U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

DOJ Seal
COPS logo
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 
Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 34 

Robbery of Taxi 
Drivers 

By Martha J. Smith 


www.cops.usdoj.gov



Center for Problem-Oriented Policing logo
www.PopCenter.org


Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log on to the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 
at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 
you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 
community, including: 

• 
Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 
• 
Interactive training exercises 
• 
On-line access to research and police practices 
• 
An on-line problem analysis module 


Designed for police and those who work with them to 
address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 
resource in problem-oriented policing. 


Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 
Problem-Specific Guides Series 
Guide No. 34 

Robbery of Taxi Drivers 

Martha J. Smith 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 
#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained 
herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent 
the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References 
to specific companies, products, or services should not be 
considered an endorsement of the product by the author or the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations 
to supplement discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 

March 2005 


About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 
how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 
and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and 
to improving the overall response to incidents, not to 
investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The 
guides are written for police–of whatever rank or assignment– 
who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The 
guides will be most useful to officers who: 

Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 
and methods. The guides are not primers in problem-
oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial 
decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to 
analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of 
a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 
to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 
problem they have already identified. (An assessment 
guide has been produced as a companion to this series 
and the COPS Office has also published an introductory 
guide to problem analysis. For those who want to learn 
more about the principles and methods of problem-
oriented policing, the assessment and analysis guides, 
along with other recommended readings, are listed at the 
back of this guide.) 
Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 
complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to 
spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 
responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before 
responding helps you design the right strategy, one that 
is most likely to work in your community. You should 
not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you 
must decide whether they are appropriate to your local 



situation. What is true in one place may not be true 
elsewhere; what works in one place may not work 
everywhere. 

Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 
business. The guides describe responses that other 
police departments have used or that researchers have 
tested. While not all of these responses will be appropriate 
to your particular problem, they should help give a 
broader view of the kinds of things you could do. 
You may think you cannot implement some of these 
responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. 
In many places, when police have discovered a more 
effective response, they have succeeded in having laws 
and policies changed, improving the response to the 
problem. 
Understand the value and the limits of research 
knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 
research is available to the police; for other problems, 
little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 
summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate 
the need for more research on that particular problem. 
Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to 
all the questions you might have about the problem. The 
research may help get you started in designing your own 
responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This 
will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 
problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not 
every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has 
every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so 
would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The 
references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 
on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of 
research on the subject. 



Are willing to work with other community agencies 
to find effective solutions to the problem. The police 
alone cannot implement many of the responses 
discussed in the guides. They must frequently implement 
them in partnership with other responsible private and 
public entities. An effective problem-solver must know 
how to forge genuine partnerships with others and be 
prepared to invest considerable effort in making these 
partnerships work. 

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 
practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, 
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and 
Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police practices 
vary from country to country, it is apparent that the police 
everywhere experience common problems. In a world that 
is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important 
that police be aware of research and successful practices 
beyond the borders of their own countries. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 
feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s 
experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency 
may have effectively addressed a problem using responses 
not considered in these guides and your experiences and 
knowledge could benefit others. This information will be 
used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback 
and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to 
cops_pubs@usdoj.gov. 


For more information about problem-oriented policing, 
visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 
www.popcenter.org or via the COPS website at 
www.cops.usdoj.gov. This website offers free online access to: 

the Problem-Specific Guides series, 
the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools 
series, 
instructional information about problem-oriented policing 
and related topics, 
an interactive training exercise, 
on-line access to important police research and practices, 
and an on-line problem analysis module. 



Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 
collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author, 
other project team members, COPS Office staff and 
anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by 
proposing text, recommending research and offering 
suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The principal project team developing the guide series 
comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, 
University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, 
professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. 
Eck, professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati; 
Michael S. Scott, clinical assistant professor, University of 
Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, police consultant, 
San Diego; and Deborah Lamm Weisel, director of police 
research, North Carolina State University. 

Nancy Leach and Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for 
the COPS Office. Rebecca Kanable edited the guide. 
Research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal 
Justice Library at Rutgers University under the direction of 
Phyllis Schultze. 


Contents 

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 
Acknowledgments . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 
The Problem of Robbery of Taxi Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
Factors Contributing to Robbery of Taxi Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Taxi Company Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 
Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 
Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 
Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 
Responses to The Problem of Robbery of Taxi Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
Vehicle Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 
Money Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 
Other Driver Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 
Policing Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 
Industry Rules, Regulations, and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 
Responses With Limited Potential for Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Robbery of Taxi Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
eferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 


Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 



The Problem of Robberies of Taxi Drivers 

The guide begins by describing the problem and reviewing 
factors that increase the risks of robbery of taxi drivers. 
The guide then identifies a series of questions that might 
assist you in analyzing your local taxi robbery problem. 
Finally, the guide reviews responses to the problem and 
what is known about these from evaluative research and 
police practice. 

One of the biggest barriers to understanding the problem 
of taxi driver robbery is the lack of data specifically 
collected on this crime. Most police departments do not 
record the circumstances surrounding a robbery incident 
in a way that allows taxi robberies to be identified easily. 
Much of what is known about taxi robbery is based on 
information recorded on assaults and homicides by 
occupation.† These data consistently show that, as an 
occupation or industry, taxi drivers have the highest or 
among the highest risk of job-related homicide and 
assault.1 Robbery is the motive for more than half of all 
work-related homicides (80 percent) and non-fatal assaults 
(60 percent).2 A U.S. study that did look at robbery 
victimization data by occupation also found that taxi 
drivers were among those most often robbed.3 

Even the information that is available, however, is likely 
to be incomplete.4 Many drivers work as independent 
contractors and, as such, may not be eligible for workers 
compensation (one of the main data sources for studies of 
occupational assault). More importantly, the structure of 
compensation for services in the industry (where time off 
means no income) decreases the incentive drivers might 
otherwise have to report crimes to the police or other 
official sources. That may be especially true if drivers see 

† No studies focused specifically on 
taxi driver victimization have been 
carried out in the United States 
though such research has been done 
in Australia (Mayhew, 1999; Haines, 
1997; Keatsdale Pty. Ltd., 1995), 
Canada (Stenning, 1996), the United 
Kingdom (Westmarland and 
Anderson, 2001; Smith, forthcoming) 
and the Netherlands (Elzinga, 1996). 
Mayhew (2000b) provides a 
comprehensive review of the studies 
that have looked at taxi driver assaults. 


† If police do not take crimes 
seriously, then this may lead to 
additional problems. For example, 
Mayhew (1999) noted the belief 
among some drivers that police 
failure to take small fare evasions 
seriously may embolden offenders 
and lead to more serious incidents 
with drivers. 

†† The term “gypsy cab,” which 
historically has been limited to 
services that operate without the 
needed licenses in an area, is 
increasingly being used in New York 
City to refer to livery services 
(Marosi, n.d.). 

the crime as relatively minor, they do not think the police 
can do anything about it, or they think that the police will 
not take their crime problems seriously.† The problem of 
under-reporting may be particularly acute in relation to 
attempted robberies since these are likely to be seen by 
drivers as less severe incidents. However, attempted 
robberies may be particularly useful to understand when 
developing problem-solving strategies since they were 
successfully disrupted for some reason. 

To understand taxi robberies it is necessary to understand 
the industry in which cab drivers operate. The compensation 
that drivers receive is related to the number of fares they 
have in a given shift, the distance they travel, the amount 
of tips they receive, and the costs of the vehicle (and any 
fees paid for access to fares via radio dispatch, if they use 
this service). Robbery depletes driver revenue and has the 
potential for injury and death. Therefore, drivers must 
continually balance the competing concerns of increasing 
revenue through accepting fares and of risking potential 
revenue loss (and potential physical harm). Knowing how 
the taxi industry is organized in a particular locality is an 
important first step in developing a taxi driver robbery 
problem-solving strategy related to that place. 

