GRAFFITI WALL
Graffiti (plural of graffito: "a graffito", but "these graffiti") are writing or drawings that have been scribbled, scratched, or painted illicitly on a wall or other surface, often within public view. Graffiti range from simple written words to elaborate wall paintings, and they have existed since ancient times, with examples dating back to Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, and the Roman Empire.
There are different types of graffiti. The major types include:
In modern times, paint (particularly spray paint) and marker pens have become the most commonly used graffiti materials. In most countries, marking or painting property without the property owner's permission is considered defacement and vandalism, which is a punishable crime.
Graffiti may also express underlying social and political messages and a whole genre of artistic expression is based upon spray paint graffiti styles. Within hip-hop culture, graffiti have evolved alongside hip-hop music, b-boying, and other elements. Unrelated to hip-hop graffiti, gangs use their own form of graffiti to mark territory or to serve as an indicator of gang-related activities.
Controversies that surround graffiti continue to create disagreement amongst city officials, law enforcement, and writers who wish to display and appreciate work in public locations. There are many different types and styles of graffiti; it is a rapidly developing art form whose value is highly contested and reviled by many authorities while also subject to protection, sometimes within the same jurisdiction.
- gang graffiti, often used by gangs to mark turf or convey threats of violence, and sometimes copycat graffiti, which mimics gang graffiti;
- tagger graffiti, ranging from high-volume simple hits to complex street art;
- conventional graffiti, often isolated or spontaneous acts of "youthful exuberance," but sometimes malicious or vindictive; and
- ideological graffiti, such as political or hate graffiti, which conveys political messages or racial, religious or ethnic slurs.
In modern times, paint (particularly spray paint) and marker pens have become the most commonly used graffiti materials. In most countries, marking or painting property without the property owner's permission is considered defacement and vandalism, which is a punishable crime.
Graffiti may also express underlying social and political messages and a whole genre of artistic expression is based upon spray paint graffiti styles. Within hip-hop culture, graffiti have evolved alongside hip-hop music, b-boying, and other elements. Unrelated to hip-hop graffiti, gangs use their own form of graffiti to mark territory or to serve as an indicator of gang-related activities.
Controversies that surround graffiti continue to create disagreement amongst city officials, law enforcement, and writers who wish to display and appreciate work in public locations. There are many different types and styles of graffiti; it is a rapidly developing art form whose value is highly contested and reviled by many authorities while also subject to protection, sometimes within the same jurisdiction.
Graffiti typically is placed on public property, or private property adjacent to public space. It is commonly found in transportation systems — on inner and outer sides of trains, subways and buses, and in transit stations and shelters. It is also commonly found on vehicles; walls facing streets; street, freeway and traffic signs; statues and monuments; and bridges. In addition, it appears on vending machines, park benches, utility poles, utility boxes, billboards, trees, streets, sidewalks, parking garages, schools, business and residence walls, garages, fences, and sheds. In short, graffiti appears almost any place open to public view.
In some locations, graffiti tends to recur. In fact, areas where graffiti has been painted over — especially with contrasting colors — may be a magnet to be re-vandalized. Some offenders are highly tenacious — conducting a psychological battle with authorities or owners for their claim over an area or specific location. Such tenacity appears to be related to an escalating defiance of authority.
Graffiti locations are often characterized by the absence of anyone with direct responsibility for the area. This includes public areas, schools, vacant buildings, and buildings with absentee landlords. Offenders also target locations with poor lighting and little oversight by police or security personnel.
Some targets and locations appear particularly vulnerable to graffiti:
In addition, two types of surfaces attract graffiti:
Graffiti is also not an isolated problem. It is often related to other crime and disorder problems, including:
Graffiti is an ever-present form of communication between gangs, their members, and the community. Much can be learned from graffiti as it indicates territory, rivalries, deaths, and marks boundaries. Graffiti can be called a “newspaper” of the street.
For instance, when a gang’s name has been crossed out on a graffiti-marked area, this is a good indication of strife between groups. This also is a challenge that must be answered.
