U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 60

Theft of Customers' 

Personal Property 

in Cafés and Bars

Shane D. Johnson

Kate J. Bowers

Lorraine Gamman

Loreen Mamerow

Anna Warne

j.gov www.cops.usdo

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 60

Theft of Customers' Personal 

Property in Cafés and Bars

Shane D. Johnson

Kate J. Bowers

Lorraine Gamman

Loreen Mamerow

Anna Warne

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

2007-CK-WX-K008 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office). 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author 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.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of April 

2010. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither 

the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.

© 2010 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

April 2010

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific 

Guide 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 problemoriented 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 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

• 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. 

• 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, nongovernmental 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 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

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 philosophy that 

promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic 

use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively 

address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety 

issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” 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 problemsolving 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. 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 each guide is anonymously peerreviewed by a line police officer, a police executive and a researcher 

prior to publication. The review process is independently managed by 

the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 
iv Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. 

This website offers free online access to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series,

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving 

Tools series, 

• special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism,

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing and 

related topics, 

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise,

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module, 

• online access to important police research and practices, and

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences and 

award programs. 
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). In addition to the 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 

guide’s format and style in the early stages of the project.

Debra Cohen, PhD oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Phyllis Schultze conducted research for the guide at Rutgers 

University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach coordinated 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. 

Katharine Willis edited this guide.

The project team would also like to thank Spike Spondike (Design 

Against Crime Research Centre at Central Saint Martins, London) 

and Aiden Sidebottom (UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime 

Science, University College London) for useful suggestions.

Acknowledgments v

Contents vii
viii Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Process Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Intermediate Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Ultimate Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Displacement and Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . .19

Specific Responses to Reduce Theft 

in Cafés and Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Improving Opportunities for Secure but Convenient Storage . . . . .21

Registration, Recovery, and Removing Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Raising Awareness of Risk and Personal Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Increasing Guardianship and Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Licensing, Management, and Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Detection Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Theft of Customers’ 

Personal Property in Cafés and Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix B: Websites Featuring Products Designed to Reduce 

the Risk of Theft in Cafés and Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
The Problem of Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars 1

§

Here, a bar is defined as a business 

that serves drinks, including alcohol, 

for consumption on the premises, 

while a café is defined as a facility 

where meals and non-alcoholic drinks 

are served and consumed. Bars do 

vary considerably and may include 

“neighborhood” bars, jazz clubs, wine 

bars, and dance clubs (Madensen 

and Eck, 2008). Note that typical 

restaurants are not included here.

The Problem of Theft of Customers’ 

Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

We begin this guide by describing the problem of theft of 

customers’ personal property from cafés and bars and reviewing 

associated risk factors. We then identify a series of questions to 

help you analyze your local problem, and, finally, review responses 

to this type of problem. At present, evaluative research—whether 

carried out independently or by the police—is scarce; consequently 

it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions as to which responses 

to theft of customers’ personal property from cafés and bars are 

the most effective. Nevertheless, we review several responses to this 

problem and make tentative statements as to their effectiveness.

Theft of customers’ personal property from cafés and bars is one 

aspect of the larger set of theft- and property-related problems. This 

guide, however, is limited to addressing the particular harms created 

by the unlawful removal of customers’ personal property from cafés 

and bars. Table 1 on page 2 shows some of the different types of 

theft that might occur in a café or bar environment and the extent to 

which the offender is visible to the victim at the time of the offense. 

Unless otherwise stated, the phrase ‘theft of customers’ personal 

property’ will be used interchangeably with ‘theft in cafés and bars.’

For the purpose of this guide, the two types of problems—theft 

from customers in cafés and theft from customers in bars§—are 

considered together but independently from the crimes of larceny/

theft/robbery in general for the following reasons. The two types of 

premises (and associated victims and offenders) share a number of 

characteristics that contribute to the crime problems experienced. 

Consequently there is considerable overlap in terms of the types 

of appropriate crime reduction tactics. To elaborate, both types 

of premises are semi-private spaces that provide similar services 

and the opportunity for social interaction. Both generally have 

a substantial turnover of patrons, comprising both regulars and 

infrequent visitors. In both types of facilities the likelihood of crime 

occurrence is a function of many things, including: 1) the type of 
2 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

Snatch offenses differ from personal 

robbery because there is no violence 

or threat of violence associated with 

them.

§§Place managers monitor places 

and are therefore in a position to 

discourage crime (Eck, 1994).

Table 1: Different Types of Theft that Occur in Cafés and Bars.

Offender Anonymity

High Low

Victim not Victim present Offender visible Offender seen 

present but unaware of to victim but by victim

offender not recognized 

as such

Type of Offense

Unattended Pocket-picking Distraction Snatch offenses§

bag theft and similar theft

offenses 

involving stealth

security employed, both in terms of staff (and their training) and 

physical measures; 2) the internal layout of the facility; and 3) the 

types of people who frequent the property and the purposes of their 

visits. To some extent at least, each factor is within the managers’ 

influence. Moreover, cafés and bars are likely to be subject to similar 

legal regulations that might be useful when trying to encourage 

certain responses from place managers§§, or that place managers 

might use to achieve desired outcomes. 

Although cafés and bars display similar crime-related characteristics, 

they also exhibit differences that are worth considering. For 

example, dance or nightclubs might leave women patrons 

especially vulnerable to bag theft because bags are often poorly 

attended to while they are dancing. On the other hand, café 

patrons might be more at risk of laptop computer theft because 

they are more likely to take them to such facilities. In what follows, 

these differences will be highlighted where they are important to 

crime-prevention planning. 
The Problem of Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars 3

§

According to the U.S. Census Bureau 

(2000), in 1997 there were nearly 7,000 

coffee shops in the United States, and 

more than 52,000 licensed venues. 

Recent figures suggest there are more 

than 21,400 coffee shops in the United 

States. In 2007, there were about 

51,000 licensed bars in the United 

Kingdom alone.

Related Problems

Related problems not directly addressed in detail in this guide 

(those with asterisks are briefly touched upon), each of which 

requires separate analysis, include:

• Robbery

• Theft outside of cafés and bars

• Assaults in and around bars

• Crime against tourists

• Theft by employees*

• Identity theft*

• Check and card fraud*

• Cell phone theft*

Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in 

this series, all of which are listed at the end of this guide. For 

the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, visit 

www.popcenter.org.

General Description of the Problem

Theft of customers’ personal property from cafés and bars is a 

problem that has largely been overlooked in research literature. 

Reasons for this—discussed in more detail below—are that many 

crimes go unreported and data are rarely recorded or analyzed by 

crime reduction agencies in a way that would draw attention to the 

extent of the problem. However, the problem is substantial, serious, 

and could increase over time, meaning that addressing it is important.

Popularity of Cafés and Bars

There have always been large numbers of bars in the United States 

and elsewhere§. However, the popularity of coffee shops and other 

types of cafés has risen steadily. For example, in 1990 there were 

approximately 200 freestanding coffee houses in the United States. 

In 2004, there were more than 14,000.1 This impacts the volume 

of crime that occurs at these types of locations. Simply put, if 

there are more cafés and bars, more people will visit them, and the 

opportunities for crime in such establishments will increase.
4 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

§§This estimate is based on 1,001 

surveys conducted in 2004 in a New 

York City using a random sample of 

the population.

§§§For the New York City sample 

of the ICVS, the rates per 1,000 

population at risk were 23, 19, and 66 

for the crimes of robbery, burglary, and 

theft from vehicle respectively.

The Extent of the Problem and Measurement 

Issues

Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)2

suggest that only one-third of completed thefts in the United States 

are reported to the police. Even when victims do report offenses 

to the police, the extent of the problem may still be distorted. For 

example, the victim may be unaware that an offense has occurred 

and report the stolen item(s) as lost property.3 Furthermore, police 

might not consider reported incidents serious enough to formally 

record them.

Analysis of police-recorded crime data is also problematic as there 

is no specific category for recording thefts of customers’ personal 

property from cafés and bars. For example, in the United States, 

these crimes are recorded under the general category of larceny,

which refers to the taking of money or property where no force or 

threat thereof occurs. Because this is a general category, statistics 

are not routinely available for the specific crimes that are the focus 

of this guide, and figures can be derived only when sufficient 

additional information is recorded about the location of offenses. 

In the United States, summary data regarding pocket picking 

and purse snatching, for example, are readily available as part 

of the analysis of Uniform Crime Reports published by the U.S. 

Department of Justice§. Data regarding theft in cafés and bars 

are not. 

