U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

B u r g l a r y a t 

S i n g l e - F a m i l y H o u s e 

C o n s t r u c t i o n S i t e s 

by 

Rachel Boba

Roberto Santos

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 43
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site 

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• Online access to research and police practices

• Online problem analysis module.

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Burglary at Single-Family 

House Construction Sites 

Rachel Boba

Roberto Santos

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official 

position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific 

companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

discussion of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

August 2006

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 43

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides 

Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

Neither do they cover all of the technical details about 

how to implement specific responses. The guides are 

written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who 

must address the specific problem the guides cover. The 

guides will be most useful to officers who:

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing 

principles and methods. The guides are not primers in 

problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the 

initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods 

to analyze the problem, and means to assess the results 

of a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 

to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 

problem they have already identified. (A companion series 

of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid in 

various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

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

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to 

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before 

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is 

most likely to work in your community. You should not 

blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must 

decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation. 

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

works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other police 

departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 

your particular problem, they should help give a broader 

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

you cannot implement some of these responses in your 

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

police have discovered a more effective response, they have 

succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving 

the response to the problem. (A companion series of 

Response Guides has been produced to help you understand 

how commonly-used police responses work on a variety of 

problems.) 

• Understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate 

the need for more research on that particular problem. 

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to 

all the questions you might have about the problem. The 

research may help get you started in designing your own 

responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This 

will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, 

not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has 

every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so 

would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The 

references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of 

research on the subject. 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

• Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions 

to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of 

the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently 

implement them in partnership with other responsible 

private and public bodies including other government 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, private businesses, 

public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. 

An effective problem-solver must know how to forge 

genuine partnerships with others and be prepared to invest 

considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 

Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in 

the community with whom police might work to improve 

the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis of 

problems often reveals that individuals and groups other 

than the police are in a stronger position to address problems 

and that police ought to shift some greater responsibility to 

them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further 

discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing 

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 

strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. 

For the most part, the organizational strategies that can 

facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 

considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 

these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

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

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 
iv Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary 

from country to country, it is apparent that the police 

everywhere experience common problems. In a world that 

is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important 

that police be aware of research and successful practices 

beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 

research literature and reported police practice and is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 

executives and researchers prior to publication. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your 

own agency’s experiences dealing with a similar problem. 

Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem 

using responses not considered in these guides and your 

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This 

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish 

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should 

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This web site offers free online access 

to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing 

and related topics

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module

• a manual for crime analysts

• online access to important police research and practices

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences 

and award programs. 
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 

John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Stephen Lynch edited this 

guide.

contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

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

The Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What This Guide Covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Factors Contributing to Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites . . 3

Construction Material Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Lax Builder Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Burglars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Physical Environment of Single-Family House Construction Sites . . . . . . . 6

Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Goods Stolen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Times, Days, and Seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Reading Police Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Observing Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Crime Pattern Analysis and Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Interviewing Detectives and Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Interviewing Builders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Interviewing Local Building Inspectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Builders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Contents vii
viii Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites . 21

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Specific Responses to Reduce Burglary at Single-Family House 

Construction Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Improving Builder Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Target Hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Police Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Burglary at Single-Family House 

Construction Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 1

The Problem of Burglary at Single-Family 

House Construction Sites

What This Guide Covers

This guide begins by describing the problem of burglary 

at single-family house construction sites and reviewing 

the factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a series 

of questions that can help analyze your local burglary 

problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem 

of burglary at single-family house construction sites as 

identified through research and police practice. 

Burglary at single-family house construction sites is but 

one of a larger set of problems related to burglary and 

to construction sites. This guide focuses on burglary of 

building materials, tools, appliances, and small equipment 

from single-family house construction sites. Although there 

are many similarities between burglaries at single-family 

house sites and those at multifamily or commercial sites, 

the varying physical and logistical characteristics of the 

two types of sites require the utilization of very different 

crime prevention techniques. In addition, the theft of heavy 

construction equipment, such as backhoes and loaders, 

from single-family sites poses a unique crime prevention 

problem because of the size, cost, and mobility of such 

equipment. Related problems not directly addressed in this 

guide, each of which requires separate analysis, include:

• burglary and theft at commercial, apartment, and 

condominium construction sites

• burglary of single-family houses

• theft of heavy construction equipment

• theft of scrap metal

• stolen goods markets

• vandalism at construction sites

• insurance fraud. 
2 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

General Description of the Problem

Burglary at single-family house construction sites is 

the taking of property from houses under construction 

or from the area immediately surrounding the house. 

Depending upon whether the person who stole the 

property was lawfully on the premises or not, the crime is 

either defined as burglary or theft. For convenience sake, 

this guide will refer to both crimes as construction site 

burglary.

There is far less research on construction site burglary 

than there is on residential burglary.1 However, 

construction site burglary has been recognized as a 

significant problem in the United States and elsewhere 

in the world, including Canada, Australia, Europe, and 

Japan.2 Estimates from the United States indicate that 

between $1 billion and $4 billion worth of materials, 

tools, and construction equipment are stolen every year.3 

The wide range of estimates is attributable to the lack of 

reporting to police and insurance companies by builders 

and contractors.4 Between 5 percent and 20 percent of 

the cost of building a residential subdivision goes to the 

burglary of tools and equipment.5 In addition to property 

losses, there are indirect expenses that also impact the cost 

of construction; these include job delays, downtime for 

operators, higher insurance premiums, and cancellation of 

insurance.6 These direct and indirect losses to builders and 

contractors are passed on to house buyers, resulting in an 

average increase of 1 percent to 2 percent in the price of 

a new house.7
The Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 3

Factors Contributing to Burglary at Single-Family 

House Construction Sites

Understanding the factors that contribute to the problem 

of single-family house construction site burglary will help 

to frame local analysis, to determine good effectiveness 

measures, to recognize key intervention points, and to 

select appropriate responses. The following factors make 

such construction sites particularly vulnerable to burglary. 

Construction Material Costs

The high cost of construction materials induces some 

people—including some contractors—to steal materials 

from construction sites in order to reduce their own 

building costs. In recent years, there has been a dramatic 

increase in the price of construction materials. For 

example, from January 2003 to May 2004 the price 

index of 11 key construction materials more than 

doubled.8 Thus, the local home building economy affects 

construction site burglary rates. Local material shortages, 

including those caused by natural disasters, will similarly 

affect the nature and amount of construction site property 

stolen.9

Lax Builder Practices

Certain practices by building contractors can contribute 

to burglary. For example, delivering appliances to a site 

before they can be secured in the house increases the 

opportunity for burglary. Lax tool tracking practices can 

also lead to theft. Builders and contractors may save 

time by not checking tools in and out daily, but a lack of 

control and oversight can give employees the impression 
4 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

that their employer does not care if tools are taken or 

may convince them that burglars are unlikely to be caught 

and prosecuted.10 Finally, many builders treat burglary as 

an unavoidable cost of business11 and seek to offset their 

losses by increasing house prices. 

Burglars 

Burglars commit burglary, quite naturally, for the money. 

The decision to burgle is influenced by the perception 

of the ease with which a crime can be committed; in 

addition, burglars are commonly influenced by others.12

Burglars often know their victims, who can include casual 

acquaintances, neighborhood residents, people to whom 

they have provided a service, or the friends or relatives of 

close friends. Burglars either do not give much weight to 

the potential consequences of their actions or believe that 

there is little chance of getting caught. And in fact they 

are correct: burglars are rarely caught; national burglary 

clearance rates are only around 13 percent.13 Clearance 

rates for construction crime in particular are not recorded 

nationally, but these offenders seem to be caught even less 

often.14

In this house under construction, the front door was left wide open 

with appliances left uninstalled in the kitchen. 

Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos
The Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 5

Although little specific research has been done, some 

researchers have classified construction site burglars into 

three categories: amateur opportunists, insiders (such 

as employees and rival contractors), and professional 

thieves.15 Common to all of these types is the ability to 

blend in with regular construction workers.16 There follows 

a more detailed discussion of each type of construction 

site burglar.

Amateur opportunists: Amateur opportunists live or travel 

near construction sites, see property on the site, and take 

it based upon an immediate evaluation of rewards and 

risks. They do not typically plan their crimes in advance, 

but rather act upon an immediate opportunity. However, 

they may also take property after seeing it unprotected for 

a long period of time as they travel past the construction 

site. Burglary of smaller materials and tools at times when 

workers are not present may indicate this type of offender.

Professional thieves: Professional thieves make their living 

burglarizing property and selling stolen goods. They plan 

their crimes in advance and tend to have an intricate 

knowledge of the areas where their crimes are committed. 

Larger hauls or the theft of high dollar items may signify 

an organized burglary effort.

Insiders: Insiders work for builders, contractors, or rival 

companies. They either have knowledge of a specific 

builder’s construction practices and access to keys, 

tools, and materials, or they have a general knowledge 

of construction practices, such as how to disassemble 

an air conditioning unit or the stage at which appliances 

are typically delivered. Generally, a high percentage of 

employee thefts begin with opportunities that are regularly 

presented to them. If security is lacking and management 

is indifferent, the temptation to take items that are 
6 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

improperly secured or accounted for may be too much 

for these individuals to resist.17 Daytime burglaries, the 

theft of goods with tight schedules between delivery and 

installation, or burglaries where complex deinstallations 

occur with minimal property damage may indicate that 

crimes are being committed by insiders. 

Physical Environment of Single-Family House 

Construction Sites

Construction sites are interesting places. People passing 

by may stop to see what is being built or may even walk 

through the site. The simple curiosity that draws many 

people to construction sites also increases the probability 

that some people will then trespass or take unprotected 

property from the site.

The physical environment can affect the opportunities for 

crime at a particular location.18 For example, in planning 

their crimes, residential burglars consider occupancy 

cues (for example, the presence of cars, residents, and 

voices or other noises), surveillability cues (for example, 

whether they can be seen by neighbors or passersby), 

and accessibility cues (for example, how well the site 

is protected by doors, fences, or locks).19 Nearly all the 

cues that would prevent an offender from committing 

a residential burglary are typically lacking at singlefamily house construction sites: both the house under 

construction and the houses surrounding the construction 

site are generally unoccupied; at certain stages of 

construction the house has neither windows nor locking 

doors; and so forth. The following are specific physical 

features that render single-family house construction sites 

vulnerable to burglary.
The Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 7

• Construction sites are transitional by nature. Individual 

construction sites as well as entire subdivisions in which 

houses are under construction are transitional by nature. 

At each of the different stages of construction—laying 

the foundation, installing the roof, installing the doors and 

windows, locking the house—a different set of criminal 

opportunities is presented, because different materials are 

necessary and vulnerable at various times. In addition, the 

speed at which houses and subdivisions are built can affect 

the amount of time at which the construction site is at risk. 

• Houses under construction are neither occupied nor 

easily watched. A house under construction is unoccupied, 

so it does not have the usual level of guardianship. Whether 

in a subdivision or at an individual site, a house under 

construction may be isolated from view because it is set 

back from the road, situated on a large lot, or located next 

to nonresidential land, such as a park, waterway, or wooded 

area. This reduces the chance that neighbors or passersby 

will see or hear a burglar.

Example of large scale building materials being left unprotected 

during the early stages of a construction site. 

Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos
8 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

• Houses under construction are easily accessed. Houses 

under construction typically do not have fencing or other 

mechanisms that deter trespassing. Property left on the site 

is often left unprotected—lying on the ground, in open 

garages, or in a partially constructed, unsecurable house. 

Some property, such as air conditioner units, are vulnerable 

even when installed because they are located outside the 

house, where they are virtually unprotected. 

Example of a construction site with building materials and 

uninstalled doors left unprotected. 

Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos

Example of an air conditioning unit delivered and left uninstalled.

Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos
The Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 9

Repeat Victimization §

Patterns of repeat victimization for burglary at singlefamily house construction sites may not be obvious. 

Although a particular construction site might not be 

victimized repeatedly, a particular builder may be.20 For 

example, a comprehensive study in Port St. Lucie, Florida 

found that although only 12 of 254 individual sites were 

burglarized twice, 20 percent of builders accounted for 

nearly 70 percent of burglaries.21

Goods Stolen

Property taken in construction site burglaries is rarely 

recovered.22 However, the type of goods that are taken 

may indicate the motivations of the offender. Amateur 

opportunists may take generic building materials for use 

in their own houses, such as plywood, lumber, or ladders. 

Professional thieves may take property that can be sold 

in an unregulated second-hand market, such as ceramic 

tiles, faucets, toilets, doors, and windows.23 Insiders may 

be more likely to take tools and small equipment or items 

that take some skill or effort to remove. 

Times, Days, and Seasons 

Unlike residential and commercial burglaries, there is little 

research that indicates when construction site burglaries 

predominantly occur. And in fact, because of the lack 

of guardianship and the large number of workers that 

frequent a site, it would seem that construction site 

burglaries could occur at any time of day and on any 

day of the week. However, analyzing local burglary data 

may allow you to determine whether burglars prefer a 

particular time or day, which in turn will allow you to 

develop responses tailored to your local circumstances. 

§

 See the Problem-Solving 

Tools Guide on Analyzing Repeat 

Victimization.
10 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Because there are typically no witnesses to these 

crimes, the exact time of occurrence may be difficult to 

determine. Thus, it can be helpful to analyze the length of 

time that the property was left as risk.

The time period after a house has lockable windows and 

doors but before the house is occupied is a particularly 

vulnerable construction stage, because a large number 

of desirable types of property (for example, washers, 

dryers, and refrigerators) are in the house during this time. 

Burglaries in subdivisions may occur more often during 

the early construction stages (such as after the laying of 

the foundation), but before the first residents start moving 

in because of the availability of desirable construction 

materials and the lack of guardianship. Once again, 

because there is no research on this topic, it is important 

to determine when houses under construction are most 

vulnerable within your community. Lastly, construction 

cycles and schedules vary considerably by region, due to 

factors such as weather and national and local economics. 

Anticipating booms in construction based on these 

factors may assist in identifying a potential problem or in 

determining if an existing problem will continue. 
Understanding Your Local Problem 11

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information above is only a generalized description 

of burglary at single-family house construction sites. 

You must combine these basic facts with a more specific 

understanding of your local problem if you hope to 

design an effective remedial strategy. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following 

entities have an interest in thwarting burglaries at 

single-family house construction sites and ought to be 

considered in connection with your information-gathering 

and problem-solving efforts:

• house builders, including both general contractors and 

subcontractors

• house buyers

• mortgage lending companies

• insurance companies

• neighboring homeowners

• building inspectors.

Analytical Methods

The following methods will likely be helpful in analyzing 

the problem of burglaries at single-family house 

construction sites.

