Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Bars

Roundtable on Violence
Exploring the Issues
Sponsored by Alberta Gaming in partnership with Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security
In and Around Licensed Premises
Alberta
November 22-23, 2005
March 31, 2006

Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Licensed Premises
Roundtable on ViolenceIn and Around Licensed Premises

November 22-23, 2005
March 31, 2006
© Government of Alberta, 2006
The contents of this report may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes provided
that the source is appropriately acknowledged.
The opinions expressed herein are those of roundtable participants and do
not necessarily reflect the official position of the Government of Alberta.
For additional copies of this report, please contact
Alberta Gaming
Communications Branch
50 Corriveau Avenue
St. Albert, Alberta T8N 3T5
Phone: 780.447.8740
Toll free: 1.800.272.8876
Fax: 780.447.8931
ISBN 0-7785-4736-1
Printed in Alberta on Recycled Paper
The report is also available on the Alberta Gaming website at
<www.gaming.gov.ab.ca>.

Executive Summary 1
About the Roundtable 6
The Goal 6
The Participants 6
The Sponsors 7
The Program 7
The Report 9
Defining the Problem 10
Types of Violence 10
Where and When Does Violence Occur? 11
Who Is Involved? 12
What Are the Causes of Violence? 14
Excessive Drinking 15
The External Environment 16
The Licensed Establishment 18
The Individual Patron 21
What Is the Impact of Violence? 21
Taking Stock 23
Reducing Consumption 25
Managing the External Environment 25
Community Mobilization 25
Legislation and Bylaws 29
Transportation-Related Strategies 32
Enforcement 33
Public Awareness and Education 36
Managing the Licensed Establishment 38
The Physical Environment 39
The Social Environment 40
Operating Policy and Procedures 42
Staffing Issues 48
Moving Forward 52
Violence in Society 52
Community-Based Partnerships 54
Research 55
Environmental Scan 56
Best Practices 57
The Legislative Framework 59
Best Practices 59
Minimum Licensing Standards 61
and Requirements
Recognition Programs 61
Education 62
Summing Up 63
Paying the Piper 63
Safe Bars, Safe Communities 64
Next Steps 65
Roundtable Participants 66
Selected Bibliography 68
Alberta Roundtable on Violence
In and Around Licensed Premises

Executive Summary
Why we need to act now
“Violent acts in and outside bars and lounges can erode an entire community's
sense of safety and security.”
–Harvey Cenaiko, Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security,
November 22, 2005
“Even one violent incident is too many. Collectively, we can and we will
address this issue.”
–Gordon Graydon, Minister of Gaming,
November 22, 2005
“Acts of violence are the product of historical, social, economic and political beliefs
and values that are built into the structure of our society.”* Violence has personal,
social and economic consequences, and its impact is deep and far-reaching. Violence
affects individuals, families and communities. It places health, safety and even lives
at risk. It imposes huge costs on the health care and justice systems, on employers,
on community services and on taxpayers.
Violence affects everyone, and some might argue that it is a growing problem in
society. But while all citizens, to some extent, are vulnerable, numerous studies
have found that bars and clubs are particularly high-risk locations for violence
and violent injury.
The Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Licensed Premises was
convened to address this issue. The roundtable was staged in two parts.
Participants met in Edmonton from November 22–23, 2005, and reconvened
in Calgary on March 31, 2006.
The discussions at the roundtable were exploratory in nature. Participants offered
ideas and suggestions based on their own experiences and perceptions. They offered
recommendations with the proviso that further research and consultation are needed
to identify and validate best practices.
Executive Summary
1
* Government of Alberta, Achieving a violence-free Alberta is everybody’s business: Regional workshop guide
and workbook, p. 14

Part One
During the first part of the roundtable, in November 2005, bar owners and managers,
municipal and community officials, liquor industry regulators and law enforcement
officers explored the question of violence in and around licensed establishments. The
participants shared their particular experiences and perspectives as they worked to
define the issue and develop a better appreciation of its complexity. They shared
strategies they had tried in their own establishments and their own communities, and
compared notes on what worked best and what approaches were most effective. They
heard firsthand about the experience of other stakeholders whose perspective on
violence may have been different from their own. Police officers and regulators
learned about the challenges faced by bar owners, while owners and operators got a
better appreciation of law enforcement and policy-related issues and concerns.
Roundtable participants worked together to broaden and deepen their understanding
of the issue of violence in and around licensed premises. Their discussions helped
define the problem in terms of the types of violence that occur and who is involved.
Participants recognized that violence can happen anywhere and cross demographic,
socio-economic and gender boundaries. They noted that alcohol overconsumption is
often a factor, and that young men between the ages of 18 and 24 are among the
groups of individuals at particular risk.
Participants recognized that the root causes of violence are complex and
interlinked. Violence can stem from cultural and socio-economic factors such
as societal breakdown, interracial tension or criminal gang activity. It can stem
from environmental factors related to the physical and social characteristics of a
nightclub or bar. Bar management and serving practices can also play a role, as
can group dynamics and factors related to the behaviour, personality and attitudes
of individual patrons.
Participants drew on their own knowledge to suggest best practices, offer practical
advice and explore ways to do their part in addressing the issue of violence. They
developed an inventory of prevention, operations and enforcement strategies that are
currently in place to address the issue of violence. They also brainstormed new ideas.
Executive Summary
2

Executive Summary
3
In response to the external, socio-cultural factors that contribute to violence,
participants proposed community mobilization strategies, new legislation and bylaws,
transportation-related strategies, enforcement-related interventions and public
awareness and education. With regard to the operations of licensed establishments,
they proposed legislated and voluntary measures to control the physical and social
environment, establish sound operating policies and procedures, and improve staff
recruitment and training.
After two days of discussion and debate, participants proposed meeting again once
they had had the opportunity to hold local meetings and get feedback on the ideas
and strategies put forward during Part One.
Part Two
On March 31, 2006, the roundtable reconvened to continue discussions and set
priorities for addressing the issue of violence in and around licensed premises.
Five themes emerged:
1. Violence in and around licensed premises is not an isolated phenomenon.
Rather, it reflects what some perceive as a growing tolerance for violence in an
increasingly violent society. What happens in bars and nightclubs mirrors society
at large. It reflects economic and socio-cultural factors such as neighbourhood
demographics, the employment rate, today's parenting practices, the breakdown
of traditional family structures and the proliferation of violence in everyday
cultural products such as movies, games, sports and television.
2. Eliminating violence requires an integrated partnership approach that involves
the whole community. Liquor licensees, regulators, legislators, police departments,
the justice system, health authorities, educators, neighbourhoods, communities,
city halls, the provincial and federal governments and individual citizens need to
work together to address the issue.Throwing money at the problem is not enough.

Executive Summary
4
3. Sound policy development and good decision-making depend on good research.
Participants recommended conducting an environmental scan to collect baseline
data on violence in and around licensed premises. They also recommended a
review of the legislative framework, and cross-jurisdictional research to validate
proposed best practices and identify other effective approaches.
4. Many licensees already employ a best practices approach in managing their
operations. Communication and education are needed to spread current best
practices across the industry. Additional research is needed to establish the
feasibility and effectiveness of proposed new approaches such as staggered
closing times, minimum drink prices, bans on glassware, mandatory liability
insurance and more rigorous licensing requirements. Roundtable participants
emphasized that a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate: different
communities and different types of drinking establishments have different
needs. Further discussion is needed to explore the degree of regulation that is
appropriate and the effectiveness of voluntary versus legislated standards.
5. Public awareness and education about preventing alcohol-related violence is
needed at all levels of society, from schoolchildren and post-secondary students
to the business community, law enforcers, liquor licensees and their staff, and the
“ordinary citizens” who patronize licensed establishments. Start-up training for
new bar owners and specialized training for door and security staff were
identified as key areas.

Summing Up
Participants were unanimous in their acknowledgement of the value of the
roundtable and welcomed the opportunity to hear the diversity of issues and views
expressed by their associates and colleagues. They affirmed that comprehensive
training, sound operating policies and procedures, effective legislation and consistent
enforcement can all play a role in preventing violence and addressing its causes.
They recognized that all stakeholders have a role to play. They also recognized that
much work remains.
The contents of this report reflect the diversity of ideas and opinions expressed by
roundtable participants. Although there was much common ground, the reported
results cannot be interpreted as having the support of participants as a whole, or
even the support of the majority. Nonetheless, the ideas and recommendations
generated at the roundtable are a significant first step toward addressing the
issue of violence.
The roundtable results provide a starting point for future work and future
government, community and industry collaborations to respond to the complex
issues related to drinking and violence. As an immediate next step, government staff
will study the roundtable results and prepare a report with recommendations for
review by the Minister of Gaming and the Alberta Solicitor General and Minister of
Public Security. The ministers' review of the report and recommendations prepared by
staff will determine what action is taken. Next steps may include allocating funds for
further research, drafting new legislation or recommending the formation of a task
force to build consensus and propose standards. In the meantime, further discussions
at the community level and continued cooperation among stakeholders will bring all
Albertans closer to solving the problem of violence in and around licensed premises.
Executive Summary
5

About the Roundtable – The Goal
6
About the Roundtable
The Goal
The Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Licensed Premises explored the
issue of violence within the context of bars, nightclubs and other licensed premises.
Its purpose was to gather input, information and advice from stakeholders “on the
front lines”– namely, from the people who work in, own, manage, regulate and
protect the province's licensed establishments.
The Participants
Roundtable participants* included owners and
operators of licensed establishments,
representatives from municipal governments
and from the hospitality industry, law
enforcement officials, legislators, regulators,
researchers, policy–makers, liquor inspectors,
addictions counsellors, and staff from Alberta
Gaming, Alberta Solicitor General and Public
Security, and the Alberta Gaming
and Liquor Commission.
The participants represented communities
across the province and hailed from Calgary,
Camrose, Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Grande
Prairie, Lacombe, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red
Deer, St. Albert and Wetaskiwin. Some came
from other jurisdictions. Working together,
participants came to a better understanding
of the problem, the underlying issues and the
role they could play in preventing violence in
and around licensed premises.
Alberta's Gaming and Liquor
Regulation defines five
classes of licensed premises.
Roundtable discussions
focused on establishments
with Class A (minors
prohibited) licences, which
are issued to hotels and
other premises where
minors are prohibited and
where adults can buy and
consume liquor. Licences for
nightclubs, bars and lounges
are included in this class.
In 2004–2005, 5,201 of
8,208 liquor licences in
Alberta were for
Class A establishments.
Of these, 1,904 were
for Class A (minors
prohibited) premises.
▲
* A list of participating organizations is included on p. 66.

The Sponsors
The Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Licensed Premises was sponsored
by Alberta Gaming in partnership with Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security.
The Ministry of Gaming includes the Alberta Gaming
and Liquor Commission (AGLC), which licenses and
regulates the province's liquor industry. The AGLC works
with other ministries, other jurisdictions, industry partners
and agencies like AADAC (the Alberta Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Commission) to ensure the responsible sale,
service and consumption of alcohol.
The Solicitor General and Public Security ministry keeps Alberta's communities
safe through effective policing and crime prevention programs. It is responsible for
the province's correctional programs and facilities, and coordinates programs for the
victims of crime.
The Program
On November 22 and 23, 2005, roundtable delegates gathered in Edmonton to
explore the issue of violence in and around licensed premises. On March 31, 2006,
the roundtable reconvened in Calgary to continue discussions and identify priorities.
Over the course of three days, roundtable participants grappled with the problem of
violence in and around licensed premises. They shared their particular experiences and
perspectives as they worked to define the issue and develop a better appreciation of
its complexity. They drew on their own knowledge to suggest best practices and offer
practical advice for addressing the issue of violence in and around licensed premises.
Part One (Edmonton, November 22–23, 2005)
Part One of the roundtable opened with introductory remarks by the Honourable
Gordon Graydon, Minister of Gaming, and the Honourable Harvey Cenaiko,
Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security.
About the Roundtable – The Sponsors
7
The Alberta Gaming and
Liquor Commission
completed 25,198
inspections of licensed
premises in 2004–2005.
▲

A keynote address by Kathryn Graham,
senior scientist with the Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health in London,
Ontario, established a context for the issue
of violence. Dr. Graham outlined the
social and environmental factors that can
contribute to aggression, and proposed a
number of strategies for intervention.
Participants split up into eight breakout
groups chaired by facilitators from the
Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission and
from Alberta Solicitor General and Public
Security. Recorders for each group
documented the discussion highlights, which
were shared at report-back sessions
following each group-discussion segment.
At the close of Part One, participants proposed holding a second roundtable to
continue discussions, set priorities, consolidate stakeholder partnerships and begin to
develop a coordinated provincial framework for addressing violence in and around
licensed premises. Findings from Part One were compiled into a draft report that
served as a resource for participants attending Part Two.*
Part Two (Calgary, March 31, 2006)
Part Two opened with a welcome from Norm Peterson, Deputy Minister of Alberta
Gaming and Chief Executive Officer of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission.
Gerry McLennan, Executive Director of the AGLC’s Regulatory Division, led the group
through a review of the draft report.
About the Roundtable – The Program
8
Dr. Graham is a leading
researcher in the area of
alcohol-related aggression. She is
the principal investigator for the
Canadian segment of the Gender,
Alcohol and Culture International
Study (GENACIS).
Dr. Graham developed Ontario’s
Safer Bars training program,
which has proven effective for
reducing the incidence and
severity of violence in nightclubs
and bars.
▲
* This final report incorporates the previous draft report with the output from Part Two of the roundtable.