In general, there are two different types of taxi services: 
“hackney” cabs that can pick up fares off the street or 
from taxi stands. (This type of service is also referred to as 
“ply-for-hire” service, “medallion” cabs in New York City, 
or some other term related to the color of the vehicles, 
such as “black cabs” in London.) 
“livery” cabs that must be booked through a central 
dispatching office. (This service is also known under a 
variety of local names, such as “mini-cabs” in London and 
“car services” in the New York metropolitan area.)†† 



Problem-solvers need to look at the types of services 
offered in the community in order to look for patterns of 
offending. Some patterns may be typical for only one set 
of drivers, if more than one type of service operates in 
that area, particularly if prevention techniques and 
equipment differ among the different types of services 
or ownership relationships.† 

In general, there are two types of vehicle-driver ownership 
relationships: 

the owner-driver–where the driver of the vehicle also owns 
the cab. Owner-drivers may operate without a radio or may 
lease radio and radio-dispatch services from a company 
that handles telephone bookings. 
the driver-lessee–where the driver leases the vehicle 
from the owner. Leasing arrangements may be very 
different in different locations and may result in a variety 
of pressures and constraints on drivers and owners. 
Drivers may lease their vehicles full-time or by shifts, 
may not drive the same vehicle for each shift, and may 
receive all of the proceeds of their fares or only a 
percentage. Drivers without full control over their 
vehicles may not be able to determine the types of 
safety equipment that are present in their cabs. Owners, 
on the other hand, may have a few cabs or may operate 
large fleets of vehicles. The different situations of 
owners may influence their ability or willingness to 
purchase expensive safety features, such as driver screens, 
digital cameras, and global positioning satellite technology. 
However, the size of the owner’s fleet may not necessarily 
determine whether equipment is installed. For example, 
economies of scale may make some owners more likely 
to install certain equipment while others may operate in 
a monopoly situation and decide such expenditures are 
not necessary. 


† The recent drop in the level of 
homicides among livery drivers in 
New York City (Luo, 2004) may be 
an example of how the prevention 
equipment on different types of taxi 
services can affect the victimization 
patterns of drivers. In the early 1990s 
yellow cab drivers and livery drivers 
in fleets were required to have 
bulletproof partitions in their cabs. 
Homicides among these drivers 
dropped following this initiative 
(Marosi, n.d.). Livery drivers who 
were owner-drivers were not required 
to have bulletproof partitions in their 
cabs until 2000 when the regulations 
changed following a spate of 
murders of livery drivers. With this 
new initiative, all livery drivers were 
required to install partitions or 
surveillance cameras. Establishing a 
direct link between the requirement 
for new equipment and the drop in 
homicides among livery drivers is 
difficult to do unambiguously, 
however, since other initiatives (such 
as increased use of decoy officers, 
targeting of taxi robbery locations, 
use of special decals that allow police 
to stop drivers without probable 
cause or reasonable suspicion, and 
tougher sentencing laws) were also in 
place. In 2001, a program was also 
started in New York City to install 
emergency contact systems in yellow 
and livery cabs using global 
positioning satellite technology and 
cell phone links (Mayersohn, 2001). 


† One oversight model is illustrated by 
the New York City Taxi and Limousine 
Commission (see www.nyc.gov/html/ 
tlc/html/home/home.shtml) while 
another model involves the direct 
control of taxi services by the local 
police department, as found in Boston 
with the Hackney Carriage Unit. 

†† Examples of partnerships involving 
taxi representatives can be found in 
Melbourne, Australia (Taxi Driver 
Safety Committee, 1996), Manitoba, 
Canada (Manitoba Taxicab Board, 
1991), and Manchester, England 
(Manchester City Council, 2003). 
While the Manchester partnership has 
focused on late-night city center travel 
and disorder problems, rather than 
robbery, it is an example of the type of 
partnership initiative that has developed 
under the Crime and Disorder Act 
1998 directing local governmental 
authorities in England and Wales to 
set up crime and disorder partnerships 
with the police and other agencies, 
audit local crime, set up strategic plans 
to address these problems, and carry 
them out (see, e.g., Home Office, 
1998). 

††† Sexual assaults on women have 
been the focus of a large number of 
enforcement initiatives in London 
recently under the Project Sapphire 
umbrella (see 
www.met.police.uk/sapphire/). 

Taxi services are usually regulated by some governmental 
or quasi-governmental body.† Both hackney and livery 
services may be regulated by the same oversight agency. 
Common regulatory features of these agencies include: 

setting fares, 
licensing drivers and vehicles (including regulating the 
number of vehicles within particular areas), 
controlling the conditions of vehicles, and 
monitoring the behavior of drivers. 


Police departments may try to set up partnerships among 
regulatory agencies and industry representatives (including 
radio-dispatching companies, owners, associations of 
owners, drivers, driver associations, and labor unions) to 
help implement problem-solving initiatives.†† The partners 
in the problem-solving process may need to understand 
both how the industry is regulated in an area and the 
context in which past regulation was implemented before 
they can begin to assess the best responses to current 
problems. 

Related Problems 

This guide focuses on robbery of taxi drivers. It does not 
address crimes by taxi drivers against passengers or other 
drivers.††† In addition, it does not attempt to address fully 
the following crimes against drivers: 

homicide, 
assault, 
threats of physical violence, 
verbal aggression or harassment, 
hate speech, 
fare evasion, or 
vandalism. 



It also does not include robbery involving delivery services 
of perishable items, such as pizzas or Chinese food, or of 
valuables, such as cash. 

While robbery is the primary motive for many attacks and 
resulting injuries across all occupations,5 this finding may 
be location-specific for taxi drivers.6 Some research in 
Australia7 and Britain8 has found that alcohol plays a role in 
driver assaults, but it is not clear that these assaults are 
primarily a subset of robbery-related assaults nor how 
prevalent they are compared to robbery-motivated assaults. 
Some drivers have suggested that driver behavior, such as 
over-charging, taking the long way around, and aggression 
or rudeness, may lead to aggression by passengers.9 It is 
unclear whether, or how often, this aggression escalates 
into a later robbery event or whether other types of verbal 
harassment or hate speech are related to taxi driver robbery. 
There is some evidence, however, that driver pursuit of 
fare evaders can result in robbery.10 Policing agencies may, 
therefore, find it useful to look carefully at a variety of 
incidents involving taxi drivers in order to understand the 
taxi robbery problems in their area. 

Policing agencies seeking to limit the number of taxi driver 
robberies in their area need to try to understand where the 
links between crimes can be made, as well as how the series 
of actions in a robbery crime “script”† develop and how 
they relate to prevention schemes. For example, prevention 
measures, such as safety shields between drivers and 
passengers, designed to help prevent one type of crime 
(robbery) may also help prevent other crimes (homicides 
and assaults). Yet, drivers in some areas have been concerned 
that they may depersonalize them or go against a culture 
that prizes friendliness, banter, and lack of social 
divisions.11 This might result in lower tips and possibly 

† A crime “script” is a shorthand 
term developed to help describe the 
stages in an unfolding crime event, 
similar to the “modus operandi” 
(Cornish, 1994). 


increased fare evasion and vandalism. If these unwanted 
consequences do not materialize, then it may be easier for 
drivers to accept the prevention measures against the rarer 
robbery event. Thus, police agencies seeking to understand 
a local taxi driver robbery problem may wish to monitor 
other offenses against drivers both before and after 
implementing new prevention initiatives. 

Factors Contributing to Robberies of Taxi Drivers 

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem 
will help you frame your own local analysis questions, 
determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key 
intervention points, and select appropriate responses. 

Taxi drivers are at risk of robbery due to a combination of 
factors related to the nature of their job: 

They have contact with a large number of strangers or 
people they do not know well. 
They often work in high-crime areas. 
They usually carry cash with them in an unsecured manner 
and handle money as payment. 
They usually work alone. 
They often go to, or through, isolated locations. 
They often work late at night or early in the morning. 


These risk factors, among others, have been mentioned in 
a number of studies of workplace homicide and violence 
in general.12 


Not all places pose the same degree of danger in relation 
to these factors, nor do all drivers have the same degree of 
exposure to these risk factors. For example, even within a 
given locality, there may be a great deal of variability in the † Purpose-built vehicles are those 
designed specifically for use as
designs and features of the vehicles themselves. Some cabs taxicabs, such as Checker cabs and 
may be purpose-built vehicles,† equipped with driver safety the London cab. 
screens, radios, charge card machines, global positioning 
satellite (GPS) tracking, and digital infrared cameras. Other 
cabs in that area may have none of these features. 

