U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

T h e f t s o f a n d f r o m 

C a r s o n R e s i d e n t i a l 

S t r e e t s a n d D r i v e w a y s

by Todd Keister

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 46
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site 

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

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• Online access to research and police practices

• Online problem analysis module.

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

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

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Thefts of and from Cars 

on Residential Streets 

and Driveways

Todd Keister

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

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

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the 

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

specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

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

of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

discussion of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

February 2007

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 46
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to 

investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. Neither 

do they cover all of the technical details about how to 

implement specific responses. The guides are written for 

police—of whatever rank or assignment—who must address 

the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be 

most useful to officers who:

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods. The guides are not primers in 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 problemoriented 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 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other police 

departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 

your particular problem, they should help give a broader 

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

you cannot implement some of these responses in your 

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

police have discovered a more effective response, they have 

succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving 

the response to the problem. (A companion series of 

Response Guides has been produced to help you understand 

how commonly-used police responses work on a variety of 

problems.) 

• Understand the value and the limits of research 

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

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate 

the need for more research on that particular problem. 

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to 

all the questions you might have about the problem. The 

research may help get you started in designing your own 

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

will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, 

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

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

would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The 

references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of 

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

• Are willing to work with others to find effective 

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. 

They must frequently implement them in partnership with 

other responsible private and public bodies including other 

government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 

and individual citizens. An effective problem-solver must 

know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making 

these partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular 

individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that 

problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals 

that individuals and groups other than the police are in 

a stronger position to address problems and that police 

ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do 

so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility 

for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this 

topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as 

“a policing philosophy that promotes and supports 

organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce 

the fear of crime and social disorder through problemsolving tactics and police-community partnerships.” These 

guides emphasize problem-solving and police-community 

partnerships in the context of addressing specific public 

safety problems. For the most part, the organizational 

strategies that can facilitate problem-solving and policecommunity 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 
iv Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways

practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that 

the police everywhere experience common problems. In 

a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 

research literature and reported police practice and is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 

executives and researchers prior to publication. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your 

own agency’s experiences dealing with a similar problem. 

Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem 

using responses not considered in these guides and your 

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This 

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

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should 

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

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access 

to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing 

and related topics

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module

• a manual for crime analysts

• online access to important police research and practices

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences 

and award programs. 
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

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

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

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

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

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

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; 

and Savannah, Georgia police departments provided 

feedback on the guides’ format and style in the early 

stages of the project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this 

guide.
contents

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

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

The Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways . . . . . 1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Factors Contributing to Thefts of and from Cars on 

 Residential Streets and Driveways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Type of Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Items Targeted for Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

For Driveways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

For Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

For Both Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Gathering Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Thefts of Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Thefts from Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Conditions Facilitating Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Current Responses to the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Contents vii
viii Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways

Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on 

 Residential Streets and Driveways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Specific Responses to Reduce Thefts of and from Cars on 

 Residential Streets and Driveways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Responses with Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix: Summary of Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on 

 Residential Streets and Driveways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 1

The Problem of Thefts of and from Cars 

on Residential Streets and Driveways

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide begins by describing the problem of theft 

of and from cars in residential neighborhoods and by 

reviewing factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a 

series of questions to help you analyze your local problem. 

Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and what is 

known about these from evaluative research and police 

practice.

Theft of and from cars in residential neighborhoods is 

only one of a number of vehicle-related problems that 

occur in residential neighborhoods that the police must 

address. This guide is limited to addressing only the harms 

created by theft of and from cars in streets and driveways 

in such neighborhoods. It does not cover thefts in 

parking facilities, except where especially relevant. Related 

problems not directly addressed in this guide, each of 

which require separate analysis, include:

carjacking

insurance fraud§ 

burglaries to garages and outbuildings

injuries or deaths resulting from stolen vehicle pursuits

thefts of and from commercial vehicles

thefts of motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles or bicycles

speeding in residential areas.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

§ As many as 10 percent of all 

reported thefts of automobiles are 

fraudulent. Vehicle owners may 

stage a phony theft of their vehicle 

because they are no longer able 

or willing to make the required 

vehicle loan payments, or in order 

to defraud their insurance carrier for 

financial gain. Consequently, at least 

some portion of what is perceived 

to be a vehicle crime problem 

might in fact be an insurance fraud 

problem (Arizona Criminal Justice 

Commission, Statistical Analysis 

Center, 2004).
2 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways

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, see www.popcenter.org. 

General Description of the Problem

Theft from parked cars§ is one of the most common 

complaints received by police in residential 

neighborhoods. According to U.S. Department of Justice 

statistics, these types of crimes make up some 36 percent 

of all larcenies reported to the police. Crimes in general 

and property crimes in particular tend to be underreported 

to authorities. As a result, the problem may be worse than 

it appears in statistics reported by police. In the United 

Kingdom, a nationwide survey found that only 47 percent 

of all car crime was reported to the police. In contrast, 

nearly all thefts of cars are reported to the authorities, 

because of the significant monetary loss and insurance 

company reporting requirements. 

§ Thefts from vehicles are variously 

referred to by police around the 

country as “vehicle burglaries,” 

“vehicle larcenies,” “car cloutings” 

(St. Louis), and “car prowls.”

Not all car thieves are non-violent criminals. Stolen 

cars are used as tools to facilitated other crimes such as 

drug trafficking or as "getaway" vehicles in robberies 

or burglaries.

www.baitcar.com
The Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 3

Thefts from vehicles usually involve small dollar values 

in terms of the property stolen, but they take up 

considerable police resources and increase residents’ fear 

of crime. These thefts excepted, crime rates in suburban 

residential neighborhoods are otherwise low. However, 

recurring thefts from cars in a residential community can 

erode residents’ feelings of safety and security, as well as 

their confidence in police and other authorities. 

While generally a more significant problem in 

metropolitan areas, thefts of cars also pose a significant 

crime problem in many suburban jurisdictions. Cars 

are generally stolen for one of three purposes: (1) for 

temporary transportation, such as use in another crime or 

for “joyriding”; (2) to strip the car of its valuable parts 

for resale; (3) to re-sell it, often disguised as a legitimate 

car. The vast majority of car thefts are committed for 

transportation or “joyriding.”1 Stolen cars generate higher 

insurance costs, inconvenience, and financial losses for car 

owners as well as the risks to the safety of police officers 

and other motorists from stolen vehicle pursuits. 

Factors Contributing to Thefts of and from Cars on 

Residential Streets and Driveways

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem 

will help you frame your own local analysis questions, 

determine proper effectiveness measures, recognize key 

intervention points, and select appropriate responses. 

Where and when cars are parked are probably the most 

significant factors that offer opportunity to thieves.
4 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways

Location

At single-family residences. Because suburban 

residential areas are relatively safe and quiet, residents can 

become complacent about car security. They may leave 

their car doors unlocked or the keys in the ignition. Oftentimes, their homes’ exterior lighting is wholly inadequate. 

Overly tall shrubbery and other brush on the premises can 

provide thieves with cover. An entire neighborhood filled 

with unlocked cars and poorly lit homes, with plenty of 

cover, is an inviting scene for a thief. 

