Theft and Vandalism on Construction Sites
Theft and Vandalism on Commercial Construction Sites
Introduction
Whenever a contractor undertakes a new construction project, there is uncertainty about the likelihood that the project will be completed within budget and on schedule. The effective contractor will generally be able to efficiently manage the resources required to complete the facility. Unfortunately, some aspects of projects cannot be fully controlled by the contractors. For example, the achievement of the project objectives can be jeopardized by the deliberate efforts of others, namely thieves and vandals. Thieves and vandals can directly impact the success of a project and diminish the potential profitability of the project being constructed. The costs of theft and vandalism on a project are difficult to predict as they are somewhat random occurrences, but projects that fall victim to such losses can face major losses.
This paper describes a study that was undertaken to determine the types of experiences that construction contractors have had with theft and vandalism, together with the measures employed to reduce or eliminate thefts and acts of vandalism from their projects. By sharing those practices that have proven to be successful for some contractors, the construction community might be able to reduce the losses that are attributed to theft and vandalism.
Literature Review
Jobsite security
is an often-ignored facet of commercial construction projects. The construction industry in the
Theft and
vandalism is not limited to the
A 1990 survey
conducted by the Associated General Contractors (AGC) indicated that the
average contractor loses more than $13,000 a year due to theft and vandalism
(Banks 1990). It has been estimated that
90% of the equipment thefts occur on job sites with little security and where
equipment remains unattended over the weekends (McDowall 2002). The magnitude of the theft and vandalism problem is
difficult to estimate with accuracy.
Many contractors do not report the theft of equipment to the police if
the object stolen is valued less than the company’s insurance deductible
amount. In terms of vandalism, numerous
contractors consider an act of vandalism to be “part of the job” if it is not
of an extraordinary cost. There has been
no systematic method of estimating the magnitude of the problem of theft and
vandalism among the many contractors and jobsites that are susceptible to such losses.
Besides the monetary losses resulting from theft and vandalism, associated indirect costs should also be considered. Costly job delays, downtime for operators, higher insurance premiums, and the possible cancellation of an insurance policy, with the accompanying risk of jeopardizing bonding and borrowing power, make jobsite security practices crucial for commercial construction firms. Because of this, theft and vandalism can be major cost components of a construction project. The cost is potentially sufficient to make the difference between making a profit or incurring a loss on a project (Middleton 1999).
Because of the magnitude of the problem, information should be shared on techniques that firms have found to be successful in preventing theft and vandalism on their jobsites. The possible forms of deterrence can be very different depending on the multiple variables that are associated with jobsites. These variables include the locale where the work is being done, running the gamut from rural to urban settings. The locality where the work is being done must also be taken into account when assessing the performance of a particular jobsite security plan.
Regarding jobsite
security, the role played by location is evident in recent research dealing
with theft. According to FBI statistics,
location is an important risk factor: the three hottest areas for construction
equipment theft are
In an article on equipment theft, Banks (1990), stated that many contractors feel that the best way to help control jobsite theft and vandalism is to develop a thorough jobsite antitheft plan before the start of construction work. The first step is to decide on a sensible, written security plan during the preconstruction period. Money should be set aside when preparing the estimate for proper lighting, alarm systems, fencing, watchdogs, and security guard services if applicable (Banks 1990). Security responsibilities should be assigned to the project manager, project engineer, superintendent, or any other employee who is in a position of responsibility. One of these individuals should be made responsible for recording all incoming material deliveries. This will insure that everything is properly recorded when it is stored on site. Police and fire departments should also be contacted and a good line of communication should be established. Local law enforcement should be encouraged to patrol the area at night (when most theft and vandalism incidents occur). A construction company must recognize that local law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once; and they should encourage vendors and the public to take a vested interest in the security of the jobsite. Local residents, actively watching a construction site, can act as another form of security. If everyone involved with a project is made aware of the problems that can result from jobsite theft and vandalism, jobsite security can be made to run more smoothly (Bonesteel 1997).