One study in Australia found that robberies were most 
likely to be carried out by young men who were inebriated 
and hailed the cab from the street or taxi stands.13 In other 
places, robberies may be most likely to follow calls to 
dispatchers by women, with drivers arriving to find a man 
with a gun and no women.14 Drivers must be made aware 
of the common patterns for robberies in their area, but 
should also be aware that they may not always be able to 
identify potential robbers or robbery situations before the 
event unfolds. 


Understanding Your Local Problem 

The information provided above is only a generalized 
description of taxi driver robbery. You must combine the 
basic facts with a more specific understanding of your 
local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will 
help you design a more effective response strategy. 

Asking the Right Questions 

The following are some critical questions you should ask in 
analyzing your particular problem of taxi robbery, even if 
the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to 
these and other questions will help you choose the most 
appropriate set of responses later on. 

To understand the problem of taxi robberies it is important 
for local police agencies to understand the types of services 
normally provided by taxis operating in their jurisdiction. 
The central distinction is between hackney cabs and livery 
cabs (discussed above). Other distinctions among types of 
taxi services may also be important for understanding the 
environment in which drivers normally work. 

Incidents 

How many robberies of taxi drivers occur in your 
jurisdiction? What has been the trend over time in recent 
years? 
What percentage of all robberies in your jurisdiction is of 
taxi drivers? 
What percentage of taxi robberies results in injury or death 
to the driver? 
How many attempted robberies of taxi drivers occur? 
What is the ratio of attempted taxi driver robberies to 
completed taxi driver robberies? 



What percentage of robberies of taxi drivers is reported 
to police? Is there an agency that victims may report to 
other than the police? 

Taxi Company Practices 

Is the industry primarily operated by large vehicle-leasing 
firms or by independent owner-operators who pay set fees 
for radio equipment and access to fares through them? 
Do many of the taxis in the area operate without being 
attached to a radio-cab company? 
Are taxis allowed to cruise the streets for fares? Are they 
limited to taxi-stand pick-ups? 
Are there regulations that limit taxi drivers’ discretion in 
accepting fares? 
Do drivers receive any compensation for lost wages due to 
crime victimization, crime-related injuries, complaint filing, 
or case prosecution? 
What policies, if any, have taxi companies in your 
jurisdiction enacted to prevent robbery of their drivers? 
Do taxi companies authorize drivers to refuse to pick 
up or drop off passengers in certain areas of the 
jurisdiction? If so, do crime reports indicate that these 
areas are in fact unsafe? Has this practice created any 
controversy in the community? 



It is also important for police agencies to understand the 
types of passengers normally frequenting cabs in the area 
and why they take taxis. Common passenger types include: 

the disabled and the elderly; 
non-drivers–including the poor, those who have lost their 
licenses, and the young; 
those unable or unwilling to drive because of their alcohol 
or drug consumption; 
regular passengers; 
those going to the airport or train station; and 
business people. 


Victims 

Which type of driver is most commonly a robbery victim 
in the area–the hackney, or ply-for-hire, driver who can 
pick up fares from the street or the driver limited to pre-
booked fares? Are there differences between these drivers 
in the types of vehicles they use or in the safety equipment 
on the vehicles? Is there a difference in the amount of 
interaction among drivers of these types of taxis? Do the 
drivers in these groups belong to different ethnic groups, 
have different levels of experience, or represent different 
age groups? 
Were the robbers picked up off the street by a taxi licensed 
only for pre-booked fares, suggesting that the drivers were 
risking their license to take the fare? 
Were the drivers in the cab when the robbery started? 
Did the victims have, and use, safety screens? 
Did the cabs have a digital camera or a global positioning 
satellite (GPS) system? 
Do the victims usually operate with a radio or have a CB in 
the cab? 



Do the cabs have some type of alarm, such as a trouble 
light on the outside of the cabs, an alarm that is triggered 
at the dispatch office, or a procedure for using a trouble 
code word? 
Were the victims able to summon help during the 
incident? If so, was enough information given to locate 
the driver? If help arrived, at what point in the robbery 
incident did someone appear? 
Did the victims have a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, tire iron, 
pepper spray, or flashlight)? Were they able to use it? 
Are drivers usually injured during, or after, the robbery? 
If so, what types of injuries do they suffer? 
Is the proportion of drivers from particular demographic 
groups who are robbed approximately the same as the 
proportion of drivers from these groups in the local 
taxi industry as a whole? 
How fearful are taxi drivers in your jurisdiction of 
robbery? How has that fear level changed over time? 


Offenders 

Are most of the robbers passengers in the cab? 
Do the offenders most often hail the cab from the 
street, or call for a cab from a phone booth or mobile 
phone, or from a particular location? 
Did the robber operate on his/her own or with an 
accomplice? Was the offender from an identifiable 
group? Were the victim and the offender from the same 
ethnic or racial group? Was the robber male or female? 
Did the offender intimidate the driver through threats 
or harassment prior to the robbery? 
Did the offender appear to be an opportunistic offender 
or one who seemed to be experienced in carrying out 
this type of offense? 
Was the perpetrator armed with a weapon? If so, what 
type of weapon? When was the weapon first shown or 
threatened? 



Locations/Times 

In what parts of town do the robberies tend to occur or 
cluster? Where was the pick-up location? What 
destination was given? Where was the actual robbery 
done? Was the driver or cab taken to another location 
after the robbery? 
Were the robbery sites given as the destinations at the 
beginning of the taxi trips? 
Are the areas where robberies occur similar in design? 
For example, are they difficult to maneuver in, or do 
they involve complicated street plans where drivers can 
become easily lost? 
Are incident areas clustered geographically? Do these 
areas also have high rates of fare evasions? Do 
experienced drivers tend to avoid these areas? 
Do robberies involving drug addicts occur more often 
in certain geographic areas, such as near dealers’ 
residences? 
When do these robberies mainly occur (time of day, day 
of week, month, season)? Do these times correspond to 
driver shifts? For example, do robberies tend to occur 
toward the end of a shift on a busy night? As drivers 
are returning to base or home? Or do robberies tend to 
occur when drivers are not busy, suggesting they may be 
taking risks to increase their takings? 
Do robberies in certain places occur more often at 
certain times of the day? 
Are the robbery locations normally deserted at the time 
of day when the incidents occurred there? 



Measuring Your Effectiveness 

† Also see Problem Solving Tips: A 
Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder 
through Problem-Solving Partnerships 

(U.S. Department of Justice COPS 
Office, 2002). 

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 
efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify 
your responses if they are not producing the intended 
results. You should take measures of your problem before 
you implement responses to determine how serious the 
problem is, and after you implement them to determine 
whether they have been effective. All measures should be 
taken in both the target area and the surrounding area. 
(For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, 
see the companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses 
to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.†) 
Due to the problems involved in finding comparable 
surrounding areas, police agencies may try to get comparison 
figures from similar types of cities or local areas within the 
region. 