Reading Police Reports

Police reports will provide a first look at your local 

problem. However, it can sometimes be difficult to 

identify burglaries that occur at construction sites,24

because reports of interest might be classified as “theft,” 
12 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

“vandalism,” or “criminal damage to property,” depending 

upon local statutory requirements and reporting protocols. 

Moreover, your records system may make it difficult 

to separate offenses occurring at single-family house 

construction sites from those occurring elsewhere. If 

standard reports do not capture the information you need, 

ask investigating officers to collect additional information 

when they make their initial police reports; for example, 

you might ask them to note whether there were any 

neighboring residences or what stage of construction the 

house had reached when it was burgled.

Observing Sites

Visiting and observing single-family house construction 

sites can help you understand the construction practices 

and environmental features that contribute to the burglary 

problem.

Crime Pattern Analysis and Mapping

Because construction site burglary is typically concentrated 

geographically, crime mapping can be a particularly 

useful analytical tool. Construction site burglary patterns 

that detail the method of the crime, time of day, day of 

week, type of property stolen, and any other important 

characteristics can inform patrol officers, builders, 

inspectors, neighborhood watches, and homeowners of 

recent activity in a particular area and encourage them to 

be on the alert for suspicious behavior.
Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Interviewing Detectives and Officers

Detectives and patrol officers often have undocumented 

knowledge about the crimes they have investigated. 

This information can often be elicited through personal 

interviews. For example, you might ask officers what 

they know about burglary operations they have observed 

or what measures they think might help in preventing 

burglaries.

Interviewing Builders

Interviewing builders and contractors can be crucial, 

because many opportunities for construction site 

burglaries arise through site management and 

mismanagement. Understanding individual and industry 

reporting procedures, site supervisor responsibilities, 

crime prevention initiatives, the relationship between 

builders and subcontractors, and industry-wide views 

on crime and victimization will factor directly into 

understanding your local problem. In addition, such 

interviews will allow you to gather firsthand information 

on the efficacy of particular anticrime initiatives, such 

as the use of security guards and fencing, the initiation 

of reward programs, the utilization of burglary alarms 

and locking containers, and the delayed installation of 

appliances.25 Interviews should not be done haphazardly; 

rather, key questions should be developed beforehand to 

facilitate the information-gathering process. The questions 

listed in the following section can provide direction for 

these interviews.
14 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Interviewing Local Building Inspectors

Local building inspectors and other government personnel 

may be able to provide information about municipal 

policies and regulations that directly affect burglary 

opportunities. They may also have insights into industry 

practices that are effective in preventing burglary. 

Asking the Right Questions 

There follow some critical questions you should ask when 

analyzing your local burglary problem. Your answers to 

these and other questions will help you choose the most 

appropriate set of responses later on.

Incidents 

• How many burglaries at single-family house construction 

sites are reported?

• What proportion of these burglaries is reported to police? 

Does a sizable proportion of burglaries go unreported? If 

so, why? 

• What is the clearance rate for these burglaries?

• What methods are used to commit these burglaries? Forced 

entry? Unforced entry? Burglars posing as construction 

workers? Employee theft?

• How much property is typically stolen? Quantity? Dollar 

values?

• What other costs are incurred because of these burglaries? 

Repair costs? Lost business? Increased insurance 

premiums? 

• How difficult are the burglaries to commit?§

 

• Are there patterns that link offenders, builders, 

subcontractors, or types of property across cases?

• Are new houses or renovated houses more likely to be 

targeted?

§

 The Port St. Lucie (Florida) Police 

Department developed a scale to rate 

the difficulty of each burglary. The 

scale took into account the amount 

of skill, the type of transportation, 

and the time necessary to complete 

the crime, as well as the accessibility 

of the stolen property within the 

site. For additional details, see Boba 

(2005).
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

Premises 

• How exposed are the burgled houses? How close are they 

to major thoroughfares, parks, or other public spaces? 

• What is the nature of the surrounding neighborhood? 

• What type of fencing exists? 

• What types of security do the sites have? What types of 

security are in use? 

• What types of houses under construction are burglarized? 

One-story or two-story? Large or small? 

• Are the houses in major subdivisions under construction or 

in individual lots spread throughout the community?

• At what stage of building is the property at the time of the 

burglary?

• Was the house securable at the time of the burglary? Was it 

actually secured?

Property 

• What type of goods are stolen? Appliances? Tools and 

small equipment? Building materials? Wiring and other 

metal that can be sold for scrap?

• What is the actual value of the property? What is the value 

of the property on the stolen goods market?

• How do burglars take the goods from the scene? In a 

vehicle? On foot? 

• Are tools needed to remove the stolen items?

• Are the stolen items installed or uninstalled?

• How do burglars dispose of the goods? Private sales? 

Barter? Pawn shops? Second-hand building materials 

shops?

• How often is property recovered? How it is typically 

recovered?
16 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Builders

• Are certain builders more likely to be victimized than 

others? If so, why? (Calculating a burglary rate that 

accounts for the number of burglaries and the quantity of 

houses built by each builder can be helpful in answering 

this question.)

• How long have the builders been in business? Are 

experienced or inexperienced builders more likely to be 

victimized?

• Do builders have their own employees or do they use 

subcontractors?

• How many construction sites are potential targets?

• What crime prevention strategies do the builders use?

• Is there a builder liaison group?

• Is there meaningful supervision of construction sites?

• What are delivery and installation practices for appliances 

and building materials?

• What are the employee and subcontractor policies for theft 

and equipment management?

• Is there evidence of collusion between employees and 

burglars? 

• Who holds the insurance policy for property loss or 

damage at the house? The builder or subcontractor? The 

finance company? The homeowner? Are claims typically 

filed for theft and damage?

• Are insurance companies aware of the problem? If so, 

what measures have they taken to reduce their losses?

Offenders

• Do burglars know either the builder or the homeowner? 

• Are there many different offenders involved or is a small 

group of prolific offenders responsible? 

• Do burglars belong to any particular group? Age? 

Ethnicity? Occupation? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

• Why do the burglars offend? To exchange the stolen 

property for cash? To acquire and use the stolen property?

• Do the crimes show evidence of planning or did the 

burglars take advantage of easy opportunities? 

• Do burglars appear to know the burgled premises? If so, 

how do they get their information? 

• Where do burglars live, work, or hang out? 

• Where are burglars coming from and how do they get to 

the burglary locations? On foot? In vehicles? 

• Are burglars drawn to the area by burglary opportunities or 

for some other reason? 

• How do burglars dispose of stolen goods? Home use? 

Sale? Exchange?

Locations/Times

• When do the burglaries occur? During the work day or 

after hours?

• How long do burglaries take? How long is property left 

at risk? What is the time span during which burglaries can 

occur? 

• On what days of the week do burglaries occur? Weeks of 

the month? Months of the year?

• Are there seasonal variations in the burglaries? Are there 

seasonal variations in construction?

• Where do burglaries occur? Is the problem concentrated in 

one area or do they affect the whole jurisdiction?

• Are individual sites repeatedly victimized?

• Is the construction site located near other sites that have 

previously been burglarized?
18 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement will allow you to determine the degree to 

which your efforts have succeeded and may also suggest 

how your responses can be modified to produce the 

intended results. In order to determine how serious 

the problem is, you should first measure the extent of 

the problem before you implement responses; in that 

way, measuring the problem after responses have been 

implemented will allow you to determine whether your 

solutions have been effective. All measures should be 

implemented in both the target area and the surrounding 

areas. For more detailed guidance on measuring 

effectiveness, see Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 1, 

Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police 

Problem-Solvers. 