Data from the International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) and 

the European Survey on Crime and Safety (EU ICS) provide an 

estimate of crime risk across 30 countries and the 33 main cities 

within them. The estimated rate of personal property theft in 2004 

in the United States§§ was 77 (pocket picking = 33) crimes per 

1,000 population at risk4. In London (U.K.), the corresponding 

figure was 102 (pocket picking = 52) crimes per 1,000 population 

at risk. These rates are higher than those for other types of 

acquisitive crime covered in the survey§§§. 
The Problem of Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars 5

§

In fact, the highest risk of theft 

in cafés and bars is likely to be 

concentrated within a relatively 

short period of time rather than 

being consistent throughout the day 

(Smith et al., 2006). This pattern is 

also referred to as an “acute” temporal 

clustering of crimes (Ratcliffe, 2004).

Although official statistics for theft in cafés and bars are not publicly 

available, summary data from a large-city police force in the United 

States are instructive. The data relate to grand larceny crimes 

recorded in 2004. Of the total recorded, one-quarter occurred 

in bars/clubs or eateries. Unfortunately data were unavailable for 

suburban or rural agencies at the time of this writing, but we suggest 

that bars are high-risk facilities in most contexts. 

Consideration of where pocket-picking and purse-snatching 

offenses occur is also instructive. Analyses of the NCVS 20065

indicate that just under one-quarter of all offenses occurred in bars, 

restaurants, and nightclubs. Similarly, secondary analysis of 2006 

British Crime Survey (BCS) data suggests that about one-quarter 

of cell phone thefts occur in such facilities. 

However, the above statistics consider only a fraction of the crimes 

that occur in bars. The results from a study conducted in a chain of 

bars licensed to sell alcohol in London (U.K.) provide more detail. 

Over two years ( January 2005 to December 2006), police recorded 

a total of 1,023 incidents of theft in the 26 bars considered.6 This 

equates to about 1.5 crimes per day across the 26 establishments. 

Put another way, the rate of crime across the bars, expressed as the 

number of crimes per seats available, equated to 101 crimes per 

1,000 seats per year.

These calculations are limited because they do not account for the 

amount of time patrons are exposed to the risk of this crime type. 

For example, houses may be burgled at any time. However, people 

can be victimized in bars only when they are in them. As this is 

usually less than 24 hours§, the quoted rates underestimate the 

actual risk. 

To summarize, measuring the extent of theft in cafés and bars is 

difficult due to the way these crimes are recorded. Nevertheless, 

available estimates suggest that the risk of this type of crime is 

greater than that for other types of acquisitive crime.
6 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

In a study conducted in London 

(U.K.), 89 percent of victims did 

not notice the crime occurring and 

35 percent realized an offense had 

occurred only when they were about 

to leave the bar (Smith et al., 2006).

Clearance Rates and Offenders

According to data from the NCVS, arrests are made for about 

4 percent of cases of pocket picking or snatch theft. For theft in 

general the figure is less than 1 percent. Reasons for low-detection 

rates include: 1) the problem of identification—items stolen 

are rarely registered to the rightful owner in a way that would 

facilitate their identification if recovered; and 2) theft of this kind 

is generally a crime of stealth§, so the victim is unlikely to be able to 

provide a description of the offender. 

As a consequence of low clearance rates, systematic data about the 

types of offenders who commit theft in cafés and bars are lacking. 

These offenders may have the same profile as pocket-pickers, or 

the possibility exists that they may be employees. For example, 

some research suggests that there is a significant amount of theft 

by employees in retail stores.7 Moreover, conversations with 

police officers in the United States suggest that some café and bar 

employees are arrested for committing theft in the establishments in 

which they work.

Spatial Concentration

As with many forms of crime, the incidence of theft in bars is not 

random. The Washington Post noted that almost all incidents of 

purse thefts in restaurants and bars occurred in three of the city’s 

seven police districts.8 Analysis of crimes at a sample of 26 bars in 

London (U.K.) showed that about 60 percent of thefts occurred in 

only 20 percent of the premises considered.9 Although analyses of 

thefts in cafés are unavailable, the pattern of concentration described 

has so far proven to be so consistent for other crime types that we are 

willing to speculate the same would hold true here.10

Research also suggests that the risk of theft in bars may cluster 

within bars. The hotspot map in Figure 1—reproduced from an 

earlier study11—indicates that bag theft was unevenly distributed. 

There appears to be an elevated risk around the south but not the 

north entrance. 
The Problem of Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars 7

Perpetrator Techniques

Offenders use a variety of techniques to steal from others 

depending on a range of factors such as the type of place, the 

time of day, the items targeted, the victim, and the offender(s) 

themselves. Some common techniques are described below (a 

one-page illustrated summary of which can be found at www.

designagainstcrime.com/index.php?q=perpetratortechniques):

• Lifting: Picking up property from a table, a chair, or the floor 

while the victim is not looking

• Dipping: Reaching into the victim’s pocket, purse, or bag

• Snatching: Pulling the property off of or away from the victim 

and then fleeing

• Slashing: Cutting the property loose from the victim; e.g., 

cutting purse straps to steal a bag

• Distraction: Creating a scene, asking for directions, or otherwise 

distracting the victim’s attention from his or her property.

Figure 1. An Example of a Micro-Environmental Hotspot to 

Show How Risk Varies within a Bar.

Source: Shane D. Johnson
8 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

The economic costs of thefts in 

cafés are unavailable, but, according 

to NCVS results, victims of pocket 

picking (one technique used for this 

type of crime) lose about $32 million 

per year. 

Bag thieves do not always work alone. Working in teams is 

especially fruitful in distraction offenses.12 For such offenses, a ‘stall’ 

often stops the victim (e.g., by asking for the time) while a ‘blocker’ 

obstructs the victim’s view so the theft goes unnoticed. Sometimes, 

a third party takes the stolen items from the pocket-picker.13

Victims

Although it is not always possible to identify those most at risk 

of theft in cafés and bars, several risk/protective factors have been 

identified for the general crime of theft. Analyses of NCVS data 

suggest that individuals between the ages of 16 and 19 are at the 

greatest risk of purse-snatching or pocket-picking offenses.14 There do 

not appear to be gender differences in the risk of these types of crime.

Results from the BCS suggest that people who visit cafés and bars 

three or more times a week are at more than twice the risk of theft 

(snatch and stealth) than those who do not.15 One reason for this 

may be that those with active social lives are simply exposed to the 

risk of crime more of the time. However, it may also suggest that 

cafés and bars are particularly risky facilities for this type of crime.

Analysis of 965 incidents of police-recorded crime data ( January 

2005-December 2006) concerning bag theft in a chain of London 

(U.K.) pubs conducted for this guide indicated that, in contrast to 

the pattern observed for theft, 85 percent of victims were female 

and most were between the ages of 21 and 25. Also, younger 

females (under 25) were at a greater risk of victimization than older 

females (26-50). For males the reverse was true. Additionally, forms 

of identification such as driving licenses or passports, were more 

frequently stolen from younger customers (presumably because they 

need these to enter the bar).

Harms Caused by Theft in Cafés and Bars

The most immediate impacts of this type of crime are borne by 

victims. Costs include the replacement of stolen goods§, lost output 

due to time taken off work to report the crime and conduct related 

business such as canceling stolen credit cards, and coping with any 

injuries sustained. When personal identification is stolen, the risk 
The Problem of Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars 9

§

See Problem-Specific Guide No. 25, 

Identity Theft, for further information.

§§See Problem-Specific Guide No. 

21, Check and Card Fraud, for further 

information.

§§§Other reasons could be that 

customers leave property unattended 

when they visit the bar or restroom. 

Also, because of legislation banning 

smoking in cafés and bars in many 

states in the United States and 

everywhere in the United Kingdom, 

customers may leave their property 

unattended when going outside for 

a cigarette.

of identity theft may be significant.§ To illustrate, in one study an 

interviewed offender stated: “Stolen handbags were the source 

(of personal identification stolen) I am afraid. Women are more 

susceptible than men because of where they carry their handbags...

hot targets were shoe shops and coffee shops [because of the high 

tables].”16 Moreover, analysis of identity theft in the United States 

indicates that in about one-third of cases, the identification used 

in the offense was acquired from a lost or stolen purse or wallet.17

Given this link to identity theft (and credit card fraud§§), what 

might be thought of as a trivial crime should perhaps be considered 

a more serious crime multiplier, where one crime facilitates others.

Thefts in cafés and bars can also affect business revenue. For 

example, in one study, one-quarter of theft victims reported they 

intended to avoid the venue in the future.18 Of course, as with any 

crime, there is also a cost to the criminal justice system. 

Factors Contributing to the Problem 

The following section outlines factors that contribute to theft in 

cafés and bars. Understanding these will help you frame your own 

local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, 

recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

Location of Personal Property

Analysis of bag theft in bars in London (U.K.) indicates that where 

bags are placed influences crime risk.19 Bags left on the floor or 

on the back of customers’ chairs are at about twice the average 

risk, whereas bags placed on tables or on the person were at a 

much lower risk (1/6th and 1/27th of the average, respectively). 

