theft and vandalism on construction sites

tivity andmmercial

d; and toral conclusionsized firmsThisn sites. The

aration,

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Theft and Vandalism on Construction SitesRobert Berg1 and Jimmie Hinze2

Abstract: Theft and vandalism on construction sites in the commercial construction industry is a problem that can affect producdrain profits. To explore the impact of theft and vandalism in the commercial construction industry, a survey was sent to coconstruction firms to gather information by which the magnitude of the problem of theft and vandalism could be estimatedetermine what techniques have been successfully used to deter thieves and vandals. The responses were analyzed and sevewere developed. Firms engaging in all types of projects are susceptible to theft and vandalism. Theft is more costly to large s~$100 million and over in annual volume of construction work! than smaller firms, but vandalism is more costly for smaller firms.occurs despite the fact that larger firms use a greater number of measures to combat theft and vandalism on their constructioresults should be of particular interest to construction firms that want to reduce the number of theft and vandalism incidents.

DOI: 10.1061/~ASCE!0733-9364~2005!131:7~826!

CE Database subject headings: Construction costs; Construction equipment; Construction sites; Losses; Security; Site prepconstruction; Productivity.

oject,l betrac-s re-s ofex-

opar-van-of a

ingt are, but.rminee haded totheir

suc-ight

t and

truc-lostand

tionctionossesactor

Ac-s As-n last2laimsillion

trac-than

n jobndedftacy.the

s in-con-

it ismaticand

e sus-

ndal-ostly

ums,

ia-

v. of

ssionste bygingpos-2004.-05/

Introduction

Whenever a contractor undertakes a new construction prthere is uncertainty about the likelihood that the project wilcompleted within budget and on schedule. The effective contor will generally be able to efficiently manage the resourcequired to complete the facility. Unfortunately, some aspectprojects cannot be fully controlled by the contractors. Forample, the achievement of the project objectives can be jedized by the deliberate efforts of others, namely thieves anddals. Thieves and vandals can directly impact the successproject and diminish the potential profitability of the project beconstructed. The costs of theft and vandalism on a projecdifficult to predict as they are somewhat random occurrencesprojects that fall victim to such losses can face major losses

This paper describes a study that was undertaken to detethe types of experiences that construction contractors havwith theft and vandalism, together with the measures employreduce or eliminate thefts and acts of vandalism fromprojects. By sharing those practices that have proven to becessful for some contractors, the construction community mbe able to reduce the losses that are attributed to thefvandalism.

1Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of CalifornBerkeley, Berkeley, CA.

2Professor, College of Design, Construction and Planning, UniFlorida, P.O. Box 115703, Gainesville, FL 32611-5703.

Note. Discussion open until December 1, 2005. Separate discumust be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing daone month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE ManaEditor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review andsible publication on September 23, 2003; approved on October 4,This paper is part of theJournal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 7, July 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/20
7-826–833/$25.00.
826 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2

Literature Review

Jobsite security is an often ignored facet of commercial constion projects. The construction industry in the United Statesnearly $1 billion in 2001 because of the theft of equipmenttools, according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau~Mc-Dowall 2002!. No known studies have determined the distribuof the theft losses among the different sectors of the construindustry. Many insurance companies state that equipment ldue to vandalism alone account for up to 22% of large contrequipment losses~Bonesteel 1997!.

Theft and vandalism is not limited to the United States.cording to the Japan Construction Equipment Manufacturersociation, more than 1,000 construction machines were stoleyear alone in Japan~“Japanese theft gang tied to U.S.” 200!.According to insurer Zurich Canada, the annual insurance cin Canada represent theft losses that total more than $46 m~“Combatting construction theft” 1999!.

A 1990 survey conducted by the Associated General Contors ~AGC! indicated that the average contractor loses more$13,000/year due to theft and vandalism~Banks 1990!. It hasbeen estimated that 90% of the equipment thefts occur osites with little security and where equipment remains unatteover the weekends~McDowall 2002!. The magnitude of the theand vandalism problem is difficult to estimate with accurMany contractors do not report the theft of equipment topolice if the object stolen is valued less than the company’surance deductible amount. In terms of vandalism, numeroustractors consider an act of vandalism to be “part of the job” ifnot of an extraordinary cost. There has been no systemethod of estimating the magnitude of the problem of theftvandalism among the many contractors and jobsites that arceptible to such losses.