When evaluating a response, you should use measures 

that specifically reflect its impact. In that regard, it is 

important to remember that when a response is initially 

implemented the reporting of crime may rise because of 

an increased awareness of criminal activities and increased 

cooperation with police. 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to burglary at single-family 

house construction sites.

• Reduced number of burglaries in the target area. 

Comparing the target area with surrounding areas will 

allow you to determine whether your response is working 

or whether local events are part of a larger general 

trend. Remember, however, that the number of reported 

burglaries may increase after burglary prevention efforts 

are initiated due to increased public awareness and more 

rigorous reporting standards.
Understanding Your Local Problem 19

• Reduced number of burglaries for individual builders. If 

the response is focused on the builders who are suffering 

the most crime, compare their victimization rates to those 

of other builders. 

• Reduced number of builders burglarized.

• Reduced dollar value loss, due either to fewer total 

burglaries or to the loss of fewer high-value items.

• Changes in the difficulty of burglaries. An increase 

in difficulty might indicate that sites are being better 

secured, thus causing burglars to redouble their criminal 

efforts. Conversely, a decrease in difficulty might indicate 

that crimes are being committed by burglars with inside 

information and easy site access. 

• Decreased financial losses and insurance claims.

The following criteria, although not necessarily indicative 

of a successful outcome, may indicate that your responses 

have had the intended effect. 

• Increased proportion of builders following recommended 

crime prevention practices, such as tightening delivery 

schedules or locking up tools and materials.

• Increased number of burglary arrests and burglaries 

cleared. 

• Increased number of burglary prosecutions and 

convictions.

• Increased amount of stolen goods recovered. Note, 

however, that such increases are more likely to reflect a 

specific focus on stolen property recovery than on burglary 

reduction efforts. 

• Greater perception of security among builders, supervisors, 

police, and homeowners. 

Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 21

Responses to the Problem of Burglary at 

Single-Family House Construction Sites

Analyzing your local problem will give you a better 

understanding of the factors that contribute to it. Once 

you have analyzed your local problem and established a 

baseline for measuring effectiveness, you can consider 

possible responses to the problem.

The following responses will provide a foundation 

for addressing your particular burglary problem. 

These strategies are drawn from research studies and 

police practice and are generally based on opportunity 

blocking. It is critical that you tailor responses to local 

circumstances and that you can justify each response 

based upon reliable analysis. Several of these strategies 

may apply to your local problem; and in fact, an effective 

remedial strategy will likely involve the implementation of 

several different responses. 

Because law enforcement alone is seldom effective in 

reducing or solving the problem, do not limit yourself 

to considering only what police can do; rather, carefully 

consider whether others in your community share 

responsibility for the problem and whether they can help 

respond to it. In some cases, responsibilities may need 

to be shifted toward those who have the capacity to 

implement more effective responses. (For more detailed 

information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see 

Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for 

Public Safety Problems). Building partnerships and working 

towards a collective response with the various stakeholders 

is essential to success.§ This is particularly true in regard 

to construction site burglaries, because so many of the 

factors that contribute to the problem are related to 

building practices.

§

 See Problem-Solving Tools 

Guide No. 5 on Partnering With 

Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems.
22 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy

There is little research evaluating responses to the 

problem of construction site burglaries. Therefore, 

the responses discussed below emphasize appropriate 

and practical opportunity blocking. Blocking criminal 

opportunities often has a greater direct effect on offenders 

than do other crime prevention strategies.26

Police should establish cooperative working relationships 

with builders. In turn, builders should share information 

about burglary problems and patterns, local building 

practices, and loss prevention efforts. Builders should 

be encouraged to provide police with after-hour contact 

numbers, documentation of stolen appliances, and tool 

serial numbers. 

If it can be established that certain houses are at a 

high risk for victimization, response measures can be 

concentrated at those locations. For example, the Port St. 

Lucie (Florida) Police Department determined that houses 

in the final stages of construction were at a higher risk 

of burglary and used this information to target police 

attention.27

Specific Responses to Reduce Burglary at SingleFamily House Construction Sites

Improving Builder Practices

1. Limiting the number of construction sites 

supervised. In order to provide meaningful supervision 

of construction sites, builders should limit the number 

of sites for which each supervisor is responsible. This 
Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 23

will allow supervisors a better opportunity to monitor 

materials, workers, and deliveries. In an example of such 

a program, the Port St. Lucie (Florida) Police Department 

convinced a builder to reduce each supervisor’s 

responsibility from 30 to 35 houses to 15 to 20 houses.28

2. Coordinating delivery and installation. Coordinating 

deliveries of materials and appliances so that they are 

delivered and installed close to the time that the items will 

be secured or the house will be occupied can reduce their 

exposure to theft. Materials left unattended or unsecured 

for long periods of time can entice both opportunistic 

burglars and construction workers. Builders should 

install expensive high risk items as close to the end of 

construction as possible; in some cases it may even be 

possible to install the items after the house is occupied. A 

project in Charlotte, North Carolina focused on delaying 

the installation of plug-in appliances until immediately 

prior to or just after occupancy.29

Examples of poor coordination of deliveries include: 

• framework and roof trusses being delivered before the slab 

has been laid

• windows being delivered before the roof has been installed

• bricks being delivered before the frame stage has been 

started 

• dishwashers, ranges, refrigerators, and other appliances 

being delivered before locking doors and windows are 

installed. 

3. Screening and training workers and subcontractors. 

Whenever possible, builders should screen prospective 

employees and subcontractors, including both criminal 

and financial background checks. Builders should clarify, 

emphasize, and enforce rules that prohibit the taking 

of construction tools, materials, and property that have 
24 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

been delivered for use onsite. Workers should be taught 

to recognize and report suspicious activity and signs of 

burglary and reminded of crime prevention measures that 

they themselves can take. 

4. Limiting the hiring of subcontractors. Builders 

should be encouraged to maintain a consistent workforce 

that is familiar with their rules, practices, and attitudes 

toward misappropriation of property. Builders who use 

subcontractors who in turn hire other subcontractors are 

likely to be at a higher risk of being burglarized. 

5. Having a system for tracking tools. There are 

various tool tracking systems that can be used to limit 

opportunities for burglary. Some builders designate one 

person to track the use of tools, which can help instill 

a sense of accountability in workers and reinforce the 

perception that management is watching over inventory. 

Others builders, like Celebrity Homes in Omaha, 

Nebraska, fit their tools with microchips. The site 

foreman scans the tools before they are issued, recording 

information such as the date, time, and the name of the 

worker to whom the tool is issued; the foreman then 

scans the tools again when they are returned.30, § Yet 

other builders provide each site supervisor with a budget 

for tools and hold the supervisor to account—through 

bonuses or penalties—at the completion of the job.31

6. Encouraging the hiring of loss prevention personnel. 

Large builders especially should be encouraged to retain 

the services of professional loss prevention specialists 

who have expertise in preventing and solving burglaries 

and who can work closely with police and other builders 

to control burglary. 

