U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Thefts of and

From Cars in

Parking Facilities

by

Ronald V. Clarke

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

No. 10

Thefts of and From Cars

in Parking Facilities

Ronald V. Clarke

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #99-CK-WXK004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.

Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the

U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

Guide No. 10

About the Guide Series i

About the Guide Series

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to

investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The

guides are written for police–of whatever rank or

assignment–who must address the specific problem the guides

cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and

methods. The guides are not primers in problem-oriented

policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to

focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the

problem, and means to assess the results of a problemoriented policing project. They are designed to help police

decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have

already identified. (An assessment guide has been produced

as a companion to this series and the COPS Office has also

published an introductory guide to problem analysis. For

those who want to learn more about the principles and

methods of problem-oriented policing, the assessment and

analysis guides, along with other recommended readings, are

listed at the back of this guide.)

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

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is

most likely to work in your community. You should not

blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must

decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation.

What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what

works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business.

The guides describe responses that other police

departments have used or that researchers have tested.

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your

particular problem, they should help give a broader view of

the kinds of things you could do. You may think you

cannot implement some of these responses in your

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when

police have discovered a more effective response, they have

succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving

the response to the problem.

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is

available to the police; for other problems, little is available.

Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing

research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more

research on that particular problem. Regardless, research

has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you

might have about the problem. The research may help get

you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot

tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of

keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant

research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed

to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed

and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of

each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a

complete bibliography of research on the subject.

• Are willing to work with other community agencies to find

effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides.

They must frequently implement them in partnership with

other responsible private and public entities. An effective

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine
About the Guide Series iii

partnerships with others and be prepared to invest

considerable effort in making these partnerships work.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be

aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders

of their own countries.

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency's

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may

have effectively addressed a problem using responses not

considered in these guides and your experiences and

knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used

to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and

share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to

cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series is very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author,

other project team members, COPS Office staff and

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by

proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University

of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of

criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, associate

professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati;

Michael S. Scott, police consultant, Savannah, Ga.; Rana

Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm

Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State

University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw the

project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy

coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office. Suzanne

Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides was

conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by Gisela

Bichler-Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura Wyckoff.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of

the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the line

police officers, police executives and researchers who peer

reviewed each guide.

Contents

About the Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Factors Contributing to Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Car Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Car Make and Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Parking Facility Size and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Principal Parking Facility Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Parking Decks vs. Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Parking Lot Design and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Nature of the Thefts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Conditions Facilitating Thefts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities . . . . . . . . 15

Recommended Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities . . 27

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Contents vii
viii Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Other Guides in This Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
The Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 1

The Problem of Thefts of and From Cars

in Parking Facilities

Car-related thefts are among the most common offenses

calling for a police response.1 This guide summarizes

information on risk factors and evaluates published literature

on dealing with such thefts in parking facilities. It also

identifies information police should collect to understand and

respond effectively to their local problem.

The guide covers both thefts of and thefts from cars in parking

facilities. Each category of theft covers a wide range of

offenses, committed by different groups of offenders with

different motivations.

• Thefts of cars include thefts for joyriding, thefts for

prolonged car use, and thefts for export or "chopping"

(disassembling cars for spare parts). Youth joyriding is the

largest group of these offenses. Police often quickly recover

cars used for joyriding.

• Thefts from cars include thefts of items left in cars, thefts of

interior components such as radios or batteries, and thefts

of external parts such as wheels.

Thefts of cars are much more often reported to the police due

to insurance requirements, the potentially greater loss and the

fact that police might help find stolen cars that are later

abandoned. However, theft from cars is the larger category,

constituting about 85 percent of all car-related thefts.†

Most thefts occur when cars are parked on the street or on

the owner's property, because this is where cars usually are,

but the risk of theft, per hour parked, is greater when cars are

in parking facilities.†† These are often poorly secured,

particularly in the case of lots, many of which have poor

† This figure is based on

victimization data and includes

crimes not reported to the police

(Clarke and Harris 1992).

†† A British study (no comparable

U.S. data exist) found that cars

parked in lots were four times more

likely to be stolen than cars parked

on the street outside the driver's

home or workplace, and were 40

percent more likely to be stolen than

cars parked on any other street. They

were more than 200 times as likely to

be stolen than cars parked at home in

the owner's garage (Mirlees-Black,

Mayhew and Percy 1996).
2 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

lighting, and blind spots and nooks where cars cannot easily

be seen. There is seldom much surveillance by passersby or

attendants in such lots. Many attendants' booths are badly

positioned or have small windows and poor visibility. Many

lots have ill-tended shrubbery providing cover for thieves, and

are open to pedestrians, which makes it easy for offenders to

enter.2

The parking facilities covered in this guide include lots and

decks (and underground garages) that serve office and factory

workers, students, shoppers, entertainment-seekers, train and

bus commuters, and airline travelers.

While it is important for police officers to understand the

specific nature of their local problem, particularly who is

committing the offenses, and why, this guide deals only briefly

with enforcement. While arresting car thieves might have

some immediate benefits, it is likely that new offenders will

take their place if the conditions facilitating theft are not

addressed. For this reason, the principal focus of this review

is the lots and decks themselves, and measures to make them

more secure. It will be clear that solutions to the problem

require collaboration between police, the public, business

owners, city officials, prosecutors, and parking facility owners

and operators.