Participants then split up into six breakout groups to discuss the key areas of the
report and identify priorities. Two groups were assigned to each discussion area. The
conclusions reached by each group were reported to the general assembly.
Gaming Minister Gordon Graydon and Harvey Cenaiko, Alberta Solicitor General and
Minister of Public Security, reaffirmed the Alberta government's commitment to deal
with violence and ensure that Albertans feel safe in their communities. They called on
participants to continue to work together to find solutions to this serious issue.
Part Two of the roundtable closed with a review of the priority areas discussed by the
breakout groups.
The Report
The contents of this report reflect the ideas and opinions expressed by roundtable
participants, and reflect the diversity of participants' individual perceptions and
experiences. Although there was much common ground, the reported results cannot
be interpreted as having the support of the roundtable as a whole, or even the
support of the majority participants.
The Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Licensed Premises provided the
opportunity to exchange ideas and identify areas of concern. Participants shared
strategies they had tried in their own establishments and their own communities,
and compared notes on what worked best and what approaches were most effective.
Roundtable participants recognized the need for further research and acknowledged
that validating their experience against a body of empirical evidence is a necessary
next step. Such validation is outside the scope of this report. Nonetheless, the report
includes a number of facts and figures drawn from the keynote presentation in Part 1
and from other sources. Readers should note that this material does not reflect a
comprehensive review of the research literature: it is included to provide food for
thought and stimulate further research and debate.
The report itself provides a record of the roundtable and summarizes the ideas and
recommendations developed by participants. This information provides a starting
point for future work.
About the Roundtable – The Report
9

Defining the Problem
Unless otherwise noted, the information reported in this chapter reflects roundtable
participants' experiences and perceptions.
In Part One of the roundtable, participants began their deliberations by building an
understanding about the issue of violence. Their first assignment was to define the
problem in terms of:
• the types of violence that occur in and around licensed premises
• where violence occurs
• who is involved
• the root causes of violence
• the impact of violence on individuals and on the establishment
Types of Violence
Roundtable participants reported that violence
in and around licensed premises takes many
forms. Intimidation through threats, verbal
abuse and eye contact can lead to pushing,
kicking, fist fights and knock-downs. Assaults
with weapons can involve glass bottles, belts,
guns, knives, switchblades, pepper spray, pool
cues, furniture, baseball bats, batons and brass
knuckles. Sexual aggression can range from
groping to sexual assault.
Many participants noted that theft, property
damage and vandalism often accompany violent
crime. Some expressed concern that the level of
violence appears to be escalating. They felt that the number of incidents involving
weapons and resulting in serious injury or death was on the rise. As one breakout
group reported, “Fights now are fights to the death. There's no stopping.”
Defining the Problem – Types of Violence
10
“The community
perception is that violence
in bars and nightclubs is
on the rise. There’s a lot of
finger pointing. But there
always was violence.
What’s different now is
the degree of violence and
the sensationalism around
the issue.”
–A roundtable participant
▲

What is violence?
Statistics Canada defines violent crime as “homicide, attempted murder, sexual assault,
assault, robbery, discharging a firearm with intent, assault against a peace-public officer,
kidnapping and abduction” (Pottie Bunge et al., 2005, Note 4, p. 69).
Where and When Does Violence Occur?
Although there was widespread
acknowledgement that violence can occur
anywhere–and in any type of licensed
establishment–participants' discussions
focused on bars and clubs.
Participants recognized that violence can occur
inside or outside a licensed establishment. It can
involve the neighbourhood and the community
as well as the establishment itself.
Participants noted that violence frequently
starts inside a bar and spills out into the street at
closing time or when disorderly patrons are asked
to leave. Alternatively, altercations that originate
outside the premises can escalate into violence
inside the bar environment.
Participants identified the following times and places as high risks for violence:
• weekends (Thursday to Saturday), when more patrons frequent bars and clubs
One participant group noted that the potential for violence exists
wherever crowds of people congregate–on college campuses, in parking
lots, at concerts or organized special events, or when groups of friends
embark on pub crawls.
Defining the Problem – Where and When Does Violence Occur?
11
“Violence can
happen at a hockey
game, a restaurant or
anywhere–not just
in a licensed
establishment. We
need research on
where violence happens,
who is involved and
whether the perpetrators
are known to each other.”
▲
▲

• closing time
The potential for violence can increase as a result of increased alcohol
consumption at last call. Congested streets can also be a factor,
especially when the bars close and crowds of patrons empty out.
Mob mentality can take over, particularly if people are hanging around
waiting for cabs or lining up for food at street vendors' stalls.
• lineups
Violence can erupt when people have long waits in line before they are
admitted to a licensed establishment. Conflict or aggression in a lineup
can escalate to violence inside the bar.
Some participants suggested that violence is more likely to occur in poorly managed
establishments or in establishments where the physical environment is crowded or
unpleasant. Some noted that violence is also more likely in popular places that
attract young males, but not young females.
Many breakout groups believed that violence is more likely in communities with
a high density of bars. Some proposed that large establishments are more prone to
violent incidents than smaller ones; others felt that the size of the venue is not a
factor. One group noted that large establishments may have more incentive to
prevent violence and more resources to direct toward risk mitigation.
A look at the research
“Numerous studies have found that bars and clubs are high-risk locations for violence and
violent injury.” In a province-wide general population survey conducted in Ontario in 1999,
nearly two thirds of males and one quarter of females in the 25-34 age group reported that
their most recent experience with physical aggression happened on licensed premises.
–Dr. Kathryn Graham, roundtable keynote presentation
Who Is Involved?
Participants observed that violence is often spontaneous, but it can also erupt when
people bring grudges or previous conflict to a licensed establishment. They noted that
violent incidents can involve two people, groups of individuals or organized gangs.
Altercations between individuals can easily escalate to involve others, so that what
starts as a one-on-one dispute can quickly involve multiple combatants.
Defining the Problem – Who Is Involved?
12
▲

Participants noted that violence can involve “ordinary folk” and cross demographic,
socio-economic and gender boundaries. They believed violence is particularly
prevalent among the following categories of patrons:
• patrons impaired by alcohol or under the influence of other drugs
As one group put it, “addiction leads to crazy behaviour.”
• members of organized gangs, especially when inter-gang rivalry is a factor
One group observed that gang presence can sometimes incite violence
among people who want to be associated with gangs. Other groups
linked gang presence to drug dealing.
• young males, especially the 18–24 age demographic
Some groups noted that violent behaviour among young men is often
motivated by peer pressure and the need to maintain a macho persona.
“A fighter is a fighter.” Some male perpetrators are simply bullies looking
for a fight, and many are repeat offenders.
• ethnic groups or visible minorities
Aggression can be motivated by interracial tension, especially when
different groups hold different cultural values.
• out-of-towners, including tourists and transient workers who are just
passing through
People who have no ties to the local community don't see the
consequences of violent or irresponsible behaviour that is
“not in their own backyard.”
• couples whose relationship issues or domestic disputes erupt in a bar environment
Two breakout groups felt that women are becoming more aggressive and violent.
Roundtable participants noted that most incidents of violence occur between
patrons of the establishment. However, they also reported instances where
overzealous security staff had escalated potentially violent situations or even inflicted
violence on patrons. They also reported incidents where the lack of staff intervention
resulted in violence–either on the premises or outside, after closing time.
Defining the Problem – Who Is Involved?
13

Keynote presenter Dr. Kathryn Graham described the escalation of an aggressive event
between two individuals whose action or response may be prompted by overreaction,
emotion, a grudge, face-saving or even the desire to start a fight. Other people get
involved–on both sides of the dispute–to show loyalty to a friend or because they're
looking for a fight. In some cases, bystanders who intervene in such altercations become
victims of violence themselves.
What Are the Causes of Violence?
The causes of violence identified by roundtable participants can be grouped within
four broad categories:
• excessive drinking
• the external environment
• the licensed establishment
• the individual patron
Because of the nature of the issue, many of these categories overlap. For example,
participants identified overconsumption of alcohol as one cause of violence. The
causes of overconsumption can be cultural (drinking is a socially accepted activity),
establishment related (bars may discount drinks and overserve) or related to
individual patrons (someone may drink too much to impress friends).
Many of the causes of violence identified by roundtable participants have been
validated by researchers.
Researchers agree that the causes of violence and other crime problems are complex and
interlinked. They include cultural and socio-economic factors, environmental factors (including
the social and physical features of licensed premises), group dynamics, and factors related to
the behaviour, personality and attitudes of individual patrons (Doherty & Roche, 2003;
Benson et al., 2001; Scott, 2001; Graham, 2005). Specific risk factors include:
• the social and cultural milieu (A society's tolerance for intoxication is often
reflected in its laws.)
Defining the Problem – What Are the Causes of Violence?
14
▲

• the physical and social environment in which drinking occurs
• poor management and server practices
• the individual patron's personality, including predispositions and learned attitudes
Excessive Drinking
Roundtable participants discussed the relationship
between excessive drinking and violent behaviour.
They noted that alcohol overconsumption can result
from binge drinking (significant in venues near
colleges and universities), bar-hopping or
downing significant amounts of alcohol at last
call. Premises-related factors such as discount
drink specials (happy hours) and overservice
also play a role.
Keynote speaker Dr. Kathryn Graham noted that
alcohol affects risk-taking behaviour, thinking,
attention and emotions. Dr. Graham's study of large
(300+ patron capacity) Toronto bars showed that
violence occurs because people are intoxicated
and because people who are likely to become intoxicated go to bars where fights
happen: that is, both the physiological effects of alcohol and the patron's personality
and behaviour come into play. Dr. Graham's research also showed that “a substantial
proportion” of violent incidents are “not related to intoxication but rather to 'macho'
attitudes, sexual overtures, jealousy and bar activities such as pool playing”
(Graham, 2005).
Most researchers reject a direct causal relationship between alcohol consumption and
violence. If there is a relationship, it is believed to arise from “complex interactions between
psychopharmacological, contextual, and societal forces” (Benson et al., 2001, p. 1). It involves
“the circumstances in which alcohol is consumed” and “the characteristics of individuals
who consume the various types of alcohol” (p. 11). This “alcohol–person–situation”
interaction suggests that “alcohol consumption increases the probability of violent behavior
only for some persons in some situations” (Benson, p. 3, citing Lipsey et al., 1997, p. 247).
15
Binge drinking is
commonly defined as “the
consumption of five drinks
in one sitting for men and
four drinks in one sitting
for women at least once
in a two-week period”
(AADAC, 2005c, p. 8,
citing the Harvard School
of Public Health and
other sources).
▲
▲

The External Environment
Socio-cultural context
Participants recognized that the issue of violence
in and around licensed premises must be
addressed within the broader context of violence
in society. They felt that violence has become
commonplace, permeating everyday cultural
products such as music, games, television
and motion pictures. One result is a growing
acceptance and tolerance for violence. Another
is the proliferation of weapons in society–as
status symbols, for protection and “because
everyone else carries a weapon.” This has an
impact on licensed premises: rather than avoiding potential violence, many patrons
come to the bar with a concealed weapon and an aggressive mindset.
Roundtable participants felt that “overall societal
breakdown” and “desensitization to violence”
contribute to a lack of respect for government,
police and local institutions. They noted that, in
today's “me generation,” there is a lack of
personal responsibility and no accountability for
actions. Some believed that the relaxation
of policy and legislation, minimal sentencing and
few deterrents within the judicial system have
led to a lack of consequences.
Some participant groups identified affluence
as an underlying cause of alcohol overconsumption
and violence: young people in particular have
more disposable income than ever before. Some
groups identified the lack of parental supervision
and involvement. One group suggested that the
legal drinking age is a factor, and another noted
that many drinkers are too young to understand
the effects of alcohol.
16
“There’s been a
cultural shift. At one time,
when the police issued
warnings…people would
listen. Now, violence is so
much a part of society that
warnings are not heeded.”
“We live in a different
society. The level of
respect for all issues is
declining, and that opens
up other issues. With the
lack of respect, people
today act differently. They
don’t think they’ll be held
accountable for actions,
and often they aren’t. That
makes people reluctant to
report violence. They don’t
believe anything will be
done, and they fear for
their safety.”
▲▲

