Approach

Reasoning / mechanism

Summary of research findings

Car park security enhancements

Controlled access/ Increased natural surveillance makes crime harder and more risky.

Research covering car parks in London and elsewhere found that risks of theft were highest in unstaffed car parks, especially those where cars were left for long periods.

Staffed entrances greatly reduced theft of vehicles, though theft of contents could still be a problem.

Car parks where attendants parked the cars had by far the lowest rates of theft.

Thefts of components and contents were found to be higher where car parks served as pedestrian throughfares.

(Clarke & Mayhew, 1998)

Examples of significant reductions in crime in Secured Car Parks are found in the published report of the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team. (http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/vrcat1.htm

Enhance new car security

Target hardening.

Enhancing new car security is important as part of a package of vehicle crime reduction measures. However, on its their own higher levels of security may not necessarily reduce the risk of theft, especially theft from vehicles.

(Clarke & Harris, 1992)

Fitting approved security devices

Added security makes vehicles harder to steal

Inconclusive. (Schemes that rely on motorists coming forward tend to attract the more security conscious drivers.)

(Brown & Billing, 1996)

The Sold Secure study found that vehicles with an approved device fitted to them were less likely to be stolen than the population of cars as a whole. High and low risks of theft associated with cars fitted with security were calculated at between 2.8 and 18.5 thefts per 1,000 compared to 21 thefts per 1,000 in the general population.

Improve lighting

Better lighting will deter thieves and make detection more likely.

Small scale studies suggest that better lighting may reduce crime and incivilities in localised areas, at least in the short term.

An evaluation of area-wide lighting improvements found these were popular and reassuring for the public but did not reduce crime to any great extent.

(Atkins et al, 1991)

Increase CCTV coverage

Cameras will either:

Deter thieves

Aid detection

Support successful prosecutions

Can be effective where it is clear what impact the scheme is meant to have, and where the right conditions are in place for the cameras to have the intended effect.

Works best as part of an integrated and evolving package of measures.

(Tilley, 1993)

Informant hotlines

Rewards, freephone number and anonymity will generate information leading to arrests.

Schemes are in general highly productive in recovering stolen property/successful prosecutions.

May be less suited to petty car theft where most offenders are juveniles.

(Clarke & Harris, 1992)

Motor education projects

Channelling young people’s interest in vehicles in positive directions can deter them from offending / re-offending & remove some of the motivation for theft.

Motor projects can and do work where they are carefully targeted and managed and run professionally to exacting criteria. Factors essential for success include careful targetting of participants, clear aims, good developmental programmes and incentives for participants to stay involved.

(Smith, 1999)

Raise public awareness/change driver behaviour

People can (but often fail to) take simple steps to protect themselves from being victimised.

Research on the role of publicity campaigns in anti-burglary strategies found that these could be effective as part of a wider strategy. Some of the strategies assessed also covered vehicle crime. Caveats are that publicity should not be over-optimistic and that brand names should not be over-used as this dilutes their impact.

(Stockdale & Graham 1995).

Campaigns targeted on vulnerable drivers/vehicles/places show most promise.

(Burrows & Heal 1979)

Repeat victimisation

Crime can be reduced by protecting victims from further crime.

UK research indicates that repeat victimisation initiatives can have some success in reducing thefts from vehicles. Initiatives targeting vehicles, owners and locations create greater scope to make an impact. (Chenery et al, 1997)

Secure by design

Crime can be reduced by making it harder and more risky to commit.

Vehicles less vulnerable when parked within property boundaries.

(BCS, 1994, Clarke and Mayhew)

Targeted policing of hotspots

The more precisely patrol presence is concentrated at the ‘hotspots’ the less crime there will be at those places and times.

US evidence is that this is an effective strategy for dealing with local problems.

(Goldblatt & Lewis, 1998)

Displacement is not just crime moving from one location to another. It can include an offender changing his/her behaviour, committing a different offence, committing the original offence at a different time, using a different method or selecting a different target. Hesseling (1994) reviewed 55 published articles on crime prevention measures and found that 40% showed no displacement at all;and, of that 40%, 28% showed diffusion (the spread of beneficial influence of an intervention beyond the places directly targeted etc.)

Target known offenders

Crimes can be reduced by disrupting offenders’ methods/routines.

The higher the police arrest rate for high risk offenders the lower the rates of crime.

Targeting repeat offenders appears to be worthwhile.

(Goldblatt & Lewis, 1998)

Recent research points to the benefits of targeting repeat serious traffic offenders, in particular those convicted of driving while disqualified.

(Rose, 2000)

Targeting the market in stolen goods

Reducing the market for stolen goods will reduce incentives/incitement for theft.

Some evidence that difficulties in disposing of stolen property can deter inexperienced thieves from reoffending, while active ‘fences’ encourage more offending. Strategies for reducing illicit markets are being tested.

(Sutton, 1998)

Vehicle watch/

Over 25s schemes

Stolen vehicles will be easier to detect when being driven late at night/by younger drivers.

Can be reassuring to the public / good for police-community relations, and may have a place in clearly defined neighbourhoods suffering from high rates of vehicle crime.

However, schemes are unlikely to deter offenders. Rigorously policed they are also extremely resource intensive for the police.

(Honess & Maguire, 1993)