DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Trends and Best Practices of Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Trends and Best Practices of Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, Final Report The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Assessing Trends and Best Practices of Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, Final Report Author(s): Patrick Curtin, David Thomas, Daniel Felker, Eric Weingart Document No.: 209826 Date Received: May 2005 Award Number: ASP-T-033 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ASSESSING TRENDS AND BEST PRACTICES OF MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAMS Final Report Prepared by: Caliber Associates 10530 Rosehaven Street Suite 400 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 385-3200 DUNS #15-069-8421 Authors: Patrick Curtin David Thomas Daniel Felker Eric Weingart National Institute of Justice May, 2004 (original) February, 2005 (revised) This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... i II. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ................................................1 2. BACKGROUND FOR PROJECT WORK .............................................................2 III. METHODS .........................................................................................................................4 1. BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...............................................................................4 2. SURVEY DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................5 2.1 Watch Your Car Member Site Visits and Interviews ..................................9 2.2 Non-member Survey for States and Cities.................................................10 3. DATA ENTRY AND ANALYSIS........................................................................11 4. RESPONSE RATES..............................................................................................12 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................13 1. WATCH YOUR CAR MEMBER SURVEY RESULTS......................................13 1.1 Section 1: General Questions.....................................................................14 1.2 Discussion of Section 1: General Questions..............................................18 1.3 Section 2: Inputs and Activities .................................................................19 1.4 Discussion of Section 2: Inputs and Activities ..........................................26 1.5 Section 3: Outcomes/Impact......................................................................27 1.6 Discussion of Section 3: Outcomes/Impact ...............................................29 1.7 Section 4: Improvement.............................................................................30 1.8 Discussion of Section 4: Improvement......................................................32 1.9 Section 5: Summary Opinion Questions....................................................33 1.10 Discussion of Section 5: Opinion Questions .............................................35 2. NON-MEMBER SURVEY RESULTS.................................................................37 2.1 Section 1: Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention...............................................37 2.2 Discussion of Section 1: Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention ........................41 2.3 Section 2: Watch Your Car Program .........................................................43 2.4 Discussion of Section 2: Watch Your Car Program ..................................44 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Table of Contents (Cont.) 3. BEST PRACTICES ...............................................................................................46 3.1 Start-up and Implementation......................................................................46 3.2 Databases ...................................................................................................47 3.3 Integration of WYC and other programs ...................................................49 3.4 Public Awareness and Enrollment.............................................................49 3.5 Impact/Outcome Assessment.....................................................................50 3.6 Technological Advances............................................................................51 3.7 Innovative Practices in Auto Theft Prevention outside of WYC...............53 V. COST EFFECTIVENESS...............................................................................................55 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................55 2. MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT INCIDENCE AND RECENT TRENDS ................57 3. COMPARISON OF WYC STATES AND NON-WYC STATES .......................59 4. THEFT TARGETS AND RECOVERY ANALYSIS ...........................................64 5. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT...............................67 6. AVAILABILITY OF OUTCOME DATA AMONG WYC STATES..................70 7. PRELIMINARY MATHEMATICAL MODEL....................................................71 7.1 A Mathematical Sample...................................................................................72 7.2 Application to Watch Your Car .......................................................................75 8. ISSUES AND DATA REQUIRED FOR A REAL ANALYSIS ..........................78 VI. CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................80 1. WATCH YOUR CAR – MEMBER SURVEY.....................................................80 2. NON-MEMBER SURVEY ...................................................................................81 3. BEST PRACTICES ...............................................................................................83 4. COST EFFECTIVENESS .....................................................................................85 