On the street. National Crime Survey data indicate that 

most car thefts (37 percent) occurs on the street outside 

the victim’s home.2 A study conducted in the United 

Kingdom revealed that a car parked on the street is much 

more likely to be targeted by criminals than a car parked 

in a driveway, as can be seen in Table 1.3 Hampshire 

(United Kingdom) police discovered that nearly one-half 

of all car crimes in Portsmouth occurred on only about 10 

percent of the city’s streets and that the pattern was even 

further concentrated within those streets.4

Location Thefts per 100,000 

 cars per 24 hours

Home garage 2

Home carport/drive 40

Home street 117

Table 1. Risk of Car Theft by Parking Location in 

England and Wales (1982-1994)
The Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 5

Cars in residential locations that are adjacent to lower-tier 

socioeconomic neighborhoods (which often have higher 

crime rates) are generally more vulnerable. Thieves who 

reside in the high-crime neighborhoods need only walk a 

few blocks to search for items or cars to steal. They have 

the advantage of being familiar with the area. 

Residential subdivisions. Residential subdivisions 

surrounded by rural lands and not served by public 

transportation are less likely to suffer from chronic car 

crime. Thieves would have to travel to the location, and 

then walk around in unfamiliar neighborhoods where 

they are more likely to appear out of place and attract 

suspicion. Also, these areas often have no sidewalks, so 

pedestrian traffic in general draws attention.

Time

Thefts of and from cars in suburban residential areas 

generally occur at night. This is because it is the time 

most cars are present in these areas, as well as the fact 

that darkness provides cover for the thieves. In residential 

areas that contain multi-family apartment complexes, 

parking lots can be vulnerable to thefts during the day 

because there are many people using the lots, thus 

providing anonymity to the offender. Some special events 

that draw large numbers of vehicles to an area also 

generate high volumes of thefts from cars.5

Type of Car

Data on the most frequently stolen new cars and parts are 

compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute (www.iihs.

org) and the Insurance Information Institute (www.iii.org) 

and are published annually online. Data on the theft of 

older model cars are reported by the National Insurance 

Crime Bureau (NICB) (www.nicb.org). In general, older 
6 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways

models of cars are more often stolen than more recent 

models because fewer of them contain in-built anti-theft 

devices, and thieves learn that particular models of cars 

are easier to steal than others. However, newer models 

may be targeted for theft if they contain expensive 

components in great demand (on the next page).

Items Targeted for Theft

Frequently, thefts from cars will occur in clusters. 

Numerous larcenies may be reported during the early 

morning hours when one or more thieves have passed 

through a neighborhood looking for property to steal. In 

general, two kinds of property are stolen: personal items 

and car components. Personal items that owners may 

leave in their cars include loose change, laptop computers, 

portable music players, and wallets or pocket books. The 

United Kingdom Home Office reported that personal 

valuables inside the passenger compartment accounted for 

35 percent of items stolen, while stereo components made 

up 27 percent of the stolen items.6 Compact discs as well 

as car stereo parts and accessories can easily be traded for 

cash at second-hand music stores or pawnshops. These 

items can also be difficult to trace, as few owners take 

the time to record the serial numbers of after-market 

stereo components. Targeted car components change as 

the different features become highly valued. For a time 

stereo equipment was targeted, but now air bags and 

expensive parts such as high-intensity discharge or xenon 

headlamps are prized.§ The National Insurance Crime 

Bureau (NICB) reports more than 75,000 thefts of airbags 

annually.7 Many of the techniques associated with stealing 

cars for parts or resale differ from thefts of personal 

items from cars.8

§ The Highway Loss Data Institute 

reported that the 2002 and 2003 

Nissan Maxima was most often 

targeted for theft of its highintensity discharge headlamps in 

2003.
Understanding Your Local Problem 7

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized 

description of the problem of thefts of and from cars in 

residential neighborhoods. 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. Your main 

emphasis should be on understanding the environmental 

settings in which the thefts occur in your suburban 

residential communities, and identifying those people in 

your community who can help change those settings. 

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

and you should try to determine the kind of offenders 

involved (e.g., transients, drug addicts, juveniles). On the 

other hand, if the problem is mainly theft of cars, you will 

need to determine the motive, whether for joyriding, for 

transport, or for profit. The principal indicators of motive 

are recovery rates, though the model stolen will also help 

determine the motive because certain kinds of thieves 

favor certain models, which vary according to how easy 

they are to steal, or the valued parts that they contain.9 

A Ford Mustang stripped of its airbags 

and other interior components.

www.baitcar.com
8 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways

Stakeholders

Determining which individuals and groups have a stake in 

the problem and its resolution is an important first step 

in collecting information about the problem. In addition 

to criminal justice agencies, the following groups are likely 

to have some stake or interest in the problem because 

they may be able to effect changes in the environmental 

settings in which the thefts occur. Without their help, you 

will be limited to reactive responses to calls for service 

and to making occasional arrests, without the ability to 

implement any changes in the environment that may 

prevent the thefts from occurring. Stakeholders include:

For Driveways

homeowners or tenants

home insurance companies.

For Streets

town supervisors 

building surveyors 

traffic engineers

urban planners

local community groups.

For Both Locations

auto insurance companies

car owners. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Understanding Your Local Problem 9

Gathering Intelligence

The most important first step must be the collection of 

relevant data. It is only through the systematic collection 

of information concerning characteristics of location, 

times and methods used by offenders that a clear picture 

of the problem will emerge. This information can then be 

used both to inform local car owners and residents of the 

problem as well as to train police officers. 

In many densely populated areas, thefts from cars go 

uninvestigated if there is no information from the 

victim as to the identity of the perpetrator. Frequently, 

police departments do not even send an officer to the 

scene to investigate or to interview the victim. Reports 

on these types of offenses are often simply taken 

over the telephone and entered into the departments’ 

records. While this sort of action may be pragmatic in 

overburdened police agencies, when attempting to address 

a specific problem it causes the loss of a great deal of 

information that may be of assistance. Identifying one or 

more perpetrators can alleviate a problem by removing 

the offender and providing insight into the characteristics, 

motives, and methods of operation of the thieves. 

Furthermore, the collection of intelligence concerning 

the scene of the theft may also help in prevention if the 

information is routinely shared with a crime analyst, who 

may help, using mapping techniques, to identify risky 

locations. (See Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small 

Steps at www.popcenter.org/learning/60steps for further 

guidance on problem analysis.) The following specific 

intelligence collection methods may be particularly useful 

for this type of problem:

Sending an officer to each report of theft from a car 

can provide an opportunity for the police to uncover 

details about the crime not likely to be discovered 

•
by telephone. It provides the officer an opportunity 

to interview neighbors and perhaps uncover 

additional clues or additional crimes. Moreover, such 

responsiveness demonstrates to the residents that 

the department takes their concerns seriously and is 

implementing measures to help.

Forming a task force to investigate car crimes in the 

target area can be an effective way of concentrating 

effort into solving the crimes. A group of officers 

and detectives who have the opportunity to focus on 

a single problem can develop a clearer picture of the 

overall pattern. They can coordinate their efforts and 

synthesize information from multiple sources without 

the distraction of handling numerous other calls and 

investigations.