Before
implementing a jobsite security plan, a company should consider the firm’s
business history of recurring theft problems (how much has the company
typically lost on past projects to thieves and vandals). As the potential losses increase, the
company’s investment in security should also increase. The political aspects of the project must
also be weighed. Is the job
controversial? Is there a history of
crime in the area? The answers to these
questions will help the company determine the type and amount of security
required to reduce the attractiveness of a construction site for theft and
vandalism (Lumberman’s of Washington, Inc. 2000).
An added factor that should be investigated is to identify the culprits involved in incidents of theft and vandalism. It is important for contractors to recognize that construction sites are a natural point of curiosity. Passers-by always want to see what is being built and if it will be something of interest to them. A typical construction site turns into a “ghost town” after 4 or 5 p.m. and this often makes it vulnerable to theft and vandalism. Research has shown that the majority of theft and vandalism incidents are not done by strangers, but rather by individuals familiar with the jobsite (Gardner 2003).
Many police statistics indicate that all too often equipment theft is an inside job. The AGC of California reported that 85% of jobsite thefts were employee related (Moorhouse). This may be due to the fact that many construction workers employed on construction sites are employed for a short-term, but long enough to gain knowledge of company procedures. Since mobile equipment keys and locks are of a common design, equipment becomes an easy or "soft target" that is ripe for theft. To help combat potential problems it is recommended that contractors perform background checks on all workers allowed on the site, including employees of subcontractors (Vista Training, Inc. 2003).
Rationalization is one of the leading factors of theft on a job site. Some employees may think, “The contractor leaves all these tools and equipment unprotected, because they are so rich. Obviously they don’t care. Besides, I need a new drill at home.” The result is a theft (Moorhouse).
Theft and vandalism can also be linked to how an employee is treated. Terminations alone account for many of the causes of vandalism that have been prosecuted. After a difficult termination, a job site should be made extra secure through the use of additional security and possibly the changing of locks (Moorhouse).
Four types of equipment account for 70 percent of equipment thefts, according to LoJack Corporation’s recovery experiences between January and June 2001. The company tracked the top recoveries by type: backhoes 22 percent; air compressors and skid-steers each 17 percent; generators 14 percent; forklifts, light towers and trucks each 5 percent; and trailers, graders, loaders and excavators, each 3 percent (McDowall 2002). Research indicates that a large percentage of stolen equipment remains within about 100 miles of the theft location. A lucrative market also exists in underdeveloped countries around the world, and once stolen equipment is aboard a ship or across a border, recovery of the equipment is nearly impossible (VISTA Training, Inc. 2003). Another finding showed that recent models are stolen more often than older equipment with almost 75 percent of the recoveries being no more than three years old (McDowall 2002).
Typically, thieves will not attempt a theft from a jobsite if they cannot readily enter the site, load the products and be away within 5 or 10 minutes (Bonesteel 1997). Most thefts are performed by groups of persons that “canvass” jobs by day to see what equipment is available and what hours the contractor works. During the contractor’s off hours, thieves will sometimes pose as the contractor and call a rental firm to arrange for equipment to be immediately moved to another location after hours, where the equipment can be stolen with little difficulty (Krizan 1987).
Another problem is that some contractors want manufacturers to provide them with universal ignition keys covering a particular product line so as not to waste time while operators try to locate the correct keys during the day. This exposes many large pieces of construction equipment to theft due to the relative ease that one can obtain the keys to operate the equipment and remove it from the jobsite (Bonesteel 1997).
To combat equipment theft Liberty Mutual Insurance’s Loss Prevention Department recommends permanently etching an identifying mark on the equipment (spray paint and initials on a piece of equipment does not qualify as being “positively” identified). It also suggests asking for identification from drivers before equipment is loaded onto lowboys, and removing keys and securing the jobsite at the end of the day (Middleton 1987). One should also immobilize equipment when it is not in use; this can be done by removing rotors, lowering blades and buckets, and disabling batteries and electric starting systems. If immobilization is not possible, then equipment should be parked in a “wagon train” formation, using larger equipment to protect small equipment. Using backhoes and front-end loaders to block trailer entrances can also help protect equipment on site (Bonesteel 1997).