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................87 APPENDIX A: CUMULATIVE ACTIVITY SUMMARY APPENDIX B : EXAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Caliber Associates has prepared this report to describe the methods and findings of two evaluation efforts. The first evaluation involved an assessment of trends and best practices in motor vehicle theft prevention programs, with a particular focus on the Watch Your Car (WYC) program. The second evaluation effort reviewed in this report is a cost effectiveness analysis of the Watch Your Car program. These evaluations were conducted between October of 2002 and March of 2004. The goal of the best practices portion of this project was to research and identify best practices that were geared toward motor vehicle theft prevention with a particular focus on the Watch Your Car program. To this end, Caliber met with or interviewed all participating WYC member states. Furthermore, states that did not belong to the WYC program were surveyed on various aspects of their vehicle theft prevention efforts. In accordance with the wishes of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), we also surveyed motor vehicle theft prevention experts in 10 U.S. cities that had the highest motor vehicle theft prevention rates according the 2002 Uniform Crime Report. Because the type of data needed for a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General
    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General OFFICE: INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES TITLE: FORGERY; PERJURY; THEFT CASE ID: 2017-12-0293 DATE: August 30, 2018 Inspector General Staff Attorney Kelly Elliott, after an investigation by Special Agent Mark Mitchell, reports as follows: The Indiana General Assembly charged the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and wrongdoing in the executive branch of state government. IC 4-2-7-2(b). The OIG also investigates criminal activity and ethics violations by state workers. IC 4-2-7-3. The OIG may recommend policies and carry out other activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct in state government. IC 4-2- 7-3(2). On March 23, 2017, the OIG received a complaint from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that alleged a former BMV employee, Richard Pringle, submitted false information to the BMV on personal certificate of title applications. OIG Special Agent Mark Mitchell conducted an investigation into this matter. Through the course of his investigation, Special Agent Mitchell interviewed Pringle and reviewed documentation received from BMV, including their internal investigation report on this matter. According to BMV’s investigative report of the allegations against Pringle, BMV found that Pringle submitted an application for a 1997 GMC Yukon in October 2016 that listed a sale price 1 that was different from the price the seller of the vehicle stated they sold it. At the conclusion of their investigation, BMV terminated Pringle’s employment in or around March 2017. Special Agent Mitchell reviewed the BMV certificate of title application for the 1997 GMC Yukon.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunset Self-Evaluation Report
    TxDMV Self-Evaluation Report Sunset Self-Evaluation Report Texas Department of Motor Vehicles September 1, 2017 1 Sunset Advisory Commission TxDMV Self-Evaluation Report Sunset Advisory Commission 2 TxDMV Self-Evaluation Report Table of Contents I. Agency Contact Information .................................................................................... 5 II. Key Functions and Performance ............................................................................. 5 III. History and Major Events ...................................................................................... 14 IV. Policymaking Structure .......................................................................................... 17 V. Funding ................................................................................................................. 22 VI. Organization .......................................................................................................... 29 VII. Guide to Agency Programs ................................................................................... 32 1. Registration Services .................................................................................... 32 2. Title Services ................................................................................................ 43 3. Commercial Fleet Services ........................................................................... 53 4. Credentialing (authority to operate on highways) .......................................... 60 5. Oversize/Overweight Permits ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory
    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations Contents
    QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE TO Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations Contents Title 49: Chapter V – National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation Page Foreword . iii Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Parts 571.101 through 571.500 . 1 Other Regulations Relating To Transportation: Parts 531 through 595 . 5 Summary Description of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Standard No. 101 through Standard No. 139 . 7 Standard No. 201 through Standard No. 225 . 20 Standard No. 301 through Standard No. 500 . 30 Summary Description of Other Regulations Relating To Transportation . 35 Parts 531; 533; 541; 555; 557; 564; 565; 566; 567; 568; 569; 570; 572; 573; 575; 577; 579; 580; 581; 582; 583; 591; 595 Procedures for Declaring and Certifying Imported Motor Vehicles . 53 How to Obtain Copies of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations . 53 i Foreword The National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- tration (NHTSA) has a legislative mandate under Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations to which manufac- turers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must conform and certify compliance. FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemb- lies, was the first standard to become effective on March 1, 1967. A number of FMVSS became effective for vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1968. Subsequently, other FMVSS have been issued. For instance, NHTSA has issued seven new FMVSS and has amended six FMVSS and two consumer infor- mation regulations and requirements since this booklet was revised in March 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Motor Vehicle Theft: Crime and Spatial Analysis in a Non-Urban Region