Interviewing offenders as to their motivation and 

methods can help police develop new approaches to 

the problem, and to determine which efforts they 

have employed are effective and which are not.§ The 

San Diego police used this method and determined 

that the perpetrators in their area typically focused on 

apartment complexes, worked in pairs and traveled 

to the area by car from several miles away.10,§§ These 

same interviews conducted by San Diego detectives 

revealed that a single pair of offenders was often 

responsible for dozens, sometimes hundreds of 

theft incidents. This is consistent with a large body 

of research that shows that a small proportion 

of offenders is responsible for the vast majority 

of crime.11 Gathering detailed information from 

offenders can reveal the type of offender and suggest 

proper courses of action. For example, if your 

analysis reveals that professionals are stealing vehicles 

•

•

§ See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 3, Using Offender Interviews to 

Inform Police Problem Solving, for advice 

on how to conduct such interviews.

§§ Police researchers in the United 

Kingdom used an alternative 

method of gathering intelligence 

against professional car thieves; 

they distributed questionnaires to 

police investigators who dealt with 

car crime and collected data about 

their knowledge of offenders. 

Among other information, the 

study indicated that joyriders tend 

to graduate to other vehicle crimes, 

and it identified common traits 

of facilities used as chop shops 

(Hinchliffe, 1994).

10 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Understanding Your Local Problem 11

for stripping or resale, investigation can focus on 

identifying suitable locations for the thieves to carry 

out such an operation.

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some questions you should ask in 

analyzing your particular problem of thefts of and from 

cars on suburban residential streets or driveways, even if 

the answers are not always readily available. Your answers 

to these and other questions will help you choose the 

most appropriate set of responses later on.

Incidents

Is theft of cars or theft from cars the primary problem? 

(Different offender motivations may suggest particular 

responses.)

What factors explain why some offenses were 

successfully completed and others were not (e.g., 

presence of alarms on vehicles, witnesses deterred 

offenders)?

What percentage of offenses has not been reported to 

police? (You will need to survey area residents to learn 

this information.) Why have some offenses not been 

reported to police?

Are there other incidents, unknown to your 

department, being investigated by another police 

agency?

Are thefts occurring simultaneously with other crimes 

or events (e.g., vandalism, thefts of other property, 

burglary to houses)?

How is entry gained into the vehicle? By unlocked 

doors or open windows, or by forced entry?

•

•

•

•

•

•
Where has any stolen property been recovered (e.g., 

chop shops, pawn shops, other resale shops, offenders’ 

homes)?

How is stolen property disposed of (e.g., offenders 

keep it for their own use, sell it, or trade it for other 

valuables)?

Offenders

Are the offenders drug addicts looking for money to 

purchase their drug of choice?

Are they transients passing through the area to 

another particular location, such as a bar or apartment 

complex?§

Are the offenders juveniles who are more likely to be 

out on weekends?

Are the car thieves professionals who are selecting 

particular cars or car components?

Are the cars being stolen for transportation/

entertainment (“joyriding”)?

What other crimes or problems are offenders involved 

in? (Understanding this might provide insights into the 

types of offenders.)

Are the offenders locals or outsiders?

Victims

Are particular vehicle owners repeatedly victimized?

Do certain victim behaviors contribute to thefts (for 

example, leaving keys or valuables plainly visible in 

vehicles)?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

§ The Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Police Department found that 

transient alcoholics who made a 

daily trip from the shelters along 

an abandoned rail line to the city’s 

downtown office parking areas 

primarily caused their theft from 

vehicle problem. Part of the solution 

was to deny access to the rail line by 

installation of a new trolley system 

(Clarke and Goldstein, 2003).

12 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Thefts of Cars

Which models are stolen?

What proportion of stolen cars is recovered?

Which models are less likely to be recovered?

How soon are they recovered?

Where are they recovered?

Are they damaged?

Have items been stolen?

Thefts from Cars

Are there favored methods of gaining entry to cars?

What is stolen? 

Where and how are items fenced?

Locations/Times

Do the thefts occur in streets or driveways or both?

Is the problem confined to parking lots in or around 

apartment complexes?

Is the problem confined to streets in single-family 

residential areas, or driveways of single-family 

residences?

Where are the thefts occurring? On which streets? Is 

there a pattern or hot spot?

During what time of day, day of the week, days of the 

month, and months of the year do the crimes most 

commonly occur?

Do offenses occur during special events (e.g., nearby 

sporting or other entertainment events, or large 

parties)?

What is the character of the surrounding 

neighborhood?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Understanding Your Local Problem 13
Conditions Facilitating Theft

What are the most likely routes of ingress and egress 

in the area for thieves?

What are the typical vehicle traffic patterns in the 

area (e.g., one-way streets, cul-de-sacs, heavy or light 

traffic)?

What are the typical pedestrian traffic patterns in the 

area?

What are the lighting conditions (on the streets and 

around houses) at the time of the offenses? 

What type of concealment is available to thieves (e.g., 

heavy foliage, dark areas, buildings, walls and fences)?

Are there parking facilities nearby that might offer 

more secure parking?

Current Responses to the Problem

Are residents aware of the problem? If so, how 

concerned are they about it?

What actions, if any, have residents and vehicle 

owners taken to prevent thefts?

Are other groups involved and/or calling for an 

improved response to the problem?

What actions have police taken to address the 

problem?

What number and percentage of offenses have been 

cleared by arrest?

What have been the typical outcomes of criminal 

prosecutions of offenders?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

14 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree 

your efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you 

might modify your responses if they are not producing 

the intended results. You should take measures of your 

problem before you implement responses, to determine 

how serious the problem is, and after you implement 

them, to determine whether they have been effective. 

All measures should be taken in both the target area and 

the surrounding area. For more detailed guidance on 

measuring effectiveness, see Problem Solving Tool Guide 

No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

for Police Problem-Solvers.

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to thefts of and from cars:

Fewer thefts reported to police

Fewer related crimes in the area (e.g., vandalism, other 

thefts, burglary)

Reduced value of stolen property

Reduced concern among area residents about the 

problem

Reduced theft reports to car insurance companies

Fewer complaints from concerned citizens, community 

groups, or elected officials about the problem.

The following measures, while not direct measures of 

effectiveness, may indicate progress toward reduced thefts:

Increased calls for service (reflecting more witnesses 

to theft)

Increased apprehensions of suspects

Increased recovery of stolen property

Fewer poorly secured cars or items left in view

Less evidence of glass from broken windows or 

windshields.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 17

Responses to the Problem of Thefts of 

and from Cars on Residential Streets 

and Driveways

Your analysis of your particular 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 responses, drawing from a variety of 

research studies and police reports, provide a foundation 

of ideas for addressing your particular problem. Several 

of these responses may apply to your community’s 

problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local 

circumstances, and that you can justify each response 

based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective 

strategy will involve implementing several different 

approaches. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom 

effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit 

yourself to considering what police can do: give careful 

consideration to who else in your community shares 

responsibility for the problem and can help police better 

respond to it. The responsibility of responding, in some 

cases, may need to be shifted toward those who have the 

capacity to implement more effective responses. (For more 

detailed information on shifting and sharing responsibility, 

see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility 

for Public Safety Problems.)
General Considerations for an Effective Response 

Strategy

While there are a number of effective responses to 

protect cars that are parked in parking lots or facilities, 

there are fewer clearly effective solutions that local police 

can implement to prevent thefts from residential streets 

and driveways. The streets on which cars are parked 

may be wide or narrow, treed or bare of vegetation, and 

lit or unlit; the risks of theft vary according to these 

environments. The fact that streets and the driveways 

attached to them are accessible to everyone makes cars 

very vulnerable. Probably the most effective response for 

car owners is not to park their cars in the open streets or 

driveways. Of course, many car owners, especially in more 

densely populated residential areas, are forced to park on 

the streets because they do not have garages or driveways. 

