Text].

[71] Avon and Somerset Constabulary (2005) [Full Text].

[72] Marsh and Kibby (1992); Graham and Homel (1997); Deehan (2004,1999) [Full Text].

[73] Shepherd, Huggert, and Kidner (1993); Deehan (1999) [Full Text].

[74] Great Britain Home Office (2004); Roberts (2004) [Full Text].

[75] Roberts (2002).

[76] Burns and Coumarelos (1993) [Full Text]; Pernanen (1998); Stockwell (2001).

[77] Single (1988).

[78] Tomsen (2005).

[79] Erenberg and Hacker (1997) [Full Text].

[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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

———— (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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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.

———— (1999). Alcohol and Crime: Taking Stock. Crime Reduction Research Series, Paper 3. London: Great Britain Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. [Full Text]

Derbyshire Constabulary (2002). “Peaks and Dales Safer Pubs and Clubs.” Submission for the Tilley Award for Problem-Oriented Policing. [Full Text]

Doherty, S., and A. Roche (2003). Alcohol and Licensed Premises: Best Practice in Policing. Payneham (Australia): Australasian Center for Policing Research. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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 (2001). “Operation Crystal and the 24-Hour City.” Submission for the Tilley Award for Problem-Oriented Policing.

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 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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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). [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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. [Full Text]

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.

Related POP Projects

Important!

The quality and focus of these submissions vary considerably. With the exception of those submissions selected as winners or finalists, these documents are unedited and are reproduced in the condition in which they were submitted. They may nevertheless contain useful information or may report innovative projects.

A POP Approach to Reducing Assaults at Licensed Premises, Cumbria Constabulary (Cumbria, UK), 2003

B.A.N.D.: Burnley Against Night-time Disorder [Tilley Award Winner], Lancashire Constabulary (Lancashire, UK), 2002

Cowboys: A Problem Solving Initiative, Arlington Police Department (TX, US), 1998

Electric Avenue [Goldstein Award Winner], Calgary Police Service (AB, CA), 1994

Invercargill – The RAID Squad Initiative, New Zealand Police Department (NZ), 1998

Managing and Designing Out Crime and Disorder at Licensed Premises: A Guide for Licensees, Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Bristol, UK), 2005

Newham Proactive Licensing Team, Metropolitan Police Service (London, UK), 2011

Nightclub After-hours Nuisance Project, San Diego Police Department (CA, US), 2003

Operation Abingdon [Goldstein Award Finalist], Lancashire Constabulary (Lancashire, UK), 2007

Operation Crystal Clear [Tilley Award Winner], Merseyside Police Department (Merseyside, UK), 2001

Operation Safe Clubs: Enforcement and Situational Problem-Oriented Policing [Goldstein Award Finalist], Miami Police Department (FL, US), 2011

Peaks and Dales Safer Pubs and Clubs, Derbyshire Constabulary (Derbyshire, UK), 2002

Project Centurion [Goldstein Award Winner], Isle of Man Constabulary (British Isles, UK), 2005

Reclaiming the 'Street of Shame': A Problem Oriented Solution to Vancouver's Entertainment District, Vancouver Police Department (BC, CA), 2009

Safe and Sound: A Safer Night Time Economy, Metropolitan Police Service (London, UK), 2007

Safer Bars for a Safer Community, Dayton Police Department (OH, US), 2011

Smashing Time - or not? [Goldstein Award Finalist], Lancashire Constabulary (Lancashire, UK), 2010

Street Sweeping, Broadway Style [Goldstein Award Winner], Green Bay Police Department (WI, US), 1999

The Barwatch Program, Vancouver Police Department (BC, CA), 1999

The Barrow Temperance Project [Goldstein Award Winner], North Slope Borough Department of Public Safety (AK, US), 1995

Tina's Night Club, San Diego Police Department (CA, US), 2011