Related Problems

Offenders target all kinds of vehicles for theft,† and carrelated thefts occur in places other than parking facilities. In

addition, many crimes other than thefts of and from cars

plague parking facilities. Related problems requiring their own

analysis and responses include:

† Twenty-five percent of vehicle

thefts reported to U.S. police do not

involve cars, but rather trucks,

motorcycles and other vehicles.
The Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 3

• thefts of and from cars parked on streets or on private

property,

• thefts of and from cars in public housing and apartment

complexes,

• vandalism of parked cars,

• thefts of and from commercial vehicles,

• thefts of motorcycles,

• insurance frauds relating to car thefts,

• thefts of cars from rental agencies,

• thefts of cars from dealerships,

• thefts of cash from parking lot pay-boxes or pay-and-display

systems, and

• sexual attacks, muggings and drug dealing in parking

facilities.

Factors Contributing to Theft of and From Cars in

Parking Facilities

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem

will help you frame your own local analysis questions,

determine good measures of effectiveness, recognize key

intervention points, and select appropriate responses. Because

thefts of and from cars cover many different offenses, it is

difficult to summarize briefly all the factors that have been

found to contribute to theft. In fact, more research exists on

risk factors related to theft of cars than theft from cars. The

factors listed below are the main ones the published literature

consistently identifies.

Car Security 

Most car security is inadequate. Thieves report being able to

break into and drive away with most makes and models in a

matter of minutes, if not seconds. The best approach to

prevention relies on persuading manufacturers to make more
4 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

secure cars, and much has been accomplished along these

lines in recent years.3 However, this response is not practical

for police having to deal with a local problem of theft in

parking facilities. Instead, they must seek to understand the

specific combination of risk factors contributing to high

levels of theft in local facilities.

Regional Location 

Considerable variation in car theft rates exists across the

United States, and a local problem of theft from parking

facilities might be part of a wider regional problem. Car theft

rates are generally much higher in urban than rural areas,

because thieves have more cars to target. There is also

considerable variation between cities. The reasons for this are

not well understood, though cities with large ports or near the

Mexican border have especially high theft rates due to theft

for export.†

Car Make and Model

Some of the variation in car theft rates between cities is due

to the population of cars at risk, as some makes and models

that thieves find attractive are more common in certain parts

of the country.†† Research has also shown that particular kinds

of thieves favor certain models. Thus, joyriders favor cars that

are fun to drive, with good acceleration, while professional

thieves generally steal expensive cars that may be exported or

older cars that are "chopped."4

Parking Facility Size and Location

Even within a particular region or city, some parking facilities

have higher car theft rates than others. For example,

downtown facilities seem particularly at risk. This may be due

† U.S. cities near the Mexican border

experience higher theft rates for

makes and models sold in both

Mexico and America (Field, Clarke

and Harris 1991).

†† Based on insurance claims, the 10

cars most at risk of theft in the

United States in 1999 were the 1989

Toyota Camry, 1990 Toyota Camry,

1991 Toyota Camry, 1988 Toyota

Camry, 1997 Ford F 150 4x2, 1994

Honda Accord EX, 1995 Honda

Accord EX, 1996 Honda Accord

EX, 1990 Honda Accord EX, and

1994 Honda Accord LX (CCI

Information Services publishes these

data annually). Among cars less than

three years old, the 10 with the

largest insurance payouts for theft

were all foreign imports, including

four luxury sport-utility vehicles (the

Highway Loss Data Institute

publishes these data annually).
The Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 5

to the concentration of downtown parking facilities, making it

easier for thieves to find attractive targets.5 The same reason

may explain why larger facilities generally have higher theft

rates than smaller facilities do.

Principal Parking Facility Users

Park-and-ride commuter lots have particularly high theft

rates.6 They tend to be large and hold many cars left

unattended by their owners for most of the day. Where there

are attendants, they may be present only at the beginning and

end of the day. Thieves can often operate in these lots with

little chance of detection.

Park-and-ride commuter lots tend to have

high theft rates.

Kip Kellogg
6 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

Parking facilities catering to young people, such as college

campus lots, may also be at greater risk. Thieves may be other

users of the lots, or attracted to the kinds of cars parked

there. Finally, parking facilities used around the clock tend to

have higher theft rates, if for no other reason than thieves can

always find targets there.

Parking Decks vs. Lots

Parking decks have lower theft rates than lots. A Charlotte,

N.C., study found that the risk of theft from cars was about

six times greater in center city lots than in decks.7 Similar

results have been found in Britain. The greater security of

decks is explained by two factors. First, many more decks and

garages are staffed by attendants, whose primary function is

to collect parking fees, but who also exercise some

surveillance. Second, deck and garage design makes it harder

for thieves to gain access to parked cars. Vehicle access is

often limited to a single entrance which also serves as an exit

and fee-collection point. Pedestrian movement in and out of

decks and garages is generally restricted to elevators and

stairwells so that a thief carrying stolen items may come into

contact with others coming and going. Thieves in lots can

make a quicker getaway through a route of their own

choosing with greater certainty that they, and the items they

are carrying, will not be seen.†

Parking Lot Design and Management

The lack of access controls and/or supervision contributes to

high theft rates in some parking lots. These deficiencies are

principally due to economics, as parking lots are often built

on land awaiting development. In the meantime, lot operators

seek to provide parking at minimum cost. Thus they are

† According to British research, the

difference between lots and decks is

greater for theft of cars, because

drivers exiting decks usually have to

surrender the ticket obtained on

entering. On the other hand, thieves

can legitimately enter a deck in a car

and break into other cars parked on

the upper levels, where attendants

rarely go.
The Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 7

reluctant to install high-quality lighting, which improves natural

surveillance, or to hire attendants to collect fees.