Many roundtable participants felt that drug use,
organized crime and gang activity contribute to
the escalation of violence in society. Because
drugs are more readily available, people often
get together to drink or smoke a joint before
going to the bar.
One participant group pinpointed crystal
meth as a particular cause of increased violence:
“Intoxication affects motor skills. It's easier
to deal with a drunk–who eventually passes
out–than with someone high on cocaine or
crystal meth or heroin who doesn't realize his
own super strength...and has a total lack of
respect [for authority].”
Some participants noted that interracial
tension–particularly in cities–can lead to
violence. Different cultural perspectives and
different cultural reactions to violence and
authority can also be a source of violence and tension. For example, in some cultures
women are not respected, and police and regulators are the seen as “the bad guys.”
Although participants recognized that broad societal influences are beyond the
control of liquor licensees, they noted that neighbourhood and community
characteristics can contribute to violence in and around licensed premises. For
example, some participants felt that violent incidents may be more frequent in skid
row bars or locations where a culture of violence prevails. Some proposed that
violence may be more common in communities with a high concentration of bars
clustered in the same area. They reported that problems related to high bar
concentrations are exacerbated by:
17
“The increase of
visible gang presence in
a community leads to
an increase in violence
everywhere, and it shows
up in licensed premises.”
—A roundtable participant
“Criminal gangs
have a lucrative drug
market and enforce their
turf. They’ll walk in and
have complete control
and dominance in a
bar. It changes the
whole atmosphere.”
—A roundtable participant
▲

• restrictive legislation
Liquor legislation dictates the hours during
which liquor can be sold and served. The
effect of this legislation is that most bars
close at the same time, with the result that
“rivers of people pour out onto the street”
at closing time.
Anti-smoking bylaws result in crowds of
people congregating outside bars, which
can create the potential for violence.
• a shortage of parking, which can lead to noise
and disruption in the residential communities
near bars
• inadequate transportation (too few cabs available) at closing time: “The mood
changes very quickly if patrons have to wait too long, and fights ensue.”
• lack of funding for adequate police staffing
“The evidence on the effect of bar concentration is mixed.… [T]he mere fact that a
neighborhood has a high concentration of bars does not necessarily mean there will
be higher levels of crime in the area” (Scott, 2001, p. 4).
“Certain types of bars, such as dance clubs, have higher levels of reported violence.
Neighborhood bars…have lower levels of reported violence, partly because patrons know
one another well….Bars that serve as pickup places, cater to prostitutes, traffic in drugs
or stolen goods, feature aggressive entertainment, etc., are at a higher risk for violence”
(Scott, 2001, p. 3).
The Licensed Establishment
Roundtable participants identified a number of bar operation–related factors that
might contribute to an increased incidence of violence. The significance of many
of these factors has been validated by research.
Licensed establishment–related factors identified by participants include:
18
▲
Alberta’s Liquor Licensee
Handbook stipulates that
Class A licence holders
may sell liquor from
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Consumption of liquor is
permitted for a
maximum of one hour after
the time when liquor sales
cease.All liquor must be
removed from patron areas
by3:00a.m.
▲

• the size of the venue
Some breakout groups felt there was no relationship between violence
and the size of a licensed establishment. Others felt that larger venues
are more prone to violence than smaller ones.
• the physical environment, including layout and overcrowding
Poorly designed traffic flow patterns and overcrowding can lead to
lineups,bottlenecks, slower service and physical “bumping” that
can rile tempers and result in aggressive behaviour.
Smoky bars, poor ventilation and pounding music can make
patrons aggressive.
Dark corners and unsupervised washrooms can become havens
for drug deals.
For smokers, the prohibition of smoking in bars can cause tension.
Participants identified the need for research about the relationship
between smoking bans and violence in and around licensed premises.
• the social environment
The sexual climate and “gender dynamics” in a licensed establishment
can contribute to aggressive behaviour. For example, inappropriate
sexual touching can illicit aggressive reactions, and sexual competition
can lead to violence.
One participant group suggested that bars with a high proportion of
anonymous, transient patrons might have more problems with violence
than bars with an established clientele.
One group reported that popular bars with a predominantly young male
clientele are likely to be more violent.
When food service is not promoted, liquor becomes the main menu item.
This contributes to overconsumption and aggressive behaviour.
19

• operations management
Poor hiring practices and the absence of security checks during the
recruitment process can create problems: without proper checks, unwary
operators may hire staff with criminal connections.
High staff turnover, inadequate staff–patron ratios and the lack of house
policies can make it more difficult for operators to deal with acts of
aggression before they escalate into violence.
Untrained staff lack the skills and knowledge they need to work as a
team, manage lineups and defuse violence.
Discount drink specials and overservice can result in excessive drinking
and contribute to violence.
Roundtable keynote presenter Kathryn Graham and other researchers (Scott, 2001) note that
both the physical and the social characteristics of a licensed establishment can increase the
potential for violence.
Crowding, smoky air, poor ventilation, a lack of cleanliness, poor-quality (as defined by
patrons) music or entertainment, high noise levels, uncomfortable or insufficient seating,
too-warm temperatures and inadequate or too-bright lighting create an unpleasant bar
atmosphere and increase the risk of aggression and violence.
The social environment of a bar also has an influence on violence. Contributing
factors include
• behavioural expectations: if establishments tolerate profanity, intoxication, drug dealing,
rowdiness or sexually permissive behaviour, patrons get the impression that violence or
aggression will be tolerated as well
• competitive situations: competition at the pool table or other games can lead to anger
and frustration, while drink-chugging contests can contribute to overconsumption
• aggressive bouncers: “The more aggressively security staff handles patrons, the more
aggressively patrons respond” (Scott, 2001, p. 4).
• a predominately young male clientele: “Many incidents of bar aggression start when
young men challenge one another…Overall, women's presence has a calming effect on
men's behaviour in crowded bars” (Scott, 2001, p. 4, citing Macintyre & Hommel, 1997).
20
▲

The Individual Patron
Participants identified a number of factors that contribute to violence and aggression,
particularly among young males:
• intoxication
• a party mentality
• the need to impress somebody or be somebody
• the need to save face
• territorial behaviour
• the lack of a sense of community
• sexual competition
• unclear rules for social behaviour (As one participant asked, “When is it
appropriate to pick up a date?”)
• a predisposition for aggression (“Some guys go looking for a fight.”)
• personal problems, which may include gambling, substance abuse, depression,
having a grudge against someone at the bar or simply “having a bad day”
What Is the Impact of Violence?
Roundtable participants recognized that violence in and around licensed premises
affects the very fabric of society and makes people feel unsafe in their own
communities. It consumes scarce resources and puts a strain on public institutions
such as the health care and justice systems.
Participants noted that violence has an impact on
• individual citizens
• liquor licensees
• neighbourhoods, communities and local businesses
Defining the Problem – What Is the Impact of Violence?
21

Violence can lead to the breakdown of family structures. It can cause fear
and anxiety among ordinary citizens concerned for their personal safety. Both
perpetrators and innocent bystanders can suffer personal injury or even death as
a result of violence, and individuals involved in violent incidents can face financial
losses, loss of employment, lawsuits and criminal charges.
For liquor licensees, violence can result in property damage and vandalism. It can
increase the risk of lawsuits and raise costs for business and liability insurance,
including Workers Compensation Board coverage. Violence makes it harder to
attract and retain good staff. And if an establishment becomes known as a place
where violence is likely to occur, a loss of business can follow.
Violence in and around licensed premises can result in public mischief, noise,
litter, crime, property damage and vandalism in surrounding communities. It can
damage the image of the community and reduce tourism. It can create strains on
local businesses such as convenience stores and taxi companies that serve patrons
after the bars close.
Roundtable participants noted that the cost of preventing and dealing with violence
can result in higher taxes. Violence increases costs for the health care system, the
judicial system, addictions treatment programs and social agencies that must deal
with the consequences of violence. It also increases policing costs. Some participants
felt that a disproportionate percentage of policing resources was focused on a small
percentage of establishments.
In a national survey conducted in 2003 (Ekos Research, 2004), one in four Canadians
reported feeling vulnerable to property crime and one in seven felt “quite open to violent
crime.” Four per cent of Canadians experience violent crime annually.
“The annual cost of crime to Canadians is estimated to range between $35 billion and
$46 billion” (National Crime Prevention Centre, citing a 1996 study).
Defining the Problem – What Is the Impact of Violence?
22
▲

Taking Stock
Identifying strategies for preventing and dealing with violence
The information reported in this chapter is the result of brainstorming sessions
intended to generate ideas for further discussion. Because different topics were
discussed by different participant groups, the proposed recommendations may
not have the endorsement of the roundtable as a whole.
Participants offered their recommendations with the proviso that further research
and discussion are needed to identify and validate best practices.
In Part One of the roundtable, participants worked in small groups to develop an
inventory of anti violence strategies and identify the strengths and weaknesses
of each approach. Their discussions focused on three predefined categories:
prevention, operations and enforcement. These categories are not mutually
exclusive, and strategies within one category often work in concert with strategies
in other categories. For example, operating policies and procedures can have a
direct impact on preventing violence and enforcing liquor-related legislation;
enforcement in and of itself can serve as a prevention tool. The category labels
simply served as a means of organizing and focusing the discussion.
Participants' next task was to identify new or improved strategies for dealing
with violence in and around licensed premises. Their discussions focused on the
following predefined categories:
• research, monitoring and evaluation
• operations (of licensed premises)
• industry training
• municipal bylaws, provincial legislation and policy
• prevention
• enforcement
In some cases, the ideas that were proposed were not new strategies, but rather,
endorsements of current approaches.
Taking Stock
23

Participants' discussions affirmed that comprehensive training, sound operating
policies and procedures, effective legislation and consistent enforcement can all play
a role in preventing violence and addressing its causes. In the previous chapter, the
causes of violence identified by roundtable participants were categorized as follows:
• excessive drinking
• factors specific to the external environment (the socio-cultural context)
• factors specific to the licensed establishment itself
• factors specific to the individual patron
In the current chapter, participants' ideas for addressing these causes are grouped
into the following corresponding categories:
• reducing consumption
• managing the external environment through community mobilization, legislation
and bylaws, transportation-related strategies, enforcement, public awareness
and education
• managing the licensed establishment through legislated and voluntary measures
to control the physical and social environment, establish sound operating policies
and procedures, and improve staff recruitment and training
Violence-prevention measures specific to individual patrons were not discussed:
except insofar as individual behaviour can be influenced by public education
and environment, these factors are beyond the sphere of influence of
roundtable participants.
What the research shows
Keynote presenter Dr. Kathryn Graham identified five types of intervention to reduce violence
and injury related to drinking in licensed premises:
• education and training
• policies and laws
• enforcement and policing
• voluntary codes of practice
• community mobilization
Taking Stock
24
▲

Reducing Consumption
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Roundtable participants identified several voluntary and legislated bar
operations–related strategies to reduce excessive drinking:
• responsible beverage service, which includes monitoring consumption and
refusing service to intoxicated patrons
• restricting service hours
• restricting happy hours
PROPOSED NEW APPROACHES
Participants proposed implementing in-house breath sampling to provide
patrons with an easy way to assess their own sobriety. They also proposed the
following new strategies that would require legislative changes or community
intervention before they could be implemented:
• establishing minimum drink prices
• raising the minimum age for drinking
• preventing alcohol abuse by providing public education about the hazards
of overconsumption
Managing the External Environment
Community Mobilization
“Community mobilization combined with training programs, enhanced enforcement
and policy development may be the preferred option [for reducing bar-related
violence] when problems are concentrated in a particular area. This approach can
be powerful, but it requires considerable leadership and resources and must be
made part of normal operating processes in the community if the effect is to be
sustained” (Graham, 2005).
Taking Stock – Managing the External Environment: Community Mobilization
25
*Consumption-reduction strategies related to the operation of licensed premises are discussed in more detail in
the report section called “Operating Policy and Procedures,” which begins on p. 42.