The key to identifying criminal street gangs, its members and its associates is to have a solid knowledge and foundation of what traditional gangs have left as a legacy—symbols, hand signs, alphabets, terminology and beliefs. Although you may have a solid foundation, always keep an open mind. Newly forming gang sets may misinterpret or modify established symbolism, or create their own. This can delay identification and make it harder to document pursuant to your agency’s policy or state statute.
When reading graffiti and tattoos, start by reading from left to right and top to bottom. You should also view from different perspectives. Some graffiti and tattoos are cluttered, making symbols and letters hard to identify. Determine if the gang whose graffiti you are observing and the gang member you are interviewing are active in your area. The member you are interviewing may not be from your jurisdiction but rather there to do business.
The graffiti you are observing may be a challenge to one of your identified gangs. Neither piece of intelligence can be written off if it is not from one of “your” identified gangs. Interviews and graffiti identification are major factors in developing the most up-to-date intelligence. Without this knowledge, the presence of an active criminal street gang can be overlooked.
Graffiti is more than just an eyesore: it encourages violence, claims territory and advertises their existence or claims “credit” for a crime. For many gangs, the sheer act of marking graffiti on a wall is a direct challenge to rivals to fight. There is not greater humiliation for a gang then having its symbols degraded by rivals. Flaunting one’s territorial authority through graffiti has caused many homicides.
Removal of graffiti as soon as possible discourages the gang members from writing it and keeps the intended messages from being transmitted or interpreted by others. Since most gangs write graffiti to claim a territory, removing their “mark invalidated the claim. In many cases, just by removing the graffiti from the walls, gang related fights and assaults could be stopped.
In some locations, graffiti tends to recur. In fact, areas where graffiti has been painted over — especially with contrasting colors — may be a magnet to be re-vandalized. Some offenders are highly tenacious — conducting a psychological battle with authorities or owners for their claim over an area or specific location. Such tenacity appears to be related to an escalating defiance of authority.
Graffiti locations are often characterized by the absence of anyone with direct responsibility for the area. This includes public areas, schools, vacant buildings, and buildings with absentee landlords. Offenders also target locations with poor lighting and little oversight by police or security personnel.
Some targets and locations appear particularly vulnerable to graffiti:
- easy-to-reach targets, such as signs;
- particularly hard-to-reach locations, such as freeway overpasses;
- highly visible locations, such as building walls;
- locations where a wall or fence is the primary security, and where there are few windows, employees or passersby;
- locations where oversight is cyclical during the day or week, or where people are intimidated by graffiti offenders;
- mobile targets, such as trains or buses, which generate wide exposure for the graffiti; and
- places where gang members congregate — taverns, bowling alleys, convenience store parking lots, and residential developments with many children or youth.
In addition, two types of surfaces attract graffiti:
- Light-colored surfaces. Dark surfaces do not generally attract as much graffiti, but can be marred with lightcolored paint.
- Large and plain surfaces. Surfaces without windows or doors may be appealing for large-scale projects. Smooth surfaces especially attract offenders who use felt-tip markers.
Graffiti is also not an isolated problem. It is often related to other crime and disorder problems, including:
- public disorder, such as littering, public urination and loitering;
- shoplifting of materials needed for graffiti, such as paint and markers;
- gangs and gang violence, as gang graffiti conveys threats and identifies turf boundaries; and
- property destruction, such as broken windows or slashed bus or train seats.
Graffiti is an ever-present form of communication between gangs, their members, and the community. Much can be learned from graffiti as it indicates territory, rivalries, deaths, and marks boundaries. Graffiti can be called a “newspaper” of the street.
For instance, when a gang’s name has been crossed out on a graffiti-marked area, this is a good indication of strife between groups. This also is a challenge that must be answered.
The key to identifying criminal street gangs, its members and its associates is to have a solid knowledge and foundation of what traditional gangs have left as a legacy—symbols, hand signs, alphabets, terminology and beliefs. Although you may have a solid foundation, always keep an open mind. Newly forming gang sets may misinterpret or modify established symbolism, or create their own. This can delay identification and make it harder to document pursuant to your agency’s policy or state statute.