As with decks, the presence of attendants in lots reduces risks

of theft.8 In lots without attendants, fees may be charged

monthly or collected through meters, pay-boxes or (mainly in

Europe) pay-and-display systems. The availability of cash in

meters, pay-boxes and pay-and-display ticket machines also

attracts thieves.

Due to the expense, operators are generally reluctant to fence

lots or install automatic barriers at entrances and exits. Thieves

can wander through the lots at will, looking for cars to break

into or steal. British research found that lots with pedestrian

throughways experienced higher theft rates. The same study

found that lots located within sight of nearby shops had lower

theft rates, a fact the researchers attributed to the natural

surveillance provided by shoppers and shop employees.9

Understanding Your Local Problem 9

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized

description of the problem of thefts of and from cars in

parking facilities. You must combine the basic facts with a

more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing

your problem is essential for designing an effective response

strategy.

You may be dealing with a single parking facility–either a deck

or a lot–or with a group of facilities–perhaps a combination

of decks and lots. Whatever the case, you will need to identify

the specific nature of the problem, whether this is theft of

cars, theft from cars, or both.

In most cases, the main problem will be theft from cars, and

you should try to determine the kind of offenders involved

(e.g., transients, drug addicts or juveniles). On the other hand,

if the problem is mainly theft of cars, you will need to

determine the purpose, whether for joyriding, for transport or

for profit. The principal indicators of this are recovery rates,†

though the model stolen will also help determine the purpose

because, as mentioned, certain kinds of thieves favor certain

models.10

Knowing who is committing the offenses, and why, helps you

decide how difficult they will be to stop. You will also need to

understand how they commit the offenses. This will require a

careful study of facility security.†† Comparing facilities can

greatly assist in understanding the conditions that facilitate

theft. Calculating theft rates per parking space will make your

comparisons precise, though counting spaces can be very

time-consuming if the parking lot operators or city does not

keep records of the number of spaces per facility.

† Police recover about 65 percent of

stolen cars. This figure is even higher

in jurisdictions where juvenile

joyriding is the predominant type of

car theft.

†† See Association of Chief Police

Officers in England and Wales (n.d.)

for guidelines for assessing security.
10 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

You may need to respecify the problem in light of this

information. You may find that you need to focus on the

largest component of theft, or on the facilities most at risk.

For example, as mentioned, a detailed study of theft from

downtown Charlotte parking facilities found that the problem

was concentrated in lots, not decks.11 This meant that

prevention could similarly be focused on lots.

Alternatively, you may decide that theft from parking facilities

is part of a wider problem in your jurisdiction. In that case,

the wider problem may need to be tackled, using remedies

such as crackdowns on chop shops and pawnshops, or

tightened controls at ports and border crossings.

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask in

analyzing your particular problem of theft, even if the

answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these

and other questions will help you choose the most

appropriate set of responses later on.

Nature of the Thefts

For all thefts:

• Is the problem confined to parking facilities, or is it part of

a more general problem of car theft affecting the wider area

or jurisdiction?

• When do thefts mainly occur (time of day, day of week,

month)? 

• What proportion of offenses result in an arrest? 

• What kinds of offenders are involved? Addicts? Juveniles?

Transients/homeless? Professional criminals? 

• What is the ratio of theft of cars to theft from cars?
Understanding Your Local Problem 11

For thefts of cars:

• Which models are stolen? 

• What proportion of stolen cars are recovered?

• Which models are less likely to be recovered?

• How soon are they recovered? 

• Where are they recovered? 

• Are they damaged?

• Have items been stolen?

For thefts from cars:

• Are there favored methods of gaining entry to cars?

• What is stolen? Where and how is it fenced?

Conditions Facilitating Theft

For all parking facilities:

• How many other parking facilities are near the one(s) where

the thefts occur? 

• How do theft rates compare between facilities?

• Which groups are the principal users of the facilities?

Commuters? Shoppers? Young people?

• Is parking free? If not, how are fees collected? 

• Are parking attendants present?

• Are they full-time, or there for only part of the day?

• Do they have an active security function?

• Do they have telephones to summon assistance?

• How regularly do the police or security guards patrol the

facility?

• Is closed-circuit television (CCTV) in use? Does it cover the

whole facility? Is it effective at night? Who is monitoring it? 

• Is the facility used at night? If so, is poor lighting a factor in

theft?

• Do drivers frequently come and go during the day?

• Is lack of natural surveillance a factor?

• Is victim carelessness a contributory factor?

• Which places within the facility are at greatest risk?
12 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

For decks (and underground garages), specifically:

• How are fees collected?

• Do exiting drivers need an electronic pass or valid ticket?

• Can exit tickets be obtained other than by entering in a

vehicle?

• Can pedestrians access the deck without passing attendants?

• Are pedestrian doors inaccessible from outside the deck?

• Do thefts disproportionately occur on the upper levels?

For lots, specifically:

• Are entrances and exits staffed? 

• What proportion of the perimeter is fenced?

• Do the fences prevent people from wandering through the

lot? 

• Do the fences present an effective barrier to determined

thieves?

• Do the fences or foliage screen the lot from the view of

passersby?