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Motor Vehicle Theft: Crime and Spatial Analysis in a Non-Urban Region Author(s): Deborah Lamm Weisel ; William R. Smith ; G. David Garson ; Alexi Pavlichev ; Julie Wartell Document No.: 215179 Date Received: August 2006 Award Number: 2003-IJ-CX-0162 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Crime and Spatial Analysis of Vehicle Theft in a Non-Urban Region Motor vehicle theft in non-urban areas does not reveal the well-recognized hot spots often associated with crime in urban areas. These findings resulted from a study of 2003 vehicle thefts in a four-county region of western North Carolina comprised primarily of small towns and unincorporated areas. While the study suggested that point maps have limited value for areas with low volume and geographically-dispersed crime, the steps necessary to create regional maps – including collecting and validating crime locations with Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates – created a reliable dataset that permitted more in-depth analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • SECOND CONCURRENCE SCHALLER, J., Concurring
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, INC. v. RELLÐSECOND
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Liability
    STATE OF FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Kurt M. Spengler Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A. 390 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32802 Tel: (407) 843‐3939 Email: [email protected] www.wickersmith.com Christopher Barkas Carr Allison 305 S. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850) 222‐2107 Email: [email protected] L. Johnson Sarber III Marks Gray, P.A. 1200 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 800 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Tel: (904) 398‐0900 Email: [email protected] www.marksgray.com A. Elements of Proof for the Derivative Negligence Claims of Negligent Entrustment, Hiring/Retention and Supervision 1. Respondeat Superior a. What are the elements necessary to establish liability under a theory of Respondeat Superior? Under Florida law, an employer is only vicariously liable for an employee's acts if the employee was acting to further the employer's interest through the scope of the employee’s employment at the time of the incident. An employee acts within the scope of his employment only if (1) his act is of the kind he is required to perform, (2) it occurs substantially within the time and space limits of employment, and (3) is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master. Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda, 506 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Additionally, once an employee deviates from the scope of his employment, he may return to that employment only by doing something which meaningfully benefits his employer's interests. Borrough’s Corp. v. American Druggists’ Insur. Co., 450 So.2d 540 (Fla.
    [Show full text]
  • Auto Theft Prevention
    Auto Theft Prevention The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. Its objectives are: • To improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures. • To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures. • To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system. The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. Printed on recycled paper © 2008 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-58024-531-9 Auto Theft Prevention By Donna Lyons and Anne Teigen NATIO N AL CO N FERE nc E OF STATE LEGI S LATURE S William T. Pound, Executive Director 7700 East First Place Denver, Colorado 80230 (303) 364-7700 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400 www.ncsl.org December 2008 4 Auto Theft Prevention PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In 2007, the National Conference of State Legislatures Foundation for State Legislatures joined with the NCSL Criminal Justice and Transportation programs in an Auto Theft Prevention Partner’s Project. Like other Foundation for State Legislatures’ projects, it was designed as a partnership between selected state lawmakers, legislative staff and Foundation members. The work group assembled for the project learned from federal, state and local government officials and the insurance and auto industries to identify and discuss best practices.
    [Show full text]
  • CH 48 Theft and Other Property Offenses
    THEFT AND OTHER PROPERTY OFFENSES ....................................... 1 §48-1 Generally .................................................................................................................. 1 §48-2 Receiving Stolen Property ................................................................................. 11 §48-3 Value of Property ................................................................................................. 12 §48-4 Ownership of Property ....................................................................................... 14 §48-5 Inference From Possession of Recently Stolen Property ........................... 16 §48-6 Deceptive Practices ............................................................................................. 18 §48-7 Enhancement of Misdemeanor to Felony ....................................................... 21 §48-8 Retail Theft ............................................................................................................ 23 i THEFT AND OTHER PROPERTY OFFENSES §48-1 Generally Illinois Supreme Court People v. Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889 Defendant was convicted of identity theft based on the unauthorized use of another person’s credit card information to purchase cigarettes. The underlying transaction occurred at a gas station in Lake County, but defendant was charged in DuPage County under a provision in the venue statute which allows for the charge to be brought in the county where the victim resides. 720 ILCS 5/1-6(t)(3). Defendant argued that section 1-6(t)(3)