A recent form of theft that has been on the rise is the occurrence of office equipment theft from jobsite offices. Popular equipment that has attracted thieves includes fax machines, computers, copiers, and telephones. It is recommended that a company should try to position the site or trailer office in an area with limited access to the opportunist thief, yet highly visible to the public. Expensive pieces of office equipment should be well marked with indelible markings (Insurance Journal 2001). Valuable business information such as payroll figures, work schedules and future ventures, or anything that could undermine a company’s strategy if it was lost or put in the hands of rivals should also be recognized as a potential target and protected accordingly (Neighborhoodwatch.Net 1992).
One important factor that is rarely taken into account when dealing with theft on construction projects is the reporting of any incident that involves the theft of heavy equipment or materials. It is beneficial to everyone involved, as well as potential future victims, when local law enforcement is made aware of the occurrence of every incident of theft or vandalism. This will enable law enforcement to patrol more effectively and to be able to work at assisting contractors in locating the stolen equipment. When reporting an incident, one should include as much detail as possible; including year, make, model, serial numbers, company identification (e.g. logos, decals, internal numbers, unique paint), and any attachments or customized features to assist the authorities in trying to locate a piece of stolen equipment (Bonesteel 1997).
If a firm feels that someone is offering to sell property that could be stolen, then one is encouraged to call authorities. In the event that a suspect is apprehended, police encourage the victims to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law to discourage any future thefts. The reporting of theft and vandalism is of utmost importance (Bonesteel 1997). A construction site will never be able to claim that it is theft or vandal proof, but contractors can make it difficult for professional thieves and vandals to cause large amounts of damage. The review of literature has provided evidence that becoming proactive in securing a jobsite can make the difference between crime becoming a minor nuisance instead of a major problem that has the potential of draining profits from an otherwise successful project.
Research Methodology
The objective of
this research was to gather information on the experiences that commercial
construction contractors have had with theft and vandalism. In addition, the study was to discover the
types of measures contractors employ to reduce or minimize the probability of
being victims of theft or vandalism.
This type of information could best be obtained directly from
construction contractors. A survey
questionnaire was developed that would capture the desired information.
The questionnaire
first asked for information that would provide some demographic data about the
respondents. A series of questions were
then asked about experiences with theft and the types of methods that have been
employed to reduce or minimize theft occurrences. This was followed by a similar series of
questions related to vandalism.
Questions consisted of those eliciting multiple-choice responses and a
few that asked respondents to describe their experiences (open-ended
questions). The surveys were sent to
1200 construction contractors, primarily commercial contractors doing business
in the
The data were analyzed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). In addition to summarizing the frequency of responses for each question, relationships existing between different variables were also examined.
Results
The data, excluding responses to open-ended questions, were analyzed by calculating the frequencies of the responses. The results include a discussion of specific experiences that respondents have had with theft and vandalism on their construction sites. When all respondents did not answer a question, the frequencies are presented for the responses given.
The responding firms ranged in size from an annual volume of work of $400,000 to a firm with more than five billion dollars of annual revenues, with the typical size (median) company reporting $50 million in annual revenues. The respondents were classified into two categories for further statistical analysis, namely ‘small to medium’ size companies with annual volumes less than $100 million and ‘large’ companies with annual volumes of $100 million and more (Figure 1).
Respondents were
grouped according to the type of firm, namely general contractor,
subcontractor, or vendor/supplier. Of
the respondents, 89 were general contractors; twelve worked as subcontractors,
and one was a vendor/supplier. With the
high frequency of responses of general contractors, the responses reflect
primarily the experiences of general contractors, the target population of this
study. The respondents were asked about
the amount of their work that was subcontracted to other firms. Fifty-eight firms
subcontracted more than seventy-five percent of their work with 16 firms
subcontracting 100% of their work.
Respondents were asked about the types of projects they
constructed. There were 68 firms who
specialized in commercial projects, so the survey responses represent
commercial construction to a large extent (see Figure 2).
THEFT
Various types of information were received about the theft experiences of the contractor respondents. The theft information will be presented along with a number of approaches used to curtail theft incidents. Three firms stated they had not been victims of theft in the past year. Forty-two firms reported that they experienced one theft incident in the past year while the average number of theft incidents experienced was about two. Three respondents reported more than 50 theft incidents (see Figure 3).