Obviously, the risk is highest for unattended bags; the study 

reported that in at least one-third of recorded thefts, the bag was 

unattended at the time of the offense. This suggests that (personal) 

guardianship of customers’ property is often ineffective perhaps 

because the provision of suitable storage facilities (particularly for 

bulky items) is insufficient, forcing patrons to leave items in risky 

locations such as the floor.§§§
10 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

Hot products are those items favored 

by thieves. They tend to have a high 

value-to-weight ratio and are easy to 

dispose of. Cash is the ultimate hot 

product as it requires no work before 

the offender can use it.

§§See Problem-Specific Guide No. 25, 

Identity Theft, for further information.

§§§Considering cell phone theft, there 

is little difference in the two figures 

(dipping versus theft of the entire 

bag). Cell phones are specifically 

targeted, but the results suggest they 

are not targeted as much as other 

CRAVED items during dipping 

offenses. However, the analysis 

focused only on theft of or from bags. 

Cell phones are not always in bags and 

are often left on tables in cafés and 

bars. Such incidents were unavailable 

for analysis.

§§§§For more on this, see 

Kitteringham (2008).

Many establishments do provide some sort of storage for personal 

items. These range from coat and bag hooks in semi-secure storage 

such as bag/coat checks to secure storage such as lockers. The risk 

of theft is likely to be reduced when these are used; however, there 

is generally only anecdotal evidence to show this. 

CRAVED Goods

Of course, an offender’s readiness to offend is reduced when there is 

little to be gained. In the case of theft, at least some of the items that 

people routinely carry on their person—and hence found in high 

concentrations in cafés and bars—satisfy the acronym CRAVED, 

which defines a hot product§: Concealable, Removable, Available, 

Valuable, Enjoyable, and Disposable.20 Three CRAVED items that 

most people have when frequenting cafés and bars are cash, credit/

debit cards, and some form of identification. Cash and credit cards 

are CRAVED for reasons that require no explanation. Identification 

is valuable to thieves for the purpose of identity theft.§§

Table 2—generated from a re-analysis of a London-based study21—

indicates that items fitting the CRAVED profile are those most 

frequently stolen. The first two columns indicate whether an 

offender acquired stolen items by stealing a bag and all of its 

contents or by dipping into the bag and selecting particular items. 

The third column indicates how much more likely a particular item 

was to be taken when specifically targeted (i.e., dipped) than when 

stolen as part of the contents of an entire bag. It appears that four of 

the five§§§ CRAVED items shown in the table not only are likely to 

be stolen during thefts in bars, but are more likely to be specifically 

targeted, suggesting evidence of offender targeting decisions.

Laptop computers are another hot product that are often stolen 

but not necessarily stored in bags.22 The availability of wireless 

connectivity in many cafés, coffee shops, and bars means that 

laptops are routinely used at and found on table tops at these 

venues. Moreover, laptops make good targets for thieves as 

customers are often distracted in these environments and laptops 

are rarely secured.§§§§
The Problem of Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars 11

§

Some companies within the cell 

phone industry are developing 

software to secure cell phones in case 

of theft. Proposed remote functions 

include locking the cell phone, 

wiping sensitive information, and 

automatically sending text messages 

to pre-designated numbers if the sim 

card is changed without the owner’s 

authorization. Similar technology 

exists for laptops (Brandt, 2006).

§§Brantingham and Brantingham 

(1995) suggest that a high volume of 

crime may occur at certain facilities 

simply because large numbers 

of people congregate at them. A 

high density of people will create 

opportunities for crime that may be 

exploited by offenders who happen to 

be there, but who did not necessarily 

visit the facility to commit crime. At 

such facilities, referred to as crime 

generators, the volume of crime 

will be high, but the risk of crime 

(=volume/population at risk) low. In 

contrast, crime attractors are facilities 

that offenders know provide good 

opportunities for crime and they will 

travel to them to offend. At such 

facilities the risk of crime will be high, 

but the volume of crime need not be.

Table 2. Items Stolen in Bars as a Result of the Theft of the 

Entire Bag or Dipped from the Bag.

Bag Taken Items Dipped 

(%) from Bag (%) Ratio

Credit cards/Cash* 30 53 1.77

Passports/Visas* 5 8 1.60

Driving Licenses* 5 8 1.60

Purse/Wallet* 39 51 1.31

Cell Phones 32 29 0.91

Keys 9 3 0.33

Cosmetics 2 0.3 0.15

Optical Equipment 2.4 0.3 0.13

Audio Equipment 3 0.3 0.10

* CRAVED items

Considering future trends, it is worth noting that cell phone 

functionality is continually advancing. Current models routinely 

feature MP3 players and high resolution cameras. However, 

the “smart wallet technology”23, which will allow users to pay 

electronically for goods and services using their cell phone, is a 

significant change in functionality that is likely to appeal to thieves. 

If this technology becomes ubiquitous, cell phone theft is likely to 

increase and the types of associated multiplier crimes (e.g., identity 

theft) will become even more serious.§ Other payment technologies 

that allow consumers to pay for goods wirelessly are also likely to 

make theft from the person an increasingly attractive crime.

Cafés and Bars as Generators and Attractors 

of Crime

Cafés and bars generate and attract theft§§, perhaps more so than 

other facilities, due to:

1. Density of static opportunities – Large numbers of people 

congregating in cafés and bars generates opportunities for 

crime. Unlike on-street populations, patrons of cafés and bars 

are stationary for periods of time making them easier to target.
12 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

2. Divided attention – In both types of venues, the movement of 

people, noise, social interaction, and other factors mean patrons 

are distracted.24 In licensed premises, the availability of alcohol, 

loud music, and the opportunity to dance might be particularly 

significant.

3. Lack of cohesion – Various groups of people tend to frequent 

cafés and bars (local taverns being an exception) meaning that 

community territoriality is unlikely, limiting any self-policing 

that might otherwise occur.

4. Population turnover – The population is often transitory, 

varying from one period to the next, meaning strangers and 

offenders are likely to go unnoticed.

5. Valuable goods – Patrons likely carry CRAVED goods. 

This may be particularly true in metropolitan areas, in large 

concentrations of shoppers, and when people are going to or 

from work.

6. Stealth – Busy venues provide the anonymity necessary to 

commit offenses.
Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized description 

of theft in cafés and bars. You must combine the basic facts with 

a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing 

the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective 

response strategy. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have 

an interest in the problem of theft in cafés and bars and should 

be considered for the contribution they might make to gathering 

information about the problem and responding to it:

• Elected and appointed local government officials

• Community planning organizations

• Insurance companies

• City planning agencies

• Liquor licensing agencies

• Cell phone companies

• Agencies with an interest in identity theft

• Chains of and independent cafés, coffee shops, and bars 

• Business associations and economic development organizations

• College and university campuses.

Asking the Right Questions

Following are some critical questions you should ask when 

analyzing your particular theft problem, even if the answers are not 

always readily available. Your answers to these and other questions 

will help you define and understand your local problem and choose 

the most appropriate set of responses later on.

Incidents

• Are incidents of theft in cafés and bars recorded in a way that 

aids analysis of your local problem?

• Are there alternative administrative means of logging minor 

crime reports that might cause you to be unaware of them? 
14 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

• How much of the problem goes unreported or unrecorded? 

• What is stolen during thefts? Does this vary by time of day? 

Are identification cards “hot”? Do thieves discard certain items? 

If so, is it clear what they are targeting?

• What is the financial value of recorded losses?

• Are stolen ATM cards used post-offense? If so, how quickly are 

they used? Where are the ATMs that thieves use? Are they near 

offense locations?

• What perpetrator techniques are common? Do they vary by 

venue type or location?

• Is the theft of entire bags a substantial problem? If so, where 

were the bags placed (e.g., table, floor) when they were stolen?

• Do cafés and bars themselves record incidents of theft? If so, are 

the data available?

Victims 

• Who is harmed by theft in cafés and bars (e.g., customers, 

business owners)?

• Are there any noticeable patterns in victim demographics? Age? 

Gender? Occupation?

• Are women at a greater risk than men?

• Are particular individuals repeatedly victimized? If so, why?

• At the time of theft, are victims intoxicated? Are they in large 

groups?

• Are victims sitting or standing at the time of the offense?

• In nightclubs, are victims on the dance floor at the time of 

the offense?

• Are different types of items stolen from different types of 

victims (e.g., males and females, younger and older)?
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

§

See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 6, Understanding Risky Facilities, 

for further information. 

§§Anecdotal evidence suggests that 

some thieves watch people at ATMs 

(sometimes referred to as shoulder 

surfing) to acquire their PIN number 

and then later attempt to steal their 

purse or wallet when, for example, 

they leave their bags unattended or in 

vulnerable locations in cafés and bars.