Police and industry efforts to record the number of 
robberies of taxi drivers more accurately may lead to an 
increase in reported crimes that reflects only reporting 
practices and does not indicate a real increase in the 
number of incidents. If police agencies or taxi regulators 
try to increase robbery and attempted robbery reporting 
levels, then they should do this several months prior to the 
implementation of any new preventive measures. 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 
effectiveness of responses to taxi robbery: 

reductions in the number of robberies (and attempted 
robberies) of taxi drivers (and in the proportion of taxi 
robberies in comparison to all robberies in the area), 
controlling for taxi business volume and the number of 
taxis; 


reductions in the number of repeat robbery victimizations 
of taxi drivers, controlling for the number of drivers; 
reductions in the proportion of completed robberies to the 
number of attempted robberies of taxi drivers; 
reductions in the reported response time of police and 
other drivers to calls for assistance; 
reductions in the number of homicides of taxi drivers (and 
in the proportion of driver homicides in comparison to all 
homicides in the area), controlling for taxi business volume 
and the number of taxis; 
reductions in the number of driver assaults (and in the 
proportion of taxi driver assaults in comparison to all 
assaults in the area), controlling for taxi business volume, 
the number of taxis, the number of drivers, and the 
number of years of experience of drivers; 
reductions in the number of repeat assault victimizations 
of taxi drivers, controlling for the number of drivers; 
reductions in the severity of injuries resulting from 
robberies and attempted robberies of taxi drivers, 
controlling for the number of assaults; 
reductions in the time taken off following robbery or 
attempted robbery by taxi drivers, controlling for the 
number of assaults; 
reductions in the number of workers compensation claims 
filed by taxi drivers following robberies or attempted 
robberies, controlling for taxi business volume and the 
number of drivers; 
reductions in the number of driver complaints of harassing 
comments (a possible precursor to a robbery), controlling 
for taxi business volume; 
reduction in driver turnover in the industry, controlling for 
taxi business volume; 
reductions in reported fear among drivers of being crime 
victims; 



reductions in the number of passenger complaints to the 
taxi regulator (including service refusals overall, and those 
based on claims of racial or ethnic discrimination and 
residential discrimination (both in terms of pick-ups from 
residences and street hails once the destination has been 
given), controlling for taxi business volume and the 
number of taxis; and 
reductions in passenger volume. 


Police agencies, taxi regulators, or industry representatives 
should measure the extent to which initiatives have been 
adopted to help ensure that any apparent success (or 
failure) is correctly attributed to the appropriate antirobbery 
initiative. If police or regulators are to assess 
prevention efforts accurately, then there must be cooperation 
among the various information holders. One way to 
accomplish this would be to document the crime prevention 
hardware and systems on a vehicle at the time it is inspected 
by the taxi regulator, with owners being required to report 
changes between inspections with an easy-to-use reporting 
form. Also, the agency operating a grant or loan program 
to support the installation of particular security devices 
should keep records of the vehicles receiving the equipment 
and forward this information to taxi liaison officers in 
policing agencies or to those in the regulator’s office who 
monitor crimes against drivers. And finally, police agencies 
instituting new patrol practices in response to taxi crime 
should document when these initiatives begin so that their 
effectiveness can be monitored more accurately. As this 
listing clearly indicates, no one stakeholder can perform 
the assessment needed to determine what works in a 
particular area. Cooperation is crucial for accurate assessment. 


Getting information from taxi drivers about the volume of 
their business may be difficult if they are not required to 
keep a log of their trips since they deal in cash and some 
of them may be reluctant to disclose the extent of their 
earnings, particularly if they do not report all of their 
income for tax purposes or to the owner of the vehicle 
(where the owner is entitled to a percentage of the 
takings). Also, driving a taxi is often an entry-level job for 
many new, and undocumented, immigrants who also may 
be reluctant to report any information to policing agencies 
or taxi regulators. 


Responses to the Problem of Robbery of 
Taxi Drivers 

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a 
better understanding of the factors contributing to it. 
Once you have analyzed your local problem and established 
a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider 
possible responses to address the problem. 

The taxi industry is often regulated by an agency within 
local government, by an independent commission, or by 
the police.† These bodies set fares and limit the number of 
licenses permitted within particular areas, as well as control 
the conditions of vehicles and monitor the behavior of 
drivers. Often the jurisdictional boundaries between these 
regulatory agencies and police are not clear to everyone 
affected. The problem is compounded if the regulatory 
agency does not deploy inspectors during the late night or 
early evening hours. The police may be called upon to act 
in areas for which they have little training. They may be 
asked by drivers to resolve complaints that are civil, rather 
than criminal in nature–such as fare evasion in some 
locations. Taxis may operate outside their home jurisdiction 
and taxis from other areas may drop passengers off in 
local policing areas. Coordination between police and the 
taxi regulators may require the appointment of a special 
officer. 

The development of industry-wide responses should involve 
not only the police and the regulatory bodies covering a 
service area, but also other interested groups such as 
drivers, drivers’ associations, vehicle owners, and radio-cab 
booking companies. One researcher has commented that 
voluntary measures, even with wide support among drivers, 
do not have much chance of penetration into the industry 
without the support of owners.15 Sometimes these agencies 

† In Boston, the taxi industry is 
regulated by the Boston Police 
Department (the Hackney Carriage 
Unit) while in New York City, the 
Taxi and Limousine Commission sets 
the rules for both hackney and livery 
services (see www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/ 
html/home/home.shtml). 


† But see Department of 
Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 
(2003) for an example of a regulatory 
impact statement on the requirement 
that security cameras be installed in 
taxicabs in Hobart, Tasmania, 
Australia, where the costs and 
benefits of security cameras, driver 
safety shields, and emergency lights 
and duress alarms are each set out. 

†† Mayhew (2000a) presented a 
comprehensive review of prevention 
strategies related to assaults of taxi 
drivers. 

require a single type of safety device, such as a bulletproof 
screen between passengers and drivers, while at 
other times they may allow drivers or owners to choose 
from several possible devices, such as safety screens, digital 
surveillance cameras, or automatic vehicle locators (AVLs) 
in combination with an alarm.16 Policies that provide some 
choice among safety measures may represent a compromise 
among competing interest groups rather than a judgment 
about comparative effectiveness.† However, because so 
little is known about the effectiveness of most of these 
measures, it is too soon to draw conclusions about whether 
it is more useful to focus on a single prevention measure 
or to allow a variety of measures to operate within a single 
area. 

The responses recommended below are reasonably likely to 
have some beneficial effect in preventing robberies of taxi 
drivers; however, unless otherwise noted, none of these 
responses has been properly evaluated for effectiveness. 
Since so little research has been done in this area, it is too 
early to label measures as ineffective. This is why the last 
three responses are included but discussed separately as 
responses with limited potential for effectiveness. It is also 
important to note that, although installation costs are 
frequently cited as reasons for not implementing particular 
problem-solving strategies, a number of grant or loan 
programs have been set up, such as those in New York 
City17 and Washington, D.C.18 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of 
ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies 
are drawn from a variety of research studies†† and police 
reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your 


community’s problem. It is critical that you tailor responses 
to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 
based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective 
strategy will involve implementing several different 
responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom 
effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit 
yourself to considering what police can do. Give careful 
consideration to who in your community shares responsibility 
for the problem and can help police better respond to it. 


Vehicle Equipment 

1. Separating drivers from passengers. Screens or 
partitions should be effective if they make it more difficult 
for robbers to carry out the type of threat most common 
with taxi robberies in an area.† For example, bullet-resistant 
screens (and bulletproof plates behind the driver’s seat) are 
designed to prevent robberies with a gun when the robber 
is seated behind the driver. In the only well-designed 
evaluation of a security measure in a taxicab found for this 
review, bullet-resistant safety screens between drivers and 
passengers both reduced the number of assaults on drivers 
and were cost effective.19 Given the probable links between 
driver assault and robbery, this result should apply to 
robbery reduction as well.†† 

Image of taxi cab with passenger barrier
Image of taxi cab with passenger barrier
Physically separating drivers from their fares can help prevent driver assault 
and/or robbery. 

† A report from the Manitoba 
Taxicab Board (1991) presents an 
extensive discussion of taxi screens. 

†† The importance of industry-wide 
use of safety screens in an area has 
been illustrated with the case of New 
York City livery drivers. If livery 
drivers owned the cab they drove, 
they were exempt from the mandatory 
shield requirement directed at 
hackney cabs in the 1990s. While 
homicide deaths among hackney 
drivers dropped, livery drivers 
continued to be victimized (Marosi, 
n.d.). In 2000, following a number of 
killings of livery drivers, all livery 
drivers were required to install either 
a shield or a digital surveillance 
camera (Luo, 2004; see also New 
York City Taxi and Limousine 
Commission, 2000b). Homicides 
have declined markedly for livery 
drivers since 2000. It is difficult to 
credit shields completely for this 
change, however, since a number of 
other prevention programs were also 
in effect in that period. 


