NCJ Number
169712
Journal
Telemasp Bulletin Volume: 3 Issue: 7 Dated: (October 1996) Pages: complete issue
Date Published
1996
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Based on survey results from 32 Texas law enforcement agencies, this bulletin examines the role of both individual agency auto theft units and interjurisdictional task forces in fighting auto theft.
Abstract
One section of the survey obtained an overview of the auto theft problem facing each agency, and two sections of the survey addressed task forces and auto theft units. An auto theft task force was defined as "a multijurisdictional entity funded in whole or part by the Texas Auto Theft Prevention Authority." An auto theft unit was defined as "a designated entity or persons assigned special responsibility for auto theft enforcement." Of the 32 responding agencies, 14 (44 percent) reported that their agency participated in an auto theft task force, and 23 (72 percent) agencies reported having an auto theft unit. Of the 14 departments with task force participation, 6 recruited members from throughout the department; five departments reported recruiting from their auto theft division only; and 3 departments recruited task force officers from other specific units within the department. Task force personnel apparently have received more auto theft-specific training prior to their assignment than have auto theft unit personnel. Both task forces and auto theft units have used similar methods to reduce auto theft; however, task forces use available techniques to a greater extent. For both task forces and auto theft units, citizen tips ranked as the most widely used method. All responding task force agencies reported using three additional methods: informants, offender surveillance, and salvage yard checks. Directed patrol and "other methods" were more widely used by auto theft units than task forces. Task force activities occurred in urban areas 64 percent of the time, suburban areas 23 percent, and rural areas 13 percent of the time. In contrast, auto theft unit activities occurred in urban areas 47 percent of the time, suburban areas 46 percent, and rural areas 7 percent of the time. Although differences in recovery rates and vehicle conditions existed between task forces and auto theft units, these differences were insignificant. The greatest difference was found in cases where autos were recovered with some parts missing (15 percent for task forces and 24 percent for auto theft units). 2 figures, 3 tables, and 2 references