Besides the monetary losses resulting from theft and vaism, associated indirect costs should also be considered. Cjob delays, downtime for operators, higher insurance premi
and the possible cancellation of an insurance policy, with the
© ASCE / JULY 2005

005.131:826-833.

wer,truc-costsuf-

cur-

ouldsful insiblemul-ablesthe

rk isng the

evi-sta-reasand

more

thetorednia,eed be

n thats. It

ed inand; and

tbsiteplane onriod.roperuardsr, su

f re-sibleuresite.goodrce-tyhere

o takeents,m off thebsite

anyrob-ectsom-itical

theseountction

theor-natu-eingalandarch

s arethe

entof

con-gh tomentes anntialoundes ofc-

jobtheseObvi-The

ee ises oftion,addi-

efts,weenverieseach5%;

tolen. Aoundross a

thanmore

eyawaydwhatDur-

s theo be

the

urersular

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

accompanying risk of jeopardizing bonding and borrowing pomake jobsite security practices crucial for commercial constion firms. Because of this, theft and vandalism can be majorcomponents of a construction project. The cost is potentiallyficient to make the difference between making a profit or inring a loss on a project~Middleton 1999!.

Because of the magnitude of the problem, information shbe shared on techniques that firms have found to be succespreventing theft and vandalism on their jobsites. The posforms of deterrence can be very different depending on thetiple variables that are associated with jobsites. These variinclude the locale where the work is being done, runninggamut from rural to urban settings. The locality where the wobeing done must also be taken into account when assessiperformance of a particular jobsite security plan.

Regarding jobsite security, the role played by location isdent in recent research dealing with theft. According to FBItistics, location is an important risk factor: the three hottest afor construction equipment theft are New Jersey, Miami, Fla.,Southern California. These three locations accounted forthan half of the recoveries of equipment in 2002~McDowall2002!. Construction theft is also a local issue, as 70% ofequipment never leaves the local area, i.e., equipment is slocally or is put to use on other local job sites. Florida, CaliforGeorgia, Texas, and Arizona~all with rapid growth rates and largnumbers of construction projects! accounted for 83% of thequipment recoveries. Since these statistics were gatheretween January and June it is likely that the data are biased ithese states are likely to have more work in the winter monthwas also reported that the most theft item recoveries occurrFlorida at 35%; California at 17%; Georgia at 12%; TexasArizona each at 10%; Massachusetts at 7%; New York at 5%Michigan and Connecticut each at 2%~McDowall 2002!.

In an article on equipment theft, Banks~1990!, stated thamany contractors feel that the best way to help control jotheft and vandalism is to develop a thorough jobsite antitheftbefore the start of construction work. The first step is to decida sensible, written security plan during the preconstruction peMoney should be set aside when preparing the estimate for plighting, alarm systems, fencing, watchdogs, and security gservices if applicable~Banks 1990!. Security responsibilitieshould be assigned to the project manager, project engineeperintendent, or any other employee who is in a position osponsibility. One of these individuals should be made responfor recording all incoming material deliveries. This will ensthat everything is properly recorded when it is stored onPolice and fire departments should also be contacted and aline of communication should be established. Local law enfoment should be encouraged to patrol the area at night~when mostheft and vandalism incidents occur!. A construction companmust recognize that local law enforcement cannot be everywat once; and they should encourage vendors and the public ta vested interest in the security of the jobsite. Local residactively watching a construction site, can act as another forsecurity. If everyone involved with a project is made aware oproblems that can result from jobsite theft and vandalism, josecurity can be made to run more smoothly~Bonesteel 1997!.

Before implementing a jobsite security plan, a compshould consider the firm’s business history of recurring theft plems ~how much the company has typically lost on past projto thieves and vandals!. As the potential losses increase, the cpany’s investment in security should also increase. The pol
aspects of the project must also be weighed. Is the job controver-
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCT


-

-

sial? Is there a history of crime in the area? The answers toquestions will help the company determine the type and amof security required to reduce the attractiveness of a construsite for theft and vandalism~“Construction site theft” 2000!.

An added factor that should be investigated is to identifyculprits involved in incidents of theft and vandalism. It is imptant for contractors to recognize that construction sites are aral point of curiosity. Passers-by always want to see what is bbuilt and if it will be something of interest to them. A typicconstruction site turns into a “ghost town” after 4 or 5 p.m.this often makes it vulnerable to theft and vandalism. Resehas shown that the majority of theft and vandalism incidentnot done by strangers, but rather by individuals familiar withjobsite ~Gardner 2003!.