• Do passing motorists and pedestrians provide natural

surveillance of the lot? 

• Can the lot be viewed from nearby buildings?

• Are parts of the lot screened from any natural surveillance? 

Kip Kellogg

Attendants and electronic barriers provide good control of the exit at

this deck.
Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify

your responses if they are not producing the intended results.

You should take measures of your problem before you

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem

is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they

have been effective. All measures should be taken in both the

target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed

guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide

to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

The following are potentially useful measures of the

effectiveness of responses to thefts of and from cars in

parking facilities:

Kip Kellogg

Fencing around parking lots should allow for visibility into the lot.
14 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

• reduced theft reports to the police,

• reduced theft reports to lot operators,

• reduced theft reports to car insurance companies,

• increased calls for service (reflecting more witnesses to

theft),

• increased apprehensions of suspects,

• less evidence of glass from broken windows or windshields,

• less evidence of poorly secured cars or items left in view,

• reduced vacancy rates for monthly slots,

• increased monthly lot income,

• higher proportion of spaces occupied, and

• greater perception of security among those using the

facilities.
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 15

Responses to the Problem of Thefts of

and From Cars in Parking Facilities

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you

have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible

responses to address the problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of

ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies

are drawn from a variety of studies and police reports. Several

of these strategies may apply to your community's problem. It

is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and

that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis.

In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing

several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone

are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do

not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give

careful consideration to who else in your community shares

responsibility for the problem and can help police better

respond to it.

Many evaluated initiatives to prevent car theft have focused

on vehicle design. While important, this work is of little

immediate relevance to police officers dealing with a local

problem of theft in parking facilities. Similarly, programs to

deal with a regional problem of theft, such as tightening up

border crossings, cracking down on chop shops or

establishing "Vehicle Watch,"† might have only a small impact

on a local problem of theft from parking facilities.

Consequently, initiatives to deal with car theft at a national or

regional level are not reviewed here. Instead, the focus is

largely on ways to improve security, specifically in parking

† "Vehicle Watch" is a program (of

unknown effectiveness) in which

people give the police permission to

stop their cars at night. Program

participation is signaled by a vehicle

decal. For a description of the

program, see

www.ojp.usdoj.gov.BJA/html/wyc.htm.
16 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

facilities. Unfortunately, there is little research to draw upon,

and most of this has been undertaken in countries other than

the United States. However, the research reviewed above on

contributory factors suggests that any measures that (1)

improve surveillance and (2) reduce illegal access are likely to

reduce thefts. These measures can often be quite simple, such

as pruning bushes or blocking gaps in fencing. Identifying

them is often a matter of common sense or basic security

practice. In other cases, a survey undertaken by officers

trained in crime prevention through environmental design

(CPTED) may be needed.12

Your analysis of the problem is also likely to identify the need

for security measures that could be expensive. In most cases,

the cost of these measures will have to be borne by the

facility owners or operators, who can be expected to resist the

suggestions. In making your case for such measures, you may

have to spend considerable time explaining why the police

and the courts alone cannot solve the problem. You may also

need to do the following:

• Calculate the likely cost of measures, such as improving

fencing or hiring attendants, relative to facility profits.

• Convince facility owners that they can recover the cost of

increased security through raised parking fees.

• Enlist the support of local business organizations to

persuade facility owners to improve security.

• Enlist the help of city government to (1) secure tax breaks

for parking operators who make improvements, or (2) pass

ordinances that define security standards to be met by

parking operators.

• Consider using abatement procedures to require change.

• Brief the local media on the problem, and seek their

support for the proposed solutions.
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 17

Recommended Responses

1. Hiring parking attendants. The largest study of theft in

parking facilities concluded that the most important

preventive factor was the presence of attendants.13 The study

covered more than 50 large parking facilities in London.

Whether surface lots, parking decks or underground garages,

facilities with attendants had the lowest theft rates. The lowest

rates of all were in garages where the attendants parked the

cars. The presence of attendants had a smaller effect on theft

from cars, probably because their main function is to collect

parking fees, and they may not often leave their booths.

Two studies–one at a hospital in Northern Ireland, and one at

a park-and-ride lot in England–found large reductions in theft

after attendants began working in parking lots.† The latter

study found that the reductions were much larger in theft of

cars than theft from cars. Unfortunately, it is expensive to hire

attendants, and in every case where this is proposed, it will be

necessary to undertake a detailed cost study.

2. Improving surveillance at deck and lot entrances/

exits. Surveillance of entrances and exits can be improved in

ways other than hiring attendants. A successful effort to

reduce thefts from a parking deck in Dover, England,

involved leasing a vacant office at the entrance to a 24-hour

taxi service, and improving the entrance lighting.14 Both

measures increased natural surveillance at the entrance.