The capacity to prevent theft of cars and their 

components at the local level is limited, especially when 

cars are parked on the street where they are easily 

accessible at any time of the day, with few obstacles in the 

way of the thief. The solution in large part depends on car 

manufacturers, who have begun in recent years to design 

cars that are much more secure from theft, and on car 

insurers, who have demanded that cars be designed with 

security as a major concern, just as they did previously in 

regard to car safety.12 Obviously, at the local level, police 

must respond to the problem regardless of the level of 

security built into the cars in that vicinity.

Because there is little evaluative research available on 

this problem, it is uncertain how effective many of the 

responses described below are. They are nonetheless 

grounded in accepted crime prevention principles.

18 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 19

1. Promoting sales of cars with in-built security 

systems. The most effective techniques that have reduced 

car theft over the last three decades have been car security 

systems installed by manufacturers. These systems have 

included:

Steering column locks, which require an ignition key 

to unlock steering, have been shown as far back as 

1970 to be effective in reducing car theft in Europe.13

Tracking systems, which use a transmitter within the 

car to send Global Positioning System (GPS) signals 

reporting the vehicle location to police, have been 

found effective in locating the stolen car.14

Electronic immobilizers, which disable the electrical 

systems at several points, require the owner to 

authenticate with a transponder or PIN-code to 

start the car. Immobilizers have reduced car theft in 

Western Australia, where their installation has been 

mandated not only for newly manufactured cars but 

for older models as well.15

Car ID security measures include inscribing ID 

information on car parts or on cars themselves using 

micro-dot technologies, as well as automatic license 

plate recognition and VIN etching. There is some 

initial evidence that these new technologies may 

work.16

The majority of these effective responses for reducing 

thefts of cars require national or statewide action, which 

may be beyond the reach of your local agency.§ 

•

•

•

•

§ Reforms such as tightening vehicle 

registration rules require legislative 

or state agency action.
There are also some after-market security devices and 

systems that enjoy wide popularity. These include:

Mechanical barriers or locks where the steering wheel 

or brake pedal is “locked down” with a bar. These 

should be effective, especially as we know that steering 

column locks work, but there is no evaluative research 

available. The common sense advantage of these 

devices is that they are clearly visible to thieves who 

may prefer to steal a car that is unlocked and without 

any visible security system.

Sirens and pager alarms that signal a break-in to 

the owner. No evaluative research is available as to 

effectiveness.

Steering column collars that make access to the 

ignition electronics more difficult.

New technologies have shown promise in reducing car 

theft.17 The local police role with respect to car security 

systems might be to advocate their use by local car 

owners.

All of the above systems, whether manufacturer installed 

or added later, may be effective against theft of cars, but 

they will do little to prevent theft from cars.

As we have seen, cars are generally safer in driveways 

than parked on streets, but this will depend to some 

extent on the length of the driveway, shrubbery, lighting, 

and other factors that affect natural surveillance. Some 

preventive responses to protect driveways have been 

found effective—such as those that increase the risk 

to the offender in carrying out burglaries of singlefamily houses§

—there is little research that evaluates the 

•

•

•

§ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 

18, Burglary of Single-family Houses.

20 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
responses outlined below. Many of the examples reported 

are of promising programs, but because they were not 

scientifically evaluated it is difficult to rule out other 

explanations of reported effectiveness. 

Many common sense techniques may be applied locally, 

though they may often depend on car owner and property 

owner action in order to implement them. In fact, some 

police agencies have found that community residents do 

not secure their personal property as well as they should.18

Unsecured cars, cars with valuables left in plain view, poor 

house and street lighting, and vegetation or other features 

that provide concealment for thieves are commonplace. 

Thus, educating citizens often plays a central part in 

any prevention program adopted by a local police 

department.19

2. Partnering with business. Insurance companies bear 

much of the cost of thefts, and they may assist police at a 

local level by providing financial resources and reporting 

insurance fraud. Insurance companies are becoming more 

directly involved in crime prevention measures, which 

is part of a trend of increasing involvement on the part 

of businesses in combating crime.20 Police in Colorado 

Springs (Colorado) were able to obtain unmarked cars for 

their auto-theft patrol units at no cost from automobile 

insurance companies.21 Special skills and techniques are 

needed in developing business partnerships.§

3. Promoting securely designed neighborhoods.

Taking a long-term view, police can work with property 

developers and community planners to make sure that 

new residential developments are designed to create more 

“defensible space” where cars can be more safely parked 

and do not have to be parked on open streets.§§ 

Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 21

§ Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 

5, Partnering with Businesses to Address 

Public Safety Problems, describes 

the steps police should take in 

developing productive relationships 

with businesses.

§§ See the website of the 

International CPTED (Crime 

Prevention Through Environmental 

Design) Association at www.cpted.

net for further information about the 

relationship between neighborhood 

design and crime.
4. Educating patrol officers about car theft patterns. 

Educating patrol officers as to the nature and extent 

of the car crime problem can aid in producing more 

arrests and alleviating public concerns. Information 

concerning the methods of operation of the thieves 

and the characteristics of offenders, if known, and any 

information concerning likely suspects, can be passed on 

to officers who patrol the problem area. Little scientific 

evidence exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of 

such training. However, common sense dictates that if 

officers can be educated about a problem with a minimum 

expenditure of resources, they should be more effective at 

countering the problem.

San Diego police instituted a one-day training session 

for its officers who were patrolling a district that had 

experienced more than 1,500 thefts from cars in one 

year—all within one square mile.22

The California Highway Patrol instituted a 40-hour 

Vehicle Theft Investigation Course, held nine times 

per year, as part of a multi-faceted effort to reduce car 

crime.23

Specific Responses to Reduce Thefts of and from 

Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 

The specific responses are classified into three areas: 

security, education, and enforcement. However all three 

are closely related, and it is likely that any program aimed 

at reducing thefts of and from cars will include responses 

from all three areas.

•

•

22 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 23

Security

5. Improving lighting. Most thefts from cars in residential 

neighborhoods occur at night because this is when most 

cars are present in these communities and because of the 

anonymity that darkness provides. Improved street lighting 

and illumination of private property removes one of the 

thief ’s greatest allies—the cover of darkness. A study in the 

United Kingdom found that, of offenders who targeted cars 

in residential areas for theft, 80 percent limited their activities 

to the hours of darkness.24 Well-lit streets and homes increase 

the risk of detection and can act as a deterrent to would-be 

offenders. Research has demonstrated the positive effects of 

improved street lighting in reducing criminal activity.25 

Working with local town or village officials to add 

additional street lighting to a problem location can serve 

to make criminals uncomfortable as they walk the streets 

looking for targets.§ 

Encouraging homeowners to install and utilize additional 

lighting around their homes can also deter thieves. 

Including this information in town newsletters and flyers, 

and during presentations at community meetings, are 

effective means of disseminating this information. 

•

•

At this suburban home, the configuration of the 

house, the fencing and vegetation makes the vehicles 

observable only from the street. The motion light 

(on the garage) could help to deter a thief.