Many police statistics indicate that all too often equipmtheft is an inside job. The AGC of California reported that 85%jobsite thefts were employee related~Moorhouse!. This may bedue to the fact that many construction workers employed onstruction sites are employed for a short term, but long enougain knowledge of company procedures. Since mobile equipkeys and locks are of a common design, equipment becomeasy or “soft target” that is ripe for theft. To help combat poteproblems it is recommended that contractors perform backgrchecks on all workers allowed on the site, including employesubcontractors~“Theft and vandalism prevention kit for constrution” 2003!.

Rationalization is one of the leading factors of theft on asite. Some employees may think, “The contractor leaves alltools and equipment unprotected, because they are so rich.ously they don’t care. Besides, I need a new drill at home.”result is a theft~Moorhouse!.

Theft and vandalism can also be linked to how an employtreated. Terminations alone account for many of the causvandalism that have been prosecuted. After a difficult terminaa job site should be made extra secure through the use oftional security and possibly the changing of locks~Moorhouse!.

Four types of equipment account for 70% of equipment thaccording to LoJack Corporation’s recovery experiences betJanuary and June 2001. The company tracked the top recoby type: backhoes 22%; air compressors and skid-steers17%; generators 14%; forklifts, light towers, and trucks eachand trailers, graders, loaders, and excavators, each 3%~McDow-all 2002!. Research indicates that a large percentage of sequipment remains within about 100 mi. of the theft locationlucrative market also exists in underdeveloped countries arthe world, and once stolen equipment is aboard a ship or acborder, recovery of the equipment is nearly impossible~“Theftand vandalism prevention kit for construction” 2003!. Anotherfinding showed that recent models are stolen more oftenolder equipment with almost 75% of the recoveries being nothan 3 years old~McDowall 2002!.

Typically, thieves will not attempt a theft from a jobsite if thcannot readily enter the site, load the products, and bewithin 5 or 10 min~Bonesteel 1997!. Most thefts are performeby groups of persons that “canvass” jobs by day to seeequipment is available and what hours the contractor works.ing the contractor’s off hours, thieves will sometimes pose acontractor and call a rental firm to arrange for equipment timmediately moved to another location after hours, whereequipment can be stolen with little difficulty~Krizan 1987!.

Another problem is that some contractors want manufactto provide them with universal ignition keys covering a partic
product line so as not to waste time while operators try to locate
ION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 827

005.131:826-833.

ces oft onefrom

ossg ananti-foreecur-

oneblingnot

rain”ent.nces

cur-ularcom-com-

withthewells:sturetegyog-

henanyls. Itvic-cur-lawrk atn re-sible;ifica-

in try-

thatn theictimanyost

ecanuseided

makesteadrom

the

dis-mini-hisruc-that

pro-ies ofd theimizeues-

citingnts tosrcialtes. A

eeisting

re ana-esultss haven alle pre-

e ofual0into

ll to$100

il-

firm,r. Ofs sub-

fre-reflectopu-ount

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

the correct keys during the day. This exposes many large pieconstruction equipment to theft due to the relative ease thacan obtain the keys to operate the equipment and remove itthe jobsite~Bonesteel 1997!.

To combat equipment theft Liberty Mutual Insurance’s LPrevention Department recommends permanently etchinidentifying mark on the equipment~spray paint and initials onpiece of equipment does not qualify as being “positively” idefied!. It also suggests asking for identification from drivers beequipment is loaded onto lowboys, and removing keys and sing the jobsite at the end of the day~Middleton 1999!. One shouldalso immobilize equipment when it is not in use; this can be dby removing rotors, lowering blades and buckets, and disabatteries and electric starting systems. If immobilization ispossible, then equipment should be parked in a “wagon tformation, using larger equipment to protect small equipmUsing backhoes and front-end loaders to block trailer entracan also help protect equipment on site~Bonesteel 1997!.

A recent form of theft that has been on the rise is the ocrence of office equipment theft from jobsite offices. Popequipment that has attracted thieves includes fax machines,puters, copiers, and telephones. It is recommended that apany should try to position the site or trailer office in an arealimited access to the opportunist thief, yet highly visible topublic. Expensive pieces of office equipment should bemarked with indelible markings~“Contractor’s equipment losseKnowledge of hazards can reduce risk” 2001!. Valuable businesinformation such as payroll figures, work schedules, and fuventures, or anything that could undermine a company’s straif it was lost or put in the hands of rivals should also be recnized as a potential target and protected accordingly~“Sidetheft—A spanner in the works” 1992!.