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Motor Vehicle Theft: How Insurance and Rental/Leasing Companies Are Helping Vehicle Owners and Law Enforcement Prevent and Discourage Vehicle Theft
    Reducing Motor Vehicle Theft: How Insurance and Rental/Leasing Companies Are Helping Vehicle Owners and Law Enforcement Prevent and Discourage Vehicle Theft Insurance and rental/leasing companies are vital partners with consumers and law enforcement in reducing the number of vehicle thefts every year and decreasing overall losses from vehicle theft. Each year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) collects and analyzes data from these companies on their efforts to prevent and discourage vehicle theft. This fact sheet summarizes NHTSA’s key insights from the most recent reports and arms companies, citizens and law enforcement with the information they need to educate people in their communities and to promote vehicle theft prevention. To read the full report, visit http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Vehicle-Related+Theft/ Analysis+of+Insurer+Reports. How Common is Vehicle Theft? • Nearly 357,000 people filed insurance claims for stolen vehicles in 2006. Almost 30 percent of those were for late-model vehicles – the four most recent model years (MY 2003-2007). • More than 97,000 late model vehicles were stolen in 2006, but only 65 percent were recovered. The rate is higher for passenger cars – 72 percent – and significantly lower for motorcycles – 21 percent. What is the Cost of Vehicle Theft? • Vehicle theft directly and indirectly costs insurance companies, vehicle owners and law enforcement agencies. • Insurer payments for vehicle theft claims totaled more than $1.4 billion in 2006, the highest amount since NHTSA began tracking in 1987. Most of the payments – between 86 and 100 percent – were for the theft of the vehicle itself.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Vicarious Liability 287
    A Theory of Vicarious Liability 287 A Theory of Vicarious Liability J.W. Neyers* This article proposes a theory' of vicarious liability Cet article propose une thiorie de la responsabilite which attempts to explain the central features and du fail d'autrui qui essaie d'expliquer les limitations of the doctrine. The main premise of the caracteristiques el les limitations centrales de la article is that the common law should continue to doctrine. La principale primisse de cet article eslque impose vicarious liability because it can co-exist with la « common law » doit continuer a imposer la the current tort law regime that imposes liability for responsabilite du fait d'autrui parce qu'elle peul fault. The author lays out the central features of the coexisler avec le regime actual de la responsabilite doctrine of vicarious liability and examines why the delictuelle qui impose la responsabilite' pour fauie. leading rationales (such as control, compensation, L 'auteur e'nonce les caracteristiques centrales de la deterrence, loss-spreading, enterprise liability and doctrine de la responsabilite du fait d'autrui et mixed policy) fail to explain or account for its examine les raisons pour lesquelles les principaux doctrinal rules. motifs (comme le controle. I'indemnisation. la The author offers an indemnity theory for vicarious dissuasion. I'etalement des penes, la responsabilite liability and examines why the current rules of d'entreyirise et la police mate) ne peuvenl m vicarious liability are limited in application to expliquer nijuslifier les regies de cette doctrine. employer-employee relationships and do not extend L 'auteur propose une thiorie des indemnltis pour la further.
    [Show full text]
  • 61-2G-306 Renewal of License, Certification, Or Registration. (1) To
    Utah Code 61-2g-306 Renewal of license, certification, or registration. (1) To renew a license, certification, or registration, before the license, certification, or registration expires, the holder of the license, certification, or registration shall submit to the division in compliance with procedures set through the concurrence of the division and the board: (a) an application for renewal; (b) a fee established by the division and the board, in accordance with Section 63J-1-504; and (c) evidence in the form prescribed by the division of having completed the continuing education requirements for renewal specified in this chapter. (2) (a) A license, certification, or registration expires if it is not renewed on or before its expiration date. (b) For a period of 30 days after the expiration date, a license, certification, or registration may be reinstated upon: (i) payment of a renewal fee and a late fee determined through the concurrence of the division and the board; and (ii) satisfying the continuing education requirements specified in Section 61-2g-307. (c) After the 30-day period described in Subsection (2)(b), and until six months after the expiration date, a license, certification, or registration may be reinstated by: (i) paying a renewal fee and a reinstatement fee determined through the concurrence of the division and the board; and (ii) satisfying the continuing education requirements specified in Section 61-2g-307. (d) After the six-month period described in Subsection (2)(c), and until one year after the expiration date, a
    [Show full text]