† Passenger injury was seen as a 
major problem in New York City 
cabs. The “Celebrity Talking Taxi” 
Program, begun in 1997, used 
recordings by celebrities to remind 
passengers to wear their seat belts 
(New York City Taxi and Limousine 
Commission, 2002). The program 
was abandoned in 2003 following 
a study of passenger compliance 
(Feuer, 2003). The recordings were 
seen as annoying and repetitive, 
leading many passengers to defy the 
recommendation to buckle-up. 

Although taxis in many large U.S. cities have driver safety 
screens, this is by no means a universal feature in all 
vehicles. Screens have been seen to have the following 
disadvantages:20 

expensive to install, 
do not fit well in vehicles that are not purpose-built 
vehicles, 
limit driver-passenger interaction (and, therefore, possibly 
limit tips), 
can interfere with heating and air conditioning circulation, 
and 
can lead to head injuries following sudden stops where 
passengers have not been wearing seat belts.† 


However, as one study found, drivers who have been the 
victims of assaults or robberies may be more likely to want 
screens in their cabs than those who have been the victims 
of less serious crimes.21 If taxi regulators require drivers 
to have screens in their vehicles, then they must provide 
drivers with information about the types of attacks that 
screens can protect them against, such as whether they are 
shatter resistant as well as being bulletproof. 

2. Recording activity with security cameras. Security 
cameras in taxis can serve a variety of interests related to 
robbery prevention. Police and prosecutors can use the 
images to help catch offenders and increase the evidence 
available for conviction. For drivers who may be more 
interested in prevention than detection, surveillance 
cameras in taxis may deter would-be robbers (or attackers) 
who do not want their images caught on camera. Notices 
to customers of the presence of cameras should increase 
their deterrent effect. To achieve a similar deterrent effect, 
prosecutors need to ensure that successful prosecutions 
using camera evidence are highly publicized within their 


area. One danger for drivers having cameras in their cabs 
is that they may begin to rely on the camera as a substitute 
for their own careful assessment of their passengers and 
may fail to use their normal precautions. 


www.toronto-crimestoppers.com 

Image of taxi cab security camera capturing armed robbery
Security cameras in taxis can capture robberies in progress. 

The types of cameras available for use in taxicabs have 
become increasingly sophisticated in the last 10 years.22 
Digital cameras, with infrared capability, can be connected 
to systems that hold a large number of images. Drivers 
must be aware whether their system writes over images 
or can retain a certain number of images if an alarm is 
triggered. If camera images are stored on equipment held 
in the trunk of the cab, there is a possibility that when 
robbery events are caught on camera, offenders may try to 
destroy the equipment (and cab) to eliminate the evidence. 
Systems that transmit the images to a central location away 
from the taxi should help to overcome this problem if 
offenders are aware of how these systems work. Industry 
representatives should explore technological innovations 
that make vehicle destruction less likely. 


† This would require images to be 
stored and accessed only through a 
central computing facility, such as 
one run by the police department or 
the industry’s oversight commission. 
These images would then only be 
downloaded in special circumstances, 
such as when a crime occurs or a 
complaint has been made against the 
driver. Protection against passenger 
complaints is seen by many drivers 
as an additional advantage of having 
cameras in their cabs and may 
encourage drivers to install them. 
Cameras can also be used to help 
prove or disprove complaints against 
drivers–if the images have been 
preserved. 

†† The effectiveness of cameras in 
taxis is a hotly debated issue (see 
Rathbone, n.d.). 

Not all passengers like cameras.23 Part of this may be due 
to uncertainty over how their images will be used. Regulators 
need to set up strict safeguards to protect passenger 
privacy. Legislation over use of the images may provide 
some protection, but this may also be achieved if the 
images are not available to the drivers.† Clearly, much 
depends on the technology used. 

Some cities, such as New York City, Chicago, and Sydney, 
Australia, permit drivers to have cameras in their taxis in 
lieu of driver safety shields.†† Police-industry partnerships 
need to be aware that not all prevention devices may be 
equally effective against robbery. Crime displacement may 
occur if potential robbers see one set of drivers as less 
protected than drivers with other devices in their cabs. 

3. Using a radio or alarm to call for help. Although 
alarms and radios may be used to call for help, drivers 
may find it very difficult during robberies to use radios 
(dispatching or CB) or mobile telephones to call for help. 
Some devices require drivers to hold down a button while 
speaking or press a series of buttons to connect with the 
listener. Furthermore, it may become apparent to the 
assailant that the radio or telephone has been activated or 
that the driver is broadcasting the cab’s location or using a 
code indicating that there is trouble. This could put the 
driver in additional peril. Radios can be disabled and help 
may not arrive immediately. 


The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration 
has advocated so-called “open mikes.”24 These devices 
block the airwaves on that channel, broadcasting whatever 
comes from the open mike. Accidentally switching on 
an open mike may be a particular problem if the open 
channel is also the company’s dispatching channel since 
it is blocked when left “open” and the driver cannot be 
contacted to close it. If the driver carries a mobile phone, 
the dispatcher has that number, and mobile phone use by 
taxi drivers is not prohibited, then that problem may be 
overcome. 

Drivers can use alarms to signal to some central location 
(taxi company or police station) that they are having 
trouble or they can be used to set off a “trouble light” on 
the vehicle itself that cannot be seen by the passengers. 
Alarms triggered easily through the pressing of a toggle 
switch at the driver’s foot, on the steering wheel, or on the 
radio itself may also be accidentally switched on. While 
this may be avoided if the driver has to confirm the alarm, 
this puts an extra burden on the driver as an incident is 
unfolding. 

In an area with foot or vehicle traffic, passersby may see 
trouble alarms and summon police. Publicity about trouble 
lights should increase awareness among those outside the 
taxi industry about the meaning of these lights and avoid 
confusion with “ready-for-hire” lights on hackney cabs. 

Drivers and dispatchers need to be carefully trained by the 
taxi companies: 

To understand what events are serious enough to warrant 
calling for help. 
To know how their alarm systems work, what their 
limitations are, and whether these limitations can be 
overcome. 



Police officers must be carefully trained in the protocols 
for response so that they do not increase the potential 
harm to the driver. Police departments must understand 
the problems that may arise with these systems and should 
review with taxi drivers and dispatching companies their 
response protocols. 

4. 
Keeping track of vehicle locations with automatic 
vehicle location (AVL) systems. Systems using global 
positioning satellite (GPS) technology have advantages 
over systems that require drivers to broadcast their locations 
during a robbery incident. With GPS systems, all that is 
required is the triggering of an alarm and the monitoring 
of that alarm signal by someone who can send help. 
Taxi dispatching companies are increasingly using GPS 
systems to determine which driver is closest to a pick-up 
location. Some drivers do not like them because they do 
not take into account driving times to locations or because 
they allow too much oversight of the driver’s movements. 
Driver resistance to having an alarm system linked to GPS 
tracking may be overcome if the systems are independently 
installed (such as by the taxi-oversight commission or 
agency) and monitored (by the commission or the local 
police department). 


5. 
Putting trunk latches on the inside of vehicle 
trunks as well as near drivers. All taxi vehicles should be 
equipped with a latch that allows someone to open the 
trunk from the inside. This feature is not designed to 
reduce the number of robberies but to reduce the potential 
harm to drivers who may be locked in the trunk following 
a robbery incident. Trunk latches near the driver’s seat may 
be standard features on many cars used as taxis. They 
permit drivers to open trunks without getting out of the 
cab, which may prove useful late at night if the driver does 
not think it is safe to exit the cab. 



6. Disabling vehicles. Systems that allow cabs to be 
disabled remotely by having the engine turned off may 
become more readily available.25 They could be activated by 
a silent alarm and used to disable a vehicle during a 
robbery or to prevent a getaway. Drivers using this 
technology must be trained in how to respond safely to 
both the lack of engine power and to a variety of potential 
responses by offenders. 

Money Matters 

Given that one of the reasons that taxi drivers are at risk 
of robbery is that they carry cash with them, a number of 
different strategies have been developed to limit the 
availability of cash in taxis. 