CURRENT STRATEGIES
Addressing the issue of violence requires action and commitment by a broad
range of stakeholders. Participants reported that cooperation between liquor
licensees, community associations, local governments, the education and
health sectors, regulatory agencies and the police is key. They identified
several multi-stakeholder programs that have been successful in preventing
violence in a number of Alberta communities. A list of current programs is
provided on p. 28.
Roundtable participants noted that proactive, community-based partnerships
can be effective in responding to specific local needs. Such partnerships
establish good relationships and get people working together. They help
to build “a culture of compliance” and make it possible to share ideas,
resources and expertise.
Nonetheless, “keeping things going” is a significant challenge. Roundtable
participants noted that it takes time, effort and dollars to build acceptance
and buy–in–both from business owners and from the community at large.
Because participation is voluntary, there are no universally adopted
standards, and best practices are not consistently applied. High staff turnover
in the hospitality industry makes it difficult to build and maintain effective
partnerships: new staff must be trained, and relationships continually
re-established. Because the program focus is local, not province-wide, there
is little inter-jurisdictional exchange of ideas or information. Local groups are
faced with a multitude of issues in addition to violence, and must distribute
often-scarce resources accordingly. In addition, jurisdictional boundaries
(in terms of who is responsible) are sometimes unclear.
Participants noted that community mobilization efforts are particularly
effective when liquor licensees, communities, regulatory and government
agencies, and the police take ownership of the problem and work together
to share information and resources. In Edmonton's Old Strathcona district,
for example, the 8 to 12 police officers assigned to the area have established
good relationships with business owners and liquor licensees. They have taken
ownership of the problem and their commitment to solving it is high because
the district is “their turf.”
26

Participants recommended the expansion of programs such as
Grande Prairie's Safe City Nights (see p.28), which takes a multi-faceted,
multi-stakeholder approach that involves enhanced policing, liaison with
the school system, staff training and increased enforcement. Participants also
noted the need for continued (and better) cooperation between licensees, the
police and enforcement agencies. They recommended the following strategies
for sharing information and improving communication:
• Provide incentives and appropriate mechanisms for licensees to share
information about violence prevention programs they've introduced in
their establishments. Share this information provincially as well as locally.
• Keep logs to document violent incidents, and share this information with
the AGLC and the police.
Participants proposed the development of a template*
to facilitate
reporting. They noted the need for strategic analysis of collected
information to determine the impact of violence on licensees,
enforcement agencies and regulators. They proposed investigating the
possibility of province-wide intelligence exchange between licensees,
police agencies and the AGLC.
• Document, monitor and share strategies and best practices that have
proven effective in preventing or dealing with violence.
One participant group suggested that best practices should be posted
on a liquor industry intranet, where experienced owners could share
information with new licensees.
• Develop strategies for documenting and sharing best practices across
the industry. (For example, how do you hire the best door staff? What
factors do you look at? As one participant queried, “Do you hire the
widest guy available to fill the door? Or a tiny female with good
communications skills?”)
One participant group suggested that industry associations might be
well placed to coordinate intra-industry communication.
27
*The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission's incident report form is an appropriate template. The AGLC
provides instructions and training to assist licensees and police forces in completing the form correctly.

Current Community Mobilization Strategies
CALGARY
Calgary's Public Safety Task Force brings a number of enforcement agencies together. Representatives from
the Calgary Police Service, city licensing and fire authorities, and the AGLC conduct joint “operations checks”
of licensed premises that have a history of violations or the potential for violations. Team-based operations
checks are also conducted when complaints have been received about particular licensed premises.
Calgary’s task force has launched a daytime enforcement unit to provide the information and education
needed to support successful public safety programs.
EDMONTON
The Barwatch program is a partnership between local business owners, the Edmonton Police Service and the
Edmonton Emergency Response Team. (“Bar watch” or “pub watch” programs are in place in Vancouver,
Seattle and Portland.) Program features include:
• using video surveillance to monitor problem patrons
• using ID scanning and developing banned persons lists to reduce gang and drug activity
in licensed premises
• information sharing and communication between stakeholders
Members of the Old Strathcona Hospitality Association work together to share information, raise
awareness and develop best practices with regard to training and operating standards for licensed
establishments. The efforts of the association have led to increased police presence in problem areas and
better coordination with the AGLC.
The West Edmonton Mall Barwatch Program sees mall security staff, club owners and city police working
together to reduce violence by “preventing the first punch from being thrown.”
The Whyte Avenue Task Force facilitates a coordinated, community-based response that involves city
police, planning and bylaw enforcement officers, the AGLC and business owners.
GRANDE PRAIRIE
In Grande Prairie, the city's Enforcement Services branch (responsible for the enforcement of provincial
legislation and municipal bylaws) joined forces with the AGLC, the RCMP and owners and managers of
licensed establishments to launch the Safe City Nights program in 2003. Program partners work together
to reduce fights and disturbances in the city's bars and clubs. The features of Safe City Nights include
• enhanced policing on Friday and Saturday nights
• liaison with local high schools to educate young people about responsible drinking and
the penalties associated with using fake ID and with drinking and driving
• training for door staff
The City of Grande Prairie has introduced a “No Gang Colours, No Gang Clothing” program to support
business owners in banning criminal gang colours from their establishments. Participating business owners
can request that patrons wearing gang insignia remove their “colours” or leave the premises. Individuals
who refuse can be charged with trespassing under the Trespass to Premises Act. There is a $2,000 fine for
a first offence.
28

Legislation and Bylaws
“Formal regulation and enforcement of relevant liquor-licensing laws motivate bar
and club owners to adopt and enforce responsible serving practices and policies”
(Scott, 2001, p. 28).
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Roundtable participants reported several examples where municipal
legislation and bylaws have proven successful in preventing violence in
and around licensed premises:
• In 2004, the City of Red Deer introduced its Drinking Establishment Bylaw
No. 3332/2004 to address the “significant increase in problems associated
with the use of Drinking Establishments by patrons, including disorderly
conduct, violent altercations in the street, breaches of traffic and parking
regulations, vandalism, littering, noise, and other disturbances of the
peace.” The bylaw outlines licensing requirements and spells out the
licensing conditions that may be imposed on establishments “where events
have occurred…that put at risk the safety, health, welfare or property” of
the public or of the establishment's patrons or staff. The conditions include:
requirements to maintain a prescribed number of trained
security personnel
requirements to install and maintain video surveillance
requirements to install and maintain an airport-style metal-detecting
security gate
• Red Deer's Public Order Bylaw No. 3326/2004 addresses noise, nuisance,
unsightly premises and graffiti related to drinking establishments and other
businesses. Participants noted that the graffiti issue relates to perception:
“If patrons see that a bar tolerates graffiti, they feel they don't have to
respect the property.”
Municipal bylaws such as those adopted in Red Deer make it possible to
address violence-related issues more quickly than they could be addressed
under Criminal Code prosecutions. Participants noted that bylaws allow police
to issue on-the-spot tickets and fines. This serves as a deterrent and an
effective enforcement tool. It reduces the amount of paperwork required of
the police and lessens the strain on the judicial system.
Taking Stock – Managing the External Environment: Legislation and Bylaws
29

Bylaw strategies can also reduce the concentration of bars and nightclubs
in specific communities. One participant reported that Vancouver has imposed
a moratorium on liquor licensing on Granville Street, in it’s local entertainment
district. Although this has created a secondary, resale market for licences, it
has also improved the quality of liquor-licensed operations. Because a
significant start-up investment is required, only “better quality operators” are
likely to enter the field.
Participants reported a number of challenges related to introducing new
bylaws and legislation. The issue of cost must be considered, and it takes
time to nurture buy-in, overcome skepticism and build acceptance. In
addition, more laws and more charges lead to more trials and more
court time, which increases costs to the judicial system.
While some participant groups advocated regulatory approaches for
addressing the issue of violence, others noted that licensing and regulation
are not the only options for controlling licensed establishments. Voluntary
codes of conduct can also encourage “good quality operators” and good
management of licensed premises. As one participant said, “We need to
find a way to deal with violence without a bigger stick and without more
regulation. It's already a highly regulated industry.” Participants agreed that
further exploration of the issues is required.
Roundtable participants proposed a number of new regulatory requirements
related to the external environment within which licensed premises operate.
Some suggested that liquor licensing regulation, municipal bylaws and related
legislation (such as the Municipal Government Act) should mandate
pre-licensing planning and development approvals as a condition
of licensing. Some participant groups suggested that a business plan, a
security plan and a noise management plan for the establishment should
be conditions for licensing. They recommended that the security plan should
include provisions for staff training and for video surveillance.
One participant group suggested that liquor licence approvals should require
a community impact study and consider municipal statistics with regard to
transportation, zoning and safety plans. This information would help police
services allocate staff to appropriate areas, increase security where it's
needed and provide more oversight in problem areas.
30

Some participant groups believed that liability insurance should be a
requirement for licensing. The requirement for insurance would provide
protection for patrons. Since good operators running low-risk establishments
are rewarded with lower premiums, it would also encourage licensees to
adopt responsible operating procedures and provide training for their staff.
Some participants proposed redefining licensing classifications to
differentiate between types of establishments, and developing tiered
regulations appropriate for each class. For example, a 1,000-seat
establishment might need different regulations than a small neighbourhood
pub. A nightclub might be required to participate in a linked security
network, while other methods might be better suited to family-oriented
licensed establishments.
One participant group proposed increasing the legal drinking age. Group
members felt that maturity and responsible behaviour are a function of
age. They believed their proposal merited further exploration in spite of
the implementation-related challenges such a change would involve. They
also recognized that raising the legal drinking age might simply displace
the problem of violence: underage drinkers might do their drinking at bush
parties instead of bars.
Participants recognized a need for better
coordination between municipalities
(which manage zoning and approve
business licences) and the AGLC (which
approves and issues liquor licences),
and between municipalities and
licensees. Better cooperation can help create safe, vibrant communities
with an appropriate balance of licensed premises and other businesses. It can
ensure that licensed premises are established in suitable neighbourhoods and
prevent the overconcentration of bars and nightclubs.
Some participants proposed introducing municipal or provincial legislation
to restrict the size of licensed premises and to reduce bar clusters.
While these participants believed that communities with a high concentration
of bars have higher crime rates, others felt that this is not always the case.
As one participant noted, “Vancouver's Granville Avenue, Edmonton's Whyte
Avenue and Calgary's Electric Avenue have a reputation as problem spots,
yet Montreal's Boulevard St. Laurent–which is full of bars, restaurants and art
galleries–does not.”
31
“Why are bars located
near seniors’ homes?”
▲

Transportation-Related Strategies
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Participants reported that some of the violence around licensed premises
stems from a lack of transportation options-particularly at closing time,
when the demand for cabs and buses can easily exceed the supply. During
the Christmas season, programs such as Operation Red Nose–a free,
drive-home service–help to alleviate transportation shortages and prevent
drinking and driving. Keys Please and Drive4U are year-round, paid,
drive-home services. Some establishments in Red Deer and Grande Prairie
address transportation issues year-round by providing patrons with free
shuttle bus service home.
Programs such as #TAXI* also prevent violence related to drinking and
driving. By dialing #TAXI (#8294) on any cellphone, callers are instantly
connected to the first local cab company that can take them home.
A challenge to such programs' success is that there may be too few
cabs in service when they are needed.
Several participant groups proposed that violence could be reduced if
better transportation and more cabs were available at bar closing
times. Some participants proposed that cab companies should be required to
provide taxi service to licensed premises. Some acknowledged the need for
service, but questioned whether enough cabs were available even if service
was mandated. Some noted that municipal intervention and changes to
zoning bylaws might be required to address the transportation issue.
Taking Stock – Managing the External Environment: Transportation-Related Strategies
32
*#TAXI is sponsored by the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission in partnership with the Canadian
Association of Liquor Jurisdictions and the province's Mothers Against Drunk Driving group.

Enforcement
Establishing and enforcing clear rules of conduct for bar patrons reduces the
potential for conflicts…and promotes a calmer atmosphere (Scott, 2001, p. 31).
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Roundtable participants noted that the visible presence of authority is
effective in preventing violence and encouraging patrons to play by the
rules. They identified a number of enforcement strategies that are currently
in place in Alberta's licensed establishments:
• bar staff walk-throughs to identify potential problems
Well-trained staff can spot and defuse trouble before it escalates.
• AGLC's “Under 25” policy, which makes it mandatory for licensed
establishments to request proof of age when a customer appears to
be under the age of 25
• police walk-throughs and police presence at entrances to bars and clubs
and in neighbouring communities
• off-duty police officers or private, uniformed security officers to assist
in-house security staff
One participant group noted that establishing good communication is
key: “It's not good enough to have a uniformed officer present; that
officer has to let the bar owner know about potential problems.”
• plainclothes police officers and AGLC inspectors conducting
undercover operations
• cooperative enforcement through community-based efforts such as
Safe City Nights (See p.28 for details about similar programs.)
• controlling overcrowding
Inter-agency cooperation and regular inspections by the police,
occupational health and safety officers, the fire department, and
municipal bylaw enforcement staff help ensure that licensees adhere
to legislation and that occupancy load limits are not exceeded.
Taking Stock – Managing the External Environment: Enforcement
33

• random, unannounced inspections by AGLC staff
Inspections can ensure that licensees are operating safe, viable
businesses and complying with relevant policy and laws.
• fines, sanctions and disciplinary action by the AGLC and other regulators
• prosecution of offenders
This reinforces the message that staff and patrons are accountable
for their actions. The challenge is ensuring that the punishment fits
the crime. In addition, since prosecution is reactive, participants
questioned if it was an effective way of preventing violence.
“Does it make a difference?”
• teamwork and cooperative relationships between licensees, the AGLC and
the police, the fire department, occupational health and safety officers and
municipal authorities
One challenge of enforcement–whether
in-house or via agencies such as the
police and the AGLC–is the associated cost.
Increasing police presence in and around
licensed premises increases police budgets
and workloads. Funding constraints can mean
that police (and AGLC inspectors) must focus
their efforts and target facilities known to
have a high level of violence.
Another challenge is that a visible
enforcement presence can alienate
potential patrons by creating a sense that
something is wrong. If patrons question
management policies and procedures or react negatively to the presence of police,
this can lead to aggression and violence. An appropriate balance between
enforcement and education must be found.
The enforcement strategies proposed by roundtable participants include
proactive as well as reactive approaches. The former deal with preventive
measures such as increasing police presence. The latter deal with fines or
sanctions imposed after the fact.
34
“Enforcement plays a big
role in helping people feel
safe in their communities.
But we can't forget the
other parts of the 'feeling
safe' equation: public
awareness, staff training
and solid legislation.”
–Harvey Cenaiko, Solicitor General
and Minister of Public Security,
March 31, 2006
▲