One important factor that is rarely taken into account wdealing with theft on construction projects is the reporting ofincident that involves the theft of heavy equipment or materiais beneficial to everyone involved, as well as potential futuretims, when local law enforcement is made aware of the ocrence of every incident of theft or vandalism. This will enableenforcement to patrol more effectively and to be able to woassisting contractors in locating the stolen equipment. Wheporting an incident, one should include as much detail as posincluding year, make, model, serial numbers, company identtion ~e.g. logos, decals, internal numbers, unique paint!, and anyattachments or customized features to assist the authoritiesing to locate a piece of stolen equipment~Bonesteel 1997!.

If a firm feels that someone is offering to sell propertycould be stolen, then one is encouraged to call authorities. Ievent that a suspect is apprehended, police encourage the vto prosecute to the fullest extent of the law to discouragefuture thefts. The reporting of theft and vandalism is of utmimportance~Bonesteel 1997!. A construction site will never bable to claim that it is theft or vandalproof, but contractorsmake it difficult for professional thieves and vandals to calarge amounts of damage. A review of the literature has provevidence that becoming proactive in securing a jobsite canthe difference between crime becoming a minor nuisance inof a major problem that has the potential of draining profits fan otherwise successful project.

Research Methodology

The objective of this research was to gather information on
experiences that commercial construction contractors have had


s

with theft and vandalism. In addition, the study was done tocover the types of measures contractors employ to reduce ormize the probability of being victims of theft or vandalism. Ttype of information could best be obtained directly from consttion contractors. A survey questionnaire was developedwould capture the desired information.

The questionnaire first asked for information that wouldvide some demographic data about the respondents. A serquestions were then asked about experiences with theft antypes of methods that have been employed to reduce or mintheft occurrences. This was followed by a similar series of qtions related to vandalism. Questions consisted of those elimultiple-choice responses and a few that asked respondedescribe their experiences~open-ended questions!. The surveywere sent to 1,200 construction contractors, primarily commecontractors doing business in the Southeastern United Statotal of 102 responses were received to the mailout survey.

The data were analyzed with the use of theStatistical Packagfor the Social Sciences (SPSS). In addition to summarizing thfrequency of responses for each question, relationships exbetween different variables were also examined.

Results

The data, excluding responses to open-ended questions, welyzed by calculating the frequencies of the responses. The rinclude a discussion of specific experiences that respondenthad with theft and vandalism on their construction sites. Wherespondents did not answer a question, the frequencies arsented for the responses given.

The responding firms ranged in size from an annual volumwork of $400,000 to a firm with more than $5 billion of annrevenues, with the typical size~median! company reporting $5million in annual revenues. The respondents were classifiedtwo categories for further statistical analysis, namely “smamedium” size companies with annual volumes less thanmillion and “large” companies with annual volumes of $100 mlion and more~Fig. 1!.

Respondents were grouped according to the type ofnamely general contractor, subcontractor, or vendor/suppliethe respondents, 89 were general contractors; 12 worked acontractors, and one was a vendor/supplier. With the highquency of responses of general contractors, the responsesprimarily the experiences of general contractors, the target plation of this study. The respondents were asked about the am

Fig. 1. Annual dollar volume of work performedsn=102d

of their work that was subcontracted to other firms. Fifty eight

© ASCE / JULY 2005

005.131:826-833.

rms

con-rcialstruc

xpe-willurtails oferi-mberdents

thertedn ofr $1ses

n of

ents

ixtye re-henent-

fts.theft.

e in-lting

s re-Theentyav-

dentsficepiers.

fficed thatma-truc-

es re-icles,mma-

tec-rver-s, and

de-n theini-loss.

ilders

0 ands riskall to

ork

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

firms subcontracted more than 75% of their work with 16 fisubcontracting 100% of their work.

Respondents were asked about the types of projects theystructed. There were 68 firms who specialized in commeprojects, so the survey responses represent commercial contion to a large extent~see Fig. 2!.

Theft

Various types of information were received about the theft eriences of the contractor respondents. The theft informationbe presented along with a number of approaches used to ctheft incidents. Three firms stated they had not been victimtheft in the past year. Forty two firms reported that they expenced one theft incident in the past year while the average nuof theft incidents experienced was about two. Three responreported more than 50 theft incidents~see Fig. 3!.

The total dollar loss resulting from theft was divided byamount of work performed by the company. This was conveinto a value representing the annual theft loss per $1 millioself-performed work. Five companies lost less than $20 pemillion of work performed, while 12 companies had losgreater than $1,000 for every $1 million of work performed~seeFig. 4!. The mean was $1,388 of theft losses per $1 milliowork performed.