Todd Keister

§ Henrico County, Virginia police 

(2001) coordinated a program in 

which homeowners shared the costs 

of additional street lighting to deter 

thefts from cars.
6. Removing vegetation and other cover. Thieves 

looking for quick and easy items to steal choose targets 

where the risk of detection and apprehension is low. 

Trees with low branches and high shrubs that obscure the 

view of the property from the street can provide a thief 

with concealment. Simple trimming or removal of such 

vegetation, or alteration of other structures that give cover 

to thieves, can deprive potential criminals of concealment.26 

Tips regarding this subject can be included in flyers and 

presentations to citizens and groups. 

Vegetation and carport structures such as those pictured here can provide cover for thieves. 

Encouraging property owners to remove or modify such features can help reduce the 

occurrence of theft.

Todd Keister

Local public works or highway department officials may 

be able to aid in trimming low branches along the street or 

other vegetation in undeveloped areas to improve visibility 

and remove readily available concealment for thieves.27

7. Changing or restricting traffic patterns. A key concern 

for thieves is a rapid means of escape after the event or 

in the case of discovery. Thieves operating in cars can be 

discouraged if their potential escape routes are restricted. 

Dead-end streets afford only one means of ingress and 

egress, and they also increase the likelihood of drawing 

attention to any particular car entering the roadway. 

Streets can be closed to through-traffic by local ordinance, 

24 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 25

§ See Response Guide No. 2, Closing 

Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime for 

a more detailed account of this 

response to a variety of problems.

thereby creating both restricted traffic flow and a basis for 

officers to stop violators and discover perpetrators in the 

area. Closing streets and diverting traffic can be difficult 

and complicated and its long-term effects are yet to be 

evaluated.§ 

Parking lot barriers such as these can serve as 

a method of ensuring access to only authorized 

vehicles. They also create the appearance that 

the area is "secured" in some way. 

Todd Keister

8. Installing and monitoring video surveillance 

(CCTV). Video surveillance devices can provide a lowcost method (compared to using manpower) of providing 

24-hour monitoring of streets. While these devices may 

not record a criminal act, they could potentially aid the 

police in identifying a car or known individual that is 

in the area where the crimes are occurring and who has 

no reasonable cause to be in such place. However, it 

is unclear under what circumstances and what specific 

locations video surveillance may be effective.28 Although 

the cameras provide 24-hour coverage, unless dozens are 

employed the odds of capturing a crime on video are 

negligible. It is likely that video surveillance in itself may 

be ineffective in identifying and apprehending offenders, 

depending on the locations, a fact that offenders quickly 

discover.29 However, new technologies for deciphering 

unusual movements in video images may increase the 

effectiveness and efficiency of these devices in the future.
The primary utility of video surveillance lies in increasing 

potential offenders’ perceived risk of getting caught, 

rather than in real-time monitoring for identification or 

apprehension of offenders. Prominently posted signs 

indicating that the area is under surveillance, combined 

with media publicity, may enhance the effect of video 

surveillance, though evaluative research has produced 

mixed results. Finally, the installation of video cameras 

in some suburban neighborhoods may be opposed by 

local citizen groups because of their intrusiveness. Their 

acceptance would most likely depend on how serious 

the problem of theft of and from cars was in the 

neighborhood.§ 

§ For a comprehensive assessment 

of using video surveillance see 

Response Guide No. 4., Video 

Surveillance of Public Places.

§§ See Response Guide No. 5, 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns, 

for further information about the 

effectiveness of publicity campaigns.

The use of video surveillance cameras such as the 

one pictured above may serve as a visual deterrent 

to thieves and a reminder that someone may be 

watching or recording their activities.

Todd Keister

Education

9. Alerting car owners about theft problems and 

educating them about known risk factors and effective 

prevention. Car owners often do not secure their personal 

property as well as they should.30 Educating them on how 

to protect their cars and their contents has been used as 

part of an overall police program to reduce the thefts 

from cars.31,§§ The first step is to ensure that car owners 

and area residents are aware that a problem exists. When 

26 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 27

§ See the Hampshire Constabulary’s 

(2004) Operation Cobra for an example 

of a comprehensive car crime 

publicity campaign.

§§ Vehicle theft prevention 

brochures are available online at no 

charge from the National Crime 

Prevention Council (www.ncpc.org) 

as well as the National Insurance 

Crime Bureau (www.nicb.org).

community members are aware of a car crime problem, 

they are more likely to take measures to secure their 

property. Effective information sharing networks may also 

help in spreading the word. Although some studies (most 

of which lack control groups) have suggested that owners 

may take more precautions in protecting their cars after 

an educational program,32 others suggest that publicity 

campaigns on their own are unlikely to be effective. A 

review of two studies conducted in the United Kingdom 

revealed no significant increase in the number of locked 

cars, following publicity campaigns.33 Thus, relying on a 

publicity campaign to solve the problem should only be 

one part of a larger overall effort to reduce car crime.§ 

Some approaches to educating the public about car theft 

and theft from cars are:

distributing information flyers and brochures to 

residences in areas experiencing thefts from cars34,§§

attending community meetings and making 

presentations regarding the nature and extent of the 

problem and steps vehicle owners can take to guard 

against theft 

erecting signs warning citizens parking in a shopping 

mall lot not to leave valuables in their vehicles35

issuing press releases to newspapers, radio, and 

television media outlets

holding press conferences along with local 

government officials and/or community groups 

placing notices in neighborhood and association 

newsletters 

placing notices on the windshields of unsecured 

vehicles and those with valuables in plain view, 

indicating that the vehicle was vulnerable to theft36

enclosing information about insurance discounts 

available to customers who have anti-theft devices 

installed on their vehicles in regular insurance 

company mailings.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Among the most important messages to convey to car 

owners are the following:

Vehicles are safer in a garage, more at risk in a 

driveway, and much more at risk on the street. 

Buying a late model car will also ensure that modern 

security systems have been installed. Checking the 

ratings of most stolen models may also indicate to the 

owner what cars are at risk. 

If car owners must park their cars on the street, 

advising the installation of after market security 

systems, especially those that are clearly visible to the 

thief, is probably better than nothing.

Enforcement

10. Increasing patrols. While the effectiveness of 

increased patrols as a means of deterring crime has not 

been established, there are some occasions where they 

may be useful, particularly when crime analysis data 

can demonstrate a clear pattern of thefts in certain 

locations and at certain times. Monitoring the results of 

intensive patrols is important, especially as they demand 

considerable police department resources. For this reason 

they are only of use as temporary solutions and do not 

solve the problem in the long term.

Unmarked patrol units can be used to monitor the 

area and to track and identify suspicious individuals in 

the neighborhood.

Coral Springs, Florida police utilized foot patrols and 

bicycle-mounted officers in their Forest Hills Initiative 

aimed at reducing thefts from cars.37 These types of 

patrols not only increase the opportunity for police to 

discover offenders, but also improve their chances of 

apprehending these perpetrators who typically are on 

foot.

•

•

•

•

•

28 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 29

§ The IMPACT Team in British 

Columbia has launched a website 

(www.baitcar.com) where citizens 

can view in-car video of the thefts 

and subsequent arrests involving 

bait cars. The site includes crime 

prevention tips, and has generated 

thousands of daily hits. They have 

recently launched new initiatives 

including bait Alternative Terrain 

Vehicles, motorcycles, boats, and 

snowmobiles.