Several groups of participants noted that increasing the presence of
police, AGLC inspectors and bylaw officers can serve as a deterrent and
contribute to enforcement.They recognized a need to increase funding for
police services. This would allow the police to devote more resources to
fighting organized crime at the community level, which in turn would increase
safety in bars. More funding could support more undercover operations and
allow the police to direct appropriate resources to violence-prone “hot spots”
when needed.
Specific suggestions for proactive enforcement include:
• hiring 500 new officers for deployment on
a province-wide government initiative to fight organized crime,
gangs and the drug trade
community-based violence prevention in and around licensed premises
• increasing municipal policing around bars and clubs: “The more uniforms
there are on the street, the less violence.”
• establishing mobile command posts near potential trouble spots
• inspections and audits by regulatory agencies or multidisciplinary task
forces whose members might include the police, the AGLC, municipal
bylaw enforcement officers, the fire department, and occupational health
and safety inspectors
One group suggested that if problems were identified, a safety audit
or CPTED risk assessment should be required as follow-up.
Participants recognized a need for better
cooperation across jurisdictional
boundaries. Some groups proposed that
the AGLC, the police and the staff of licensed
establishments should share responsibility
for enforcement both inside and outside of
licensed premises. Some noted that, with
regard to liability issues, licensees' “duty of
care” might extend beyond their premises;
others cautioned that current insurance
coverage restrictions prevent bar staff from
involvement in incidents beyond the doors
of their establishments.
35
“Extending the 'duty of
service' outside has
serious implications.
We don't want our
employees out in the
parking lot. If there was a
criminal act, they would
be responsible.”
▲

Participants proposed better communication between law enforcement
agencies and the business community. They also noted that, in conjunction
with proactive enforcement, fines and sanctions after the fact can help to
deter violence. The strategies they proposed included:
• imposing stricter penalties for fighting in licensed premises
• defining minimum sentences
• implementing a system of escalating fines for repeat offenders
• imposing provincial penalties both on patrons who are involved in violent
incidents and on the licensed premises where the incidents occur
Participants recognized that cooperation and buy-in from the justice system
would be required to implement these measures, and that there might be
a reluctance to “burden communities with fines.” They also recognized that
increased enforcement could tie up courts and prosecutors and increase
justice system costs.
Public Awareness and Education
“We need to create a new culture and raise public awareness about the dangers
of overconsumption.”
“There needs to be a balance between education and enforcement. Both patrons
and staff need to understand the consequences.”
“Until government recognizes the negative effects of drinking, like they did with
smoking, they're wearing two hats and nothing will change: one hat is much more
lucrative than the other.”
–A sampling of comments from roundtable participants
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Participants identified a number of public information and awareness
campaigns that are effective in deterring violence:
• AADAC programs such as Leaps and Bounds (for Grades 4 to 6)
help children make sound decisions regarding drug and alcohol use
and gambling.
Taking Stock – Managing the External Environment: Public Awareness and Education
36

• D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is a school-based program
designed to teach children about the consequences of drug abuse and
provide them with skills for resisting peer pressure to experiment with
drugs, alcohol and tobacco.
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD Canada) is a non-profit,
grassroots organization committed to stopping impaired driving–a form
of violence that sometimes originates in licensed premises.
The effectiveness of education programs is sometimes difficult to measure.
Challenges in implementing such programs include a shortage of resources,
including time, funding and staff. As one participant put it, “teachers don't
have time to deliver extra curriculum.”
Roundtable participants proposed the establishment of social responsibility
programs for the staff of licensed establishments and for young people.
(“You have to take a course to drive a car. Why not a course when you're old
enough to drink?”) They proposed education and awareness programs to help
patrons understand their own role in preventing violence and to explain why
bar security is necessary. Some suggested that public education programs
should focus on individual responsibility and on “how not to become a
victim” of violence.
Participants recommended the establishment of programs to identify
children at risk of violent behaviour, and the provision of support and
treatment for such children and their families. They suggested that
professional resources should be dedicated to education and
intervention programs in elementary schools. They cited a need for
simple, standardized, easy-to-deliver provincial curriculum material to:
• help build children's self-esteem
• provide children with skills to avoid negative peer pressure
• teach children the consequences of involvement with gangs or drugs
They also noted the need for “responsible alcohol consumption”
education for high school and post-secondary students.
Taking Stock – Managing the External Environment: Public Awareness and Education
37

Participants identified the need for public
awareness programs to educate people about
the dangers of alcohol overconsumption and about
consequences such as fetal alcohol spectrum
disorder. They recognized the positive role the
media could play in generating public awareness
about alcohol abuse and issues such as alcohol-
related violence. However, they expressed
frustration about what they perceived as the
media's tendency to sensationalize issues.
Roundtable participants suggested that all policing
organizations “need to be on the same page”
when they are addressing the media. They
acknowledged that, when violent incidents occur, the media need the facts. They
recognized a need to release better information earlier, but cautioned that the
premature release of official information could subvert ongoing investigations.
Managing the Licensed Establishment
Roundtable participants identified a variety of management-related strategies that
can help prevent violence in and around licensed premises. These strategies relate
to the following characteristics of licensed premises:
• the physical environment
• the social environment
• operating policies and procedures, including
admission practices
pricing and serving practices
security
• staffing issues
Taking Stock – Managing the Licensed Establishment: The Physical Environment
38
“Most violence in Canada
is domestic–between
people who know each
other, in private settings.
But if there’s a gang
shooting, and the media
get hold of the story, they
create the perception that
gangs are the #1 cause.”
▲

The Physical Environment
Participants recognized that both the physical and social environments that
characterize licensed premises can contribute to aggression and violence.
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Physical environment–related strategies reported by participants include:
• improving the lighting inside and outside licensed premises and in
adjoining parking areas
• arranging furniture layouts and traffic flow patterns to eliminate
congestion and open up sightlines (Participants acknowledged that
the structure of a facility can sometimes pose challenges.)
• eliminating the use of glass beverage containers that can be used
as weapons
A “no glass” policy was recently implemented by some licensed
establishments, but the results are not yet known.
Some participants had successfully
applied Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED)
principles in their establishments. The
CPTED program, which includes several
levels of training, uses environmental
design assessments to identify and
eliminate problem spots such as poorly
lit areas, traffic flow bottlenecks, hidden
areas that can screen illegal activity, or
places where loitering can be a problem.
It deals with the premises as a
whole–including parking lots and
exterior spaces.
Participants who had experience with
CPTED commended the program as “another set of eyes to help you scope
potential problems.” One strength is that “it lets you look outside the box.”
In one community, for example, a beam-style metal barricade across a road
had became a place for bar patrons to sit–and trouble to brew. After a CPTED
review, the problem was solved by replacing the beam with posts.
Taking Stock – Managing the Licensed Establishment: The Physical Environment
39
The International CPTED
(pronounced SEP-ted)
Association was launched
in 1996 and includes 700
members in 40 countries.
The association holds
that “proper design and
effective use of the physical
environment” can reduce
the incidence and fear of
crime, create safer
environments and improve
quality of life.
▲

One challenge with regard to CPTED is determining who should conduct
the required environmental assessments. The police, the AGLC, the Workers
Compensation Board, bylaw officers, occupational health and safety
inspectors and insurance companies were proposed as possible options.
Several participants groups recommended the CPTED (Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design) approach as an effective way of creating
a safer, crime-free physical environment in bars and nightclubs. They also
expressed support for the “no glass beverage containers” policy recently
introduced in some licensed establishments.
Participants proposed other strategies related to the physical environment:
• Post “refusal of service signage” so that patrons and the public are clear
about the rules.
• Provide televisions in the washrooms.
Participants noted that when patrons are entertained (with ads
or sports highlights, for example), they are less likely to be
aggressive or violent.
The Social Environment
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Social environment–related strategies reported by participants include
adopting a zero-tolerance approach to violence and inappropriate
behaviour. Participants noted that this approach creates a positive social
environment and eliminates problems before they start: patrons know they
will be ejected from the premises at the first sign of trouble. The policy in
some establishments is that any patron who harasses a police officer is
immediately ejected. Participants noted that staff cooperation is critical for
implementing such policies. Some also cautioned that while ejecting patrons
may prevent the escalation of violence inside licensed premises, it may create
violent situations outside.
Taking Stock – Managing the Licensed Establishment: The Social Environment
40

Other current strategies reported by participants include:
• establishing a dress code for staff
This conveys a positive image and makes staff identifiable.
• providing uniforms for security staff so that they are easily recognizable
• establishing a dress code for patrons
This allows licensees to be selective about the clientele they allow
into their establishments.
• prohibiting gang colours
This keeps gangs out. However, overcoming gang intimidation of
door and security staff can be a challenge.
• eliminating graffiti
“If patrons see that a bar tolerates graffiti, they feel they don't have
to respect the property.”
• “toning down the music,” especially near closing time
As one participant said, “Classical music doesn't promote loitering.”
Participants noted that getting licensees and staff to buy in and support
measures like the ones listed here can sometimes be a challenge.
Roundtable participants recommended creating a positive social
environment by creating zero tolerance for violence. They endorsed the
strategies currently in use and offered several new suggestions:
• know your employees and your customers
• choose music that creates an appropriate mood
• tone down the music and turn up the lights during the hour before
closing time to signal patrons that they should be preparing to leave
Taking Stock – Managing the Licensed Establishment: The Social Environment
41

Operating Policy and Procedures
ADMISSION PRACTICES
“You can pick and choose your customers. If you've had an issue with a patron,
or if think you'll have an issue, don't let them in.”
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Many licensees have admission policies aimed at stopping trouble at the
door. Roundtable participants identified the following admission practices:
• identification checks to ensure that underage patrons are not being
admitted with fake IDs
Some establishments use black light to ensure that patron IDs are
genuine and have not been altered. Simple visual checks can also
be effective if staff know what to look for. (The Alberta Server
Intervention Program equips staff with the training they need to
spot fake IDs.)
• identification scanning using computer-based security systems such as
BarLink or Secure Club.
Patron identification is scanned into the security system, which
cross-checks the information against a database of known offenders.
Individuals included in the database (because of gang affiliation or a
history of rowdy behaviour) are not admitted. Security system data is
shared among system subscribers, so that a patron banned from one
establishment cannot gain admittance at other establishments where
the system is used.
• cover charges
This may reduce bar-hopping and binge drinking. As one participant
noted, “If you pay $20 for admission, you're less likely to leave and
go elsewhere.”
Taking Stock – Managing the Licensed Establishment: Operating Policy and Procedures
42

• mandatory coat checks
This makes it harder for patrons to bring in weapons, drugs and
illicit alcohol.
• metal detectors (wands or security gates) and pat downs
Participants faced a number of challenges in implementing these
admission practices. Most importantly, the efficient screening of patrons
requires sufficient staffnumbers to prevent lineups, congestion and the
violence that can result. Extra personnel are needed to staff coat checks.
Conflict can arise if patrons don't want to check their coats, and insurance
costs can go up if coats are lost.
Staff need training to recognize fake IDs. They also need training on how to
conduct appropriate security checks. (For example, security staff need training
in the proper use of metal detectors.) In addition, there are privacy issues
related to searching people, and inappropriate searches can result in charges
of sexual harassment.
Implementing computer-based identification scanning technology can be
costly, and unless all licensed premises use the technology, problem patrons
who are barred from one establishment can simply move on to bars that
are not linked to the system. Without supplementary visual checks by staff,
scanning technology is not effective in identifying patrons using borrowed ID.
In addition, collecting patrons' personal information poses challenges with
regard to privacy rights. It raises issues related to the legitimate use and
protection of personal information.
Roundtable participants supported the use of wands or metal detectors.
They also supported the use of identification scanning technology, particularly
in large nightclubs and bars. However, they recognized the need for regulation
to define the rules about the acceptable use of scanning technology. They
suggested that research is needed to determine if such technology should be
mandatory for all licensed premises, or if its usefulness depends on the size
of the establishment.
43