Ninety seven firms indicated the percentage of theft incidthat they reported to law enforcement. A majority~76%! reportedmore than 75% of the theft incidents to law enforcement. Stwo respondents stated that all known theft incidents werported to the police. No significant relationship was found wcomparing the annual volume of work performed to the percage of theft incidents reported to law enforcement.

Information was obtained on the particular types of theForty two respondents had experienced an incident of tool

Fig. 2. Type of projects undertakensn=102d

Fig. 3. Number of thefts in past yearsn=89d



-

Approximately 60% of these firms experienced less than fivcidents of tool theft in the past year. The average loss resufrom tool theft was $1,617 per incident. Eleven respondentported having incidents of theft involving licensed vehicles.average loss per theft in these incidents was $25,950. Twthree firms reported having incidents of equipment theft. Theerage loss per equipment theft was $4,802. Thirty six responindicated that their firms had been a victim of the theft of ofequipment such as computers, fax machines, printers, and coThe average loss per incident resulting from the theft of oequipment was $2,025. Forty seven respondents indicatethey had experienced an incident of the theft of constructionterials. The average loss for each incident of the theft of constion materials was $3,586. The average values of the lossported by the respondents for the theft of tools, licensed vehequipment, computers, and construction materials are surized in Fig. 5.

Builder’s risk insurance coverage generally provides protion against perils~fire, wind, hail, theft, etc.! to buildings undeconstruction and additions to existing buildings. It extends coage to such cost items as materials, architect/engineer feetesting, and deals with “permission to occupy” issues. Theductible amount on the insurance policy is a value stated ibuilder’s risk policy that exempts the insurer from paying antial specified amount in the event that the insured sustains aMost respondents reported deductible amounts on their burisk insurance policies ranging from $1,500 to $5,000~see Fig. 6!.Deductible amounts were reported as being as small as $10as large as $750,000. The amount of the company’s builderinsurance policy was related to the size of the company. Sm

Fig. 4. Annual theft losses per $1 million of self-performed wsn=55d

Fig. 5. Average value of loss per theft incident


005.131:826-833.

thetible

. Thes lessed tha% of

s one thisrmertheirht torably

secuyed.

bee

curitysures

s areinfor-

ducee of ain theeousilers

to pre-wass that

norageini-pro-toolhesttem,lost

check

e theftap-

asuresherludedwithallingeach

sur-

job-s and

ss thestions

ction

Sites

ent

nce

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

medium sized firms reported having smaller deductibles, withmedian being $2,500 while the median value for the deducvalue for large firms was $5,000.

The results show that stolen items are rarely recoveredpercentage of theft incidents where items were recovered wathan 10% as reported by 76 responses. No respondent statmore than 50% of the items were recovered. Overall, about 7the stolen items were reportedly recovered.

It is often alleged that employees are probably the thievemany projects. The respondents to the survey did not sharsentiment. Contractors did not feel that their employees or foemployees were the prominent perpetrators of thefts onprojects. An average of 33% of the theft incidents are thouginvolve employees or former employees, and this is consideless than conventional wisdom.

The survey asked about measures used to ensure jobsiterity on construction sites. A number of practices are emploRespondents were asked to indicate all measures that hadutilized. The breakdown of responses is shown in Table 1.

From these responses, it is evident that lockboxes, sefences, and posting warning signs are commonly used mea

Table 1. Measures Utilized to Ensure Jobsite Security on ConstruSites~Percentages are Based on 100 Responses!

Firms usingsecurity measure~%! Security measure

88 Lockboxes

80 Security fencing

70 Posting of warning signs

55 Use of exterior lighting

42 Strategic parking of large equipment

37 Use of an alarm system

35 Removal of unused equipment

31 Use of a night security force

23 Use of police patrols

22 Requiring of all workers to posses a badge

14 Use of security cameras

11 Guard stationed at entry gate

7 Neighborhood Watch

0 Use of guard dogs

Fig. 6. Deductible amount on company’s builders risk insurapolicy sn=69d



t

-

n

on construction sites. It was interesting to note that guard dognot used as a means to deter thieves. Respondents providedmation on other techniques that they had employed to rethefts on their jobsites. The responses consisted of the usgated entrance; using a plywood-enclosed lockup area builtwork area; the locking of tools, equipment, and miscellanitems secured in the office trailer; and the use of jobsite trathat superintendents pull home at night.