The total dollar loss resulting from theft was divided by the amount of work performed by the company. This was converted into a value representing the annual theft loss per one million dollars of self-performed work. Five companies lost less than $20 per one million dollars of work performed, while twelve companies had losses greater than $1,000 for every $1,000,000 of work performed (see Figure 4). The mean was $1,388 of theft losses per $1,000,000 of work performed.
Ninety-seven firms indicated the percentage of theft incidents that they reported to law enforcement. A majority (76%) reported more than 75% of the theft incidents to law enforcement. Sixty-two respondents stated that all known theft incidents were reported to the police. No significant relationship was found when comparing the annual volume of work performed to the percentage of theft incidents reported to law enforcement.
Information was obtained on the particular types of thefts. Forty-two respondents had experienced an incident of tool theft. Approximately sixty percent of these firms experienced less than five incidents of tool theft in the past year. The average loss resulting from tool theft was $1,617 per incident. Eleven respondents reported having incidents of theft involving licensed vehicles. The average loss per theft in these incidents was $25,950. Twenty-three firms reported having incidents of equipment theft. The average loss per equipment theft was $4,802. Thirty-six respondents indicated that their firms had been a victim of the theft of office equipment such as computers, fax machines, printers, and copiers. The average loss per incident resulting from the theft of office equipment was $2,025. Forty-seven respondents indicated that they had experienced an incident of the theft of construction materials. The average loss for each incident of the theft of construction materials was $3,586. The average values of the losses reported by the respondents for the theft of tools, licensed vehicles, equipment, computers, and construction materials are summarized in Figure 5.
Builder's risk insurance coverage generally provides protection against perils (fire, wind, hail, theft, etc.) to buildings under construction and additions to existing buildings. It extends coverage to such cost items as materials, architect/engineer fees and testing, and deals with "permission to occupy" issues. The deductible amount on the insurance policy is a value stated in the builder’s risk policy that exempts the insurer from paying an initial specified amount in the event that the insured sustains a loss. Most respondents reported deductible amounts on their builders risk insurance policies ranging from $1,500 to $5,000 (see Figure 6). Deductible amounts were reported as being as small as $100 and as large as $750,000. The amount of the company’s builders risk insurance policy was related to the size of the company. Small to medium sized firms reported having smaller deductibles, with the median being $2,500 while the median value for the deductible value for large firms was $5,000.
The results show that stolen items are rarely recovered. The percentage of theft incidents where items were recovered was less than 10 percent as reported by 76 responses. No respondent stated that more than 50% of the items were recovered. Overall, about seven percent of the stolen items were reportedly recovered.
It is often alleged that employees are probably the thieves on many projects. The respondents to the survey did not share this sentiment. Contractors did not feel that their employees or former employees were the prominent perpetrators of thefts on their projects. An average of 33% of the theft incidents are thought to involve employees or former employees, and this is considerably less than conventional wisdom.
The survey asked about measures used to ensure jobsite security on construction sites. A number of practices are employed. Respondents were asked to indicate all measures that had been utilized. The breakdown of responses is shown in Table 1.
From these responses, it is evident that lockboxes, security fences, and posting warning signs are commonly used measures on construction sites. It was interesting to note that guard dogs are not used as a means to deter thieves. Respondents provided information on other techniques that they had employed to reduce thefts on their jobsites. The responses consisted of the use of a gated entrance; using a plywood-enclosed lockup area built in the work area; the locking of tools, equipment, and miscellaneous items secured in the office trailer; and the use of jobsite trailers that superintendents pull home at night.
Respondents were asked about specific measures used to prevent the theft of tools on construction sites. A list of measures was provided and respondents were asked to check all measures that were employed to protect tools (see Table 2). The most common techniques to protect tools included maintaining a secure storage area, marking the tools, maintaining a tool inventory, and minimizing the number of tools left on site. Some respondents provided information on other techniques also employed for tool security. These include having a tool box on a truck or a tool chest in the job trailer, implementing of an asset tag tracking system, requiring employees to pay for one-half the cost of replacing lost or stolen tools, and assigning an employee to hand out and check in tools each day.