One participant group proposed offering incentives to licensed establishments
to encourage the use of security cameras, laser counters and other
surveillance technology. Incentives could take the form of price discounts,
rebates or lower insurance rates.
One participant group proposed restricting admission to licensed premises
after a certain time (for example, not admitting patrons after midnight).
PRICING AND SERVICE PRACTICES
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Responsible beverage service practices can reduce excessive drinking and
intoxication, which in turn reduce the potential for violence–both on the
premises and on the street, after closing time. Roundtable participants
reported using the following pricing and service practices:
• eliminating the use of glassware and glass beverage containers
Eliminating glassware eliminates dishwashing and breakage costs,
and removes materials that could be used as weapons.
• limiting or prohibiting drink specials
• limiting the duration of happy hours
• limiting hours of service
• monitoring patrons' liquor consumption and refusing service to patrons
who are intoxicated
Licensees have the right and the responsibility to refuse service.
• promoting food service
• providing entertainment
Patrons drink less when other activities are available.
44

Participants noted that pricing and service
strategies can be extremely effective in
preventing alcohol overconsumption and
violence. A significant drawback is that
adoption is voluntary. The result is that
responsible licensees can lose business
and clientele to establishments where
drinks are deeply discounted and patrons
are encouraged “to party till the very end.”
Another concern regarding establishments
that practice deep discounting is that they
upset the market structure: they enter the
industry, undercut prices and then go broke.
Participants cautioned that while pricing
and service policies can provide a control
mechanism, violence can escalate if patrons
challenge management authority. Effective
staffing and management practices must be in place to support house
policies, and staffing costs can increase as a result. Participants also noted
that “no glass” policies can increase staff costs because pouring drinks takes
more time than service in bottles.
Many roundtable participants expressed support for the “no glass beverage
containers” policy recently introduced in some licensed establishments. Many
expressed support for current strategies such as limiting drink specials and
happy hours, although they recognized that such measures might not be
enforceable without legislation. Some participant groups called for legislation
to establish minimum drink prices.
Roundtable participants proposed the following new approaches:
• Provide in-house breath sampling so that patrons can assess their
level of sobriety.
• Promote food service.
45
“A popular south-side
nightclub sells its Thursday
night happy hour cocktails for
25 cents a glass. If each
cocktail has one ounce of
liquor, how long will it
take before a 118-pound, 18-
year-old girl is throwing up in
the bathroom? Or before two
230-pound boys are fighting in
the parking lot?”
–Paula Simon, “Cheap alcohol fuels
cheap behaviour,”
The Edmonton Journal,
March 21, 2006.
▲

• Limit the number of drinks patrons can order at last call.
• Stagger closing times to avoid a mass exodus of patrons onto the street.
To make things fair for all licensees, consider a system of rotating closing
times, where different establishments close earlier on different nights.
One participant group suggested investigating the feasibility of later
closing times (as in Vancouver bars) or even no closing times. (Places
like New Orleans have 24-hour liquor service.)
• Ban street food vendors from the vicinity of licensed premises.
Eliminating street vendors reduces congestion. Less congestion on the
streets means less potential for violence.
• Provide a longer transition period between last call and the time when
patrons must leave.
For example, end liquor service at 2:00 a.m., end liquor consumption at
3:00 a.m., but allow patrons to stay and “wind down” until 4:00 a.m.
This can prevent excessive consumption and the hoarding of drinks.
Turning up the lights, softening the music and starting to clean the
tables help to “get people moving out of the room.”
• Allow bars to remain open without liquor service.
SECURITY
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Roundtable participants recognized that appropriate security practices can
prevent the outbreak of violence, limit repercussions when incidents do occur
and protect the safety of patrons and staff. They noted that security practices
are an important component of admission policy and practices. (A list of
admission practices is included on p.42–43.)
Some licensees have developed in-house security plans for their
establishments and conduct regular safety audits to identify potential
problem spots and assess risks. Some have hired washroom attendants to
discourage aggressive behaviour, prevent vandalism and stop the
46

consumption or sale of drugs in washrooms. Some equip their washroom
attendants and door staff with two-way radios so they can call for assistance
when they need it. Two-way radios allow staff to maintain contact with the
police as well as with their colleagues.
Some roundtable participants reported using surveillance technology
(including surveillance cameras, facial recognition programs, closed circuit TV,
video systems and staff videographers) inside and outside their premises. They
noted that “knowing someone is watching” can inhibit aggressive behaviour
and “provide patrons with a heightened sense of accountability for their
actions.” Surveillance technology also provides an accurate record of events
that can be used to identify assailants and help police with enforcement.
Challenges include the cost of implementing and maintaining the
technology, lighting constraints that can affect the quality of the
recordings and privacy issues.
Roundtable participants noted the importance of maintaining an appropriate
ratio of security staff to patrons. Some suggested there should be at
least one security staff person for every 75 patrons; others suggested a
ratio of 1:50.
Some participants reported that they provide their staff with monetary
incentives for breaking up disturbances or keeping minors out of licensed
establishments. Some hold regular pre- or post-shift staff debriefing sessions
to share ideas and information about how to handle particular situations and
prevent future incidents.
Roundtable participants expressed their support for the security strategies
that are now in use. With regard to developing safety plans, one participant
group proposed using the Southwest Airlines model, which includes risk
assessment and the development of specific plans to mitigate identified risks.
With regard to the use of closed circuit TV and video surveillance technology,
some groups noted that this might be particularly appropriate in “hot spots”
where there is a high concentration of bars and clubs. One participant group
reported incidents of door staff trafficking drugs, and proposed mandatory
surveillance of some kinds of bar staff to deter illegal activities.
47

While participants recognized that surveillance is an effective prevention
strategy that can constrain aggressive behaviour, they also noted that there
are many ways to achieve this goal. High-tech solutions may not be the best
option for small mom-and-pop operations, although the potential for violence
exists everywhere. Other options include encouraging regular police walk-
throughs, and AGLC enforcement. Some participants suggested hiring
uniformed, off-duty police officers to do surveillance work in licensed
premises during peak hours, or even to patrol a number of premises in
a particular area.
Some participants recommended employing female bouncers as well as
males: “guys are often reluctant to pat down females.” Some suggested that
bar staff should be encouraged to “call 911” and involve the police as soon
as violence erupts.
Staffing Issues
“One area where there is possibility for prevention of violence is hiring,
screening and training of door staff.”
–Roundtable keynote speaker Dr. Kathryn Graham
RECRUITMENT
Roundtable participants agreed that it was a bad idea to hire staff with
criminal records–particularly records for drug-related offences or aggravated
assault. They proposed mandatory criminal record checks as part of the
recruitment process. Some participants believed provincial regulation would
be needed to enforce this requirement.
A number of challenges were identified:
• It currently takes three weeks to complete a criminal record check, and
up to a year before information on criminal convictions is added to the
Canadian Police Information Centre database.
• Mandatory screening might be perceived as excessive
government intervention.
There is a cost.
Taking Stock – Managing the Licensed Establishment: Staffing Issues
48

One participant group suggested that job applicants be asked to pay
the $30 criminal record check fee up front, and that the employer
reimburse the fee after three months. The fee itself would then serve
as a screening tool, since applicants who refuse to pay probably have
something to hide.
TRAINING
“Trained door staff are crucial for preventing violence in
licensed establishments.”
CURRENT STRATEGIES
Roundtable participants recognized that
trained staff can play a key role in
identifying and handling aggression
before it escalates into violence. They
noted the importance of ensuring that
staff are familiar with the licensed
establishment's violence-prevention
policies and procedures. They also noted
that properly implemented training
programs can reduce licensees' risk of
liability and help to lower insurance costs.
One downside of training programs is the
cost. Maintaining continuity of training is
also a challenge in light of high staff-
turnover rates.
The liquor industry has offered training
programs for its staff for many years. The
Alberta Server Intervention Program
(ASIP) launched in November 2004
complements and expands existing
programs. Administered by the Alberta
Gaming and Liquor Commission since the
fall of 2005, ASIP is a mandatory,
province-wide certification program for
liquor industry staff. By training servers
about the responsible sale and service of
alcohol, the program aims to:
49
Safer Bars
Roundtable keynote speaker
Kathryn Graham developed
Ontario’s Safer Bars training
program, which has proven
effective in preventing and
defusing violence. Safer Bars
was developed in consultation
with bar owners and staff,
police, lawyers, health
professionals, civic leaders and
liquor regulators. The program
includes role-playing and
group discussions in a three-
hour session that covers
the following topics:
• understanding how
aggression esclates
• assessing the situation
• keeping cool
• understanding and using
effective body language
(nonverbal techniques)
• responding to problems
• legal issues and
responsibilities
▲

• reduce the risk of violence in licensed premises
• curb the problem of underage drinking
• reduce overconsumption
• prevent impaired driving
ASIP training is available in a variety of formats–as in-house staff training
(through workshops and manuals), as a self-study print manual and video, or
as online seminars. Training topics include legal responsibilities and liabilities,
identifying intoxication, recognizing fake ID, handling situations involving
minors and refusing service.
Roundtable participants said that one strength of programs such as ASIP is
that staff across the province receive a standard level of training. They also
noted the importance of using qualified instructors, assembling “the right
teaching team” and customizing the training for specific staff roles.
Roundtable participants commended the ASIP and proposed the development
of complementary, certificated training programs for security staff and
door staff. Some groups suggested that the training should be developed
and delivered by the AGLC; some suggested that programs from the Alberta
Solicitor General College could be used.
Participants proposed that liquor industry training should cover the following
topic areas:
• how to identify and defuse situations that could turn violent
• conflict resolution techniques, including passive resistance and training on
how to break up fights
• crowd control
• teamwork in dealing with violent incidents
• cross-cultural awareness
50

• environmental design principles
• effective communication
• risk management
• how to conduct a safety audit
• how to identify a drug addict
• how to recognize criminal gang activity
• legal issues related to violence
One group proposed that licensees should work together to create an
inventory of training approaches.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Most roundtable participants agreed on the need for regulatory control for
security staff. Some groups proposed passing provincial legislation that would
regulate security staff according to the same standards as other security
industry employees. They felt the legislation should mandate
• standardized training
• testing and certification
• police background checks
• a minimum age requirement of 25
Participants recognized that eliciting licensees' support for the proposed
legislation posed a challenge. Low wages and high staff turnover are also a
concern: security staff typically earn between $8 and $10 an hour, which
makes it hard to attract and retain good people.
Some roundtable participants proposed developing a code of conduct for
the staff of licensed establishments. One participant group proposed using
surveillance as a tool to ensure appropriate staff conduct. Another
suggested that using “mystery shoppers” can be effective. A Calgary
licensee whose staff and clientele tend to be mature reported hiring university
students as undercover patrons. The students' reports of how they were
treated and their ratings of the service they received are shared with staff,
and corrective action is discussed, as necessary.
51

Moving Forward
In Part Two of the roundtable, participants worked in small groups assigned to one of
three priority areas: research and policy, community mobilization and best practices,
and finding resources. These three topics are closely interrelated. For example,
research often identifies best practices; best practice ultimately drives the
development of policy and legislation; policy development reflects community values
and needs. As a result, there was considerable common ground in the themes and
priorities reported by the various groups. Several themes emerged.
1. Violence in and around licensed premises reflects violent behaviour and tolerance
for violence in society at large.
2. Eliminating violence requires an integrated partnership approach that involves
the whole community and includes patrons.
3. Research on the extent and impact of violence in relation to licensed
premises–and on best practices for eliminating violence–is needed to support
sound policy development and good decision-making.
4. Communication and education are needed to spread operational best practices
to all licensed premises.
5. Public awareness and education about preventing alcohol-related violence is
needed at all levels of society. The staff, managers and owners of licensed
establishments also need specialized training and education.
Violence in Society
“Licensed premises have an impact outside their own physical buildings…Most of
the action is in the parking lot, or on the street, or in the neighbouring apartment.
We need to address the problem of violence within this broader physical environment.”
Violence in and around licensed premises is not an isolated phenomenon. What
happens in bars reflects what's happening in the world at large. As a result,
addressing the issue of violence in bars means addressing the broader context
of violence in our society.
Moving Forward – Violence in Society
52

Violence in and around licensed premises is shaped by the same demographic,
economic and socio-cultural forces that shape Albertan's daily lives. As one
participant put it, “We can't remove the issue of violence from other things
happening in Alberta. We have among the highest rates of suicide, domestic assault
and traffic incidents. What happens in bars reflects the larger society… And the best
programs to stop violence need to reflect the uniqueness of Alberta and be sensitive
to the uniqueness of different municipal situations.”
Violence shapes our society as well as being shaped by it. As discussed on p. 21,
violence undermines public safety, destroys lives and relationships, victimizes
innocent neighbours and bystanders, strains our health care and justice systems,
and hurts our businesses and our communities. Its repercussions extend far
beyond the barroom walls.
Roundtable participants recognized that violence affects all sectors of society, and
that all sectors have a role to play in eliminating violence. They also emphasized that
violence is caused by individuals, and that individuals must take responsibility for
their actions. Liquor licensees and governments are responsible for sound legislation
and good management, but they cannot be held accountable for the irresponsible
behaviour of individual patrons. The courts must ensure that perpetrators of violence
face appropriate consequences.
In the Canadian Addiction Survey (Adlaf et al., p. 76) released in 2005, adult Albertans
reported the following consequences of alcohol use by others:
• 13.6% reported having been pushed or shoved. (The rate for Canada as a
whole was 10.8%.)
• 5.4% reported reported having been hit or physically assaulted. (The rate for Canada
as a whole was 3.2%.)
Moving Forward – Community-Based Partnerships
53
▲