3. Hiring dedicated security patrols. It is difficult for

police to patrol parking facilities at the level needed to provide

a credible deterrent to theft.15 Consequently, many large

† In both cases, other security

improvements were made at the same

time.
18 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

facilities hire their own security patrols. Unfortunately, very

little research has been done on the value of dedicated

patrols, though two studies support their value:

• A well-publicized bike patrol provided by a private security

company in a large park-and-ride lot in suburban

Vancouver, British Columbia, led to a substantial drop in

theft of cars.16

• In the Lloyd district of Portland, Ore., a concerted effort to

reduce thefts from cars resulted in a drop from about 900

per year to about 300 per year. The centerpiece of this

effort was to coordinate the patrols conducted by the

diverse security firms hired by individual lots and decks.†

4. Installing and monitoring CCTV. CCTV systems are

widely used in lots and decks. Evaluations of their

effectiveness are scarce, though the following study results in

England support their value:

• A six-city survey of parking facilities, many of which had

new CCTV systems, concluded CCTV was effective in

reducing theft, though its impact was difficult to separate

from that of other measures in place.17 

• Following the introduction of CCTV, theft from cars (but

not of cars) was reduced dramatically in four parking lots at

a southern England university campus. The cameras

covered only three of the lots, but thefts dropped equally in

the fourth, suggesting that potential offenders were unaware

of the extent of the cameras' surveillance.18

• The introduction of CCTV in parking facilities in a

southern England town led to a drop in car-related thefts,

but this may have been equally due to the improved lighting

and overnight locking of facilities introduced at the same

time.19

CCTV systems vary greatly in their specifications, coverage

and quality. They may or may not be linked to public address

systems, and the amount of attention guards or attendants

† The security officers were

instructed to expand their patrol

beyond the facilities for which they

were hired, to provide surveillance of

neighboring lots and decks. They

were provided with radios to

communicate with police, and were

trained in recognizing and dealing

with car thieves. Finally, a bike unit

was added to expand patrol. The

unit was trained to patrol in

unpredictable patterns, and to make

social contact with people using the

parking facilities (see Clarke and

Goldstein 2001).
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 19

give them varies. If new CCTV systems are to be effective,

they must be carefully designed to suit the particular facilities

and their use. They should be advertised to increase their

deterrent effect, but dummy cameras should not be used.

These can give facility users a false sense of security, and they

open the way to crime-victim lawsuits against facility

operators.

5. Improving the lighting. Poor lighting has been identified

as a risk factor in thefts from parking facilities, and many

improvement schemes include better lighting. Improved

lighting has been found to reduce crime in other settings,20

and though there is a lack of research, there is little doubt it

can help to do the same in parking facilities–particularly in

decks and underground garages, and in lots with evening or

night use.21

Kip Kellogg

CCTV monitors cars entering and leaving this garage.
20 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

6. Securing the perimeter. Lack of secure fencing is an

important risk factor identified in research, though no

published evaluations exist of the results of installing fences

around a lot. Even when fences and walls exist, perimeter

security might be incomplete. Three small studies have found

positive results from improved perimeter security–in two

cases, to prevent cars from being removed without passing

through manned exits, and in one case, to prevent

unauthorized pedestrian access.

• In Port Newark, N.J., offenders stole new cars parked in a

storage facility by driving one through the cyclone fence,

and then driving others through the hole created. A twofoot-high concrete barrier erected around the fence stopped

these thefts.22

Kip Kellogg

Tall lights provide uniform coverage of a lot and

are difficult to vandalize.
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 21

• At Newark International Airport, juvenile offenders were

stealing subcompact cars from a lot by driving them

through a small gap between two steel posts. A sand-andconcrete trash basket sealed the gap. Further checks

revealed numerous other large gaps, which were then filled

with steel posts or concrete barriers. These measures helped

to reduce thefts from 100 one year to 37 the next.23

• One measure taken to reduce theft from a Dover, England,

parking deck was to install wire mesh in the gaps above the

wall surrounding the deck. This prevented youths from

climbing into the deck.24

7. Installing entrance barriers and electronic access. To

deter thieves from cruising parking lots in cars, facility

operators in Portland's Lloyd district agreed to install barriers

at the entrance and exit of each lot. Though hard evidence is

not available, these barriers are believed to have reduced

theft.25

Kip Kellogg

Use of mesh or grilles to block gaps between

decks helps to reduce unauthorized access.
22 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

No evaluations of electronic access systems to public parking

facilities have been published, but such systems have been

found effective in preventing theft from parking areas in

housing complexes.26

8. Adopting rating systems for security features. Studies

suggest that a combination of factors put some parking

facilities at greater risk for theft. When security is improved, it

is more common to introduce several measures, rather than

just one. This was the case in Portland's Lloyd district, and

also at a Northern Ireland hospital where parking lot thefts

greatly declined following adoption of a security package.

This included placing manned booths at entry and exit points,

conducting mobile patrols, installing CCTV cameras,

improving the lighting, providing better training to security

guards, and informing medical staff about security measures.27

"Secured Car Parks"28 is a popular British program premised

on a package of security measures. It consists of a standard

rating instrument for parking facilities, covering access

controls, lighting, natural surveillance, and so forth. Facility

operators can apply for the police to grade their facilities,

using the instrument. Depending on the assessment made,

parking facilities may then carry a "Secured by Design" notice.

No controlled evaluations of this program have been

reported, though many reports exist of reduced theft resulting

from the upgrading of parking facilities to meet the "Secured

by Design" standard.29 The program has considerable

potential in helping to improve security and reduce thefts in

parking facilities jurisdiction-wide.

9. Arresting and prosecuting persistent offenders.

Systematic interviews conducted by researchers find that car

thieves claim to be largely immune from the risks of

detection, apprehension and conviction. For example, in one
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 23

study of 100 thieves, 80 percent suggested they would never

be caught.30 Arrest data seem to confirm these predictions.