§

 The microchip tags used by 

Celebrity Houses were supplied by 

tool maker Bosch, whose Safe and 

Sound tool tracking system is an 

alternative to the common practice 

of engraving or marking (O’Malley, 

2005). 
Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 25

7. Employing onsite private security patrols. The 

construction industry regards the use of security patrols 

as one of the most effective means of reducing and 

preventing construction site crime.32 Security patrols 

are a visible, proactive burglary deterrent. This form of 

guardianship can increase a potential offender’s perception 

that he is likely to be apprehended. In fact, burglars 

say that security guards pose the greatest threat to their 

activities.33

8. Establishing an employee hotline to report crime. 

Many individual builders and builder associations have 

established hotlines that allow callers to report crime 

anonymously. Callers can receive cash awards if the 

information leads to an arrest.34 Employee hotlines 

have not been systematically evaluated; however, recent 

research indicates that employees are less likely to 

steal when they believe there is a high probability of 

apprehension. The study found that the threat of being 

punished by coworkers had a greater deterrent effect than 

did the threat of punishment by management.35 Thus, it 

is reasonable to believe that hotlines have the potential to 

increase an offender’s perception of apprehension if other 

tradespeople have a mechanism to report them and are 

encouraged to do so. 

Some companies have found that hotlines are a cost 

effective way to control theft.36 In Northern California, 

a hotline system that rewards individuals up to $1,000 

is funded through membership dues, association 

contributions, and a grant. In 2003, the system paid out 

$8,000 in rewards and recovered over $2 million in stolen 

property.37, § 

§

 A survey conducted of ten 

large U.S. retail companies, which 

represented almost 50 percent of 

U.S. stores, found that a hotline with 

some sort of rewards (for example, 

cash) was effective in convincing 

employees to report theft. The 

survey indicated that successful 

programs create a supportive 

environment in which reporting 

mechanisms and participation 

incentives are sufficient to encourage 

employees to report theft or other 

inappropriate behavior by their 

coworkers (Scicchitano, Johns, and 

Blackwood, 2004). See Scicchitano, 

Johns, and Blackwood (2004) for 

a summary of the use of toll-free 

hotlines for reporting dishonesty, 

techniques for encouraging 

the use of the hotlines, and 

recommendations for companies that 

want to implement hotlines.
26 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

9. Adopting and enforcing antitheft policies. 

Construction site workers who are tempted to steal 

are likely to be deterred by the threat of being fired. 

Offenders who are convicted of construction site 

crime should be fired and restricted from obtaining 

other positions in the industry. This message should 

be consistently reinforced: for example, contractors 

can require newly hired employees to sign a no-stealing 

contract; builders can speak out publicly on these issues 

at meetings or in the media; workers can be reminded of 

specific policies through company newsletters or via signs 

posted at the construction sites; and so forth.

Target Hardening

10. Improving lighting at construction sites. Proper 

lighting can deter burglars both by illuminating security 

measures in place at the construction site and by 

increasing the ability of passersby and police to observe 

suspicious activity at the site. A systematic review of the 

effects of improved street lighting on reducing crime 

indicated some promise. Although an evaluation of 13 

studies from the United States and Great Britain had 

mixed results—some studies indicated a reduction while 

others did not—an analysis of all 13 studies showed an 

overall 20 percent reduction in the crime rate.38 

The Casey city council in Victoria, Australia initiated a 

policy that mandated street lighting for construction areas. 

Prior to the initiative, street lighting was activated when 

the first occupants moved in, which meant that there was 

no street lighting during construction in unoccupied areas. 

The new policy authorized the activation of street lights at 

the time of the release of each subdivision.39 
Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 27

11. Installing and monitoring closed circuit television. 

Closed circuit television (CCTV) has been shown to be 

effective in deterring property crime. Evaluations of 

CCTV reveal that it is effective where an adequate number 

of cameras cover a particular area as well as on sites with 

limited and controlled access points.40, § In order to provide 

such coverage, portable towers equipped with cameras can 

be placed at strategic site locations.41

12. Installing alarm systems. Alarm systems can be a costeffective deterrent in high risk areas. There are a number 

of different alarms available, including wireless systems 

that can be adapted to the environment (for example, for 

use in onsite storage containers). Some wireless alarms 

can be installed at any stage of the construction, without 

the need for pre-wiring or other electrical work.42 Signs 

indicating that alarms are in use should be prominently 

displayed to reinforce the deterrent effect. However, care 

should be taken to ensure that false alarms do not drain 

police resources.§§

§

 See Response Guide No. 4 on 

Video Surveillance of Public Places.

§§ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 5 

on False Burglar Alarms.

Example of target hardening of 

construction equipment.

Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos
28 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

13. Using portable storage units. Properly secured 

storage units should be used for materials that are kept 

at construction sites overnight. These units should be 

equipped with wireless audible alarms and locks that 

prevent the use of bolt cutters.

14. Installing fencing. Properly constructed and secured 

fences can control access to construction sites. Temporary 

wire fencing may be the most appropriate and cost 

effective for larger construction sites. A temporary fencing 

system can be easily erected, dismantled, and reused. 

Fencing also serves as a deterrent by clearly identifying 

site boundaries.

15. Marking property. Marking property with 

identification helps control burglary in three ways: it 

warns burglars that owners are monitoring their property, 

it discourages potential buyers of stolen property, and 

it increases the probability that recovered property will 

be returned to its rightful owner. However, property 

marking efforts have had mixed results. Property marking 

appears to be most effective when extensive efforts to 

enlist participation and cooperation are combined with 

a media campaign warning burglars that marking will 

reduce the property’s value and make disposal difficult.43

Ideally, all portable building materials, including doors, 

windows, bricks, and tiles, should be marked at the point 

of manufacture with specific builder or construction site 

identification. The markings from each construction site 

should then be recorded. Signs should be prominently 

posted on the construction site indicating that items have 

been marked.
Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 29

16. Installing global positioning satellite locator chips. 

Global positioning satellite (GPS) locator chips can 

be used to track and recover high-end appliances and 

equipment. If the property is stolen, the chip allows 

the builder or the police to monitor its movement by 

computer. This is most useful for high risk property 

when a specific crime pattern has been identified or 

when information has been received from a confidential 

informant. 

17. Displaying crime prevention signage. Prominently 

and strategically displayed signage can inform potential 

burglars that builders and police are working to reduce 

theft from construction sites. Well-designed, sturdy signs 

that can easily be modified and used at different sites can 

be a cost-effective prevention measure.44 

Template of a sticker placed on major appliances to increase the 

perception of risk of being caught.

Port St. Lucie (Florida) Police Department
30 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

§ See Response Guide No. 5 on 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. 

Police Responses

18. Enhancing natural surveillance. Once a construction 

site burglary problem has been identified, police can 

contact residents, builders, and other groups and 

individuals likely to be in the area and request their 

assistance in reporting suspicious behavior. “Reverse 911 

systems,” including those that use autodialers, can be 

used to communicate efficiently with a large but targeted 

population. 

19. Making use of publicity.

§

 Many police agencies 

and other groups have developed publicity campaigns 

aimed at combating construction site crime. These 

campaigns publicize crime detection and prevention 

efforts in a variety of ways: through newspaper articles 

designed to increase community awareness and to remind 

residents to be on the look out for suspicious behavior; 

through brochures detailing the nature of the problem 

and delineating crime prevention tips; and through 

informational letters to builders and homeowners in 

high risk areas.45 In addition, local mass media programs 

such as Crime Stoppers can be useful for soliciting tips 

about construction site burglaries. Publicizing the arrest 

of burglars can also enhance general deterrence and 

discourage builders from hiring these individuals. Police 

should consult local legal counsel about the proper 

wording of such notices.
Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 31

Fort Pierce (Florida) Tribune, September 2005

This article was published along with other tailored responses in the 

community.
32 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

20. Disrupting stolen goods markets. Although there is 

little research on its effectiveness, requiring pawnshops 

to keep adequate records of the goods they purchase is 

regarded as a sensible measure geared toward disrupting 

stolen goods markets.46 In many jurisdictions, the 

recording of such information and its transmission to 

police has been automated. Strategies for disrupting the 

sale of stolen goods include conducting surveillance of 

stores suspected of dealing in stolen property, encouraging 

stores that buy used property to display signs stating that 

they are part of a program designed to prevent the sale of 

stolen goods, and enacting ordinances that require stores 

to establish the ownership of used goods before they are 

purchased. 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

21. Police patrolling of construction sites. Research 

suggests that preventative police patrolling is an 

ineffective measure for dealing with the problem of 

construction site burglary.47 Because of the large number 

of potential targets, general police patrols of construction 

sites are unlikely to deter crime or apprehend offenders. 