7. Eliminating cash payments. Drivers should be 
encouraged to use payment systems that are cashless. 
Systems used, or proposed, include: 

Credit or debit cards. (The most efficient systems appear to 
be those in which small machines are installed in the cabs. 
Some may even be set up so that the passenger swipes the 
card. This may encourage customer use in areas where 
passengers are distrustful of drivers. Some companies 
handle credit cards centrally by calling in the information 
though this may be a time-consuming process.) 

Image of in-cab credit card machine
Machines that allow taxi drivers to accept 
credit cards are becoming more common. 


Farecards. (Areas that use farecards for public transportation 
should consider including taxis in the system. If this 
technology becomes less expensive, it may be possible for 
communities or companies to run their own systems.) 
Accounts accessible through mobile phones. (This system 
allows the mobile phone to be used to gain access to debit 
accounts.26) 
Accounts for regular customers, such as restaurants, 
hospitals, and social services. (Authorized passengers 
merely sign a bill. Drivers can use this “money” to help 
pay their own account with the dispatching company.) 
Personal checks. (Individual drivers may accept personal 
checks from passengers. This may be considered 
financially risky even when check guarantee cards are 
present.) 
Cashless systems can be unpopular with drivers for a 
number of reasons: 


Drivers may feel that their regular customer base is 
unlikely to be able to move to a cashless system and 
they will lose trade if it is the only alternative offered. 
It may be expensive for drivers to install the technology 
necessary to handle these systems. (It may not be seen 
as cost effective if their customer base is unlikely to use 
a cashless system and there is no pre-existing farecard 
system in their area.) 
Passengers may try to use stolen credit or debit cards, 
or pass bad or stolen checks so the driver may be 
concerned about receiving payment from the credit 
card company or bank. 
Drivers may wish to limit any records that accurately 
reflect their income. (Drivers working for companies 
may conceal their real income if the company is 
supposed to receive a percentage of the takings. Drivers 
may not report all of their income to the government, 
particularly their tips.) 



As more businesses move toward a cashless system, 
however, drivers should eliminate cash (as much as 
possible) so that they are not a sure source of cash for 
would-be robbers. Nevertheless, if cashless systems operate 
along side regular cash operations, then drivers will still be 
at fairly high risk of robbery.† 

8. 
Dropping money off. Drivers should be encouraged to 
drop off cash during their shifts. They can drop the cash 
at home, at cash machines, and at dispatching offices 
(where individual slots and compartments can be set up 
to hold each driver’s money separately from the others). 
Drivers may not use drop-off locations if they are not 
convenient or they perceive their risk of robbery in the 
taxicab to be low. 
If the taxicab carries a sign indicating that the driver 
carries only a limited amount of cash (and the drop off is 
actually carried out), then the dropping off not only limits 
driver loss but could limit the risk of robbery in the 
vehicle. However, this strategy carries risks. Drop-off 
routines must be varied to prevent robbers from staking 
out drop-off locations and carrying out hold-ups as drivers 
leave their cabs. Dispatching offices holding driver cash 
must be made secure against robbery as well. 


9. 
Keeping money locked up or out of sight. Drivers 
can put money in a locked safe in the cab. If a safe is used, 
it is not clear whether this should be advertised (as in 
convenience stores). It is possible that such advertising 
might lead to the escalation of the incident from a robbery 
to a robbery with an abduction of the vehicle, and possibly 
the driver.27 This might lead to greater injury to the driver 
and damage to the vehicle. 


† Australian research has shown 
that many robberies involve small 
amounts of money–less than $30 
(Keatsdale Pty. Ltd., 1995). 


Several methods can be used to prevent passengers from 
seeing that drivers are carrying large amounts of money 
and knowing where it is kept. The first two techniques 
listed below may be more effective since they do not 
involve a possible confrontation with passengers: 

Drivers can keep cash for making change separate from 
the bulk of their takings so only a small amount of 
money is seen. 
Taxi regulators can limit the amount of cash that drivers 
are required to carry to make change for passengers. 
(This limit should then be advertised in the cab where 
fares are posted.) 
Drivers can say they don’t have change and offer to 
stop at a convenience store or gas station to allow the 
passenger to get change. (They can claim they just made 
a cash drop or just started their shift.) 
Drivers may also tell passengers that they cannot change 
large bills (or post a notice to this effect), citing 
“company policy” even if they do not work for a 
company. 


10. Minimizing expectations about the amount of 
money present. Passengers frequently ask drivers whether 
they have “been busy” during their shift. While this may be 
friendly interest or normal small talk, drivers are frequently 
advised to play down how busy they have been by saying 
they have just started their shift or have not been very 
busy. This is done in case the passenger is using the 
question as a precursor to a robbery. 

Other Driver Practices 

Drivers may learn these practices from other drivers–e.g., 
family or friends in the business–or through driver safety 
education programs (see No. 28 below). 


11. Controlling who gets in. Drivers use a number of 
techniques to control who gets in their cabs. Robbers may 
sneak up on drivers to catch them by surprise. More often, 
however, these techniques are used by drivers to allow 
them to assess the potential risks they think passengers 
pose prior to letting them in their cabs. Once passengers 
get in, it can be very difficult for drivers to remove them. 
Access control techniques include: 

Screening who enters the cab. Using this technique, drivers 
can exclude people by behavior or demeanor (using 
abusive language, inability to stand, carrying food, or 
having bloodied clothing) (see also No. 29 below). 
Passenger screening is most controversial, however, 
when it involves refusing passengers from particular 
ethnic or racial groups (racial profiling) or failing to 
pick up or drop off passengers at certain locations or 
areas of a town (residential discrimination). To meet the 
public service mission of the industry and prevent 
invidious discrimination, taxi regulators usually set out a 
limited set of circumstances under which a driver can 
refuse a fare and provide a mechanism for passengers to 
make complaints for service refusals.† Although it is 
usually drivers who are penalized for illegal service 
refusals, regulators can seek to have companies held 
accountable for the behavior of their drivers, both 
ethically and legally, particularly when the service 
refusal is racially motivated.†† 

One of the reasons police agencies need to be concerned 
about taxi robbery is that robbery and fear of robbery fuel 
discriminatory practices if drivers perceive that they are at 
unreasonable risk merely by picking up certain passengers 
or going into certain neighborhoods. This problem is likely 
to be more difficult to deal with than racial profiling within 
policing agencies. Instead of dealing with a situation in 

† For example, the New York City 
Taxi and Limousine Commission sets 
out some of this information in an 
easy-to-use format for passengers 
(and drivers) at www.nyc.gov.html/ 
tlc/html/passenger/faq_pass.shtml. 

†† New York City and Washington, 
D.C., have recently dealt with high-
profile campaigns and lawsuits against 
service refusals on the ground that 
they amount to illegal racial profiling 
or residence discrimination. In New 
York City, the recent campaign against 
service refusal on racial grounds 
began in response to a complaint by 
actor Danny Glover in 1999 who 
highlighted the problem facing many 
African-Americans and Hispanics in 
the city (Yinger, n.d.). Mayor Giuliani 
reinstated sting operations by police 
officers that resulted in immediate 
suspension of the driver, along with 
other sanctions for repeat offending. 
The immediate suspension measure 
was later overturned by a federal 
judge as it did not meet the 
requirement for a fair hearing prior 
to suspension (Padberg v. McGrath-
McKechnie, 2002). In Washington, 
D.C., there have been a number of 
lawsuits filed in which discriminatory 
service refusal has been alleged (see 
Kovaleski, 2003; Mitchell v. Diamond 
Cab Company, 2003). A report by The 
Equal Rights Center (2003) cited the 

D.C. Taxicab Commission for 
neglecting its responsibilities in the 
civil rights area for failing to investigate 
discrimination complaints promptly 
and thoroughly and for not establishing 
effective fines and penalties for 
drivers or companies (see also 
Kovaleski and Chan, 2003). 