§§§Smith et al. (2006) found that 

thefts in a chain of bars tended to 

occur when the bar was at around 60 

percent capacity or above (as estimated 

by the victim), at around 6:00 p.m., 

and within 75 minutes of the victim 

visiting the bar. Where there are hot 

times, an increase in guardianship at 

that time of day is more likely to be 

effective than when the risk of crime 

is more uniform over the course of 

the day.

§§§§See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 3, Using Offender Interviews to 

Inform Police Problem Solving, for 

further information.

Locations and Times

• Are some types of venues riskier than others?§ Are certain venue 

chains riskier than others? Are particular venues repeatedly 

victimized?

• How do high-risk facilities differ from low-risk venues? Are 

bags/items frequently left unattended? Is there a lack of secure 

storage? Are there few capable guardians empowered to act? Do 

they have a higher volume of patrons? 

• Are there spatial hotspots? Does the area have a feature, such as 

a large number of ATMs, that attracts thieves?§§

• Are there spates of incidents at bars and cafés that are near each 

other?

• Are there theft hotspots within cafés or bars (e.g., near the door 

or at the bar)? Why do thefts occur at these locations?

• What type of clientele frequent risky locations (by time of day)? 

Workers? Shoppers? Students? Young people? Mixed groups? 

• When do most thefts occur (by time of day, etc.)? Is the timing 

related to the number (or crowding) of customers in the café or 

bar?§§§ Do patterns vary across different types of venues?

• Are there local seasonal variations in the problem?

• Are discarded (stolen) items routinely recovered at particular 

locations? For example, are they found in restrooms? If so, this 

may provide insight into the sequence of steps thieves take, 

which may inform crime reduction.

Offenders

• How many offenders work alone? How many co-offend? 

How do co-offenders work together? Why do they co-offend? 

(Arrested offenders are a good source of information, but they 

may differ from active offenders in important ways and may be 

reluctant to talk.)§§§§

• Do they prefer overt or covert methods of committing thefts?

• Do the same offenders commit multiple crimes (are they repeat 

offenders)? If so, how prolific are they?
16 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Current Responses

• What types of storage facilities are available?

• Is there an active registration scheme for cell phones? What 

proportion of stolen phones is registered?

• What proportion of and types of items are recovered?

• What proportion of offenses results in arrest?

• Is lighting sufficient at high-crime venues? 

• What proportion of thefts is recorded on Closed Circuit 

Television (CCTV)? Do cameras cover venues’ high-risk 

locations? Is the lighting at those locations adequate for 

identification purposes? Are cameras overt or covert?

• Is anything being done to encourage patrons to secure bags 

and other items? Are patrons encouraged to avoid leaving bags 

unattended?

• Does the establishment post signs advising patrons to guard 

personal property?

• Is there any post-event advice or care for theft victims? How do 

staff respond to victims? Are door staff trained and expected to 

identify vulnerable property and suspicious persons? 

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your 

responses if they are not producing intended results. You should 

take measures of your problem before you implement responses to 

determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement 

them to determine whether they have been effective. All measures 

should be taken in both the target area and the surrounding and/or 

non-target area. For detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, 

see Problem-Solving Tool Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to 

Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

The types of data collected will depend on the particular problem 

to be addressed and the intervention(s) implemented. For example, 

if the aim of intervention is to change the way customers secure 

bags and other CRAVED goods, then in addition to measuring 

what was implemented (process measures) and any changes in theft 

rates (outcome measures), a useful intermediate outcome measure 

would be the degree to which changes have been observed in the 

way customers secure their property. 

To measure potential success, you should establish the following 

measures.

Process Measures

• What was implemented? Where, when, and with what intensity 

(e.g., how many CCTV cameras were installed)?

• If staff training is part of the intervention, when did this occur? 

Were all staff trained? Was training repeated to accommodate 

staff turnover?

• Which stakeholders were involved? Did they achieve specified 

objectives?

• If publicity was used, what form did it take (e.g., news articles, 

venue-specific media)? How widely was it distributed?

Intermediate Outcome Measures 

• Increased use of storage facilities

• Increased degree to which any publicity reached intended 

audiences (e.g., measured by a customer survey)

• Fewer bags and CRAVED goods left unattended 

• Increased staff awareness of safe-storage practices and their 

involvement in crime reduction activity

• Increased number of cell phones formally registered with 

authorities by café and bar patrons, where appropriate (see 

Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars).
18 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

For more detailed explanations on 

the concepts of displacement and 

diffusion, see Problem-Solving Tools 

Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to 

Problems: An Introductory Guide for 

Police Problem-Solvers, and No. 10, 

Analyzing Crime Displacement and 

Diffusion.

Ultimate Outcome Measures

• Fewer reports of theft in cafés and bars to police

• Fewer reports of theft in cafés and bars to place managers 

(although this may increase if bar staff take the problem more 

seriously and record thefts more systematically)

• Increased number of stolen goods recovered and/or returned to 

their owners

• Decreased severity of incidents (e.g., stolen property less 

financially valuable).

Displacement and Diffusion§

• Increased or decreased number of thefts at other facilities 

(crime may be displaced, leading to an increase in other areas or 

nearby venues)

• More or fewer crimes of other types at the same facility 

• Displacement of perpetrator techniques or targets (different 

items stolen)

• Changes to the spatial and temporal distribution of crime 

within the bar 

• Offender replacement—new offenders committing theft in bars 

and cafés.
Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars 19

Responses to the Problem of Theft in 

Cafés and Bars

Analysis of your local problem should give you a better 

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have 

analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for 

measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to 

address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas 

for addressing your particular problem. These are drawn from a 

variety of research studies and police reports. Several may apply 

to your community’s problem, but it is critical that you tailor 

responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each 

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

strategy will involve several different responses. Law enforcement 

responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the 

problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can 

do; carefully consider whether others in your community share 

responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond 

to it. The responsibility of responding, in some cases, may need 

to be shifted toward those who can 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.)

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy

In one form or another, crime reduction strategies are likely 

to build on one of the following techniques: target hardening, 

concealment or removal, access control, natural and formal 

surveillance, anonymity reduction, place manager utilization, 

guardianship extension, and benefit reduction or removal. These 

strategies naturally overlap. For example, by increasing natural 

surveillance, guardianship is likely to be enhanced. 
20 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

For an example of how layout can 

impact thefts that depend on quick 

and easy escape routes, see the Tesco 

case study (Design Council, 2003).

In many cases, solutions will involve working with place managers 

or owners of high-risk venues. In such cases, readers are advised to 

consult Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 6, Understanding Risky 

Facilities, which focuses on understanding risky facilities and how to 

work with place managers to reduce crime.

What follows should help you consider what might be appropriate 

in your area and help you identify some of the issues associated 

with implementing such interventions. In many cases, the responses 

discussed have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation, but are 

included to illustrate the range of tactics possible.

Specific Responses to Reduce Theft in Cafés 

and Bars

The intervention’s effectiveness may depend on identifying and 

manipulating the aspects of the venue that are most likely to impede 

perpetrators’ preferred Modus Operandi; therefore, it is important 

to carefully investigate these. For example, in a venue where snatch 

theft is prevalent, changing the venue layout to make escape routes 

less convenient to thieves may reduce offenses.§ In contrast, if most 

thefts are due to patrons leaving items unattended, the solution 

might be to improve secure storage facilities. 

Appropriate responses will vary across different types of 

establishments. For example, coffee shops and fast food chains are 

quite different because of the likely variations in clientele and hours 

of operation. Moreover, the risk of victimization may vary by time 

of day even within the same type of facility. Different problems will 

require different solutions.

A further consideration is a venue’s geographical context. 

Effectiveness may depend on whether the venue is isolated or 

within a larger entertainment district. For example, considering 

detection strategies, an offender may be more likely to linger in an 

entertainment district than in other areas.
Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars 21

§

Designed by Jackie Piper, Marcus 

Willcocks, and Lorraine Gamman.

Improving Opportunities for Secure 

but Convenient Storage

As discussed, the theft of property in cafés and bars often occurs 

when items are left unattended. This suggests that secure storage 

facilities are either inadequate or inconvenient. In this case, the 

provision of convenient secure storage facilities may help reduce theft.

Many different types of secure storage exist, but they should be 

tailored to the particular environment. To illustrate, cloakrooms

are useful and provide high levels of security in clubs or bars with 

a dance floor. However, in coffee shops where customers may 

spend only 10 minutes drinking coffee, cloakrooms would likely 

be underused and inconvenient and, therefore, cost-ineffective. 