When reading graffiti and tattoos, start by reading from left to right and top to bottom. You should also view from different perspectives. Some graffiti and tattoos are cluttered, making symbols and letters hard to identify. Determine if the gang whose graffiti you are observing and the gang member you are interviewing are active in your area. The member you are interviewing may not be from your jurisdiction but rather there to do business.
The graffiti you are observing may be a challenge to one of your identified gangs. Neither piece of intelligence can be written off if it is not from one of “your” identified gangs. Interviews and graffiti identification are major factors in developing the most up-to-date intelligence. Without this knowledge, the presence of an active criminal street gang can be overlooked.
Graffiti is more than just an eyesore: it encourages violence, claims territory and advertises their existence or claims “credit” for a crime. For many gangs, the sheer act of marking graffiti on a wall is a direct challenge to rivals to fight. There is not greater humiliation for a gang then having its symbols degraded by rivals. Flaunting one’s territorial authority through graffiti has caused many homicides.
Removal of graffiti as soon as possible discourages the gang members from writing it and keeps the intended messages from being transmitted or interpreted by others. Since most gangs write graffiti to claim a territory, removing their “mark invalidated the claim. In many cases, just by removing the graffiti from the walls, gang related fights and assaults could be stopped.
"The U.S. alone spends more than $25 Billion
annually just on graffiti abatement."
Street gangs routinely use graffiti to challenge and disrespect rival gang sets and nations. Gangs will post their symbol but invert, break and/or cross out the rival gang’s or nation’s symbol. They will post derogatory gang terms like Crabs, Slobs, etc. They will usually do this in a conspicuous place so the challenge is clear and they attain notoriety in that neighborhood. It is important to identify new graffiti and remove it. A new challenge is usually indicative of an imminent problem, one that should be anticipated and addressed.
The key to identifying criminal street gangs is having an open mind. Graffiti/symbol recognition and translation, field interviews, intelligence gathering and exchange, and training are a foundation. Gangs have continuously evolved and expanded since law enforcement realized they weren’t just street fighters, but a significant criminal threat to public safety.
The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular problem of graffiti, even if the answers are not always readily available. If you fail to answer these questions, you may select the wrong response.
The key to identifying criminal street gangs is having an open mind. Graffiti/symbol recognition and translation, field interviews, intelligence gathering and exchange, and training are a foundation. Gangs have continuously evolved and expanded since law enforcement realized they weren’t just street fighters, but a significant criminal threat to public safety.
The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular problem of graffiti, even if the answers are not always readily available. If you fail to answer these questions, you may select the wrong response.
VICTIMS
- Whom does the graffiti directly victimize (e.g., homeowners, apartment managers, business owners, transit systems, utilities, public works , others)?
- Whom does the graffiti indirectly affect (e.g., people who see the graffiti)? How fearful are these people? What activities does graffiti affect (e.g., shopping, use of recreational areas and public transit)? (Community or other surveys may be necessary to answer these questions.)
AMOUNT OF GRAFFITI
- How much graffiti is there? (Visual surveys are necessary to answer questions about the amount of graffiti.)
- How many individual tags or separate pieces of graffiti are there?
- How big is the graffiti (e.g., in square feet)?
- How many graffiti locations are there?
- How many graffiti-related calls for service, incident reports or hotline reports are there?
TYPES OF GRAFFITI
- Are there different types of graffiti? How many of each type?
- What are the content and unique characteristics of the graffiti? (Some agencies photograph or videotape graffiti to create an intelligence database noting key characteristics, to link graffiti to chronic offenders.)
- What appear to be the motives for the graffiti?
- Is the graffiti simple or complex? Small or large? Single colored or multicolored?
- Is the graffiti isolated or grouped?
- What do offenders use to make the graffiti (e.g., spray paint, marking pens, etching devices)?
LOCATIONS AND TIMES
- Where does the graffiti occur? (Maps of graffiti can be particularly illuminating, revealing its distribution across a large area.)
