“Bulldozing” Construction Site Burglary in Port St. Lucie, FL

Presentation by:Detective Sergeant Roberto Santos

Dr. Rachel BobaProblem-Oriented Policing Conference, Madison Wisconsin

September 2006

Port St. Lucie, FLHurricane Frances, 2004

Port St. Lucie, FLHurricane Jeanne,

2004

Port St. Lucie, FLHurricane Wilma, 2005

Port St. Lucie, FL

• 151,000 population• One of the fastest growing in the US• 115 square miles• 255 authorized sworn• Implementing Integrated Model of Problem

Solving, Analysis, and Accountability

Scanning

• Growth is a key issue for both city and PD • Population to increase to 214,997 by 2016 • 450 to 600 new building permits per month• 6,000 homes under construction any given day• Department recognized as a problem

Analysis Process

• Previous responses

• Department-wide committee

• Define the problem

• Develop hypotheses

• Data collection

• Analysis results

• Response recommendations

Definition of the Problem

• Single family homes

• Burglary: from within the buildings

• Theft: from the construction sites

• No vandalism

• City-wide focus

Hypotheses

1. Trollers– Individuals drive around neighborhoods looking for

the opportunity to take property from construction sites for resale or personal use

2. Insiders– Builders and subcontractors steal from one

another to use the stolen property in ongoing work and to sell

3. Professionals– Individuals who make a living at burglary and

selling stolen goods

Data Collection:Police Reports

• Data from 2004 • Report narratives

– Reviewed to determine inclusion in study– MO characteristics– Level of difficulty

• Aggregate data analyzed – Date, time, location– Property taken– Builder (victim) information

Data Collection:CSBT Check Sheet

• New information collected by at the scene• Additional check sheet to accompany report• Information collected:

– Builder information– Subcontractor information– Property delivered by– Insurance information– Stage of building– Tools needed

Data Collection: Improved Narratives

Data Collection: Observation

Data Collection: Observation

Data Collection: Observation

Data Collection: Builders and Building Department

• Presented some information but keyed on obtaining information– Builder’s practices– Subcontractor characteristics– Crime problems– Crime prevention

Analysis Results

Frequency by Month

Single Family Construction Site Burglaries: 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Spatial Analysis

Geographically focused:Most crime in the southwest

No repeat victimization of sites: Only 12 of 254 addresses victimized twice

Repeat Victims: Builders

Builder

Number of Reported Incidents

Percent of Total

CumulativePercent

Percent of Total Builders (N=70)

Cumulative Percent

Renar Homes 40 16.9% 16.9% 1.4% 1.4%

Adams Homes 15 6.3% 23.2% 1.4% 2.9%

Levitt And Sons 15 6.3% 29.5% 1.4% 4.3%

Ameritrend Homes 14 5.9% 35.4% 1.4% 5.7%

Hanover Homes 14 5.9% 41.4% 1.4% 7.1%

Mercedes Homes 11 4.6% 46.0% 1.4% 8.6%

Royal Professional Builders 10 4.2% 50.2% 1.4% 10.0%

Willard Brothers Construction 10 4.2% 54.4% 1.4% 11.4%

Maronda Home Builders 7 3.0% 57.4% 1.4% 12.9%

Princeton Homes 7 3.0% 60.3% 1.4% 14.3%

RJM Homes 6 2.5% 62.9% 1.4% 15.7%

Associated Homes Inc. 5 2.1% 65.0% 1.4% 17.1%

Groza Builders 5 2.1% 67.1% 1.4% 18.6%

Paramount Homes 5 2.1% 69.2% 1.4% 20.0%

All Others 73 30.8% 100.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Total 237 100.0%   100.0%  

Clearances

• 1.9% (5 of 266 cases) were cleared by arrest of either an adult or a juvenile

• 2.6% (7 cases) were exceptionally cleared (adult)

Property Taken

• The top six types of property constitutes 70.5% of all property taken.

Type of PropertyNumber of

Reported IncidentsPercent of Total

Building Supplies 52 19.5%

Appliances 45 16.9%

Internal cosmetic 24 9.0%

Construction equipment 24 9.0%

AC related 23 8.6%

Doors/Windows 20 7.5%

Pool related 11 4.1%

Rebar 8 3.0%

Ladder 6 2.3%

Hurricane Shutters 3 1.1%

Well pump 3 1.1%

Other 13 4.9%

Unknown/Not applicable* 34 12.8%

Total 266 100.0%

*Criminal damage incidents.

Difficulty Characteristics

Value Skill Transport Access

0

1

2

• Each narrative was coded using the values below• Actual offender behavior not known, so skill and transport were estimated

based on MO and property type

Difficulty Characteristics

Value Skill Transport Access

0 No skill

1 Heavy, awkward, forcibly removed

2 Skills/tools

• Each narrative was coded using the values below• Actual offender behavior not known, so skill and transport were estimated

based on MO and property type

Difficulty Characteristics

Value Skill Transport Access

0 No skill Walk away

1 Heavy, awkward, forcibly removed

Car,

small truck

2 Skills/tools Truck and/or trailer

• Each narrative was coded using the values below• Actual offender behavior not known, so skill and transport were estimated