Examples of storage solutions have been identified by the Design 

Against Crime Research Centre at Central Saint Martins College, 

London (DACRC) and include (also see Appendix B):

1. Providing anti-theft furniture. Where customer turnover is 

high, using furniture designed for crime prevention may be 

cost effective and practical. A number of examples of anti-theft 

furniture exist. Those below were commissioned as part of a 

design project at the Design Against Crime Research Centre 

(DACRC). For each design—the range reflecting the need to 

have different types of designs for different types of venues—

the anti-theft feature is integral. For example, a chair§ shown 

at both ends of the figure allows customers to secure their 

bags off the floor enhancing their role as capable guardians. 

The chair designs are intended to be attractive and to reduce 

opportunities for theft.

Source: www.inthebag.org.uk.

Examples of anti-theft furniture.
22 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

2. Providing retro-fitted secure storage. Facilities that already 

have furniture should consider installing to tables and chairs 

retro-fitted bag clips, on which customers can hang their 

bags. When positioned near customer seating, these may 

enhance natural guardianship and secure bags. In many venues 

throughout the UK, commercially available clips can be fitted 

to tables and chairs. However, these clips are underused by 

customers25 often because clips are installed out of sight or 

are breakable (or appear to be), which could damage bags. 

Some clips fit only certain types of bags; hence the needs of 

typical victims should be considered (often this means designs 

that accommodate women’s handbags). Thus, if used, careful 

consideration should be given to which design to install and 

how to publicize them. 

The DACRC is currently testing new designs and ways to increase 

customer use. Following is one new design, along with an image of a 

publicity approach.

Major coffee shop chains and fast food outlets have shown interest 

in design solutions such as bag clips and anti-theft furniture, but, at 

the time of writing, are not yet using them. 

Grippa (Source: DACRC, London).

An example of a Chelsea clip which can be attached underneath tables 

to secure customers' bags.
Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars 23

§

In some ski resorts, customers are 

asked to keep bags off the floor so they 

aren’t dampened by melting snow. In 

restaurants in Mexico, customers are 

sometimes invited to store bags on a 

bag tree next to the table. The degree 

to which such measures reduce theft is 

unknown. 

3. Providing lockers. Lockers are an alternative method for 

storing customers’ valuable items. Keys may be provided for 

free or for a small deposit, or combination locks may be used. 

Lockers should be located in areas that staff can observe to 

reduce the likelihood of thieves tampering with them.

Careful consideration should be given to publicizing anti-theft 

furniture. The challenge is to raise awareness of storage facilities so 

they are used but not raise the fear of crime unnecessarily. A risk in 

publicizing anti-theft furniture is that if patrons use the furniture 

but theft still occurs, victims may pursue legal action against venues 

for providing ineffective security. 

An alternative approach is to publicize furniture with an emphasis 

on other issues, such as health and safety. For instance, place 

managers could encourage, or require, customers to keep their bags 

off the floor. According to the American Occupational Safety and 

Health Act (1970)26 (see also the U.K. Health and Safety at Work 

Act 197427), it is the employer’s duty to ensure employees, as well 

as customers, are protected from health and safety hazards. Bags on 

the floor can be a trip hazard; hence an argument could be made 

that bags should be kept off the floor.§

Grippa (Source: DACRC, London).

Examples of alternative table clips.
24 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

The effectiveness of such schemes 

is unknown, but car registration has 

been mandatory in most countries 

for some time, so a consideration of 

its effectiveness may be instructive. 

In a review, Webb (2005) concludes 

that registration schemes’ potential 

impacts on crime have been 

hampered by problems that include 

database inaccuracies and inadequate 

enforcement. It is possible that other 

registration schemes could experience 

similar problems. Important to 

this kind of scheme are coverage 

and continuity. If records are not 

maintained or coverage is limited, 

then such schemes are unlikely to have 

positive impacts. 

§§Blocked phones can be 

reprogrammed for use. However, 

police can detect unblocked phones 

(visit www.immobilize.net).

Registration, Recovery, and Removing Benefits

Registering CRAVED items such as cell phones could help prevent 

theft by making it easier to identify stolen property and return 

recovered items to rightful owners. This may deter thieves as 

registered items would be more difficult to dispose of, and with 

registered cell phones, inoperable if stolen.§

4. Providing online registration programs linked to police. 

One existing scheme implemented in the United Kingdom 

and United States is Immobilize (www.immobilize.net). This 

is a free service that encourages owners to register details of 

their cell phones and other CRAVED goods. Cell phone 

owners must register their phone’s make and model and its 

International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number. The 

latter allows the phone to be blocked if it is stolen, rendering 

it unusable§§ (although this can be circumvented through 

reprogramming28). When registered items are lost or stolen, 

registered owners can inform Immobilize, which means police 

and other agencies can use the database to identify stolen 

goods. For a small fee ($2.99 at the time of writing; visit www.

checkmend.com/us/), owners may also search the database 

to check that secondhand goods they wish to purchase are 

legitimately owned by the seller.

According to Immobilize, in the United Kingdom, information 

collected assists in more than 250 cases each week. As with all 

property registration schemes, the effectiveness of the scheme 

depends on subscription levels; if few people register property, 

success will be limited. It is therefore essential to heavily publicize 

such schemes, if adopted.

5. Sending text bombs to stolen phones. A tactic that has 

been used in Holland and will be used in Australia involves 

repeatedly sending messages (text bombs) to stolen handsets 

rendering them unusable.29 The effectiveness of this type of 

intervention has not been evaluated. Moreover, the cost of 

implementing this type of scheme should be considered. If cell 

phone network service providers support the initiative, costs 
Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars 25

§

See Problem-Specific Guide No. 57, 

Stolen Goods Markets, for further 

information.

may be minimal. Otherwise, the cost of sending the messages 

may outweigh potential benefits.

6. Providing traditional property marking. The rationale 

of this scheme is that if desirable goods are marked and 

registered, thieves will be deterred from stealing them, and 

would experience difficulties selling them if stolen. This 

type of scheme may differ from the Immobilize registration 

scheme because the property is often overtly marked (which 

Immobilize does not require). Despite their popularity, 

the effectiveness of property marking schemes is unknown, 

and research suggests that any positive effects may be 

better attributed to the scheme’s publicity rather than the 

property marking itself.30 If a market disruption approach 

is implemented with the goal of hindering the disposal of 

stolen goods, crime reduction agencies such as the police need 

to work closely with store owners. They should implement 

any existing local ordinances that require stores to establish 

proof of ownership for used goods they purchase, and they 

should encourage stores to publicize their involvement in the 

scheme.31, § The success of such schemes will, of course, be 

a function of how many secondhand goods stores and pawn 

shops participate, how many people mark their property, and 

how quickly updated lists of stolen goods are distributed to 

participating stores.

7. Educating victims about the rapid cancellation of credit 

and debit cards. When thefts are reported, the opportunity 

exists to educate victims about the risks of further crimes, such 

as identity theft. As part of a project conducted by the authors 

and the Metropolitan Police in London (U.K.), victims who 

reported thefts in participating bars or at local police stations 

were given a leaflet that explained how to protect themselves 

from a range of crimes (e.g., credit card fraud) and listed 

relevant phone numbers (e.g., credit card companies). The aim 

was to empower victims to take swift action rather than simply 

raise their fear of crime. If victims’ keys are stolen, it is wise to 

provide advice about how to replace their locks.
26 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Raising Awareness of Risk and Personal Solutions

8. Publicizing the use of safer storage by customers. To 

encourage customers to secure their bags in a series of bars in 

London (U.K.), the Safer Southwark Partnership provided 

bag clips under bar tables and publicized their existence using 

“talking signs.” Placed in the ladies’ restrooms, the signs are 

triggered by motion sensors and convey the following message: 

“This is a message on behalf of Safer Southwark Partnership: 

we hope you are having a good evening; please, however, take 

care of your bag.” No formal evaluation of the scheme exists, 

but some feedback suggests positive impacts. The use of talking 

signs requires careful consideration. For instance, the signs may 

require continued maintenance, and they may annoy customers 

if they are constantly activated. 

Because victims are likely to be younger, it may also be useful 

to reinforce messages about personal responsibility for safety 

in areas such as college campuses. Publicity may be used to 

encourage those at risk to store property more responsibly and 

to take simple measures such as zipping up or locking bags. 

9. Promoting personal security measures. There are a number 

of products available designed to enable patrons to better 

secure valuable goods in risky environments, some of which are 

discussed below and an extensive review of which is available 

at www.inthebag.org.uk. As part of a campaign to reduce theft 

Source: DACRC, London

Examples of anti-theft bags. These designs are made of hard materials 

to prevent slashing and incorporate other design features such as 

having an inward facing zip to prevent dipping.
Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars 27

and robbery and to promote the use of this type of product, 

British Transport Police recently gave away a range of antitheft products.32

Lanyards are another way to secure personal items such as 

cell phones and laptops. Secured to valuable items, an audible 

alarm is activated if someone attempts to steal them (low-tech 

solutions exist). Educating the public about the availability of 

such products may be useful if common perpetrator techniques 

are likely to be disrupted by their use. It might be particularly 

effective to promote products that appeal to women if they are 

the primary victims. 