11. Prosecuting offenders. Working with local 

prosecutors to ensure aggressive prosecution and 

punishment may temporarily remove prolific offenders 

from the community and serve as a deterrent to others. 

Some argue that lack of prosecution results in low levels

of fear of arrest among offenders. However, the British 

Home Office found that, among offenders involved in 

stealing cars, fear of apprehension and punishment was 

not a significant deterrent; though when asked if a new 

law mandating stiff penalties would deter them, over half 

of the thieves interviewed said that it would.38 One police 

agency in the United Kingdom devised a flyer to be given 

to auto theft offenders released on bail, which warned 

that they would be closely monitored, and advised them 

of the consequences of breaking the conditions of their 

release.39

12. Using “bait cars.” Placing cars in plain view can 

provide a target for police to observe and catch offenders 

in the act. Maintaining cars under continuous surveillance 

is labor-intensive, although technological innovations such 

as GPS tracking and cars that automatically broadcast 

to patrol cars when they are broken into have made 

this easier. Some research has suggested that this type 

of program might be effective in reducing car crime.40

This response is more effective when it is known what 

type of car is most often targeted for theft, or when a 

particular area is experiencing a very high volume of 

thefts from cars. In British Columbia, Canada, police 

officials have formed a task force of seven provincial and 

local police agencies that utilize bait cars which, when 

stolen, immediately notify dispatchers and transmit their 

position via GPS tracking. Once police are in place behind 

the car, the engine is disabled with the click of a mouse 

button, allowing apprehension without the concern of 

a pursuit situation developing.41,§ While this technique 
offers promise in reducing or eliminating high speed car 

chases, there is to date no research to demonstrate that 

this approach reduces or prevents car theft. 

13. Tracking stolen goods. Local pawnshops and 

second-hand stores that trade in the most frequently 

stolen items, such as compact disks and car stereos, should 

be contacted directly. Not only can they be checked for 

any identifiable items (most states require pawn brokers 

to record the identity of all persons delivering property 

to them, and to show their records to the police upon 

demand), but police can also use the opportunity to 

educate store owners about the problem, enlist their aid, 

and/or warn them of the consequences of receiving 

stolen property.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

14. Warning offenders. Most thieves are aware of 

the threat of apprehension and prosecution. Installing 

Neighborhood Watch signs or other devices to warn 

offenders generally does not act as a significant deterrent42

to experienced offenders who realize that detection and 

apprehension are unlikely, and that prosecution is even 

less likely.

Neighborhood Watch signs are 

ubiquitous in many suburban areas 

and are generally ineffective, as 

suggested by the graffiti on the sign.

Todd Keister

30 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Responses to the Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways 31

15. Diverting youthful offenders. Diverting youthful 

offenders involved in car crime to programs designed to 

provide them with a positive outlet for their energies and 

interests is intended to discourage them from continuing 

to engage in crime. Unfortunately, most research has 

demonstrated that these programs have a limited or no 

effectiveness in reducing car-related crime. A review of 

diversion programs in the United Kingdom found no 

evidence for their effectiveness in reducing joyriding.43 

Some examples of diversion programs aimed at young 

auto thieves are:

The youth and probation services in High Wycombe, 

United Kingdom initiated a program known as Skidz, 

that provides at-risk young people with free access to 

automotive mechanical training and driver education, 

as well as literacy and job training services.44

Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Williams Lake, 

British Columbia discovered through their analysis 

that young First Nation males were responsible 

for the majority of the rampant auto theft in the 

area. Working with tribal leaders from the nearby 

reservation, they established programs for diversion 

of first offenders. In addition, they set up programs 

of educational and cultural exchange between 

members of the civilian and law enforcement 

communities of the city, and with the youth of the 

reservation. The result was a reduction in the car theft 

rate and improvement in overall relations between 

the two communities.45 This finding remains tentative 

however, because of lack of controls in the research 

design.

•

•
16. Implementing “Vehicle Watch” programs. This 

approach involves a voluntary agreement between the 

police and citizens who permit the police to stop their 

cars without cause if it is seen in operation during 

certain late-night hours. A special sticker identifies the 

car. A study in the United Kingdom suggests that the 

risk of theft can be reduced over the short term.46 

However, the results are inconclusive,47 and other 

research using interviews with offenders indicates that 

these stickers can easily be defeated by covering them 

with another sticker or simply scraping them off. In 

another U.K. study of offender attitudes, 82 percent 

of car thieves stated they would not be deterred by 

cars carrying the vehicle watch sticker.48

A rear window decal indicates the 

vehicle owner grants permission to 

police to stop the vehicle if it is seen 

being operated during late night 

hours.

Michael Scott

32 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Appendix 33

Appendix: Summary of Responses to the 

Problem of Thefts of and from Cars on 

Residential Streets and Driveways

The table below summarizes the responses in this guide, 

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. Law enforcement responses alone 

are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Because of the lack of evaluative research all responses are 

considered to be of uncertain effectiveness and should be adopted 

on an experimental basis with a high premium placed on carefully 

measuring their success or failure.

1.

2.

3.

4.

19

21

21

22

Promoting sales 

of cars with 

in-built security 

systems

Partnering with 

business

Promoting 

securelydesigned 

neighborhoods

Educating patrol 

officer about car 

theft patterns

Make theft 

of cars more 

difficult

Increases 

resources 

available to 

address problem

Provides secure 

places to park 

cars

Enhances 

officers’ abilities 

to detect and 

prevent car 

crimes

...manufacturers 

design security 

into cars

...police and 

businesses 

understand one 

another’s interests

...local police 

work with 

developers and 

planners in 

initial design of 

neighborhoods

...training 

supported by 

reliable data and 

knowledge

Local police limited 

to educating car 

owners about theft 

prevention

Requires time and 

effort to develop 

close relationships 

with business

Requires 

expertise in crime 

prevention through 

environmental 

design

May add training 

costs

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy
5.

6.

7.

8. 

9.

23

24

24

25

26

Improving 

lighting

Removing 

vegetation and 

other cover

Changing or 

restricting traffic 

patterns

Installing and 

monitoring video 

surveillance 

(CCTV)

Alerting car 

owners about 

theft problems 

and educating 

them about 

known risk 

factors and 

effective 

prevention

Increases risk 

of detection to 

offender 

Increases 

chances of 

thief ’s discovery

Makes it more 

difficult for 

thieves to escape 

the scene of the 

crime

Increases 

offenders’ 

perceived risk of 

apprehension

Increases 

likelihood car 

owners will 

take effective 

measures to 

prevent car 

crime

Local townships 

may lack funds for 

additional lighting; 

homeowners may 

also lack the funds 

or motivation for 

installation of 

additional lighting

Requires time 

and effort from 

homeowners and/

or public works 

agencies

Changing traffic 

patterns may be 

inconvenient for 

local residents; 

may require 

government 

approval

Cameras must 

be visible in 

order to be 

effective; privacy 

concerns; sprawl 

of suburban areas 

requires many 

cameras and signs

Outreach activities 

are demanding in 

cost and time to 

police; difficult to 

get car owners to 

implement security 

procedures

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

...homeowners 

install and utilize 

additional lighting 

around their 

homes and/or 

local townships 

add additional 

street lighting

... homeowners 

are made aware 

of the benefits

...entrance and 

exit points of 

parking lots 

and housing 

subdivisions are 

limited

...cameras are 

visibly placed 

in residential 

streets combined 

with signs or 

media publicity 

regarding their 

presence

...with 

cooperation of 

mass media and 

local community 

groups

Security

Education

34 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

28

29

29

30

30

Increasing 

patrols

Prosecuting 

offenders

Using “bait 

cars”