- What are the specific locations where the graffiti occurs (e.g., addresses or, more precisely, Global Positioning System locations for sites without addresses, such as in parks or along railroad tracks)?
- How close is the graffiti to graffiti-generators such as schools?
- What are the characteristics of the locations in which graffiti is prevalent? Are the locations residences, schools? Are they close to stores — what type, with what hours — or bus stops — what running times?
- What are the characteristics of graffiti targets? Are the targets signs, walls, fences, buses, trains?
- What are the physical environment's characteristics, including lighting, access, roads, surface types, and other relevant factors?
- When does the graffiti occur? Time of day? (using last known graffiti-free time)? Day of week?
- Do the peak times correspond with other events?
OFFENDERS
- What are the offenders' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, student)?
- Where do the offenders live, go to school or work? How do these locations correspond to graffiti locations and/or police contacts?
- What is the pattern of offending? For example, is the graffiti spontaneous or planned, intermittent or regular?
- What are the offenders' motives? (Offenders can be interviewed to collect this information. Undercover investigations, stings, surveillance, and graffiti content analysis can reveal more about offenders' practices.
- Are offenders lone operators or part of a group?
- Does drug and/or alcohol use contribute to graffiti?
- Is graffiti associated with other violations, such as truancy?
Responses to the Graffiti Problem
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem.
The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve 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: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it.
Graffiti is not solely a police problem. The police role should be one of support and assistance. Effective responses to graffiti may combine management practices, design and maintenance, and involve the general public, individual victims, criminal justice officials such as prosecutors and judges, and others. Responses to graffiti should be comprehensive and coordinated, while costs and available resources should be carefully evaluated.
Responses to graffiti must be thorough and consistent, as some offenders may be highly opportunistic, adaptive and tenacious. Responses should include ways to monitor graffiti and address changes in time, location and methods of applying it.
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem.
The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve 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: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it.
Graffiti is not solely a police problem. The police role should be one of support and assistance. Effective responses to graffiti may combine management practices, design and maintenance, and involve the general public, individual victims, criminal justice officials such as prosecutors and judges, and others. Responses to graffiti should be comprehensive and coordinated, while costs and available resources should be carefully evaluated.
Responses to graffiti must be thorough and consistent, as some offenders may be highly opportunistic, adaptive and tenacious. Responses should include ways to monitor graffiti and address changes in time, location and methods of applying it.
Addressing Transit Graffiti in New York City
The experiences of the New York City Transit System illustrate varying approaches to graffiti. Graffiti began to appear on subway trains in the 1960s; by 1970, it was a huge problem. The public was fearful, and ridership on trains declined.
The motive for the graffiti was "getting up" and getting noticed; there were no indications the graffiti was gang-related. Instead, the graffitists or taggers sought to build their reputation through the sheer quantity of their graffiti. As competition among them increased, they distinguished themselves through writing style, embellishment, graffiti size, and location — either in unusual spots or in previously unmarked spots. One prolific vandal produced 10,000 graffiti markings.
Despite the severity of its ongoing fiscal crisis, New York City adopted a variety of anti-graffiti strategies in the 1970s: punishing offenders by making them clean up trains marked with graffiti; using fencing with razor wires to protect the vast train yards; and developing materials to ease graffiti removal, materials that were later found to be environmentally hazardous. The methods all failed to substantially reduce the amount of graffiti.
In 1984, the city adopted a system to monitor trains and clean those marked with graffiti within two hours; otherwise, they took the cars out of service. They also began to store clean trains in highly secure yards that featured 24-hour-a-day work crews, enhanced lighting, routine fence maintenance, and undercover police. The initiative focused on the most problematic times, locations and train lines; initially, all trains were monitored, but random checks were later successfully used to maintain clean trains. In addition, repeat offenders were targeted for parental contact and enhanced penalties.
In contrast to the earlier initiatives, this anti-graffiti effort began with a handful of trains (those detected with graffiti) and built up to cover the entire system. Importantly, rather than focusing on using the criminal justice system, this approach addressed the offenders' underlying motives. Immediately removing graffiti-marked trains from service severely limited the vandals' exposure.