Community-Based Partnerships
“We all have to work together to solve this problem. We won't be able to
do it individually.”
–Gerry McLennan, Executive Director, Regulatory Division
Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission
“We need to open communication lines and involve everyone who is touched by
violence. Funding is not the big issue. What we need is
community involvement.”
“Cooperation and communication are key. Our regulatory people and city staff
need to go in and talk to licensees-not at 11 or midnight or 1 a.m, but in the
afternoon. We need to sit down and talk to these people. Find out how we can help
them, and how they can help us. It has to be one-on-one, and it has to be ongoing.”
Eliminating violence requires an integrated partnership approach that involves the
whole community and includes patrons. Liquor licensees, regulators (including the
Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission), legislators, police departments, the justice
system, Alberta's privacy commissioner, researchers, agencies such as AADAC and the
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, industry associations such as the Beverage
Container Management Board, health authorities, the insurance industry, schools and
post-secondary institutions, neighbourhoods, communities, city hall, provincial and
federal government representatives, elected officials, individual citizens and barroom
patrons must all have a seat at the table and work together to address the issue. As
one participant put it, “We need to look at more neighbourhood partnerships with
the people who keep us in business.”
Roundtable participants identified a range of partnership-based community
mobilization strategies during Part One. (For details, see the report section beginning
on p. 9.) In Part Two, they reiterated that effective partnerships must be based on
cooperation, education and good communications. In the words of one participant,
“We need to work together and develop understanding. The whole education
component is critical. Because the second you can take the stigma away–so these
guys are here to work with me, rather than to penalize me–you change the equation.”
Moving Forward – Community-Based Partnerships
54

Another participant echoed this sentiment: “Our #1 priority must be to improve
cooperation and communication among stakeholders. Any time you can share
experiences–what you're doing right, what you're doing wrong–it makes for a
better operation.”
Several participants emphasized the importance of building relationships and
coordinating a community response to prevent and respond to violence in and around
licensed premises. They pointed to the community-based task force models in Grande
Prairie, Calgary and other centres as successful examples of a partnership approach.
(For details, see p. 28.) They acknowledged the challenge of finding common ground
among stakeholders with competing interests, but felt strongly that “some dialogue
was better than no dialogue at all.” Throwing money at the problem is not enough.
Research
“How does the issue of licensed premises fit into the bigger picture…? There's a lot
of guessing and a tremendous lack of data and information. We need research….We
need to know what's going on, what the trends are, and what we need to do to
make a difference.”
“What are we dealing with? It's too important to guess. We need to put money
into research.”
“It's important that we have a baseline of empirical data on which to build…We
need to know exactly what the problems are, and where they are. Now, we've got
the horse before the cart.”
“We intuitively know what happens at the end of the evening. But we
need to validate this…Before you start focusing resources, you need to
have evidence.”
Roundtable participants acknowledged the need for better information and research
about the causes, the extent and the impact of violence in Alberta, especially in
relation to licensed premises. The lack of Alberta-based data and concrete, statistical
information makes it difficult to make evidence-based decisions. Without solid
research, policy makers and licensees are forced to be reactive, rather than proactive,
and to address the issue of violence on the basis of anecdotal evidence.
Moving Forward – Research
55

56
Sound policy development and good decision-making depend on good research.
Participants recommended conducting an environmental scan to collect baseline
data on violence in and around licensed premises. They recommended a review of
the legislative framework and cross-jurisdictional research to validate proposed best
practices and identify other effective approaches. They also noted the importance of
developing standard definitions for concepts related to the issue of violence.
Some research data already exists: it just needs to be extracted and analyzed. For
example, the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission keeps incident reports that
document violations of the Gaming and Liquor Act. Additional information is
accessible through sources such as AADAC, the Ontario-based Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health and Statistics Canada. Local police forces keep records, as do
licensees themselves. However, while much of the available information is very
detailed, as it is not always easy to retrieve, as It is often not standardized, nor is it
comparable across jurisdictions.
Targeted studies are needed to compile data specific to Alberta and specific to
licensed premises. Both qualitative and quantitative data are required, and care
must be taken to ensure accuracy and minimize bias. Mapping technology makes
it possible to plot violence “hot spots” and conduct tactical analyses: “If you can
map where violence happens, you can develop targeted approaches to stop it.”
Roundtable participants cautioned that any research that is undertaken must have
practical applications that can help drive policy decisions. They also cautioned against
generalizing research findings: generalizations are not always appropriate, since rural
communities deal with different issues than urban ones, and different types of
establishments deal with different types of concerns. On the other hand, participants
noted that “generalizable data can be turned into action.”
Environmental Scan
Roundtable participants recognized that violence in and around licensed premises fits
into the bigger picture of violence in society. Within the context of licensed premises,
several key questions must be addressed:
• What types of licensed premises are most prone to violence? Why?
• Who is involved? Is violence perpetrated by gangs? patrons? staff?
Is any particular group seen as the source of the most serious violence?

57
• What are the factors that instigate or contribute to violence?
Does drinking age affect the level of violence?
What is the effect of excessive drinking? overcrowding?
What is the interplay of factors such as drug use and the drug trade?
What role is played by factors such as the size of a venue, drink pricing,
staff ratios, closing time, music and lighting? How are such operational
factors “managed” in other parts of Canada and in other countries?
What is the effect of minimum drink prices? How have other jurisdictions
approached this, and what was the effect? Do price restrictions work?
Is violence more prevalent in areas with a high concentration of bars?
• What resources (financial and other) are needed to address the issue of violence in
and around licensed premises?
Best Practices
In Part One of the roundtable, participants developed an inventory of best practices
currently in use, and brainstormed suggested new approaches. (For details, see the
chapter called “Taking Stock,” which begins on p.23.) In Part One and Part Two, they
proposed research to validate the effectiveness of these best practices. They noted
that many bars–including some of the biggest ones–are managed very well. They
proposed looking to other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world to uncover
“lessons learned” with regard to the following key questions:
• What is known about best and worst practices–both in Alberta and in other
jurisdictions? What works? What doesn't? Who should be responsible for what?
What can licensees reasonably deal with? What areas should fall to municipalities?
regulators? industry associations? other stakeholders?
• What types of best practices should be mandatory or legislated? When are
voluntary measures more appropriate or more effective than legislated ones?
• What community-level programs and strategies have other jurisdictions and
other countries used to address violence in and around licensed premises?
Have these programs been effective? Are they sustainable? How were they
monitored and evaluated?

58
• Are staggered closing times effective in reducing violence and protecting public
safety? How have other jurisdictions addressed the issue of closing times? What
transportation factors must be considered? What policy options should be
considered? What options would best meet public expectations and community
standards in the Alberta market?
• Eliminating glassware in licensed premises was proposed as a strategy for reducing
violence. Is this approach indeed effective? What is the experience in other
jurisdictions? What are the social, environmental and economic implications?
Should a ban on glassware apply to all licensed premises or only certain ones?
What criteria should be used to decide? Should glassware best practices be
dictated by policy, or is voluntary adoption preferrable?
Liquor manufacturers and agencies such as the Beverage Container
Management Board might be a source of relevant data.
• What is the role of technology (including scanning and surveillance technology) in
preventing violence? What are the risks and benefits of using technology? When is
the use of technology appropriate? What rules should be in place?
• Should liability insurance be mandatory?
• What is the effect of police presence in preventing or reducing violence?
• How can knowledge of best practices be shared across the industry?
• How should best practices be implemented and evaluated?
• What kind of training is needed within the liquor industry? What types of staff
should be certified? What levels of certification are needed?
The importance of well-trained door staff was a recurring theme at both
parts of the roundtable. Participants proposed research to determine
what types of door staff training are offered elsewhere in the world.
Has the training been effective? What standards should apply and how
should they be evaluated? Who should be responsible for training
delivery? Participants suggested that local police services, security training
institutions and the Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security ministry
might be appropriate choices.
• In what areas is more public awareness and education needed? What
organizations are effective in preventing violence and targeting offenders?

Moving Forward – Best Practices
59
The Legislative Framework
Participants proposed a review of current legislation to determine the possibilities it
offers and the limitations it imposes. For example, laws such as the Trespass to Premises
Act give business owners a useful tool for keeping potentially violent patrons off their
premises. (This act provides authority for the voluntary “No Gang Colours, No Gang
Clothing” program recently launched in Grande Prairie. See p. 28 for details.) On the
other hand, laws such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and
the Personal Information Protection Act may pose barriers to the use of surveillance
technology, which is an effective means of excluding patrons with a history of violent
behaviour. Participants recognized a need for licensees, police services and government
regulators to work with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and
find the appropriate balance between citizens' right to privacy and licensees'
responsibility to provide liquor service in safe, violence-free establishments.
Best Practices
“We can't wait for the research. We know what to do, and we need to start now.
We could act on ideas like safety audits and staff training without waiting for
more research.”
“We need a two-pronged approach. There are things we can do now, but to make
lasting improvements to public safety in the province, we need better data and
more information.”
“The impact of best practices inside a bar leads to a reduction of
violence outside.”
“Best practices” were a recurring theme in both parts of the roundtable. Many
licensees already employ a best practices approach in managing their operations.
However, communication and education are needed to spread current best practices
across the industry.

60
In Part One of the roundtable, participants discussed best practices related to the
management and operation of licensed premises. (For details, see the “Managing
the Licensed Establishment” section that begins on p. 38.) The ideas they proposed
related to the physical environment, the social environment, operating policies and
procedures, and the hiring practices that characterize licensed premises. In Part Two of
the roundtable, participants identified the need for additional research to establish
the feasibility and effectiveness of a number of best practice approaches, including
• staggered closing times
• minimum drink prices
• bans on glassware
• mandatory liability insurance (Small establishments may need less coverage
than large ones.)
• more rigorous licensing requirements (For details, see the following section.)
• an integrated licensing approach that links municipal, business and
regulatory requirements
• more rigorous licensing standards linked to a recognition program like the
five-star system used to rate hotels (For details, see the “Recognition Programs”
section on p. 61.)
Some participants suggested that once best practices had been identified,
government intervention might be required “to put the rules in place” and ensure a
level playing field. Others believed that the liquor industry was already overregulated
and that voluntary measures would be more effective than legislated ones. Further
discussion is needed to explore the degree of regulation that is appropriate and the
effectiveness of voluntary versus legislated standards. As participants observed, a
move toward more government intervention would require a paradigm shift: the
Alberta government's approach over the past decades has been to “get out of the
business of doing business.”

61
Minimum Licensing Standards and Requirements
Discussions were preliminary, and there was no consensus about what minimum
licensing standards might look like or how they might best be implemented.
Some participants suggested that licence requirements should include environmental
design assessments that comply with CPTED principles. (See p. 35 for details.) Some
proposed minimum staff–patron ratios and mandatory training and criminal checks
for staff of licensed establishments.
Some participants said that the issuance of liquor licences should be tied to
community impact studies, municipal zoning and land use bylaws, and noise control
requirements. Some believed that mandatory training for new operators should be a
prerequisite for licensing: training would ensure that operators understood the
relevant rules and regulations and were prepared to prevent and deal with violent
situations on their premises. Some proposed re-evaluating the current liquor licence
renewal process: perhaps licence renewals should not be automatic.
Roundtable participants did agree that a “one size fits all” approach to licensing
standards is not appropriate: different communities and different types of drinking
establishments have different clientele and different needs. Some participants
suggested that additional licence classifications levels are needed to accommodate
the specific needs of small versus large or urban versus rural establishments. Some
believed that licensing requirements should be flexible enough that communities
could set standards that met local needs.
Roundtable participants cautioned that changes to liquor licensing requirements must
be manageable. They must not impose onerous financial and staffing costs on liquor
licensees or on regulators.
Recognition Programs
Roundtable participants proposed the establishment of some type of “incentive
program” to reward licensees who employ best practices. Suggestions included the
development of an accreditation program (like the five-star hotel rating system) based
on a list of objective standards for premises management. Such a program would
have several benefits. Bar owners who met the highest standards would be better
positioned to generate more revenue from patrons. The would also benefit from lower
liability insurance premiums.