† According to this research, as crime 
was falling in the city, service refusal 
complaints were rising. These 
complaints were highest when the 
demand for cabs was highest, as 
measured by time spent cruising for 
customers. This is because when 
there are a lot of cabs looking for 
passengers (either because there are 
more cabs or the fares are high), 
cabbies cannot afford to be as 
selective as they can be when there 
are fewer cabs on the road and fares 
are lower. In addition, this research 
cited passenger surveys suggesting 
that service refusals (both of 
minority and non-minority passengers) 
appeared to be related to the pressure 
to make money and the desire to 
work only in certain areas of the city. 

which an officer is compelled by law to refrain from an 
action unless it can be justified, here, the driver is compelled 
by law to act unless the non-action can be justified. In 
effect, the law is telling one group in a risky industry 
(police officers) to be risk averse, while it is telling another 
group in another risky industry (taxi drivers) that they 
cannot be risk averse. However, if the robbery risks are 
low, then it becomes easier for drivers to comply with the 
law and more difficult for them to justify illegal refusals on 
grounds of high risk. In effect, the low actual risks allow 
drivers to be both risk averse and not engage in racial or 
residential discrimination. 

One commentator has suggested that general rates of 
service refusals in New York City are not related to crime 
levels but rather to the economics of driving a cab.28,† This 
finding points to a need for policing agencies to use a 
problem-solving approach to illegal service refusals–looking 
at the data on serious crimes against taxi drivers in an area 
(including type of crime, area, and characteristics of 
offenders), the number of taxis in service (and the fees 
paid for cab rental), and the enforcement mechanisms 
available against drivers and companies who use racial 
profiling or other illegal screening techniques to ensure 
that these are all geared to help limit the practice. 

Keeping doors locked while drivers are waiting for the 
next fare. 
Keeping windows rolled up enough to prevent someone 
from reaching in. 
Taking regular riders as much as possible. 
Limiting the number of passengers. (The number of 
passengers that may be taken in a cab is usually limited 
by law or by the driver’s insurance coverage. These 
limits primarily relate to road safety issues and are 
based on the size of the vehicle. Drivers sometimes, 



however, will impose their own limits on the number of 
passengers they will take in certain situations as a means 
of avoiding potential trouble. For example, they may 
not stop to pick up four young men on a Saturday night, 
preferring to wait for a fare with fewer passengers (or 
fewer young men).) 

12. Directing passengers to particular seats in the cab. 

Drivers are frequently warned not to allow passengers to 
sit directly behind them if there is no partition or screen. 
Drivers may not follow this advice if they do not want to 
risk provoking passengers or letting them know they do 
not trust them. 

13. Finding out the destination before moving. One 
rule of thumb cited repeatedly is to get the passenger’s 
destination “up front.” It is seen as a sign of potential 
trouble if the passenger refuses to give a destination at the 
beginning of the trip or changes the destination while en 
route. 

Drivers can use a trip sheet (in which all pick-up times and 
destinations are recorded),† cite company policy, or radio 
in to the dispatcher if customers refuse to give a destination. 
These techniques may also be used to legitimize a request 
to get out of the cab if the destination is not given (see 
No. 16 below). 

14. Sharing destination information with others. 

Drivers should be encouraged by companies, the police, 
and regulators to keep as many people informed of their 
whereabouts as possible, especially where cameras or GPS 
systems are not used. Drivers should inform the dispatcher 
(or another driver) of their whereabouts, proposed route, 
and destination each time a new passenger gets in the cab. 
If drivers do not work for a radio-dispatching company, 

† The trip sheet may be required by 
the regulator or company to keep 
track of driver income, but it may 
also be used to document patterns 
of robbery if the driver is killed or 
seriously incapacitated during the 
crime. 


they must rely on other drivers for support. When drivers 
let someone know where they are going, this also lets the 
passenger know that someone knows this information as 
well. 

15. 
Putting additional people in the cab. In some places, 
such as Jersey City, New Jersey, drivers do not always work 
alone in their cabs at night but carry another person in the 
passenger seat for back up. This practice appears to be 
intended primarily to increase driver safety but may be 
intimidating for some passengers. Another practice that 
can provide additional oversight involves taking unrelated 
riders together in the same vehicle. Although drivers are 
provided with additional oversight with shared riding, they 
may also have more conflicts to deal with between 
passengers, especially when some of them have been 
drinking. The benefits for passengers may be mixed since 
they may have shorter waiting times for cabs, but may not 
want to ride with strangers. 

16. 
Setting rules and asking those who don’t meet 
them to get out. Drivers may set rules such as no 
smoking or eating in the cab–and may ask passengers to 
get out of the cab if they don’t follow them. These rules 
are individual ones that may not be sanctioned by the 
commission or agency that governs taxi operations. Drivers 
may also ask passengers to leave if they are aggressive 
toward them. Drivers may think that failure to stand their 
ground over minor matters will be seen as a weakness and 
lead to more serious aggression or be used as an excuse for 
a robbery. 



17. 
Trying not to provoke passengers. Drivers are often 
told not to use aggressive language with customers since 
this may provoke an attack. Drivers may also establish 
patterns of interaction, such as always explaining to 
passengers which route they plan to take, to eliminate later 
disputes over fares. Drivers may find it difficult to both set 
rules (No. 16 above) and to try not to provoke passengers. 
Driver training sessions may help them deal with these 
types of problems (see No. 28 below). 

18. 
Knowing where to go for help late at night. If 
drivers know which locations, such as police stations or 
sub-stations, fire stations, convenience stores, or gas 
stations, are open or staffed 24 hours, then they can use 
this information: 


To drop off unruly passengers and prevent an incident 
from escalating to a robbery.† 
To gain assistance in dealing with an unfolding robbery. 
To get help following a robbery. 


19. Allowing others to see inside the cab. Taxicab 
owners and drivers should keep the vehicle’s windows 
free of obstructions so passersby can see inside the taxi. 
Tinted glass impedes surveillance by those outside the 
cab. Drivers are also encouraged to drive along the main 
roads and well-lit side roads if possible late at night. 
Obstruction-free windows are part of the package of 
measures related to lower numbers of convenience store 
robberies in a number of studies.29 

† In a study of taxi drivers in Cardiff, 
Wales, drivers related a number of 
incidents in which they tried to go to 
police stations for assistance late at 
night only to find that the stations 
were not open (Smith, forthcoming). 


20. Limiting where the cab will make a drop off. 

Drivers should be wary of making a passenger drop off in 
a dark, isolated, or out-of-the-way location because these 
do not permit surveillance by others or allow the driver to 
see if someone is lurking at the destination. Similarly, 
vehicles can be boxed in if an attempt is made to drop off 
passengers in alleys or dead-ends. Drivers should approach 
these locations with caution, particularly if other drivers in 
the area have reported these spots as sites for robbery, fare 
evasion, or vehicle damage. 

21. Staying in the cab unless it is safe to get out. 

Drivers are frequently advised not to chase fare evaders 
since they may find themselves in an isolated area and be 
attacked and robbed by the “runners” or their compatriots. 

During or after a robbery incident, drivers are sometimes 
advised to get out of the cab if they are sure it is safe to 
do so. This is an area in which driver training, based on 
experience in an area, should guide drivers in how best to 
judge whether to exit a cab during or after an incident. 

22. Limiting injury when a robbery occurs. Taxi drivers 
are frequently advised to cooperate with those trying to 
rob them by handing over their money and not fighting 
back. 

Drivers should carry first aid kits in their cabs even if this 
is not required by their local regulatory agency. These 
could help limit any injury they receive during a robbery 
or assault. 

Similarly, drivers should keep an extra key in a pocket to 
allow them to use their cab if the robbers have taken their 
keys. This is particularly important if they have been 
abandoned in a remote location and have no radio or 
telephone. 


Policing Practices 

There are various organizational approaches police agencies 
can take to address taxi robbery problems. Special units 
could be set up to deal with taxi driver robbery if the 
number of incidents appears high. These units should be 
used to help determine patterns in taxi robbery and then 
develop strategies to address what they find. For example, 
they may target specific areas with high numbers of robbery 
incidents using decoy taxis driven by police officers. 