Respondents were asked about specific measures usedvent the theft of tools on construction sites. A list of measuresprovided and respondents were asked to check all measurewere employed to protect tools~see Table 2!. The most commotechniques to protect tools included maintaining a secure starea, marking the tools, maintaining a tool inventory, and mmizing the number of tools left on site. Some respondentsvided information on other techniques also employed forsecurity. These include having a tool box on a truck or a tool cin the job trailer, implementing of an asset tag tracking sysrequiring employees to pay for one half the cost of replacingor stolen tools, and assigning an employee to hand out andin tools each day.

A question was asked about measures used to prevent thof machinery and equipment on construction sites. A list ofproaches was provided and respondents indicated which methey had employed~see Table 3!. Respondents described ottechniques employed to reduce equipment theft. These incremoving keys from idle equipment, securing equipmentchains and locks, parking equipment in a fenced area, insttracking devices on large equipment, taking equipment homenight, and the use of LOJACK which was provided by the inance carrier.

Project layout decisions can directly influence or impactsite security. Respondents were asked about layout decisionconstruction strategies that were made specifically to addresecurity of items on jobsites. Respondents offered sugge

Table 2. Measures Used to Prevent Theft of Tools on Construction


71 Maintaining a secure storage area

67 Marking of tools

61 Maintaining tool inventory

58 Minimizing tools left on site

49 Making workers responsible for tools

35 Requiring workers to provide their own tools

Table 3. Measures Used to Prevent Theft of Machinery and Equipm


67 Parking of equipment and machinery inwell-lighted areas

43 Parking of equipment in a specific formationat the end of the day

37 Including additional identification onequipment and machinery

20 Using a distinctive color to mark machineryand equipment

11 Modifying the ignition or fuel lines

© ASCE / JULY 2005

005.131:826-833.

ed tothe

k-trail-s soed inerials.aswereowereach

lock-al ofsig-

ofherthatper

om-0on-

e re-workfoundd ansures

s andeless

ndal-s tha

r ofdentsalismne in-

/yeard 42

ollarndal-

n bevan-

di-Sev-th ofre-

hilee fol-

re-e mostchil-

its

s theyencesjects,lace,singwith

llarsherany.ncedd to0

hicaten it ispro-

secu-esatf only

s

ed to

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

and examples of jobsite layout decisions that they have usdiscourage theft. The suggestions provided were: placingtrailer in a well-lit and fenced area, the utilizing of rolloff locboxes for tools and equipment with concealed locks, storingers away from public access and out of view, placing trailerdoors face the road, storing containers so they are positionlighted areas and close to the office, and the stocking of maton upper floors of buildings to increase the difficulty of theft

The theft loss per million dollars of construction effort wcompared to security measures utilized to determine if anyparticularly effective. In most cases, the results showed that ltheft losses were reported by those firms reporting the use ofsecurity measure. Exceptions were noted with the use ofboxes, the use of a worker badge system, and the removunused equipment, but the differences were not statisticallynificant.

The dollar value of losses due to theft per million dollarsself-performed work~excluding the work subcontracted to otfirms! was compared to the size of the company. It was foundsmall to medium sized companies had a slightly lower lossmillion dollars of work performed when compared to large cpanies. Among the smaller firms~with annual volumes of $1million or less! it was discovered that their theft losses were csiderably less~$826 per $1 million of work performed! than firmswith annual volumes greater than $100 million~$1,858 per $1million of work performed!.

The number of measures that were being utilized by thspondents was compared to the annual dollar volume ofperformed by the company. Examples of measures can bein Table 1. Of the 14 measures identified, larger firms useaverage of 5.9 measures while smaller firms used 4.6 mea~see Table 4!.

Vandalism

Vandalism is generally a nuisance crime on construction sitedoes not present serious losses for most contractors. Nonethany losses detract from company profits and the threat of vaism cannot be ignored. The study examined the experiencefirms had with losses due to vandalism.

Seventy eight firms provided information on the numbevandalism incidents experienced. Twenty six of these responreported that they had not experienced an incident of vandwhile 33 respondents reported that they had experienced ocident of vandalism in the past year~see Fig. 7!. Overall, therespondents reported an average of 3.6 vandalism incidentsThis average figure is elevated by one firm that experienceincidents and another that experienced 109 incidents.