Tracking stolen 

goods

Warning 

offenders

Increases the 

risk to offenders 

and helps inform 

officers of risky 

locations in 

neighborhood

Increases 

perceived costs 

to offender

Provides a target 

for thieves 

and a means 

for police to 

rapidly respond 

and apprehend 

offenders

Discourages 

thieves from 

selling stolen 

property

Intended to 

increase the 

perceived risk 

of apprehension 

and punishment

Availability of 

manpower and 

overtime funds for 

increased patrols; 

rarely a long-term 

solution

Prosecutor’s office 

must be fully aware 

of the community 

and/or political 

concern to reduce 

theft

High cost of 

bait car units; 

placement of 

the bait car in a 

widely dispersed 

community

Cooperation of 

store owners may 

be compromised 

by fear of 

prosecution

Most thieves are 

aware of the risk 

of apprehension 

and prosecution

...foot and 

bicycle patrols 

are employed 

along with 

volunteer units 

to patrol areas

...repeat 

offenders are 

targeted for full 

prosecution

...the cars 

are equipped 

with high-tech 

features such as 

GPS tracking, 

automatic alerts 

to dispatchers 

or patrols, and 

remote disabling 

of the car’s 

engine

...police educate 

store owners 

about the 

problem

...offenders 

are genuinely 

unaware of the 

risk of arrest 

and punishment 

and risk is not 

negligible

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Enforcement

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

Appendix 35
15. 

16.

31

32

Diverting 

youthful 

offenders 

Implementing 

“Vehicle 

Watch” 

programs

Provides 

attractive 

venues for 

youths seeking 

excitement

Intended to 

increase risk of 

apprehension by 

police

Stickers are 

easily defeated 

by scraping or 

covering

...youthful 

offenders are 

motivated 

by legitimate 

alternatives to 

crime

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

36 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Endnotes

 1 California Highway Patrol (2003).

 2 Harlow, 1988 cited in Clarke and Harris (1992a).

 3 Clarke and Mayhew (1998).

 4 Hampshire Constabulary (2004).

 5 Hampshire Constabulary (2004).

 6 Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (1999). 

 7 Klein (2004).

 8 Tilley (1993); Clarke and Harris (1992a); Clarke and 

Harris (1992b).

 9 Clarke and Harris (1992a).

10 San Diego (California) Police Department (1997). 

11 Brighton and Hove (UK) Partnership Community 

Safety Team (2004). 

12 Newman (2004).

13 Webb (1994).

14 Ayres and Levitt (1998).

15 Brown (2004); Carroll (2004).

16 Henderson, et al. (2004); Whitley, et al., 2002, cited in 

Linden and Chaturvedi (2005); Brown (2004).

17 Henderson, et al. (2004); Whitley, et al., 2002, cited in 

Linden and Chaturvedi (2005); Brown (2004).

18 Fresno County (California) Sheriff ’s Department 

(2002). 

19 San Diego (California) Police Department (1997); Coral 

Springs (Florida) Police Department (2003). 

20 Roach-Anleu, Mazerolle and Presser (2000).

21 Ricks (1991).

22 San Diego (California) Police Department (1997). 

23 International Association of Chiefs of Police (2005).

24 Light, Nee and Ingham (1993).

25 Welsh and Farrington (2003). 

26 Smith (1996).

Endnotes 37
27 Carrollton (Texas) Police Department (2005). 

28 Phillips (1999); Webb, Brown and Bennett (1992). 

29 Tilley (1993).

30 Fresno County (California) Sheriff ’s Department (2002).

31 San Diego (California) Police Department (1997); Coral 

Springs (Florida) Police Department (2003). 

32 Barthe (2004).

33 Clarke and Harris (1992a); Clarke and Harris (1992b).

34 Fresno County (California) Sheriff ’s Department (2002); 

Carrollton (Texas) Police Department (2005).

35 Edmonton (Canada) Police Service (1994). 

36 Coral Springs (Florida) Police Department (2003); 

Carrollton (Texas) Police Department (2005). 

37 Coral Springs (Florida) Police Department (2003). 

38 Nee (1993). 

39 Lancashire Constabulary (2001).

40 Sallybanks (2001).

41 Integrated Municipal Provincial Auto Crime Team 

(2005).

42 Rosenbaum (2003).

43 Sugg (1998).

44 NACRO (1999). 

45 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1997).

46 Honess and Maguire (1993).

47 Ethridge and Sorensen (1993).

48 Light, Nee and Ingham (1993).

38 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
References

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Statistical Analysis 

Center (2004). “Arizona Auto Theft Study.” Phoenix 

(Arizona): Author.

Ayres, I., and S. Levitt (1998). “Measuring Positive 

Externalities from Unobservable Victim Precaution: 

An Empirical Analysis.” The Quarterly Journal of 

Economics 113(1):43-77.

Barthe, E. (2004). “Publicity and Car Crime Prevention.” 

In M.G. Maxfield and R.V. Clarke (eds.), Understanding 

and Preventing Car Theft. Crime Prevention Studies, volume 

17. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.

Brighton and Hove (United Kingdom) Partnership 

Community Safety Team (2004). “Prolific and Other 

Priority Offenders.” Community Safety Crime and 

Drugs Audit. Brighton and Hove (United Kingdom): 

Author.

Brown, R. (2004). “The Effectiveness of Electronic 

Immobilization: Changing Patterns of Temporary and 

Permanent Vehicle Theft.” In M.G. Maxfield and R.V. 

Clarke (eds.), Understanding and Preventing Car Theft. 

Crime Prevention Studies, volume 17. Monsey (New 

York): Criminal Justice Press.

California Highway Patrol (2003). “Vehicle Ownership 

Security. A Proactive Approach to Vehicle Theft 

Prevention in California.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Available at www.popcenter.org/library/

Goldstein/2003/03-05(f).pdf.

References 39
Carroll, R. (2004). “Preventing Vehicle Crime in Australia 

through Partnerships and National Collaboration.” In 

M.G. Maxfield and R.V. Clarke (eds.), Understanding and 

Preventing Car Theft. Crime Prevention Studies, volume 17. 

Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.

Carrollton (Texas) Police Department (2005). “Reducing 

Vehicle Burglaries.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Available at www.popcenter.org/library/

Goldstein/2005/05-03(f).pdf.

Clarke, R., and H. Goldstein (2003). Thefts from Cars in 

Center City Parking Facilities: A Case Study. Washington, 

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

Community Oriented Policing Services. Available 

at www.popcenter.org/Problems/Supplemental_

Material/Car%20Thefts/clarkegold.pdf. 

Clarke, R., and P. Harris (1992a). “The Rational Choice 

Perspective on the Targets of Automobile Theft.” 

Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 2(1):25-42.

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

Prevention.” In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: 

A Review of Research, volume 16. Chicago (Illinois): 

University of Chicago Press.