Source: DACRC, London

Other examples include personal table clips that customers 

can carry with them for use at any location, and solutions that 

aim to camouflage or conceal valuable items such as laptops. 

Although police agencies are unlikely to distribute or endorse 

these products, educating the public about their existence may 

be helpful.

Example of a lanyard.

Source: www.inthebag.org.uk

Example of a portable bag clip that 

attaches to a table.
28 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

§

See Problem-Specific Guide No. 49, 

Robbery of Convenience Stores, for 

further information.

Increasing Guardianship and Surveillance

10. Improving natural surveillance. Increasing the visibility 

of theft in cafés and bars is possible by improving natural 

surveillance, which can be achieved by considering crime 

prevention in the design of new cafés and bars or by retrofitting solutions to address identified problems. A study of 

the effectiveness of security in convenience stores suggests 

that impact is greater where a store’s internal configuration 

facilitates unobstructed surveillance.33, § Although the 

influence of internal layout on the risk of theft in cafés and 

bars is unknown, it is worth considering in any analysis of the 

problem. Points to consider include:

• Staff should have an uninterrupted view of the 

establishment from the service counter or bar area. 

Avoid obstructions such as unnecessary space dividers or 

corridors leading to restrooms. It may also be useful to raise 

the service area, giving staff a better view. 

• Furniture placement is important. For instance, locating 

tables too close to doors might encourage snatch thefts. 

• Policies can help change behavior. For example, a bar with 

table service should have less customer movement than one 

without. 

• Additional lighting at the entrance and at restrooms 

preserves ambience while providing increased visibility.

• A facility’s internal layout influences the type of movement 

that would appear legitimate to patrons and staff. Some 

features can create excuses for thieves to look for property 

to steal (e.g., a path to the restrooms that passes tables).

• The number of entrances and exits may affect crime risk. 

Two or more entry points provide multiple escape routes 

and exits for staff to observe. Moreover, where venues 

span two or more floors, there may be different risks 

between floors.
Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars 29

§

See Response Guide No. 4, Video 

Surveillance of Public Places, for more 

information.

§§See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 6, Understanding Risky Facilities, 

for more information.

§§§Even staff that collect and clean 

glasses can play a role.

The central point is that if offenders are more likely to be seen (or 

perceive they will), they may be discouraged from undertaking thefts. 

In fact, actual intervention by staff or customers may be unnecessary 

as long as offenders’ perceptions are influenced by the layout.34

11. Using CCTV. Depending on the specific problem, the use of 

CCTV may be beneficial. However, it may not reduce crime 

if it requires constant monitoring and staff are unable to do 

this. Where CCTV is used successfully, convictions should 

be publicized to ensure that offenders’ perceptions of risk are 

affected.35, §

12. Employing door staff in bars. Properly trained door staff can 

keep a watchful eye on people entering and exiting bars and act 

as a deterrent to would-be thieves. This could be an expensive 

option unless crime is a substantial problem or door staff can 

fulfill other useful roles.

Licensing, Management, and Staffing

13. Training staff. Also key to improving surveillance is staff 

training. Staff who can act as place managers need to know 

what is expected of them. Staff may consider crime prevention 

to be beyond their responsibility36 or be unaware of how 

they might contribute to the problem and solution.§§ Where 

policies (or lack of them) contribute to the problem of theft, 

successful and sustained solutions may require their revision 

or an approach that leverages the action of place managers 

and staff.§§§ Simple measures would include training staff to 

be vigilant and to encourage customers to secure property 

on their person or to use anti-theft furniture. Leverage from 

the police, in terms of publicizing venues with good or bad 

track records, could provide an incentive for establishments to 

involve staff in crime prevention. 
30 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

14. Requiring theft prevention through licensing. Making 

certain crime prevention practices mandatory (such as training 

new staff in security procedures) prior to license provision 

could be a useful leverage tactic. Anything in the manager’s 

economic interest could be effective; for example, increasing 

customers’ comfort and safety or avoiding liability. In a 

‘Café Watch’ case study in Westminster (U.K.), which aimed 

to combat violence and other problems in cafés, ways that 

interested parties could work together were explored, along 

with the statutory powers available to them. As part of the 

response, targeted inspections by Crime Prevention Officers 

and Environmental Health Enforcement Officers were carried 

out using Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance as a 

baseline. The study concluded that there was a 50 percent 

reduction in crime in participating premises within a year.37

Other related strategies can be found in Problem-Specific Guide 

No. 1, Assaults in and Around Bars. This guide also discusses 

licensing laws in more detail.

15. Screening staff. Although we have not focused on theft by 

employees, it is worth mentioning that internal theft could 

be a cause for concern, particularly in establishments where 

the labor pool is highly transient and skill level requirements 

are minimal. This may ultimately lead to hiring correctional 

clients and other high-risk employees. In such situations, it 

may be advisable to use staff screening or a background check 

to ensure employees are unlikely to contribute to an internal 

theft problem. Research on the effectiveness of pre-screening 

is mixed. One study demonstrated a 40 percent shrinkage 

loss reduction for five major retail chains two years after prescreening tests were used. However, outcomes appear to depend 

on the business type, and this strategy raises concerns about 

ethics and staff morale.38
Responses to the Problem of Theft in Cafés and Bars 31

§

See Response Guide No. 6, Sting 

Operations, for further information.

§§See Problem-Specific Guide No. 52, 

Bicycle Theft, for further information.

Detection Strategies

16. Undertaking sting operations. Sting operations, in which bags 

are left unattended but are watched covertly by plain-clothed 

police officers, may be used.§ A complementary approach 

would be to place a concealed GPS transmitter in unattended 

bags.§§ A change in the position of the GPS transmitter would 

signal the bag is moving. In addition to helping to detect 

crimes in progress, analysis of where thieves go post-offense 

may provide useful intelligence on, for example, potential 

locations of stolen goods markets. Although there is no formal 

evidence of the effectiveness of such strategies or published 

examples of their use, the Metropolitan Police (London, U.K.) 

have used this type of strategy.

Appendix 33

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Theft of Customers’ 

Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

The table below summarizes the responses to theft of customers’ personal property from cafés and 

bars, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought 

to work best, and some factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is 

critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based 

on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different 

responses. Remember that law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving 

the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Improving Opportunities for Secure but Convenient Storage

1 21 Providing anti-theft 

furniture

Provides customers 

with opportunities to 

store bags securely

Furniture is both 

attractive and 

convenient for 

customers

May be expensive 

unless furniture needs 

replacement for other 

reasons

2 22 Providing retro-fitted 

secure storage

Allows customers to 

hang bags underneath 

tables, keeping them 

off the floor

Clips are visible to 

customers and appear 

sturdy

This is less costly 

than using anti-theft 

furniture but may 

not be as robust or as 

effective

3 23 Providing lockers Provides customers 

secure storage 

facilities for items 

they are unable to 

watch over

Lockers are visible 

to staff and others; 

customers expect 

to remain in 

establishment long 

enough to justify 

using lockers; 

customers are aware 

of lockers

Designated space(s) 

for the lockers will 

be required; locks 

should be secure 

but easy to use and 

require minimal 

maintenance; lockers 

should be large 

enough to allow 

customers to store 

bags and items (e.g., 

laptops) of different 

sizes
34 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Registration, Recovery, and Removing Benefits

4 24 Providing online 

registration programs 

linked to police

Facilitates reporting 

theft to police and 

increases chances 

of recovering stolen 

property; some 

registered electronic 

devices can be 

disabled, rendering 

them useless

There is a high 

adoption, victims 

report thefts swiftly, 

secondhand goods 

shops cooperate 

and advertise their 

involvement, and 

the scheme is 

widely publicized 

periodically

May require laws 

that encourage 

secondhand goods 

shops to check for 

proof of ownership 

when they purchase 

secondhand goods

5 24 Sending text bombs 

to stolen cell phones

Irritates thieves and 

renders cell phones 

inoperable

Phones are 

unlikely to be 

exported to other 

countries or rapidly 

reprogrammed; 

cell phone service 

providers support the 

initiative

Financial costs 

of running the 

intervention may be 

high

6 25 Providing traditional 

property marking

Deters thieves by 

increasing risks of 

detection; increases 

difficulty of disposing 

of stolen property

Scheme is widely 

publicized and widely 

used, and detections 

are publicized

Unproven 

effectiveness; 

may require laws 

that encourage 

secondhand goods 

shops to check for 

proof of ownership 

when they purchase 

secondhand goods 

7 25 Educating victims 

about the rapid 

cancellation of credit 

and debit cards

Reduces victims’ 

risk of further 

victimization by 

credit card fraud and 

identify theft

Victims are provided 

with timely, 

comprehensive, and 

detailed information; 

message empowers 

victims rather than 

simply raising their 

fear 

Some program costs 

to produce up-todate information 

materials
Appendix 35

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Raising Awareness of Risk and Personal Security Solutions