Focused patrols of particular subdivisions or of houses 

that are at vulnerable stages of construction may be a 

more useful response.

22. General surveillance and “bait” operations. General 

surveillance and bait operations are very expensive and 

have limited effectiveness in apprehending offenders. 

However, if used tactically with established patterns or 

confidential informants, they may be successful and cost 

effective. 
Responses to the Problem of Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 33

23. Conducting fencing “sting” operations. Sting 

operations, in which police set up bogus fencing 

operations, are both expensive and time-consuming. In 

addition, research suggests that they often generate more 

crime than they prevent.48

24. Increasing penalties for burglars. The chance of a 

residential burglar getting caught and sentenced is about 

5 percent; for construction site burglars the percentage 

can be even lower. One study suggests that increased 

penalties alone do not deter burglars from offending; 

rather, increased penalties deter offenders only if they 

are combined with an increased perception of risks or a 

decreased anticipation of reward.49

Appendix 35

Appendix: Summary of Responses 

to Burglary at Single-Family House 

Construction Sites

 

The table below summarizes the responses to burglaries 

at single-family house construction sites, the mechanism 

by which they are intended to work, the conditions 

under which they ought to work best, and some factors 

that should be considered before a particular response 

is implemented. It is critical that you tailor responses to 

local circumstances and that you can justify each response 

based upon reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective 

strategy will involve implementing several different 

responses; law enforcement alone is seldom effective in 

reducing or solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

Changing Building Practices 

1 22 Limiting the 

number of 

construction sites 

supervised

Increases the 

amount of 

meaningful 

guardianship 

over individual 

construction 

sites 

. . . there is an 

adequate number 

of employees

Supervisors may be 

able to handle a higher 

number of sites in 

subdivisions where 

houses are centrally 

located, as opposed to 

sites that are spread 

out across a large 

geographical area

2 23 Coordinating 

delivery and 

installation

Decreases the 

time between 

delivery and 

installation 

to reduce 

opportunity 

for theft; 

eliminates the 

opportunity 

for theft when 

installation is 

delayed until 

occupancy 

. . . the time 

between delivery 

and installation 

is as short 

as possible; 

immediate 

installation 

after delivery or 

installation after 

occupancy is 

preferable 

Check state and local 

requirements relating 

to the installation 

of appliances; it is 

sometimes the case 

that the financer 

requires appliances to 

be installed before the 

closing of construction
36 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

3 23 Screening and 

training workers/

subcontractors

Promotes 

trustworthy 

employees and 

helps them 

recognize 

and report 

criminal 

behavior

. . . there is low 

employee turnover 

and a minimal 

number of 

subcontractors

Where permitted by 

law, employers should 

conduct criminal and 

financial background 

checks of both 

potential employees and 

subcontractors

4 24 Limiting the 

hiring of 

subcontractors

Promotes 

trustworthy 

employees 

who know 

a builder’s 

policies and 

procedures

. . . there are an 

adequate number 

of workers and 

subcontractors in 

the local market

In some locales, this 

may not be possible 

because of a small 

workforce or a high 

volume of construction

5 24 Having a check 

out system for 

tools

Records data 

on individuals 

responsible 

for tools; 

instills both 

a sense of 

accountability 

and the 

perception 

that 

management 

is watching 

inventory

. . . one person at a 

site or subdivision 

is responsible for 

the system

Consistent use of the 

system 

6 24 Hiring of loss 

prevention 

personnel

Devotes 

individual 

attention to 

preventing 

and solving 

burglaries; 

the specialist 

can also be 

a liaison 

between police 

and other 

stakeholders

. . . the company 

can afford a 

full-time loss 

prevention 

specialist

May be difficult to 

convince builders who 

believe that losses due 

to burglary are merely a 

cost of doing business 
Appendix 37

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

7 25 Employing onsite 

private security 

patrols 

Produces 

a visible, 

pro-active 

deterrent, 

which may 

discourage 

offenders 

from 

committing 

burglaries 

. . . sites are 

clustered together 

or are located in a 

subdivision

Communication, 

guidelines, and 

reporting procedures 

are essential to 

maximizing the benefits 

of security patrols. 

Patrols should be 

periodically evaluated 

to ensure they are being 

used properly. For the 

cost-conscious, it may 

be possible to create a 

perception of security 

through signage 

that says “Protected 

by Acme Security 

Company” or “Beware 

of Guard Dogs”; fake 

security cameras can 

also be an effective 

deterrent

8 25 Establishing an 

employee hotline 

to report crime

Increases an 

offender’s 

perception 

of being 

apprehended 

by providing 

an anonymous 

way for 

coworkers 

to report 

criminal 

behavior

. . . the builder 

encourages use 

of the hotline 

and provides cash 

rewards or other 

incentives

A successful reporting 

program provides the 

mechanisms, incentives, 

and environment to 

encourage employees 

to report theft or other 

inappropriate behavior 

by their coworkers
38 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

9 26 Adopting and 

enforcing 

antitheft policies

Enforces a 

zero tolerance 

position on 

crime and 

lets potential 

offenders 

know criminal 

behavior is 

not acceptable

. . . the message is 

consistently and 

regularly presented 

to employees and 

the policies are 

strictly enforced 

May be difficult for 

builders to enforce 

when there is a high 

volume of construction 

and a shortage of 

workers 

Target Hardening

10 26 Improving 

lighting at 

construction sites

Indicates 

security 

measures are 

in place at the 

construction 

site; increases 

observation 

of the site 

by passersby; 

allows people 

to observe 

incidents 

without taking 

personal risks

. . . there is 

appropriate 

lighting for the 

environment

Electricity may not be 

available

11 27 Installing and 

monitoring 

closed-circuit 

television

Deters 

potential 

offenders; 

provides 

evidence of 

offending for 

apprehension 

and 

prosecution

. . . cameras are 

portable, wellpositioned and 

not easily disabled; 

there is adequate 

lighting at night

Expensive, but can be 

motion sensitive; most 

useful in high risk areas 

12 27 Installing alarm 

systems

Deters 

potential 

offenders; 

quickly alerts 

builders and 

police 

. . . if triggered 

alarms are 

promptly 

investigated

High percentage of 

false alarms; signs 

indicating the use of 

an alarm should be 

displayed to reinforce 

the deterrent effect
Appendix 39

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

13 28 Using portable 

storage units

Stores 

materials 

that will be 

kept at the 

construction 

site overnight

. . . the 

construction sites 

are in a subdivision

Can be equipped with 

an alarm and a lock 

that is resistant to bolt 

cutters

14 28 Installing fencing Provides 

a visible 

deterrent 

by clearly 

identifying site 

boundaries; 

controls 

access to the 

site

. . . used in larger 

construction sites 

or subdivisions

Limiting access may 

frustrate employees 

15 28 Marking property Deters 

potential 

offenders 

from taking 

property that 

they believe 

builders are 

monitoring; 

allows police 

to return 

recovered 

property

. . . desirable 

property can be 

marked

Requires builder 

participation and 

investigative follow up; 

publicity increases the 

benefits

16 29 Installing global 

positioning 

satellite (GPS) 

locator chips

Enables 

builders to 

track and 

recover larger 

appliances and 

equipment

. . . the builder has 

reason to believe 

that property 

will be taken (for 

example, from 

a confidential 

informant) 