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

Parking Lots: What We Know and What We Need 

to Know.” In M. Felson and R. Peiser (eds.), Reducing 

Crime through Real Estate Development and Management. 

Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

40 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Coral Springs (Florida) Police Department (2003). “The 

Forest Hills Boulevard Initiative: An Educational 

Initiative to Reduce the Occurrences of Crimes 

Involving Vehicles.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Available at www.popcenter.org/library/

Goldstein/2003/03-10.pdf.

Edmonton (Canada) Police Service (1994). “Thefts 

From Automobiles: Prevention Through Education.” 

Edmonton (Alberta, Canada): Edmonton Police Service.

Ethridge, P., and J. Sorensen (1993). “An Evaluation of 

Citizens Against Auto Theft.” Security Journal 4(1):13-19.

Fresno County (California) Sheriff ’s Department (2002). 

“Lincoln 21 Vehicle Burglary Project.” Submission 

for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. Available at www.popcenter.

org/library/Goldstein/2002/02-13.pdf.

Hampshire Constabulary (2004). “Tackling Vehicle Crime 

in Portsmouth, England.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Available at www.popcenter.org/Library/

Goldstein/2004/04-38(W).pdf. 

Harlow, C.W. (1988). Motor Vehicle Theft. U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.

Henderson, C., P. Papagapiou, A. Gains, and J. Knox (2004). 

Driving Crime Down: Denying Criminals the Use of the Road. 

London: PA Consulting Group.

References 41
Henrico County (Virginia) Division of Police (2001). 

“Crime Watch Light Partners.” Submission for the 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing. Available at www.popcenter.org/

library/Goldstein/2001/01-28.pdf.

Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). www.iihs.org.

Hinchliffe, M. (1994). Professional Car Thieves: Their 

Knowledge and Social Structure. London: Home Office 

Police Research Group.

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

Theft: An Evaluation. London: Home Office Research 

Group.

Insurance Information Institute (III). www.iii.org. 

Integrated Municipal Provincial Auto Crime Team (2005). 

“About IMPACT and the Bait Car Program.” Surrey 

(British Columbia, Canada): IMPACT.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2005). 

“California Vehicle Theft Prevention Program.” 

Alexandria (Virginia): IACP. 

Klein, A. (2004). “Air Bags Become Targets of Car 

Thieves.” Washington Post, Dec. 30, p. T3.

Lancashire Constabulary (2001). “Operation Freedom.” 

Submission for the Tilley Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Reduction. 

Hutton (United Kingdom): Author. Available at www.

popcenter.org/library/tilley/2001/01-38.pdf.

42 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Light, R., C. Nee, and H. Ingham (1993). Car Theft: The 

Offender’s Perspective. Home Office Research Study No. 

130. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Linden, R., and R. Chaturvedi (2005). “The Need for 

Comprehensive Crime Prevention Planning: The Case of 

Motor Vehicle Theft.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice 47(2):251-270.

NACRO (1999). A Balanced Approach to Reducing Vehicle Crime 

and Disorder. London: Author.

Nee, C. (1993). Car Theft: The Offender’s Perspective. London: 

Home Office Research and Statistics Department.

Newman, G. (2004). “Car Safety and Car Security: An 

Historical Comparison.” In M.G. Maxfield and R.V. 

Clarke (eds.), Understanding and Preventing Car Theft. 

Crime Prevention Studies, volume 17. Monsey (New York): 

Criminal Justice Press.

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

Reduction Effects and Attitudes Towards its Use. London: 

Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Ricks, P. (1991). “The RAT Patrol Rides!” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 60(1):20-23.

Roach-Anleu, S., L. Mazerolle, and L. Presser (2000). “ThirdParty Policing and Insurance: The Case of Market-Based 

Crime Prevention.” Law and Policy 22:67-87.

Rosenbaum, D. (2003). “Evaluating Multi-Agency AntiCrime Partnerships: Theory, Design and Measurement 

Issues.” In N. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation for Crime Prevention. 

Crime Prevention Studies, volume 14. Monsey (New York): 

Criminal Justice Press.

References 43
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1997). “Auto Theft in 

Williams Lake, BC.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Available at www.popcenter.org/library/

Goldstein/1997/97-55.pdf.

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

Police Research Series Paper 137. London: Home 

Office. 

San Diego (California) Police Department (1997). “Coste 

Verde Vehicle Burglary Project.” Submission for the 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing. Available at www.popcenter.org/

library/Goldstein/2997/97-57.pdf.

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

Design in Parking Facilities. Research in Brief series, 

National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice.

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

Evaluation. Research Findings No. 81, Research and 

Statistics Directorate. London: Home Office.

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

Evaluation Lessons from Safer Cities. Crime Prevention 

Unit series, Paper 42. London: Home Office Police 

Department.

Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (1999). Tackling 

Vehicle Crime: A Five-Year Strategy. London: Home 

Office.

44 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Webb, B. (1994). “Steering Column Locks and Motor 

Vehicle Theft: Evaluations from Three Cities.” In 

M.G. Maxfield and R.V. Clarke (eds.), Understanding and 

Preventing Car Theft. Crime Prevention Studies, volume 2. 

Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press. 

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

Crime in Car Parks. Crime Prevention Unit series, Paper 

34. London: Home Office Police Research Group.

Welsh, B., and D. Farrington (2003). “Effects of Improved 

Street Lighting on Crime: Protocol for a Systematic 

Review.” Submission to the Campbell Collaboration 

Crime and Justice Group. Available at www.

campbellcollaboration.org/CCJG/reviews/2003-11-

StreetLighting.pdf.

Whitely, Frank, Adrian Gains and Jo Barton (2002). 

Project Laser: Denying criminals the use of the roads. 

London: PA Knowledge Limited. 

References 45
About the Author

Todd Keister

Todd Keister is a lieutenant in the New York State Police, currently 

serving in the Bureau of Criminal Investigation commanding the 

anti-corruption unit at an upstate Indian casino. He has previously 

served as a trooper, field-training officer, sergeant, academy instructor, 

station commander, assistant zone commander, and director of field 

investigations for the governor’s office. He also served as a U.S. Navy 

Reserve Intelligence Specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency 

from 2000–2005. Lieutenant Keister holds associate and bachelor 

degrees in criminal justice and history, respectively, and a master’s 

degree in criminal justice from the University at Albany School of 

Criminal Justice. 

Abour the Author 47
Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

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

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

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

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

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

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

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

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

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

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.

Recommended Readings 49
• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

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

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

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

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices.

50 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

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

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

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

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

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

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

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

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

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

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency.

Recommended Readings 51
• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

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

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

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

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

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

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

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

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

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

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

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

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

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

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

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving.

52 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

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

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

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

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

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

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 53
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. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

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

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

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

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

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

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

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

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

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

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

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

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

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

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

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

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

54 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
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

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

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

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

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

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 55
Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

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

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

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

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

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Abandoned Vehicles

Bank Robbery

Bicycle Theft

Drive-By Shootings

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Child Abuse

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Robbery of Convenience Stores

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Transient Encampments

Problem-Solving Tools

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Displacement

Implementing Responses to Problems

Understanding Risky Facilities

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem Solving

Partnering with Community Developers to Address Public 

Safety Problems

56 Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways
Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Sting Operations

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e0207158 February 2007

ISBN: 1-932582-76-2