The experiences of the New York City Transit System illustrate varying approaches to graffiti. Graffiti began to appear on subway trains in the 1960s; by 1970, it was a huge problem. The public was fearful, and ridership on trains declined.
The motive for the graffiti was "getting up" and getting noticed; there were no indications the graffiti was gang-related. Instead, the graffitists or taggers sought to build their reputation through the sheer quantity of their graffiti. As competition among them increased, they distinguished themselves through writing style, embellishment, graffiti size, and location — either in unusual spots or in previously unmarked spots. One prolific vandal produced 10,000 graffiti markings.
Despite the severity of its ongoing fiscal crisis, New York City adopted a variety of anti-graffiti strategies in the 1970s: punishing offenders by making them clean up trains marked with graffiti; using fencing with razor wires to protect the vast train yards; and developing materials to ease graffiti removal, materials that were later found to be environmentally hazardous. The methods all failed to substantially reduce the amount of graffiti.
In 1984, the city adopted a system to monitor trains and clean those marked with graffiti within two hours; otherwise, they took the cars out of service. They also began to store clean trains in highly secure yards that featured 24-hour-a-day work crews, enhanced lighting, routine fence maintenance, and undercover police. The initiative focused on the most problematic times, locations and train lines; initially, all trains were monitored, but random checks were later successfully used to maintain clean trains. In addition, repeat offenders were targeted for parental contact and enhanced penalties.
In contrast to the earlier initiatives, this anti-graffiti effort began with a handful of trains (those detected with graffiti) and built up to cover the entire system. Importantly, rather than focusing on using the criminal justice system, this approach addressed the offenders' underlying motives. Immediately removing graffiti-marked trains from service severely limited the vandals' exposure.
Graffiti Abatement Programs
Important!
The quality and focus of these below programs 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.
Adopt a District, Anti-Graffiti Program, Arvada Police Department (CO, US), 1995
Anti-Graffiti Problem-Solving Project, Bridgeport Police Department (CT, US), 2001
Anti-Graffiti Program, Fontana Police Department (CA, US), 2001
Anti-Graffiti Program, Lakewood Police Department (CO, US), 1994
Bath Graffiti Partnership, Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Bristol, UK), 2004
BIG Attack on Graffiti, Lincoln Business Improvement Group (Lincoln, UK), 2008
Community and Police Response to Graffiti, within the Mosse Humanities Building, University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department (WI, US), 2006
Community Outreach Unit/Graffiti Task Force, Indio Police Department (CA, US), 2008
Drake Apartments, Fontana Police Department (CA, US), 2000
Graffiti Abatement Program, San Francisco Police Department (CA, US), 1998
Graffiti Abatement Program: Newbridge Area, Henrico County Division of Police (VA, US), 1996
Graffiti Project Hornchurch High St., Metropolitan Police Service (London, UK), 2006
Graffiti Reduction and Enforcement, Lakewood Police Department (CO, US), 2011
Graffiti Reduction Through Task Force Partnerships, Sacramento Police Department (CA, US), 2003
Graffiti Task Force, Richmond Police Department (VA, US), 1999
Juvenile Gang Graffiti, Dallas Police Department (TX, US), 1997
Mid-City Graffiti Project [GOLDSTEIN AWARD WINNER], San Diego Police Department (CA, US), 2000
North Park Graffiti Task Force, San Diego Police Department (CA, US), 2002
Operation Blight, South Yorkshire Police (South Yorkshire, UK), 2009
Operation Deface [GOLDSTEIN AWARD FINALIST], Lancashire Constabulary (Lancashire, UK), 2009
Important!
The quality and focus of these below programs 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.