Only about 14 percent of motor vehicle thefts known to

police were cleared by arrest in 1998, whereas the average for

index offenses was about 21 percent. (An even smaller

proportion of thefts from cars result in arrest.) Even if more

offenders were detected, it could be difficult to persuade

courts to award more severe sentences, due to the nature of

the offenses.†

However, one important study found that the arrest of a

handful of persistent offenders led to a marked drop in thefts

in a shipyard parking lot in Newport News, Va.31 Similar

results might be achieved elsewhere, especially in jurisdictions

with a community prosecution unit and where judges are alert

to business owners' concerns about the economic impact of

these crimes.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

10. Conducting lock-your-car campaigns. Victims often

contribute to their plight by leaving valuables in view or

placing items in known hiding spots, such as under the front

seat or in the glove box. They sometimes leave spare keys in

magnetic containers placed in the wheel well. They may leave

doors unlocked, leave windows open and even leave keys in

the ignition.

These habits help explain the popularity of lock-your-car

campaigns, but evaluations of such campaigns, some targeted

on parking facilities, have failed to identify any clear crime

prevention benefits. Checks made of cars before and after

publicity campaigns show little change in the number of cars

† Even the "knee-capping" (i.e.,

shooting in the leg) meted out by the

IRA to juvenile car thieves in

Northern Ireland failed to have any

impact on the volume of car thefts

(reported in Clarke and Harris 1992).
24 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

properly secured.32 Results may be better when campaigns are

part of a wider program of security improvements. Thus, a

combination of a publicity campaign with mounted patrols

and environmental changes to improve natural surveillance

achieved a significant reduction in thefts from cars in parking

lots in Stockholm, Sweden.33 Campaigns may also be useful in

raising consciousness about the problem, making it easier to

introduce more costly measures.

Some jurisdictions have made it an offense to leave parked

cars unlocked. Prosecutions are extremely rare, and this

measure probably has no more than symbolic value.

11. Warning offenders. A publicity campaign warning

potential offenders about intensified police patrols had no

effect on theft of and from cars parked in the streets of

Jersey City, N.J.34 No studies of similar campaigns for parking

facilities have been published, but there is no reason to think

they would be any more effective.

12. Promoting car alarms and other "bolt-on" security

devices. It is sometimes suggested that regular patrons of a

parking facility might be persuaded to install car alarms or

other "bolt-on" security devices, such as the "The Club" or

ignition kill switches. Interviews with offenders indicate they

avoid cars fitted with alarms, but this depends on their

experience and the type of alarm–some are considered easy to

deactivate and do not deter experienced thieves. Offenders

generally look for the flashing light to see if there is an alarm,

and then test the system by kicking or hitting the car. Highly

motivated offenders, such as professional thieves stealing

particular cars to order, are likely to invest more effort in

overcoming an alarm system. Interviews with offenders,

including joyriders, show a fairly quick learning curve

regarding how to deactivate alarm systems.
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities 25

It would be difficult to persuade enough patrons of a

particular facility to install alarms and other bolt-on devices. If

only a minority installs them, they might protect themselves

from theft, but at the cost of displacing thefts to the

unprotected cars in the facility–with no net reduction in theft

and no overall benefit for the police. On the other hand, if

thieves target only a restricted number of models, protecting

these could be beneficial.

13. Using decoy vehicles. Police occasionally use decoy

vehicles (sometimes also known as "bait cars" or "gotcha

cars") to catch car thieves. These are sometimes fitted with

immobilizers and devices to trap the thieves inside the car.35

Their use greatly appeals to the police and the public.

Decoy vehicles can be used in parking facilities. They must be

kept under constant surveillance, and it is unclear whether

they yield more arrests than surveillance alone.

14. Redirecting joyriders' interest in cars. Many British

probation services run "motor projects" for juvenile car

thieves, designed to challenge their attitudes and give them

opportunities to engage in more positive car-related activities,

such as vehicle maintenance and racing. Evaluations of these

projects have not found them effective in reducing joyriding.36

Appendix 27

Summary of Responses to Thefts of and

From Cars in Parking Facilities

The table below summarizes the responses to thefts of and

from cars in parking facilities, the mechanisms by which they

are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought

to work best, and some factors you should consider before

implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor

responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each

response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective

strategy will involve implementing several different measures.

Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in

reducing or solving the problem.

1.

2.

17

17

Hiring parking

attendants 

Improving

surveillance at

deck and lot

entrances/exits

Improves

surveillance of

facilities,

especially at

entrances and

exits

Increases thieves'

risk of detection

entering and

leaving

...the facility's

perimeter is

secure, so those

who enter and

exit must pass the

attendant, and the

attendant booth is

designed to

facilitate

surveillance 

...the facility's

perimeter is

secure

Expensive;

usually justified

only in large

facilities; effective

in reducing theft

of cars–less so

for theft from

cars

Methods include

improving the

lighting, removing

signs and other

obstructions, and

encouraging

vendors to set up

shop near

entrances and

exits 

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Recommended Responses
28 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