A question was asked about measures used to prevent the theft of machinery and equipment on construction sites. A list of approaches was provided and respondents indicated which measures they had employed (see Table 3). Respondents described other techniques employed to reduce equipment theft. These included removing of keys from idle equipment, securing equipment with chains and locks, parking equipment in a fenced area, installing tracking devices on large equipment, taking equipment home each night, and the use of LOJACK which was provided by the insurance carrier.
Project layout decisions can directly influence or impact jobsite security. Respondents were asked about layout decisions and construction strategies that were made specifically to address the security of items on jobsites. Respondents offered suggestions and examples of jobsite layout decisions that they have used to discourage theft. The suggestions provided were: placing the trailer in a well-lit and fenced area, the utilizing of roll-off lockboxes for tools and equipment with concealed locks, storing trailers away from public access and out of view, placing trailers so doors face the road, storing containers so they are positioned in lighted areas and close to the office, and the stocking of materials on upper floors of buildings to increase the difficulty of theft.
The theft loss per million dollars of construction effort was compared to security measures utilized to determine if any were particularly effective. In most cases, the results showed that lower theft losses were reported by those firms reporting the use of each security measure. Exceptions were noted with the use of lockboxes, the use of a worker badge system, and the removal of unused equipment, but the differences were not statistically significant.
The dollar value of losses due to theft per million dollars of self-performed work (excluding the work subcontracted to other firms) was compared to the size of the company. It was found that small to medium sized companies had a slightly lower loss per million dollars of work performed when compared to large companies. Among the smaller firms (with annual volumes of $10 million or less) it was discovered that their theft losses were considerably less ($826 per million dollars of work performed) than firms with annual volumes greater than $100 million ($1,858 per million dollars of work performed).
The number of measures that were being utilized by the respondents was compared to the annual dollar volume of work performed by the company. Examples of measures can be found in Table 1. Of the fourteen measures identified, larger firms used an average of 5.9 measures while smaller firms used 4.6 measures (see Table 4).
Vandalism is generally a nuisance crime on construction sites and does not present serious losses for most contractors. Nonetheless, any losses detract from company profits and the threat of vandalism cannot be ignored. The study examined the experiences that firms had with losses due to vandalism.
Seventy-eight firms provided information on the number of vandalism incidents experienced. Twenty-six of these respondents reported that they had not experienced an incident of vandalism while thirty-three respondents reported that they had experienced one incident of vandalism in the past year (see Figure 7). Overall, the respondents reported an average of 3.6 vandalism incidents per year. This average figure is elevated by one firm that experienced 42 incidents and another that experienced 109 incidents.
Forty-nine respondents gave an estimate of the total dollar losses resulting from vandalism. Of these, 35 experienced vandalism losses of $10,000 or less, while the overall mean value of vandalism losses was $28,583. This relatively high mean can be attributed to one respondent who reported over one million dollars in vandalism losses.
The estimated dollar loss resulting from vandalism was divided by the self-performed work volume of each company. Seventeen companies lost less than ten dollars for every million dollars worth of work performed (see Figure 8). For the sample, vandalism represented $294 of losses per $1,000,000 of work performed.
The types of vandalism varied among the respondents. While these are often nuisance crimes, they can also be costly. The following types of vandalism were noted by the respondents:
Ø Broken glass (45 respondents)
Ø Graffiti (33 respondents)
Ø Destruction of in-place materials (24 respondents)
Ø Damage to construction equipment (24 respondents)
Ø Vehicle damage vandalism (14 respondents)
A question about the identity of the vandals garnered few responses. Results show that vandals are seldom caught. The most common suspected culprit was thought to be neighborhood children (43%) followed by strangers (34%). Other suspected culprits included disgruntled workers (9%), fired workers (6%), site visitors (4%), and others (4%).
Respondents offered suggestions and examples of steps they have taken to discourage vandalism. These included: using fences and lighting, placing security guards on vandalism-prone projects, using video cameras, having “no trespassing” signs in place, using web cams, locking up buildings at the end of the day, using temporary door and window closures, and covering windows with ¼” mesh fence material.