Adopt a District, Anti-Graffiti Program, Arvada Police Department (CO, US), 1995
Anti-Graffiti Problem-Solving Project, Bridgeport Police Department (CT, US), 2001
Anti-Graffiti Program, Fontana Police Department (CA, US), 2001
Anti-Graffiti Program, Lakewood Police Department (CO, US), 1994
Bath Graffiti Partnership, Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Bristol, UK), 2004
BIG Attack on Graffiti, Lincoln Business Improvement Group (Lincoln, UK), 2008
Community and Police Response to Graffiti, within the Mosse Humanities Building, University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department (WI, US), 2006
Community Outreach Unit/Graffiti Task Force, Indio Police Department (CA, US), 2008
Drake Apartments, Fontana Police Department (CA, US), 2000
Graffiti Abatement Program, San Francisco Police Department (CA, US), 1998
Graffiti Abatement Program: Newbridge Area, Henrico County Division of Police (VA, US), 1996
Graffiti Project Hornchurch High St., Metropolitan Police Service (London, UK), 2006
Graffiti Reduction and Enforcement, Lakewood Police Department (CO, US), 2011
Graffiti Reduction Through Task Force Partnerships, Sacramento Police Department (CA, US), 2003
Graffiti Task Force, Richmond Police Department (VA, US), 1999
Juvenile Gang Graffiti, Dallas Police Department (TX, US), 1997
Mid-City Graffiti Project [GOLDSTEIN AWARD WINNER], San Diego Police Department (CA, US), 2000
North Park Graffiti Task Force, San Diego Police Department (CA, US), 2002
Operation Blight, South Yorkshire Police (South Yorkshire, UK), 2009
Operation Deface [GOLDSTEIN AWARD FINALIST], Lancashire Constabulary (Lancashire, UK), 2009
Source References
Beatty, J. (1990). "Zap! You've Been Tagged!" Time, Sept. 10, p. 43.
Bridgeport Police Department (1999). Problem-Solving Partnership Grant Progress Report to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (August). Bridgeport, Conn.: Bridgeport Police Department.
Butterfield, F. (1988). "On New York Walls, the Fading of Graffiti." New York Times, May 6, p. B1.
Castleman, C. (1982). Subway Graffiti in New York. London: MIT Press.
Cheetham, D. (1994). Dealing With Vandalism-A Guide to the Control of Vandalism. London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
Chula Vista Police Department (1999). City of Chula Vista Recent Graffiti Trends. Chula Vista, Calif.: Chula Vista Police Department.
Clarke, R. (ed.) (1978). Tackling Vandalism. Home Office Research Study, No. 47. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Coffield, F. (1991). Vandalism and Grafiti: The State of the Art. London: Calhouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Cohen, S. (1973). "Property Destruction: Motives and Meanings." In C. Ward (ed.), Vandalism. London: The Architectural Press.
Eastel, P., and P. Wilson (1991). Preventing Crime on Transport: Rail, Buses, Taxis, Planes. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Ferrell, J. (1995). "Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control and Resistance." Youth and Society 27(1):73-89.
Gomez, M. (1993). "The Writing on Our Walls: Finding Solutions Through Distinguishing Graffiti Art From Graffiti Vandalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 26(3):633-708.
Governing (1994). "Graffiti." August, p. 42.
Kennedy, D. (1997). "Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, High-Crime Settings and a Theory of Prevention." Valparaiso University Law Review 31:449-483.
Kennedy, D., A. Braga and A. Piehl (1997). "(Un)Known Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston." In D. Weisburd and T.
McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.
Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ley, D., and R. Cybrinsky (1974). "Urban Graffiti As Territorial Markers." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64:491-501.
Mueller, M., J. Moore, A. Doggett, and D. Tingstrom (2000). "The Effectiveness of Contingency-Specific and ContingencyNonspecific Prompts in Controlling Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33(1):89-92.
Nugent, H. (1998). "Gang Graffiti." Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Otto, A., K. Maly and D. Schismenos (2000). "Cracking Down on Gangs With GIS." In N. La Vigne and J. Wartell (eds.), Successful Crime Mapping Case Studies, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Poyner, B. (1988). "Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism." Journal of Security Administration 11:44-51.
Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
San Diego Police Department (2000). "Mid-City Graffiti Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Scott, D. (1989). "Graffiti Wipeout." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (December):10-14.