17

18

19

20

21

22

Hiring dedicated

security patrols 

Installing and

monitoring

CCTV

Improving the

lighting

Securing the

perimeter

Installing

entrance barriers

and electronic

access

Adopting rating

systems for

security features

Increases thieves'

risk of getting

caught in the act

Increases thieves'

risk of getting

caught in the act;

filmed incidents

can aid

investigators;

reduces fear

among facility

users

Improves natural

surveillance and

reduces fear

Stops thieves

from entering lots

on foot; prevents

thieves from

driving cars off

lots

Prevents thieves

from entering by

car or leaving

with a stolen car 

Comprehensive

package serves to

control access

and improve

surveillance

...patrols are

frequent but

random, and

guards are trained

to deal with

thieves and can

communicate by

radio with police 

...the CCTV

system is tailored

to the facility; the

monitors are

constantly

watched; the

system includes

public address

capability; and the

lighting is

adequate 

...many thefts

occur at night or

in poorly lit parts

of the facility 

...exits and

entrances are

manned, and

fences cannot be

easily scaled or

breached 

...the facility's

perimeter is

secure

...a group of

facilities is to be

upgraded 

Expensive; may be

feasible only for a

large facility or

group of facilities;

bike patrols seem

especially useful

Even quite

sophisticated CCTV

systems are

becoming

inexpensive; many

specialist vendors

exist; dummy

cameras should not

be used 

All parking facilities

should be well lit;

relatively high

running costs

Installation costs

can be high, but

maintenance costs

are generally low; in

many cases, existing

fences have gaps

that should be

blocked

Most effective when

combined with

improved

surveillance of

entrances/exits

Requires police to

inspect facilities and

issue certificates of

compliance; may

require local

ordinances to

enforce

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations
Appendix 29

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

22

23

24

24

25

Arresting and

prosecuting

persistent

offenders

Conducting lockyour-car

campaigns

Warning

offenders

Promoting car

alarms and other

"bolt-on" security

devices

Using decoy

vehicles

Intended to deter

thieves

Intended to

reduce theft

opportunities

Intended to raise

thieves' fear of

apprehension 

Intended to

increase thieves'

risk of getting

caught and the

difficulty of

committing theft

Intended to

entice offenders

and assist in their

arrest

...a small group

of offenders is

responsible for a

large share of the

problem; the

jurisdiction has a

community

prosecution unit;

and judges are

alert to business

owners' concerns

about the crimes'

economic impact

...arrestees are

interviewed to

gain knowledge of

motivations for

and methods of

theft

Few car thieves

worry about

punishment, but

one important study

found some

benefits in arresting

persistent offenders

Such campaigns

have public

relations benefits,

but evaluations have

found little

discernible impact

on the problem

Offenders believe

they will not get

caught if they take

precautions

The main result of

this measure may be

to displace thefts to

unprotected cars in

the facility;

consequently, there

is little overall

benefit for police 

Popular with police

and the public, but

may be of no more

value than

conventional

stakeouts

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Responses with Limited Effectiveness
30 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

14. 25 Redirecting

joyriders' interest

in cars

Intended to

challenge attitudes

and provide

offenders with

opportunities to

engage in more

constructive

activities

Evaluations of

these schemes have

found little success

in reducing

joyriding

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations
Endnotes 31

Endnotes

1 Clarke and Harris (1992).

2 Sandby-Thomas (1992); Clarke and Goldstein (In Press).

3 Hazelbaker (1997).

4 Clarke and Harris (1992).

5 Clarke and Goldstein (In Press).

6 Clarke and Mayhew (1998).

7 Clarke and Goldstein (In Press).

8 Webb, Brown and Bennett (1992).

9 Webb, Brown and Bennett (1992).

10 Clarke and Harris (1992). 11 Clarke and Goldstein (In Press). 12 Smith (1996). 13 Webb, Brown and Bennett (1992). 14 Poyner (1991). 15 Hesseling (1995). 16 Barclay et al. (1996). 17 Tilley (1993). 18 Poyner (1991). 19 Phillips (1999). 20 Pease (1999). 21 Smith (1996). 22 Geason and Wilson (1990). 23 Frank (2000). 24 Poyner (1991). 25 Clarke and Goldstein (In Press). 26 Geason and Wilson (1990); Meredith and Paquette (1992). 27 Sandby-Thomas (1992). 28 Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Wales (n.d.). 29 Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (1999). 30 Light, Nee and Ingham (1993). 31 Eck and Spelman (1987). 32 Burrows and Heal (1980); Riley (1980). 33 Sampson and Scott (2000). 34 Barthe (2000).
32 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

35 Sallybanks (2001). 36 Sugg (1998).
References 33

References

Association of Chief Police Officers (n.d.). The Secured Car

Park Award Scheme. Guidelines for Self-Assessment. London:

Home Office.

Barclay, P., J. Buckley, P.J. Brantingham, P.L. Brantingham, and

T. Whinn-Yates (1996). "Preventing Auto Theft in

Suburban Vancouver Commuter Lots: Effects of a Bike

Patrol." In R. Clarke (ed.), Preventing Mass Transit Crime.

Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice

Press.

Barthe, E. (2000). Unpublished Ph.D. prospectus. Newark,

N.J.: School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers, The State

University of New Jersey.

Burrows, J., and K. Heal (1980). "Police Car Security

Campaigns." In R. Clarke and P. Mayhew (eds.), Designing

Out Crime. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Clarke, R., and H. Goldstein (In Press). "Thefts From Cars in

Center-City Parking Facilities: A Case Study in

Implementing Problem-Oriented Policing." Crime Prevention

Studies.

Clarke, R., and P. Harris (1992). "Auto Theft and Its

Prevention." In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of

Research, Vol. 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, R., and P. Mayhew (1998). "Preventing Crime in

Parking Lots: What We Know and Need To Know." In M.

Felson and R. Peiser (eds.), Reducing Crime Through Real Estate

Development and Planning. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land

Institute.
34 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

Eck, J., and W. Spelman (1987). Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented

Policing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum.