The
dollar value of losses due to vandalism per million dollars of work performed (excluding
the work subcontracted to other firms) by the company was compared to the size of the company. It was found that small to medium sized
companies experienced higher losses from incidents of vandalism when compared
to large companies (see Table 6). Firms
with yearly volumes of $10 million or less experienced a higher loss due to
vandalism ($409 per million dollars of work performed) compared to firms with
yearly volumes greater than $10 million.
These findings indicate that vandalism is a greater threat for smaller
companies than it is for larger companies or that larger firms have more
effective programs in place to reduce or prevent vandalism.
Further analysis showed that firms
that employed three security measures or less (see Table 1) experienced
vandalism losses of $584 per $1,000,000 of self-performed work, while firms
that employed at least seven such measures reported losses of only $38 per
$1,000,000 of self-performed work.
Summary
The results of this study show that the costs of thefts and vandalism are substantial. The annual direct costs of thefts and vandalism incidents were found to total $1,682 per $1,000,000 of self-performed work. Thefts account for about 82% of these costs. From this study, the total direct costs of theft and vandalism in the construction industry can be estimated to be about $1.5 billion per year. Note that these costs do not include the indirect costs that can be substantial. Indirect costs include the administrative time to document and report the loss incidents. After theft incidents, indirect costs will often increase due to a decline in crew productivity, as work must be reorganized until the lost items are restored. Many similar types of indirect costs will be associated with incidents of theft and vandalism.
Conclusions
Perhaps the most startling conclusion that can be drawn from this research is that the threat of theft and vandalism is real and it can be costly. Also, the occurrences of theft and vandalism incidents do not appear to be randomly distributed. That is, the characteristics of construction projects will influence the likelihood of them becoming victims of theft or vandalism. This means that contractors can implement practices that will make their projects less attractive to would-be thieves and vandals.
Recommendations
In conducting the literature review it was apparent that there is a shortage of prior research and data on the subject of jobsite security. This was puzzling because of the high cost of theft and vandalism incidents on construction sites. This large potential of loss can obviously have severe negative impacts on the success of a construction project. It is important to acquire a better understanding of the problem, and this can only be achieved through further research.
The 102 responses received were beneficial in performing a viable initial study of jobsite security and getting an indication of the extent of the problem as well as what techniques have proven to be successful for some companies. A future study should seek a larger and more nationally focused sample population. This would prove to be a greater help in the understanding of the extent of the problem of theft and vandalism in the construction industry. Future studies could focus strictly on either theft or vandalism. Another possibility would be to examine only equipment theft or tool theft and the resultant impact on productivity. Understanding more about vandalism may require research to identify the types of individuals who are most often involved in vandalism and to identify the most effective deterrent measures.
Contractors need to be proactive in order to curtail theft and vandalism on their jobsites, rather than waiting for problems to arise. The initial investment in developing a complete jobsite security plan prior to beginning construction work can be miniscule when compared to the losses that can result from the theft of an expensive piece of equipment. Contractors should also take into account the specific area that they are working in and realize that there are different potential problems associated with different sites whether located in remote, metropolitan, or neighborhood sites. Recognizing that potential problems of theft or vandalism exist on every construction site, contractors can implement measures to reduce the probability of being a target for thieves and vandals. Utilizing several different measures and techniques in the prevention of theft and vandalism has proven to be successful. Contractors are encouraged to expand the number of measures employed to prevent theft and vandalism. Incidents of theft should be reported to law enforcement, no matter how seemingly insignificant the loss. Most of all, techniques that are found to be effective in curtailing theft and vandalism should be openly shared within the construction community.
Finally, this study relied only on the opinions and perceptions of the employees of the firms surveyed. A more accurate technique that could be utilized in the future is the use of controlled experiments. Construction sites differing by region, type of project, and size of project could be observed throughout the life of the project to find out what the potential problems are and what solutions proved to be most beneficial. A large amount of data could be generated and further prove to be beneficial in the prevention of theft and vandalism in the construction industry.
References
Banks, Terry.