Sloan-Howitt, M., and G. Kelling (1990). "Subway Graffiti in New York City: 'Getting Up' vs. 'Meaning It and Cleaning It.'" Security Journal 1(3):131-136.
Tilley, N. (1998). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of CCTV Schemes." In C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong (eds.), Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing Co.
Watson, S. (1996). "A Prompt Plus Delayed Contingency Procedure for Reducing Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 29(1):121-124.
Wilson, P. (1988). "Preventing Vandalism and Graffiti." Journal of Security Administration 11(2):28-35.
(1987). "Research Brief No. 6: Graffiti and Vandalism on Public Transport." Trends and Issues. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
(2002) Center for Problem-Oriented Policing; Graffiti; Guide No.9 (2002) by Deborah Lamm Weisel
Beatty, J. (1990). "Zap! You've Been Tagged!" Time, Sept. 10, p. 43.
Bridgeport Police Department (1999). Problem-Solving Partnership Grant Progress Report to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (August). Bridgeport, Conn.: Bridgeport Police Department.
Butterfield, F. (1988). "On New York Walls, the Fading of Graffiti." New York Times, May 6, p. B1.
Castleman, C. (1982). Subway Graffiti in New York. London: MIT Press.
Cheetham, D. (1994). Dealing With Vandalism-A Guide to the Control of Vandalism. London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
Chula Vista Police Department (1999). City of Chula Vista Recent Graffiti Trends. Chula Vista, Calif.: Chula Vista Police Department.
Clarke, R. (ed.) (1978). Tackling Vandalism. Home Office Research Study, No. 47. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Coffield, F. (1991). Vandalism and Grafiti: The State of the Art. London: Calhouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Cohen, S. (1973). "Property Destruction: Motives and Meanings." In C. Ward (ed.), Vandalism. London: The Architectural Press.
Eastel, P., and P. Wilson (1991). Preventing Crime on Transport: Rail, Buses, Taxis, Planes. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Ferrell, J. (1995). "Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control and Resistance." Youth and Society 27(1):73-89.
Gomez, M. (1993). "The Writing on Our Walls: Finding Solutions Through Distinguishing Graffiti Art From Graffiti Vandalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 26(3):633-708.
Governing (1994). "Graffiti." August, p. 42.
Kennedy, D. (1997). "Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, High-Crime Settings and a Theory of Prevention." Valparaiso University Law Review 31:449-483.
Kennedy, D., A. Braga and A. Piehl (1997). "(Un)Known Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston." In D. Weisburd and T.
McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.
Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ley, D., and R. Cybrinsky (1974). "Urban Graffiti As Territorial Markers." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64:491-501.
Mueller, M., J. Moore, A. Doggett, and D. Tingstrom (2000). "The Effectiveness of Contingency-Specific and ContingencyNonspecific Prompts in Controlling Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33(1):89-92.
Nugent, H. (1998). "Gang Graffiti." Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Otto, A., K. Maly and D. Schismenos (2000). "Cracking Down on Gangs With GIS." In N. La Vigne and J. Wartell (eds.), Successful Crime Mapping Case Studies, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Poyner, B. (1988). "Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism." Journal of Security Administration 11:44-51.
Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
San Diego Police Department (2000). "Mid-City Graffiti Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Scott, D. (1989). "Graffiti Wipeout." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (December):10-14.
Sloan-Howitt, M., and G. Kelling (1990). "Subway Graffiti in New York City: 'Getting Up' vs. 'Meaning It and Cleaning It.'" Security Journal 1(3):131-136.
Tilley, N. (1998). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of CCTV Schemes." In C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong (eds.), Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing Co.
Watson, S. (1996). "A Prompt Plus Delayed Contingency Procedure for Reducing Bathroom Graffiti." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 29(1):121-124.
Wilson, P. (1988). "Preventing Vandalism and Graffiti." Journal of Security Administration 11(2):28-35.
(1987). "Research Brief No. 6: Graffiti and Vandalism on Public Transport." Trends and Issues. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
(2002) Center for Problem-Oriented Policing; Graffiti; Guide No.9 (2002) by Deborah Lamm Weisel