Moving Forward – Education
62
Education
Roundtable participants proposed that public awareness and education about
preventing alcohol-related violence is needed at all levels of society–from
schoolchildren and post-secondary students to the business community, law
enforcers, liquor licensees and their staff, and the “ordinary citizens” who
patronize licensed establishments. Several key areas were identified:
• training for door and security staff
• pre-licensing start-up training for new bar owners
“How to open a bar” training could be developed and delivered by
industry associations.. It could include a checklist of issues for new
owners to consider before launching their businesses.
• education about relevant legislation (the Trespass to Premises Act, for example)
and how it can support liquor licensees
• public awareness, education and prevention programs
• high school and post-secondary programs to teach young people how to drink
responsibly, “how to behave in bars” and “how not to become victims of violence”
• training to help legislators and regulators understand the industry and the issues
faced by liquor licensees

Summing Up – Paying the Piper
63
Summing Up
The Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around
Licensed Premises is a
significant first step in addressing a serious issue.
Participants were unanimous in their
acknowledgement of the value of the event. They
welcomed the opportunity to share their ideas and
to hear the diversity of issues and views expressed
by their associates and colleagues. Many
expressed particular appreciation that, for the first
time, liquor licensees and operators had been
invited to the table to discuss violence in and
around licensed premises.
The ideas and recommendations generated at the roundtable are an important
starting point for addressing the issue of violence. Nonetheless, participants realized
that there is still much work to be done. The root causes of violence are complex and
interlinked. Addressing the problem and eliminating violence requires cooperation and
commitment from all sectors–from legislators, law enforcers, regulators, municipalities,
communities, liquor licensees, bar patrons and citizens.
The ideas and opinions shared at the roundtable provide a starting point for the
work ahead.
Paying the Piper
“The big problem is resources… If it's reasonable to set a patron–security staff
ratio for bar owners, there should also be a reasonable ratio for cops on the
street. Regulatory agencies also have to take responsibility and not always
use 'lack of resources' as an excuse.”
Roundtable participants recognized that dealing with the issue of violence has
significant cost implications. They proposed several ideas for consideration.
Implementing some of these ideas would require changes to licensing policy,
legislation or municipal bylaws.
Nearly three-quarters of
participants (74%) rated
Part 1 of the roundtable
as “excellent” overall;
26% rated it as “good.”
Participants were
overwhelmingly positive
about Part Two of the
roundtable as well,
rating their overall
experience as excellent
(46%) or good (54%).
▲

Summing Up – Safe Bars, Safe Communities
64
• Impose a seat tax on licensed premises and direct a portion of the revenue
toward policing.
Red Deer and High Level currently use this approach. Participants
noted that such a tax is only fair if it is applied on a per-seat (not
per-establishment) basis. They also cautioned that increasing taxes
increases the expectation that more policing services will be provided.
• Explore the feasibility of business taxation based on services required.
At present, business property tax is levied at a standard rate, yet a
licensed establishment is likely to need far more police services than
a shoe store, for example.
• Increase the funding municipalities receive for policing costs.
Participants noted that liquor revenues flow to the province, yet it is
municipalities that bear the cost of policing the liquor industry. A portion
of the liquor mark-up collected by the province is allocated for municipal
policing costs.
• Use the lobbying power of industry associations to convince governments and
politicians to allocate appropriate resources toward the prevention of violence.
• Approach the liquor industry for financial support to fund violence prevention.
Safe Bars, Safe Communities
Citizens have the right to feel safe in their homes and their communities, and keeping
Albertans safe means dealing with the issue of violence.
Violence in and around licensed premises affects everyone–from liquor licensees and
their staff and patrons, to neighbourhoods and communities, governments, victims of
violence and their families, and every citizen. Violence affects us all.
Recently released highlights of a Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse study* note
that, in 2002, the social cost of alcohol abuse in Alberta topped $1.6 billion.
*Rehm et al., The costs of substance abuse in Canada 2002: Highlights, pp. 9 – 10.

Summing Up – Next Steps
65
This represents 1.5% of Alberta's GDP (gross domestic product) and is the equivalent
of $527 for each citizen of the province. Across Canada, alcohol accounted for
$14.6 billion in social costs. Of this amount, $7.1 billion was for lost productivity due
to illness and premature death. Direct health care costs accounted for $3.3 billion,
and law enforcement for $3.1 billion. The numbers are staggering, and there is no
question that alcohol abuse and alcohol-related violence require immediate,
concerted, community-wide attention.
As Minister Graydon said in his roundtable opening remarks, “Collectively, we can
and we will address this issue” of violence in and around licensed premises.
Next Steps
“We have great ideas on paper that clearly spell out the direction we need to take.
Now it's up to us to lift those ideas off the paper and turn them into action…We
have the opportunity to make change. Looking at policy and legislation–if it's weak,
we need to change it.”
–Harvey Cenaiko, Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security,
March 31, 2006
“In government, as in business, there is a process to follow and many variables to
consider. Not everything is the right thing to do, and not everything can be done
now. Change has to be carefully considered, planned and managed.”
–Gordon Graydon, Minister of Gaming,
March 31, 2006
The Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Licensed Premises has opened
the doors to further discussion and cooperative action by citizens, businesses,
communities and government. As an immediate next step, government staff will study
the roundtable results and prepare a report with recommendations for review by the
Minister of Gaming and the Alberta Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security.
This process may involve commissioning research and preparing position papers on
critical areas.
The ministers' review of the report and recommendations prepared by staff will
determine what action is taken. Next steps may include allocating funds for further
research, drafting new legislation or appointing a task force to build consensus and
propose standards. In the meantime, further discussions at the community level and
continued cooperation among stakeholders will bring all Albertans closer to solving
the problem of violence.

Roundtable Participants
66
Alberta Gaming and Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security appreciate the
participation of the following organizations and businesses. Thank you for sharing
your time, your expertise and your ideas. Together, we can deal with the problem of
violence in and around licensed premises.
Government
Alberta Gaming
Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission
Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission
Alberta Justice
Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, British Columbia
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Alberta
Businesses and Community Associations
Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police
Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research
Alberta Charitable Casino Operators Association
Alberta Hotel and Lodging Association
Alberta Restaurant and Foodservices Association
Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association
International CPTED Association
J. J. Ryder Investments
Old Strathcona Hospitality Association, Edmonton
Rovere Consultants International Inc.
Students' Association of MacEwan
University of Alberta
University of Alberta Students' Union
Municipalities
City of Calgary
City of Edmonton
City of Grande Prairie
City of Lethbridge
City of Red Deer

67
Law Enforcement
Calgary Police Service
Camrose Police Service
Edmonton Police Service
Lacombe Police Commission
Lacombe Police Service
Lethbridge Regional Police
Medicine Hat Police Service
RCMP, Fort McMurray
RCMP, Grande Prairie
RCMP, “K” Division
RCMP, Wetaskiwin
Owners and Operators
Branley's, Red Deer
Cecil Hotel, Calgary
Cook County Saloon, Edmonton
Corral, Grande Prairie
Cowboys, Calgary
Cowboys, Edmonton
Esmeralda's, Edmonton
Outlaws, Calgary
Ranchman's, Calgary
Red's, Edmonton
Regis Plaza Hotel, Calgary
Standard and Hudson's Tap House, Edmonton
The Attic, Edmonton
Town and Country Motor Hotel, Calgary
West Edmonton Mall

Selected Bibliography
68
Adlaf, E. M., Begin, P., & Sawka, E. (Eds.) (2005). Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A
national survey of Canadians' use of alcohol and other drugs – Detailed report.
Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from
<http://www.ccsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/6806130B-C314-4C96-95CC-
075D14CD83DE/0/ccsa0040282005.pdf>.
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. (2002, June). Policy on alcohol.
Retrieved January 4, 2006, from <http://corp.aadac.com/content/corporate/
about_aadac/policies_alcohol_06 2.pdf>.
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. (2005a). Canadian Addiction
Survey 2004, Alberta report. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from
<http://corp.aadac.com/content/corporate/research/cas2004_alberta_
summary.pdf>.
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. (2005b). Environmental scan
summary 2005. (Prepared by C. Malcolm, K. Huebert, & E. Sawka.) Retrieved
January 4, 2006, from <http://corp.aadac.com/content/corporate/research/
environmental_scan2005_summary.pdf>.
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. (2005c, March). Preventing heavy
episodic drinking among youth and young adults: A literature review.
(Prepared by C. Fluet-Howrish.) Retrieved November 25, 2005, from
<http://corp.aadac.com/content/corporate/research/preventing_heavy_
drinking_lit_review.pdf>.

69
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. (2005d, October). Stronger together:
A provincial framework on alcohol and other drug use. Retrieved
November 25, 2005, from <http://corp.aadac.com/content/corporate/
about_aadac/ab_drug_strategy_framework.pdf>.
Benson, B. L., Rasmussen, P. Z., & Zimmerman, P. R. (2001, September).
The impact of alcohol control policies on the incidence of violent crime.
Unpublished research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
City of Red Deer. Public Order Bylaw No. 3326/2004. Retrieved December 9, 2005,
from <www.city.red-deer.ab.ca/NR/rdonlyres/30437EA5-1E42-476D-A7C4-
D3B2FECEAFAC/0/PublicOrderBylaw33262004LAS.pdf>.
City of Red Deer. Drinking Establishment Bylaw No. 3332/2004. Retrieved
December 9, 2005,from <www.city.red-deer.ab.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9046C60C-F832-
4334-BCF4-0831FAD160FD/0/DrinkingEstablishmentBylaw33322004LAS.pdf>.
Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Retrieved
December 9, 2005, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police website,
<www.rcmp.ca/ccaps/safecomm_e.htm>.
Doherty, S. J., & Roche, A. M. (2003, April). Alcohol and licensed premises:
Best practice in policing. Commonwealth of Australia: Australasian Centre for
Policing Research.
Drug Abuse Resistance Education. What is D.A.R.E.? Retrieved December 9, 2005,
from <www.dare.com/home/Curriculum/what_is_DARE.asp>.
Ekos Research Associates Inc. (2004, March). Canadian attitudes towards
crime prevention: Executive summary. Retrieved November 27, 2005, from the
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada website, <http://ww4.psepc-
sppcc.gc.ca/en/library/publications/research/attitudes/index.html>.

70
Government of Alberta. (n.d.). Achieving a violence-free Alberta is everybody's
business: Regional workshop guide and workbook.
Graham, K. (2005, November). Reducing aggression and injury in licensed premises:
Presentation to the Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Licensed
Premises, Edmonton, Alberta.
International CPTED Association website. <www.cpted.net>.
National Crime Prevention Centre. Situational crime prevention.
Retrieved November 27, 2005, from <http://ww4.psepc-
sppcc.gc.ca/en/library/publications/fact_sheets/situational/situatE.pdf>.
Old Strathcona Hospitality Association. (2005, October). Presentation to the annual
general meeting of the Old Strathcona Business Association. Retrieved December
11, 2005, from <http://www.osba.ab.ca/info/Lib/OSBA/OSHA2005.pdf>.
Pottie Bunge, V., Johnson, H., & Baldé, T. A. (2005, June). Exploring crime patterns in
Canada (Crime and Justice Research Paper Series). Retrieved November 25, 2005,
from Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and Time Series
Research and Analysis Centre. <http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-561-
MIE/85-561-MIE2005005.pdf>.
Prevention Research Center (Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation).
Preventing barroom aggression: Evaluation of the safer bars program.
Recent Findings series. Retrieved December 11, 2005, from
<http://resources.prev.org/recentfindings_pba.html>.
Rehm, G., Baliunas, D., Brochu, S., Fischer, B., Gnam, W., Patra, J., Popova, S.,
Sarnocinska-Hart, A., & Taylor, B. (March 2006). The costs of substance abuse in
Canada 2002: Highlights. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Retrieved April 29, 2006, from <http://www.ccsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/18F3415E-
2CAC-4D21-86E2-CEE549EC47A9/0/ccsa0113322006.pdf>.

71
Rigakos, George. (2004). Nightclub security and surveillance.
Canadian Review of Policing Research.
Ruttan, Susan. (2006, April 11). Grande Prairie bans criminal “club colours”:
Anti-gang initiative has support of many area businessmen.”
The Edmonton Journal, p. A2.
Scott, M. S. (2001). Assaults in and around bars. U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).
Simon, Paula. (March 21, 2006). Cheap alcohol fuels cheap behaviour.
The Edmonton Journal, p. B1.
Simpson, Ann. (2001, February). From the ground up: Municipal crime
prevention initiatives. Retrieved November 27, 2005, from the website
of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, <http://ww4.psepc-
sppcc.gc.ca/en/library/publications/caledon/MunCrimPrev.pdf>.
Stewart, Kathryn. (2004, December). Facts and myths about college drinking:
A serious problem with serious solutions. Retrieved December 8, 2005, from
Prevention Research Center: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation:
<http://www.resources.prev.org/documents/FactsMythsCollegeDrinking.pdf>.
Stewart, Kathryn. (2005, February). How alcohol outlets affect neighborhood violence.
Retrieved December 8, 2005, from Prevention Research Center: Pacific Institute
for Research and Evaluation: <http://www.resources.prev.org/documents/
AlcoholViolenceGruenewald.pdf>.
The Trauma Foundation. (1999, February). Preventing alcohol-related injury and
violence: Resources for action. (Alcohol-Related Injury and Violence project.)
Retrieved December 4, 2005, from <www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/Part_1.pdf> to
www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/Part_5.pdf>.

Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Bars

Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Bars

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

More from Kent Verlik (7)

Alberta Roundtable on Violence In and Around Bars