“Equipment Theft.” Constructor November 1990: 42-43.
Bonesteel, Matt. NUCA August 1997: 15-17.
“Combating Construction
Theft.” The Mechanical Contractors Association of
“Construction Site Theft.” Lumberman’s of Washington, Inc. January 2000. http://www.lumbermens-building.com/builders/builderxpress/BuildersXpressArticle.asp?Volume=25&Article=1.
“Contractors' Equipment Losses: Knowledge of Hazards Can Reduce Risk.” Insurance Journal. 19 February 2001. http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/2001/02/19/features/22326.htm
Gardner, Tony.
“Security in Construction and Beyond;
Protecting Your Site, Even During Build-up.”
Virgo Publishing, Inc. 2003.
http://www.insideselfstorage.com/articles/291feat4.html.
“Japanese Theft
Gang Tied to
Krizan, William G. “Jobsite Crime Soaring Along with Workloads.” Engineering News Record. 20 August 1987: 10.
McDowall, Jon. “Backhoes, Air Compressors, Skid-steers, Generators Head the Hit List.” Rental Management November 2002. http://www.rentalmanagementmag.com/newsart.asp?ARTID=677
Middleton, Sherri. “Equipment Theft; Finding the Solutions to a Billion Dollar Problem.” Heavy Equipment News. June 1999: 48-49.
Moorhouse,
Nancy. “Cost Retention and Safety Enhancement, Protecting Your Assets.” AGC
of
“Protect Your
Company From Jobsite Crime.” Associated General Contractors of
“Site theft - A spanner in the works; Advice on construction site security.” Neighborhoodwatch. Net. August 1992.
http://www.neighbourhoodwatch.net/neighbourhoodwatch/organisational/prevention/site.html.
“Theft and Vandalism Prevention Kit for Construction.” Vista Training Inc. 2003. http://www.vistastartsmart.com/What_s_New/Theft___Vandalism_Press_Releas/theft___vandalism_press_releas.html
Figure 1 Annual dollar volume
of work performed (n=102)
Figure 2 Type of projects undertaken (n=102)
Figure 3
Number of thefts in the past year (n=89)
Figure 4 Annual theft losses per $1 million of self-performed work (n=55)
Figure 5 Average value of loss per theft incident
Figure 6 Deductible amount on the company’s builders risk insurance policy (n=69)
Figure 7 Number of vandalism incidents (n=78)
Figure
8 Annual vandalism losses per $1 million of self-performed work (n=43)
|
% Firms Using Security 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 |
Table 2 Measures used to prevent the theft of tools on construction sites
|
%
Firms Using Security Measure |
Security
Measure |
|
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 the theft of machinery and equipment
|
% Firms Using
Security Measure |
Security Measure |
|
67% |
Parking of equipment and machinery in well-lighted areas |
|
43% |
Parking of equip. in a specific formation at the end of the day |
|
37% |
Including additional identification on equipment and machinery |
|
20% |
Using a distinctive color to mark machinery and equipment |
|
11% |
Modifying the ignition or fuel lines |
Table 4 Number of measures utilized to ensure jobsite security
|
Company Size (Annual Volume) |
Number of Firms |
Number of Measures
Utilized to Prevent Theft* |
|
less than $100 million and less |
67 |
4.6 |
|
$100 million and over |
35 |
5.9 |
|
Total |
102 |
5.2 |
*Note: the annual volume of the firm and the number
of measures utilized to prevent theft were positively correlated (corr. coef =
0.31, p= 0.001), based on the
Table 5 Cost of theft and vandalism per million dollars of construction work
|
Company Size (Annual Volume) (1) |
Number of Firms (2) |
Average Loss per $1,000,000 of Work* |
||
|
Theft (3) |
Vandalism (4) |
Total (5) |
||
|
less than $10 million |
13 |
$826 |
$409 |
$1,235 |
|
Greater than $10 million and less than $100 million |
46 |
$1,088 |
$325 |
$1,413 |
|
$100 million and over |
38 |
$1,858 |
$179 |
$2,037 |
|
Total |
97 |
$1,388 |
$294 |
$1,682 |
*Based on the amount of work self-performed