Forty nine respondents gave an estimate of the total dlosses resulting from vandalism. Of these, 35 experienced va

Table 4. Number of Measures Utilized to Ensure Jobsite Security

Company size~annual volume! Number of firms

Number of measureutilized to prevent

thefta

Less than $100 million 67 4.6

$100 million and over 35 5.9

Total 102 5.2aThe annual volume of the firm and the number of measures utilizprevent theft were positively correlated~correlation coefficient=0.31,p=0.001!, based on the Kendall’s correlation test.

ism losses of $10,000 or less, while the overall mean value of



,

t

.

vandalism losses was $28,583. This relatively high mean caattributed to one respondent who reported over $1 million indalism losses.

The estimated dollar loss resulting from vandalism wasvided by the self-performed work volume of each company.enteen companies lost less than $10 for every $1 million worwork performed~see Fig. 7!. For the sample, vandalism repsented $294 of losses per $1 million of work performed.

The types of vandalism varied among the respondents. Wthese are often nuisance crimes, they can also be costly. Thlowing types of vandalism were noted by the respondents:• Broken glass~45 respondents!,• Graffiti ~33 respondents!,• Destruction of in-place materials~24 respondents!,• Damage to construction equipment~24 respondents!, and• Vehicle damage vandalism~14 respondents!.

A question about the identity of the vandals garnered fewsponses. Results show that vandals are seldom caught. Thcommon suspected culprit was thought to be neighborhooddren~43%! followed by strangers~34%!. Other suspected culprincluded disgruntled workers~9%!, fired workers~6%!, site visi-tors ~4%!, and others~4%!.

Respondents offered suggestions and examples of stephave taken to discourage vandalism. These included: using fand lighting, placing security guards on vandalism-prone prousing video cameras, having “no trespassing” signs in pusing web cams, locking up buildings at the end of the day, utemporary door and window closures, and covering windows1/4 in. mesh fence material.

The dollar value of losses due to vandalism per million doof work performed~excluding the work subcontracted to otfirms! by the company was compared to the size of the compIt was found that small to medium sized companies experiehigher losses from incidents of vandalism when comparelarge companies~see Table 5!. Firms with yearly volumes of $1million or less experienced a higher loss due to vandalism~$409per million dollars of work performed! compared to firms wityearly volumes greater than $10 million. These findings indthat vandalism is a greater threat for smaller companies thafor larger companies or that larger firms have more effectivegrams in place to reduce or prevent vandalism.

Further analysis showed that firms that employed threerity measures or less~see Table 1! experienced vandalism lossof $584 per $1 million of self-performed work, while firms themployed at least seven such measures reported losses o

Fig. 7. Number of vandalism incidentssn=78d

$38 per $1 million of self-performed work.


005.131:826-833.

ndal-ndal-elf-osts.

theboutirectinis-

thefte inlostl be

thisit canentscter-ofthatjects

is asecu-andal ofess oder-ough

ing aof

rovenseekThisnt of

ism.ft ordingtypesd to

ands tose-

culeof ane into

thatrent

hoodlismmea-and

es inssful.

asurestheftinglyo benly

ionstech-lled

ofe lifewhatdatapre-

ion

c.

risk.”es/

ing

ar

s.”

rators

of

35

3

37

2

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Summary

The results of this study show that the costs of thefts and vaism are substantial. The annual direct costs of thefts and vaism incidents were found to total $1,682 per $1 million of sperformed work. Thefts account for about 82% of these cFrom this study, the total direct costs of theft and vandalism inconstruction industry can be estimated to be a$1.5 billion/year. Note that these costs do not include the indcosts that can be substantial. Indirect costs include the admtrative time to document and report the loss incidents. Afterincidents, indirect costs will often increase due to a declincrew productivity, as work must be reorganized until theitems are restored. Many similar types of indirect costs wilassociated with incidents of theft and vandalism.

Conclusions

Perhaps the most startling conclusion that can be drawn fromresearch is that the threat of theft and vandalism is real andbe costly. Also, the occurrences of theft and vandalism inciddo not appear to be randomly distributed. That is, the charaistics of construction projects will influence the likelihoodthem becoming victims of theft or vandalism. This meanscontractors can implement practices that will make their proless attractive to would-be thieves and vandals.

Recommendations

In conducting the literature review it was apparent that thereshortage of prior research and data on the subject of jobsiterity. This was puzzling because of the high cost of theftvandalism incidents on construction sites. This large potentiloss can obviously have severe negative impacts on the succa construction project. It is important to acquire a better unstanding of the problem, and this can only be achieved thrfurther research.