based on MO and property type

Difficulty Characteristics

Value Skill Transport Access

0 No skill Walk away Outside/visible/

unattached

1 Heavy, awkward, forcibly removed

Car,

small truck

Outside attached, inside visible

attached and/or unattached

2 Skills/tools Truck and/or trailer Secured inside

• Each narrative was coded using the values below• Actual offender behavior not known, so skill and transport were estimated

based on MO and property type

Difficulty: Skill

SkillNo Skill

10%

Heavy/ Awkward

42%

Skills/ Tools48%

• 90% of crimes required some sort of skill

Difficulty: Transport

TransportLarge truck18%

Small car/ truck70%

Walk Away12%

• 88% of property needed at least a small car/truck for transport

Difficulty: Access

AccessOutside/

Unattached25%

Outside Attached/

Inside Unsecured

36%

Secured39%

• 75% of property was more difficult to access

Concrete Slab Poured,

4%

Cleared Lot, 6%

Exterior Walls in

Place, 11%

Roof Installed,

18%

Interior Walls In Place, 10%

House Securable,

51%

Stage of Building• Builders and officers’ experience also support these conclusions.

Focus Groups

Builders• Subcontractors often provide their own materials• Crime less than $300 not typically reported• Tension between the builders and the building department• Builders believe that the homes are most vulnerable in the

final stages of building

Building Department• Appliance installation not required before closing• On average, it takes about 10.5 months to build a house• Electricity meter inspections occurs when the house is

securable and safe• Change in building culture in recent years

Analysis Findings

• Targets: 6,000 homes under construction per day• Geographically focused: southwest • Repeat victimization of builders, not addresses• Low arrest rate• Construction supplies/equipment and appliances • Crimes require higher level of skill, transport, and

access• Property taken when the house securable• Electricity meter inspections are a “real time”

indicator of when the house is securable

Responses

• Committee made recommendations to chief

• General and targeted approach to responses

• Shift and share responsibility with builders

Responses

General Responses: – Patterns– Educating victims and guardians– Increase police guardianship – Meet and train builders

Targeted Reponses:– Working with specific builders to implement responses

General Response

Pattern Identification

• Implemented pattern analysis • Developed offender interview questionnaire • Use information to identify problem subcontractors• Provide patterns to builders

Example Pattern

Example Pattern

General Response

Educate Potential Victims and Guardians

• Media: Radio, television, newspaper

• Community meetings

• Utility bill announcement

• Crime stoppers

General ResponseAttend builders meetings

– Treasure Coast Builders Association– Provided general crime prevention advice, problem

analysis results, and ongoing patterns

Security check by officers – Weekly addresses of meter inspections – Report distributed to patrol officers– Addresses in riskiest areas prioritized– Daily checks of the sites– “Crime opportunity forms” were left at sites not secured

or with vulnerable property– Building supervisors check individual sites each day– Discussion with builders indicated they were receiving

the forms

Targeted Response

Focus on Repeat Builders • 20% of the builders victimized account for 70% of

the reported crime• Conduct further analysis on selected builders

– poor place management practices– lack of guardianship– long delivery and installation windows– carelessness in protecting property

• Held meeting builders with high and low crime• Work with the builders to tailor responses based

on analysis and experience

Targeted ResponseBuilder meeting: Good Practices• One company has a waiver for banks to sign for responsibility for

appliances if they insist on installation too early. • One company requires homeowners to take out builder risk

insurance. • One company only works with certain subcontractors. • One company delivers appliances the day before closing.• In its planned communities, one company takes back the master

key after the appliances have been installed and only the supervisor has the key. Subsequent subcontractors have to contact that person for entry.

Results: Renar Homes

Renar Homes: June 2004 - May 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb

-05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Jan-

06

Feb

-06

Mar

-06

Apr

-06

May

-06

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

po

rte

d C

rim

e

Response Began

The spike of four crimes in July 2005 was the result of one offender hitting four houses over one weekend.

• Number of homes assigned to site supervisor: 25-30 to 15• Focus on property left on site• Delayed installation of appliances

Results: Adams Homes• Appliances were the top theft concern• Reduced the time the appliances were installed before closing• Assign a person to check that homes were secured on a daily basis

Adams Homes: June 2004 - May 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb

-05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Jan-

06

Feb

-06

Mar

-06

Apr

-06

May

-06

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

po

rte

d C

rim

e

Response Began

Hanover Homes: June 2004 - May 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb

-05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Jan-

06

Feb

-06

Mar

-06

Apr

-06

May

-06

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

po

rte

d C

rim

e

Results: Hanover Homes• Pool equipment stolen more often• Installed video surveillance cameras at particular construction sites • Removed the pool equipment and re-installed just before the closing

Response Began

Results: Royal Professional Builders

• Air conditioning units were stolen more often

• Delayed installation of air conditioning units

• Implemented stickers in Spanish and English affixed to air conditioning units to increase the perception of risk of being caught.

Royal Professional Builders: June 2004 - May 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb

-05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Jan-

06

Feb

-06

Mar

-06

Apr

-06

May

-06

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

po

rte

d C

rim

e

Results: Royal Professional Builders

Response Began

Overall AssessmentJune 2004 – May 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb

-05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Jan-

06

Feb

-06

Mar

-06

Apr

-06

May

-06

Nu

mb

er o

f R

epo

rts

Response Period

Contact information:Roberto Santos rsantos@cityofpsl.comRachel Boba rboba@fau.edu

Also see POP Guide: www.popcenter.org