8 26 Publicizing the use 

of safer storage by 

customers

Encourages 

customers to secure 

personal items

Secure storage 

is possible and 

practical; message 

is positive and 

empowering and does 

not increase fear of 

crime

Signs may be costly 

or annoying to some 

customers

9 26 Promoting personal 

security measures

Increases difficulty in 

stealing valuables

Products highlighted 

are readily available, 

discounted, 

aesthetically 

appealing, and 

functional

Recommendations 

should be impartial, 

accurate, and suitably 

comprehensive; may 

require extensive 

marketing 

Increasing Guardianship and Surveillance

10 28 Improving natural 

surveillance

Increases offenders’ 

perception that they 

will be observed

The facility’s original 

layout promotes 

natural surveillance; 

there are enough staff 

to keep a watchful 

eye on customers and 

their property

May be expensive 

to redesign layout; 

other customers 

may be reluctant 

to intervene; may 

require staff training 

and policy on theft 

intervention

11 29 Using CCTV Deters thieves by 

increasing likelihood 

of detection

Crimes occur in areas 

with little natural 

surveillance and are 

obscured from the 

direct view of staff; 

CCTV is monitored

Costs for equipment 

and monitoring; 

privacy concerns

12 29 Employing door staff 

in bars

By screening exits, 

and observing 

customer behavior, 

door staff may 

prevent thieves from 

entering or deter 

them from stealing

Staff are well trained 

and visibility is good 

within the venue

Can be expensive and 

may be unlikely to 

work where thieves 

are skilled at stealth 

offenses
36 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Response Page Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

No. No.

Licensing, Management, and Staffing

13 29 Training staff Increases likelihood There are formal, Costs to train staff 

of detecting thieves recognized 

and vulnerable procedures in place 

property for security practices

14 30 Requiring theft Improves routine Compliance is May be opposed by 

prevention through security practices ensured; security hospitality industry; 

licensing measures are in licensing issuance and 

establishments’ compliance costs

financial interests

15 30 Screening staff Decreases likelihood Screening measures May cause staffing 

of hiring thieves are in establishments’ problems by 

financial interests discouraging 

applications; 

unproven 

effectiveness

Detection Strategies

16 31 Undertaking sting Increases likelihood Prolific offenders May require 

operations of detection are known to target authorizing 

particular locations, legislation; 

venues targeted 

are crime hotspots, 

CCTV cameras can 

enforcement costs

be used to monitor 

offender activity
Appendix 37

Appendix B: Websites Featuring Products Designed to 

Reduce the Risk of Theft in Cafés and Bars 

Editors’ Note: This list was compiled to offer examples to help readers implement ideas included in 

this guide. The appearance of this list is not to be construed as endorsement by the U.S. Department 

of Justice or the authors of this guide. This list is non-exhaustive; we encourage you to research other 

products and services that may be of use to you in theft prevention. All website URLs are accurate at 

the time of writing.

Bags BagMate by Hookit: www.hookit.net.au/home.html

Chelsea Clip: www.selectadna.co.uk/chelsea-clips.html?gclid=CPvLjbfg65ACFQFaMA

od0RATPA

SecureKlip: www.secureklip.com/index.php

Prensus - Portable Hanging Device: www.prensusphd.com/

Purses Chatt Plus: www.chattplus.com/index.php

HangBag Company: www.hangbagcompany.com/

Handbag Hangers: www.handbaghanger.com.au/

Hooky Handbag Hook: www.quirkybags.co.uk/products.php?cat=31&gclid=CMq6zJfe

65ACFQHolAodSzWZrA

Hot HangUps: www.hot-hang-ups.com/

KeepKlose: www.keepklose.com/

The Little Hooker: www.cwdesignllc.com/servlet/StoreFront?gclid=CIukf Xi65ACFQiKMAodwGFKQQ

MyBagHanger: www.mybaghanger.com/

Pretty Pink Toes: www.prettypinktoes.co.uk/handbaghanger.aspx

Purse Angels – The Handbag Guardian: www.purseangels.co.uk/?gclid=CLfLhL7d65A

CFQ7tlAodlTqkrA

Purse Hanger.com: www.purse-hanger.com/

Purse Hanger.net: www.pursehanger.net/

PurseSitter: www.pursesitter.com/

so Hooked: www.so-hooked.com/

Suitcases Pacsafe – Travel Security: www.pacsafe.com/www/index.php

TamperSeal TSA-Approved Luggage Straps: www.tamperseal.com/tsa-luggagestraps-c-28.html?osCsid=41d0aa911a8f0eaff3cf31752d73bdb1

Endnotes 39

Endnotes

1 Thompson and Arsel (2004).

2 NCVS (2008).

3 Vincent (2005).

4 Van Dijk, van Kesteren and Smit (2007).

5 U.S. Department of Justice (2008). 

6 Sidebottom and Bowers (2009).

7 McDaniel and Jones (1988).

8 Lengel (2007).

9 Sidebottom and Bowers (2009).

10 Eck, Clarke and Guerette (2007).

11 Smith, Bowers and Johnson (2006).

12 Fagan (2007).

13 Vincent (2005).

14 Kershaw, Nicholas and Walker (2008).

15 Kershaw, Nicholas and Walker. (2008).

16 Duffin, Keats and Gill (2006).

17 United States General Accounting Office (2002).

18 Smith et al. (2006).

19 Sidebottom and Bowers (2009).

20 Clarke (1999).

21 Sidebottom and Bowers (2008).

22 Smith, Bowers and Johnson (2006); East Bay Express (2008); San 

Francisco Chronicle (2006).

23 Whitehead and Farrell (2008).

24 Vincent and Arno (2003).

25 Willcocks, Nufrio and Camino (2008).

26 U.S. Department of Labor (1970).
40 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

27 UK Health and Safety Executive (1974). 

28 Kaplankiran et al. (2008).

29 Accessed on December 15, 2008, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/

TECH/ptech/03/28/SMS.bomb.idg/index.html; www.news.

com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23677002-5006009,00.

html

30 Laycock (1991).

31 Sutton, Schneider and Hetherington (2001).

32 Rogers (2009).

33 Hunter (1997).

34 Cromwell, Olson and Avary (1991).

35 Poyner (1988).

36 Eck and Weisburd (1995).

37 The Beacons Scheme (2009). 

38 Gross-Schaefer et. al. (2000).
References 41

References

Brandt, A. (2006). “This Stolen Laptop Will Self-Destruct in 5 

Seconds.” PC World Magazine June 2006: 46.

Brantingham, P., and P. Brantingham (1995). “Criminality of Place: 

Crime Generators and Crime Attractors.” European Journal on 

Criminal Policy and Research 3: 5-26. 

Clarke, R. (1999). Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating, and 

Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods. Police Research Series 

Paper, 112. London: Home Office Policing and Reducing 

Crime Unit.

Cromwell, P., J. Olson, and D. Avary (1991). “Breaking and 

Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary, Sage, 

Newbury Park, CADesign Council (2003).” Think Thief ! A 

Designer’s Guide to Designing Out Crime. London.

Duffin, M., G. Keats, and M. Gill (2006). Identity Theft in the 

UK: The Offender and Victim Perspective. Leicester (U.K.): 

Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI) 

Ltd, September 2006.

Eck, J. (1994). “Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control 

Study of the Spatial Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing.” 

Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Eck, J., R. Clarke, and R. Guerette (2007). “Risky Facilities: Crime 

Concentration in Homogeneous Sets of Establishments and 

Facilities,” in Imagination for Crime Prevention: Essays in 

Honor of Ken Pease, ed. G. Farrell, K. Bowers, S. Johnson, 

and M. Townsley, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 

21: 255–264. 

Eck, J., and D. Weisburd (1995). Crime Place in Crime Theory. 

In J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd (Eds.) Crime and Place, Monsey, 

New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Fagan, C. (2007). “‘Lost’ Gang Steal Phones.” Leicester Mercury 

(U.K.), Jan. 30, p. 2. 
42 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Gross-Schaefer, A., J. Trigilio, J. Negus, and C. Ro. (2000). “Ethics 

Education in the Workplace: An Effective Tool to Combat 

Employee Theft.” Journal of Business Ethics 26: 89-100. 

Hunter, R. (1997). “Environmental Characteristics of Convenience 

Store Robbery Through Environmental Design,” in Situational 

Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, ed. R.V. Clarke, 

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Kaplamkiran, T., J. Mailley, S. Whitehead, and G. Farrell (2008). 