The 102 responses received were beneficial in performviable initial study of jobsite security and getting an indicationthe extent of the problem as well as what techniques have pto be successful for some companies. A future study shoulda larger and more nationally focused sample population.would prove to be a greater help in understanding the exte

Table 5. Cost of Theft and Vandalism Per Million DollarsConstruction Work

Company size~annual volume!

Numberof firms

Average loss per $1 millionof worka

Theft Vandalism Total

Less than $10 million 13 $826 $409 $1,2

Greater than $10 millionand less than $100 million

46 $1,088 $325 $1,41

$100 million and over 38 $1,858 $179 $2,0

Total 97 $1,388 $294 $1,68aBased on the amount of work self performed.

the problem of theft and vandalism in the construction industry.



f

Future studies could focus strictly on either theft or vandalAnother possibility would be to examine only equipment thetool theft and the resultant impact on productivity. Understanmore about vandalism may require research to identify theof individuals who are most often involved in vandalism anidentify the most effective deterrent measures.

Contractors need to be proactive in order to curtail theftvandalism on their jobsites, rather than waiting for problemarise. The initial investment in developing a complete jobsitecurity plan prior to beginning construction work can be miniswhen compared to the losses that can result from the theftexpensive piece of equipment. Contractors should also takaccount the specific area that they are working in and realizethere are different potential problems associated with diffesites whether located in remote, metropolitan, or neighborsites. By recognizing that potential problems of theft or vandaexist on every construction site, contractors can implementsures to reduce the probability of being a target for thievesvandals. Utilizing several different measures and techniquthe prevention of theft and vandalism has proven to be succeContractors are encouraged to expand the number of meemployed to prevent theft and vandalism. Incidents ofshould be reported to law enforcement, no matter how seeminsignificant the loss. Most of all, techniques that are found teffective in curtailing theft and vandalism should be opeshared within the construction community.

Finally, this study relied only on the opinions and perceptof the employees of the firms surveyed. A more accuratenique that could be utilized in the future is the use of controexperiments. Construction sites differing by region, typeproject, and size of project could be observed throughout thof the project to find out what the potential problems are andsolutions proved to be most beneficial. A large amount ofcould be generated and further prove to be beneficial in thevention of theft and vandalism in the construction industry.

References

Banks, T.~1990!. “Equipment theft.”Constructor, November 42–43.

Bonesteel, M.~1997!. NUCA, August 15–17.“Combating construction theft.”The mechanical contractors associat

of Toronto. ^http://www.mcat.on.ca/pipeline/fall99/consttheft.html&“Construction site theft.” ~2001!. Lumberman’s of Washington, In

^http://www.lumbermens-building.com/builders/builderxpress/BuildersXpressArticle.asp?Volume525&Article51&

“Contractors’ equipment losses: Knowledge of hazards can reduce~2001!. Insurance J., ^http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazinsouthcentral/2001/02/19/features/22326.htm& ~February 19!.

Gardner, T. ~2003!. Security in construction and beyond; protect

your site, even during build-upVirgo Publishing, Inc. ^http://www.insideselfstorage.com/articles/291feat4.html&

“Japanese theft gang tied to U.S.”~2002!. Rental Equipment Registr

Magazine, ^http://rerreports.com/31102/& ~March 11!.Krizan, W. G. ~1987!. “Jobsite crime soaring along with workload

ENR, 42, 10–10.McDowall, J. “Backhoes, air compressors, skid-steers, gene

head the hit List.” ^Rental Management, http://www.

rentalmanagementmag.com/newsart.asp?ARTID5677& ~November!.

© ASCE / JULY 2005

005.131:826-833.

on

ctings/

site

al/

w/tml

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

RE

GIN

A L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/27/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Middleton, S.~1999!. “Equipment theft; Finding the solutions to a billidollar problem.”Heavy Equipment News, June, 48–49.

Moorhouse, N. “Cost retention and safety enhancement, proteyourassets.”AGC of California. ^http://www2.agc-ca.org/serviceSH&E/Safety/Sb01-2.pdf&

“Site theft—A spanner in the works; Advice on construction



security.” ~1992!. Neighborhoodwatch. Net., ^http://www.neighbourhoodwatch.net/neighbourhoodwatch/organisationprevention/site.html& ~August!.

“Theft and vandalism prevention kit for construction.”~2003!.Vista Training Inc.. ^http://www.vistastartsmart.com/What_s_NeTheft_Vandalism_Press_Releas/theft_vandalism_press_releas.h&


005.131:826-833.

theft and vandalism on construction sites

Documents