System must be 

monitored and can be 

expensive
40 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

17 29 Displaying crime 

prevention 

signage

Can convince 

potential 

burglars that 

builders and 

police are 

monitoring 

sites and 

enacting crime 

prevention 

measures

. . . signage is 

professionally 

designed and 

produced as well 

as prominently 

and strategically 

displayed

Signage alone may be a 

cost-effective deterrent 

to novice offenders; 

however, its deterrent 

effect can deteriorate 

over time 

Police Responses

18 30 Enhancing natural 

surveillance

Requests 

assistance of 

neighborhood 

residents and 

other groups 

likely to be in 

a particular 

area 

. . . a construction 

site burglary 

problem has been 

identified in a 

particular area

“Reverse 911,” 

including those with 

autodialers, can be used 

to communicate with a 

targeted population

19 30 Making use of 

publicity

Influences 

a potential 

offender’s 

perception of 

risk; provides 

information 

about defining 

and reporting 

suspicious 

behavior

. . . campaigns are 

carefully timed

Any attempt to use 

publicity to prevent or 

deter crime must be 

credible

20 32 Disrupting 

markets for stolen 

goods

Reduces 

rewards for 

offenders by 

preventing 

them from 

profiting from 

their crimes 

. . . the goods 

are being sold 

in second-hand 

markets

Can be difficult to 

obtain information 

about how and where 

offenders sell or 

exchange stolen goods; 

stings are expensive and 

time-consuming
Appendix 41

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It 

Works

Works Best If... Considerations

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

21 32 Police patrolling 

of construction 

sites 

Increases 

guardianship 

. . . patrols are 

focused on sites 

and subdivisions 

at the most 

vulnerable stages 

of construction

Difficult for officers to 

apprehend offenders 

22 32 General 

surveillance and 

bait operations

Property 

is placed 

to tempt 

offenders; 

police stake 

out the crime 

scene or place 

GPS locators 

on the 

property

. . . used tactically 

with established 

patterns or 

confidential 

informants

The equipment is 

expensive

23 33 Conducting 

fencing sting 

operations

Police set 

up bogus 

operations 

to buy stolen 

property 

. . . police 

have specific 

information 

about a large theft 

operation

Research suggests that 

these operations may 

generate more crime 

than they prevent

24 33 Increasing 

penalties for 

burglars

Raises the 

penalties for 

burglary; 

specifically 

deters 

criminals 

. . . offenders are 

apprehended

Increased penalties 

deter offenders only if 

combined with greater 

perceived risks or fewer 

anticipated rewards

Endnotes 43

Endnotes

Clarke and Goldstein (2002).

Alberta Report (1999); Berg and Hinze (2005); 

Lambertson (2005).

 Barrios (2005); Berg and Hinze (2005); Lambertson 

(2005); Sanchez (2000).

 Barrios (2005); Bellet (2004); Lambertson (2005).

 Heselbarth (1999).

 Berg and Hinze (2005).

 Alberta Report (1999); O’Malley (2005); Patton (2005); 

Sanchez (2000).

 Bouffard (2004); Bradley (2005); Scarcella (2005).

 Barrios (2005).

 Berg and Hinze (2005).

 Clarke and Goldstein (2002).

 Piquero and Rengert (1999).

 FBI (2004).

 Boba (2005).

 Boba (2005); Clarke and Goldstein (2002); Hansen 

(1999).

 Clarke and Goldstein (2002); Wright (1994).

 Fennelly (1996).

 Felson and Clarke (1998).

 Cromwell, Olsen, and Avary (2002); White (1990).

 Boba (2005); Duff (1999).

 Boba (2005).

 Berg and Hinze (2005); O’Malley (2005).

 Bradley (2005).

 Clarke and Goldstein (2002); Barrios (2005); Boba 

(2005).

 Clarke and Goldstein (2002).

 Eck (2002).

 Boba (2005).

 Santos and Boba (2005).

 Clarke and Goldstein (2002).

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 
44 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

 O’Malley (2005).

 Heselbarth (1999).

 Crime Prevention Victoria and City of Casey (2003).

 Butler (1994).

 Anderson (1999); Construction Industry Crime 

Prevention Program (2005); Construction Industry 

Advancement Program of New Jersey (2005); 

Heselbarth (1999).

 Parilla, Hollinger, and Clark (1988).

 Traub (1996); Greenberg (1997).

 Construction Industry Crime Prevention Program 

(2005).

 Farrington and Welsh (2002).

 Crime Prevention Victoria and City of Casey (2003).

 Painter and Tilley (1999); Welsh and Farrington 

(2004); Gill and Spriggs (2005).

 Roberts (2005).

 Crime Prevention Victoria and City of Casey (2003).

 Laycock (1991).

 Crime Prevention Victoria and City of Casey (2003).

 Crime Prevention Victoria and City of Casey (2003).

 Fass and Francis (2004).

 Weisburd and Eck (2004).

 Langworthy and LeBeau (1992).

 Decker, Wright, and Logie (1993).

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 
References 45

References

Alberta Report. “A Program to Reduce Construction Theft.” 

July 12, 1999.

Anderson, J. “Battling Construction Theft: Contractors 

Lose Millions in Work Site Rip-offs: But Clark County 

Detectives and an Industry Group are Pursuing Thieves.” 

The Columbian (Vancouver, Washington), June 27, 1999.

Barrios, J. “Building Frenzy Spurs Rise in Home Site Theft.” 

Arizona Daily Star, Feb. 6, 2005.

Bellett, G. “High-End Appliances Get GPS Locator Chips: 

Rash of Thefts in B.C.: New Homes Stripped of Fridges, 

Stoves Worth $15,000 Each.” National Post (Canada), Jan. 

14, 2004.

Berg, R., and J. Hinze (2005). “Theft and Vandalism on 

Construction Sites.” Journal of Construction Engineering and 

Management 131(7):826-833.

Boba, R. (2005). Single-Family Construction Site Burglary and 

Theft in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Draft report to the U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services.

Bouffard, K. “Construction Site Thieves Profit from Building 

Boom: Burglars Grab All Tools and Supplies Not Nailed 

Down.” The Detroit News, May 7, 2004.

Bradley, D. “Construction-Site Thefts Escalate.” The Seattle 

Times, March 13, 2005.

Butler, G. (1994). “Commercial Burglary: What Offenders Say.” 

In M. Gill (ed.), Crime at Work: Studies in Security and Crime 

Prevention, Vol. 1. Leicester (England): Perpetuity Press.
46 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Clarke, R., and H. Goldstein (2002). “Reducing Theft at 

Construction Sites: Lessons From a Problem-Oriented 

Project.” In N. Tilley (ed.), Analysis for Crime Prevention. 

Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 13. Monsey (New York): 

Criminal Justice Press.

Construction Industry Crime Prevention Program (2005). 

“Working Together for the Security of Our Industry.” 

Available at www.cicpnoca.com.

Construction Industry Advancement Program of New Jersey 

(2005). “Theft Prevention.” Edison, N.J.: Construction 

Industry Advance Program of New Jersey.