“Mobile Phone Reprogramming: Its Extent and Prevention.” 

Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International 

Journal 10: 271-279.

Kershaw, C., S. Nicholas, and A. Walker (2008). “Crime in England 

and Wales 2007/08. Findings from the British Crime Survey 

and police recorded crime.” Home Office Statistical Bulletin.

Kitteringham, G. (2008). Lost Laptops = Lost Data: Measuring 

Data, Managing Threats. Connecting Research in Security to 

Practice Report. Available at: www.asisonline.org/foundation/

lostlaptop.pdf

LaVigne, N. (1991). “Crime of Convenience: An Analysis of 

Criminal Decision Making and Convenience Store Crime in 

Austin.” Master’s Thesis University of Texas, Austin.

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

Publicity?” Security Journal 2: 67–72.

Lengel, A. (2007). “Purse Snatchers Know Their Turf; 

Sophisticated Thieves Cruise Bars, Restaurants in Areas with 

Night Life.” The Washington Post, March 4.

Madensen, T. and J. Eck (2008). “Violence in Bars: Exploring the 

Impact of Place Manager Decision-Making.” Crime Prevention 

and Community Safety 10(2): 111–125. 

McDaniel, M., and J. Jones (1988). “Predicting Employee Theft: A 

Quantitative Review of the Validity of a Standardized Measure 

of Dishonesty.” Journal of Business and Psychology 2: 327-245.

Poyner, B. (1988). “Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism.” Journal of 

Security Administration 11: 44-51.
References 43

Ratcliffe, J. (2004). “The Hotspot Matrix: A Framework for 

the Spatio-Temporal Targeting of Crime Reduction.” Police 

Practice and Research 5: 5-23.

Rogers, S. (2009). Personal Communication from Steve Rogers, 

Detective Inspector Crime Support, British Transport Police.

Rufus, A. (2008). “Bold Café-Laptop Theft Foiled in Oakland.” 

East Bay Express, October 3. Available at www.eastbayexpress.

com/92510/archives/2008/10/03/boldcafandeacute-laptoptheft-foiled-in-oakland. Accessed April 8, 2010.

Sidebottom, A., and K. Bowers (2009). “Bag theft in bars: An 

analysis of relative risk, perceived risk and modus operandi.” 

Security Journal. Advance online access doi: 10.1057/

sj.2008.17.

Sutton, M., J. Schneider, and S. Hetherington (2001). “Tackling 

Theft With the Market Reduction Approach.” Crime 

Reduction Research Series, Paper 8. London: Home Office.

Smith, C., K. Bowers, and S. Johnson (2006). “Understanding 

Theft within Licensed Premises: Identifying Initial Steps 

Towards Prevention.” Security Journal 19 (1): 1-19.

The Beacons Scheme (2009). Café Watch Case Study. 

Improvement and Development Agency. Accessed 

online at www.beacons.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.

do?pageId=11139659.

Thompson, C., and Z. Arsel (2004). “The Starbucks 

Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of 

Glocalization.” Journal of Consumer Research 31: 631-642.

United Kingdom (UK) Health and Safety Executive (1974). 

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 c. 37. 

U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Establishment and Firm Size (including 

Legal Form of Organization): 1997 Economic Census. 

Accommodation and Foodservices.

U.S. Department of Justice (2008). National Crime Victim Survey: 

Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2006 Statistical 

Tables. Washington, D.C.
44 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

U.S. Department of Labor (1970). Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970. Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office (2002). Identity Theft: 

Report to Congressional Requesters. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

General Accounting Office. Accessed on December 9, 2008 at 

www.gao.gov/new.items/d02363.pdf.

Van Derbeken, J. (2006). “Laptop Thieves Descend Upon 

Wireless Cafes” San Francisco Chronicle, April 8. Available 

at www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/08/

MNGE9I686K1.DTL. Accessed April 8, 2010.

Van Dijk, J., J. van Kesterem, and P. Smit (2007). Criminal 

Victimisation in International Perspective: Key Findings from the 

2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Boom Juridische uitgevers.

Vincent, B (2005). “Workshop Teaches Pickpocket Recognition.” 

Law and Order 53 (6):116-119. 

Vincent, B., and B. Arno (2003). Travel Advisory! How to Avoid 

Thefts, Cons, and Street Scams While Traveling. Chicago: 

Bonus Books.

Webb, B. (2005). “Preventing Car Crime” in Handbook of Crime 

Prevention and Community Safety, ed. N. Tilley, Devon: 

Willan.

Whitehead, S., and G. Farrell (2008). “Anticipating Mobile 

Phone ‘Smart Wallet’ Crime: Policing and Corporate Social 

Responsibility.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 2: 

210-217.

Willcocks, M., A. Nufrio, and X. Camino (2008). “Grippa BCNFinal report.” User’s test. Barcelona.
About the Authors 45

About the Authors

Shane D. Johnson

Shane Johnson is a reader (associate professor) and Deputy Head 

of Department at the UCL Department of Security and Crime 

Science, Jill Dando Institute, University College London. He has a 

particular interest in the spatial and temporal distribution of crime, 

forecasting of crime, and design against crime. He has conducted 

work for a variety of sponsors, including the Arts and Humanities 

Research Council, the Home Office, and the British Academy. He 

has published more than 60 original research papers within the 

fields of criminology and forensic psychology. Johnson holds a 

doctorate in psychology from the University of Liverpool.

Lorraine Gamman

Lorraine Gamman, PhD is Professor in Design Studies, School of 

Graphic and Industrial Design at Central Saint Martins (CSM) 

School of Art and Design, which is part of the University of the 

Arts London. She is also director of the practice-led Design Against 

Crime Research Centre (DACRC), which she set up in 1999 

after ten years of teaching product, graphic, and industrial design 

at CSM. She wrote her doctoral dissertation on shoplifting at 

Middlesex University in 1999. Her work with the designer Adam 

Thorpe and DACRC has won several awards for design innovation 

and together they have co-curated more than 15 design exhibitions 

and catalyzed a number of DAC product ranges including Stop 

Thief chairs, Karrysafe bags, and Bike Off ! anti-theft “caMden” 

bike stands (visit www.designagainstcrime.com). She is a member 

of the Home Office’s Design and Technology Alliance that advises 

Britain’s Home Secretary and is also Vice Chair of the Designing 

Out Crime Association. She has written several books and many 

papers about visual culture and design and crime issues.
46 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Kate J. Bowers

Kate Bowers is a reader (associate professor) at the UCL Jill Dando 

Institute of Crime Science, University College London. She has 

a particular interest in design against crime, crime prevention 

evaluation, and spatial and temporal patterns in crime. She has 

managed research grants from a variety of sponsors such as the Arts 

and Humanities Research Council, the Department for Education 

and Skills, and the Home Office. She has co-edited two books and 

has published more than 40 peer-reviewed articles and 15 book 

chapters on topics relating to environmental criminology and crime 

science. She has a doctorate from the University of Liverpool.

Loreen Mamerow

At the time of writing, Loreen Mamerow was a student at the Jill 

Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London, 

studying for an M.Sc. in Crime Science. Her dissertation focused 

on the effect of victim-offender relationship, victimization history, 

and observer-specific attitudes on the social perception of sexual 

assault. Loreen’s academic interests include behavioral genetics, 

sexual offenses, and repeat victimization. She has a first class B.Sc. 

Psychology degree from Goldsmiths College, London. 

Anna Warne

Anna Warne recently completed her master’s degree in Crime 

Science at the University College London’s Jill Dando Institute 

of Crime Science, and an internship at the Design Against Crime 

Research Centre. She received her first class honors degree in 

Criminology and Social Policy from Northumbria University, 

and was awarded the Britland Prize for Social Policy Student. Her 

interests are transnational and environmental crime.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 47

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, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

with David K. Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

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

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

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 and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9
48 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

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

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. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 49

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

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

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana 

York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and 

Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and 

John E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3
50 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen and 

John E. Eck. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars.

Shane D. Johnson, Kate J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen 

Mamerow and Anna Warne. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

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

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

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

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of 

Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008

ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential 

Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks.

Jim Hilborn. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 

2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 51

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

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

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

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and 

Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis 

Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

Rob T Guerette. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,

Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide. 

Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A ProblemOriented Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County 

Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 
52 Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Aggressive Driving

Missing Persons

Stranger Rape

Theft of Vehicles for Export

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

Problem-Oriented Policing Implementation Manual

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP 

Guides, see the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770, via e-mail 

at askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 


Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

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:

• Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention:

• A complete listing of other POP Guides

• A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office).
Theft of Personal Property from Cafés and Bars provides an 

overview of the problem of theft of customer's personal 

property from cafes and bars and reviews the associated risk 

factors. The guide also reviews responses to the problem 

and what is known about them from evaluative research and 

police practice.

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 Office programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

April 2010

e041021268

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7