Field, S., R. Clarke and P. Harris (1991). "The Mexican Vehicle

Market and Auto Theft in Border Areas of the United

States." Security Journal 2(4):205–210.

Frank, A. (2000). "Police Shut Holes at Newark Airport." The

Star-Ledger, March 22.

Geason, S., and P. Wilson (1990). Preventing Car Theft and Crime

in Car Parks. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of

Criminology.

Hazelbaker, K. (1997). "Insurance Industry Analyses and the

Prevention of Motor Vehicle Theft." In M. Felson and R.

Clarke (eds.), Business and Crime Prevention. Monsey, N.Y.:

Criminal Justice Press.

Hesseling, R. (1995). "Theft From Cars: Reduced or

Displaced." European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research

3:79–92.

Honess, T., and M. Maguire (1993). Vehicle Watch and Car Theft:

An Evaluation. London: Home Office, Police Research

Group.

Laycock, G., and C. Austin (1992). "Crime Prevention in

Parking Facilities." Security Journal 3(3):154–160.

Light, R., C. Nee and H. Ingham (1993). Car Theft: The

Offender's Perspective. Home Office Research Study No. 130.

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Meredith, C., and C. Paquette (1992). "Crime Prevention in

High-Rise Rental Apartments: Findings of a Demonstration

Project." Security Journal 3(3):161–167.
References 35

Mirlees-Black, C., P. Mayhew and A. Percy (1996). The 1996

British Crime Survey: England and Wales. Research and Statistics

Directorate. Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 19/96.

London: Home Office.

Pease, K. (1999). "A Review of Street Lighting Evaluations:

Crime Reduction Effects." In K. Painter and N. Tilley (eds.),

Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime

Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 10. Monsey, N.Y.:

Criminal Justice Press.

Phillips, C. (1999). "A Review of CCTV Evaluations: Crime

Reduction Effects and Attitudes Towards Its Use." In K

Painter and N. Tilley (eds.), Surveillance of Public Space:

CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention

Studies, Vol. 10. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Poyner, B. (1991). "Situational Crime Prevention in Two

Parking Facilities." Security Journal 2: 96–101.

Riley, D. (1980). "An Evaluation of a Campaign To Reduce

Car Thefts." In R. Clarke and P. Mayhew (eds.), Designing

Out Crime. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Sallybanks, J. (2001). Assessing the Use of Police Decoy Vehicles.

Police Research Series, Paper 137. Policing and Reducing

Crime Unit. London: Home Office.

Sallybanks, J., and R. Brown (1999). Vehicle Crime Reduction:

Turning the Corner. Police Research Series, Paper 119.

Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. London: Home Office.

Sampson, R. and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other

Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem Solving.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.
36 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

Sandby-Thomas, M. (1992). Preventive Strategies To Reduce Car

Theft in Northern Ireland. Report No 2. Belfast, Northern

Ireland: Extern Organization.

Smith, M. (1996). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

in Parking Facilities. Research in Brief. National Institute of

Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Sugg, D. (1998). Motor Projects in England and Wales: An

Evaluation. Research Findings No. 81. Research and Statistics

Directorate. London: Home Office.

Tilley, N. (1993). Understanding Car Parks, Crime and CCTV:

Evaluation Lessons From Safer Cities. London: Home Office,

Police Research Group.

Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (1999). Tackling Vehicle

Crime: A Five-Year Strategy. Communication Directorate.

London: Home Office.

Webb, B., B. Brown and K. Bennett (1992). Preventing Car

Crime in Car Parks. Crime Prevention Unit Series, Paper 34.

London: Home Office.
About the Author 37

About the Author

Ronald V. Clarke

Ronald V. Clarke is a professor at the School of Criminal

Justice, Rutgers University. He previously headed the British

government's criminological research department, where he

had a significant role in developing situational crime

prevention and the British Crime Survey. Clarke is the

founding editor of Crime Prevention Studies, and his publications

include Designing Out Crime (HMSO 1980), The Reasoning

Criminal (Springer-Verlag 1986), Business and Crime Prevention

(Criminal Justice Press 1997), and Situational Crime Prevention:

Successful Case Studies (Harrow and Heston 1997). Together

with Herman Goldstein, he has recently been working on

problem-oriented policing projects for the CharlotteMecklenburg (N.C.) Police Department. Since 1998, he has

chaired the selection committee for the annual Herman

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented

Policing. Clarke holds a docorate in psychology from the

University of London.

Recommended Readings 39

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by

John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is

a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It

provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
40 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999

Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document

produced by the National Institute of Justice in

collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A

similar publication is available for the award winners from

2000. The documents are also available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have

practical implications for the police in their efforts to

prevent crime.

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses

how a police agency can implement the concept.
Recommended Readings 41

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the

problem-solving process, and provides examples of

effective problem-solving in one agency.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
42 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for

police to analyzing problems within the context of

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains

many of the basics of research as it applies to police

management and problem-solving.
Other Guides in This Series 43

Other Guides in This Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001.

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001.

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002.

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002.

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002.

19. Misuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

Companion guide to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
44 Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities

Other Related COPS Office Publications

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law

Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 2001.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.

Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case

Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S.

Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative

Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced

Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing

Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and

Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Karin

Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg

Townsend. 1998.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series

and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of

Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 or check our website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770

Visit the COPS internet web site at the address listed below.

e11011355 Created Date: January 24, 2002