Crime Prevention Victoria and City of Casey (2003). Building 

Site Crime Prevention Initiative: Final Report, August 2001-June 

2002. Melbourne: Crime Prevention Victoria and City of 

Casey.

Cromwell, P., J. Olson and D. Avary (2002). “Decision 

Strategies of Residential Burglars.” In P. Cromwell (ed.), 

In Their Own Words: Criminals on Crime: An Anthology. 3rd

ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Decker, S., R. Wright and R. Logie (1993). “Perceptual 

Deterrence Among Active Residential Burglars: A 

Research Note.” Criminology 31(1):135-147.

Duff, K. “Builders Tell How to Fight On-Site Construction 

Theft.” Business Journal (Phoenix, Arizona), Nov. 26, 1999.

Eck, J. (2002). “Preventing Crime at Places.” In L. Sherman, 

D. Farrington, B. Welsh and D. MacKenzie (eds.), 

Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London, New York: 

Routledge.
References 47

Farrington, D., and B. Welsh (2002). Effects of Improved 

Street Lighting and Crime: A Systematic Review. Home 

Office Research Study, No. 251. London: Home Office 

Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Fass, S., and J. Francis (2004). “Where have all the hot goods 

gone? The role of pawnshops.” Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 41(2):156-179.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004). Crime in the United 

States 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice.

Felson, M., and R. Clarke (1998). Opportunity Makes the Thief: 

Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Police Research Series, 

Paper 98. London: Home Office Policing and Reducing 

Crime Unit.

Fennelly, L. (ed.) (1996). Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime 

Prevention. 3rd ed. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gill, M., and A. Spriggs (2005). Assessing the Impact of CCTV. 

Home Office Research Study, No. 292. London: Home 

Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Greenberg, J. (1997). “The STEAL Motive: Managing the 

Social Determinants of Employee Theft.” In Giacalone, 

R., and J. Greenberg (eds.), Antisocial Behavior in 

Organizations. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage.

Hansen, P. (1999). “A Billion Here and a Billion There, And 

Soon You’re Talking Real Money. A Guide to Theft and 

Vandalism Control.” Constructor, November, Vol. LXXXI, 

No. 11:1-4. Alexandria (Virginia): Associated General 

Contractors of America.
48 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Heselbarth, R. (1999). “Crime and Discouragement.” Contractor

46(10):26-27, 80.

Lambertson, G. (2005). “Law Enforcement Focuses on 

Construction Site Theft.” Available at www.cegltd.com/

story.asp?story=5408&headline=Law.

Langworthy, R., and J. LeBeau (1992). “The Spatial Evolution of a 

Sting Clientele.” Journal of Criminal Justice 20:135-146.

Laycock, G. (1991). “Operation Identification Or the Power of 

Publicity?” Security Journal 2(2):67-72.

O’Malley, S. (2005). “Homeland Security: Thieves Steal $4 Billion 

A Year from American Jobsites. Here Are 10 Steps to Help 

Protect Yours.” Building Products, May-June.

Painter, K., and N. Tilley, eds. (1999). Surveillance of Public Space: 

CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention 

Studies, Vol. 10. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.

Parilla, P., R. Hollinger and J. Clark (1988). “Organizational 

Control of Deviant Behavior: The Case of Employee 

Theft.” Social Science Quarterly 69(2):261-280.

Patton, N. “Even the Kitchen Sinks Are Swiped: Metro 

Construction-Site Thefts on the Rise.” Detroit Free Press, 

March 14, 2005.

Piquero, A., and G. Rengert (1999). “Studying Deterrence with 

Active Residential Burglars.” Justice Quarterly 16:451-471.

Roberts, M. (2005). “Builders Construct Better Security.” Security 

Management 49(5):24-25.
References 49

Sanchez, R. “Construction (Theft) Boom: Stealing From 

Building Sites a Nightly Problem for Developers; 

Lumber, Appliances, Tools Taken.” Denver Rocky Mountain 

News, Nov. 12, 2000.

Santos, R., and R. Boba (2005). “Problem Analysis Case 

Study: Single Family Construction Site Burglary and 

Theft.” Presentation at the International Association of 

Crime Analysts, Alexandria (Virginia).

Scarcella, M. “Work Site Bandits Cash in on Growth: In 

Manatee, Authorities Use Helicopters and Infrared 

Cameras to Try to Stop the Theft of Building Materials.” 

Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 7, 2005.

Scicchitano, M., T. Johns, R. Hayes and R. Blackwood (2004). 

“Peer Reporting to Control Employee Theft.” Security 

Journal 17(2):7-19.

Traub, S. (1996). “Battling Employee Crime: A Review of 

Corporate Strategies and Programs.” Crime and Delinquency

42(2):244-256.

Weisburd, D., and J. Eck (2004). “What can police do to 

reduce crime, disorder, and fear?” The ANNALS of the 

American Academy of Political and Social Science 593:42-65.

Welsh, B., and D. Farrington (2004). “Evidence-Based Crime 

Prevention: The Effectiveness of CCTV.” Crime Prevention 

and Community Safety: An International Journal 6(2):21-33.

White, G. (1990). “Neighborhood Permeability and Burglary 

Rates.” Justice Quarterly 7(1):58-67.

Wright, R. (1994). Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and Residential 

Break-Ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

About the Authors 51

About the Authors

Rachel Boba

Rachel Boba is an assistant professor of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University. She teaches 

methods of research, criminal justice systems, crime prevention, 

problem solving, and analysis in policing, as well as conducting 

research in the areas of problem solving, accountability, problem 

analysis, and crime analysis. Previously, Dr. Boba was Director 

of the Police Foundation’s Crime Mapping Laboratory, where she 

directed federally funded grants in the areas of crime analysis 

and crime mapping, problem analysis, and school safety. She 

has also worked as a crime analyst at the Tempe, Arizona Police 

Department, where she conducted a wide variety of crime 

analysis. Most recently, Dr. Boba has published the book Crime 

Analysis and Crime Mapping with Sage Publications, Inc., one of 

the first crime analysis books for undergraduate and graduate 

students. Dr. Boba holds a doctorate and master’s degree in 

sociology from Arizona State University. 

Roberto Santos

Roberto Santos is currently detective sergeant of the persons 

crime section and team leader of the crisis negotiation unit at the 

Port St. Lucie (Florida) Police Department. He has held positions 

in patrol, SWAT, criminal investigations, and narcotics. Prior to 

his law enforcement career, Sergeant Santos was a sergeant in the 

United States Marine Corps. In addition, he has instructed at the 

police academy and is an adjunct professor at Florida Atlantic 

University. He has extensive experience in police problem solving 

and problem analysis and has conducted numerous trainings 

sessions and seminars around the country. Sergeant Santos has a 

master’s degree in criminology and criminal justice from Florida 

Atlantic University and a bachelor’s degree in business from Barry 

University. 

Recommended Readings 53

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.
54 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

• 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 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

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

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 55

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

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

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

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

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

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

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

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

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency.
56 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

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

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

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

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety 

Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by 

Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case 

studies of effective police problem-solving on 18 types of 

crime and disorder problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

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

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

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

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and 

Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

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

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

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

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

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

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

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

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. 

Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

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

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3
58 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 59

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. 

Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1
60 Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Domestic Violence

Bank Robbery

Drive-by Shootings

Disorder at Day Laborer Sites

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Robbery of Convenience Stores

Theft from Cars on Streets

Problem-Solving Tools

Risky Facilities

Implementing Responses to Problems

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Response Guides

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem Solving

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e08064509 Updated: August 25, 2006

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2