Police may also want to have a more general taxi unit that 
deals with a variety of taxi-related crimes, developing 
expertise in the area. The taxi unit should: 

Establish protocols for learning about common robbery 
scripts, utilizing crime analysis techniques as well as 
crime mapping technology. 
Develop easy ways for drivers to report crimes against 
them. 
Attend meetings and meet informally with drivers, 
owners, and dispatchers. 
Establish contacts with unlicensed drivers or otherwise 
learn about their position in the industry. 


23. Authorizing police stops. In New York City, the 
Taxi/Livery Robbery Inspection Program (TRIP) has 
been used to stop cabs on the street without the need for 
establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Under 
this program, taxi owners sign a voluntary registration 
form allowing police to stop their cab for a brief inquiry 
and a visual inspection of the vehicle. Owners also agree 
to have all drivers of the vehicle sign a consent form with 
similar provisions. Decals of participation are placed on 
the back window in the vehicle and in the passenger 
compartment, which note in English and Spanish that 


† See Spelman (1990) for a discussion 
of repeat offender programs. 

the cab may be stopped at any time and visually inspected 
for the driver’s safety. A registry of participating vehicles is 
kept, as well as a detailed activity log of all police stops. 

The constitutionality of this program was recently upheld 
by the New York Court of Appeals.30 TRIP differs from 
earlier programs that were struck down by the Court of 
Appeals31 and the U.S. District Court.32 The earlier programs 
involved too much discretion for police in how to carry 
out the stops. A program in Boston (TIP), similar to TRIP 
in New York City, has been upheld by the U.S. Circuit 
Court.33 The Boston Police inform drivers where they will 
have their check points so that drivers who feel danger or 
concern can drive by and turn on their cab’s amber light 
(an alarm signal) for the officers to see (Sweeney, 2004). 

24. Targeting repeat offenders. If police intelligence 
indicates that a few offenders are responsible for a number 
of different taxi driver robberies or attempted robberies 
in a local area, then a repeat offender program should be 
used to target these individuals or groups of offenders.† 
Police investigation techniques, as well as crime pattern 
analysis, should be used to establish how best to target 
the offenders. For example, the New York City Police 
Department has used decoy drivers to combat taxi robberies 
in certain areas.34 While detection and prosecution should 
operate to incapacitate those who have committed a crime, 
to increase possible deterrent effects, publicity should be 
used to highlight any successful prosecutions under the 
program. 


Industry Rules, Regulations, and Practices 

Setting up rules, regulations, and practices that control the 
industry and reduce both actual and perceived unfair or 
dangerous practices by drivers may increase sympathy for 
drivers and limit the excuses† offenders may offer for 
targeting taxi drivers. 

25. Controlling the environment around taxi stands. 

Taxi regulators and city planners should keep surveillance 
considerations in mind when deciding on the placement 
of taxi stands (both official stands that allow passengers to 
hire vehicles on the spot and unofficial ones where 
company drivers may wait for their next fare). Drivers 
waiting for fares at taxi stands should not be put at risk 
of surprise by potential robbers. They should be able to 
see who is approaching their vehicle from all directions. 
Adequate lighting and clear lines of sight will allow 
passersby to see what is happening at the stand. Other aids 
to surveillance by others include the placement of closed 
circuit television (CCTV) cameras near stands and the 
direct supervision of stands at particular hours by police 
officers, taxi inspectors or taxi wardens.35 

Official taxi stands are frequently placed at busy locations, 
such as near airport or train station exits, shopping centers, 
and late-night venues, to make it easy for passengers to 
find cabs. Stands may also be placed near businesses open 
for 24 hours, such as convenience stores or gas stations. 

26. Eliminating passenger and driver conflict over 
money. Industry practices and the rules and regulations 
laid out by taxi and limousine commissions and other local 
licensing agencies must set clear rules about taxi fares. 
These include: 

† “Excuses” refers to the ways in 
which offenders rationalize their 
behavior to themselves and others; 
it does not imply a legal or moral 
excuse for their offending. 


† For example, the New York City 
Taxi and Limousine Commission 
(2001) recently raised the flat-rate 
amount that drivers could charge for 
going from JFK Airport to anywhere 
in Manhattan to $35. 

†† Taxi dispatchers at Newark 
Airport ask passengers in the taxi 
queue where they are going and write 
the fare on a sheet that is given to 
the passenger. The sheet contains 
taxi rules and regulations, as well as 
information about who to contact 
to complain about over-charging or 
other offenses by drivers. 

Requiring (and checking the operation of) taxi meters or 
posting clear guidelines for zoned fares. (Actual or 
suspected over-charging by drivers may reduce driver 
credibility across the industry and provide excuses for 
potential offenders to victimize drivers.) 
Setting fixed fares for certain routes, such as trips from 
airports into the city center,† or placing taxi dispatchers 
at taxi stands to set the fares for each destination.†† 
Allowing drivers to ask for advance payment or partial 
payment for out-of-town or long-distance fares. (This 
rule is primarily aimed at eliminating fare evasion; 
however, it may also be useful for robberies carried out 
by those seeking to do the crime in an isolated area who 
do not have the money to pay for the trip. Some drivers 
may be reluctant to seek payment up front if they think 
it indicates distrust of the passengers and may lead to 
conflict or lower tips.) 
Setting charges for passenger soiling of the interior of 
the vehicle, such as through urination or vomiting or 
the spilling of beverages or food. 


27. Setting driver competency standards. Regulatory 
agencies should set standards for driver and vehicle 
competency in areas where lack of such standards may lead 
to dangerous situations for passengers, conflicts over 
routes, and other frustrations and misunderstandings that 
are likely to lead to aggression, physical attacks, or 
robberies. The most common areas noted as needing some 
level of competency are: 

driving, 
language skills, and 
knowledge of roads and area routes and short cuts. 



Local needs will help determine what these standards 
should be in a particular area. 

28. Running driver safety training programs. Police 
agencies, regulators, or industry or driver associations can 
use driver safety training to help inform drivers of some 
of the common ways that taxi driver robbery incidents in 
their area unfold. Ways of trying to prevent the incident at 
each stage of this “script” can be devised. This type of 
training may be particularly useful for: 

new drivers; 
drivers who have been robbery or assault victims; 
drivers from ethnic minority groups, particularly those 
whose language skills in the primary language in an area 
are not strong; and 
drivers who may be seen by robbers as particularly 
vulnerable (due to their age, sex, or national origin). 
Area experts, such as experienced police officers and 
former drivers, should run these sessions so that drivers 
see them as worthwhile. Payment for the sessions can be 
made by the drivers, the dispatching companies, the local 
government, or by grants. Details of the exact “scripts” or 
“modus operandi” used by offenders should not be made 
public to discourage imitation. Formal training has not 
been found to be associated with lower victimization levels 
among Canadian drivers.36 Programs should inform drivers 
of various Internet sites that contain driver safety 
information or information about how taxis are regulated 
in their area. These include: 


www.taxi-l.org/index.htm (contains a large variety of 
materials on taxis), 



http://crimeprevention.rutgers.edu/crime/robbery/taxi/ 
taxi.htm (provides information on strategies that taxi 
drivers can use to help them avoid becoming crime victims), 
www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/htmlhome/home/shtml (the home 
page of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission), 
http://dctaxi.dc.gov/dctaxi/site/default.asp (the home 
page of the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission). 
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/transport/motor/ 
motor philly taxicabs.aspx (sets out information from 
the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on 
Philadelphia Medallion Taxicabs). 


29. Screening passengers by the dispatching company. 

Companies often keep records of passengers who have 
caused trouble for drivers in the past. The rationale for 
doing this is that it either prevents the passenger from 
using that taxi service or it allows drivers to decide whether 
or not they want to pick up the passenger. This type of 
blacklisting may also be done by location. When this 
happens, it may penalize those who move into the residence 
of a former offender, those who live with offenders, or 
even those who live in the same apartment complex. These 
blacklisting practices may be over-inclusive in their scope if 
they focus on passenger address and they can result in racial 
and residential discrimination if the practices are not 
limited to actual behaviors of past passengers (see No. 11 
above). 


Companies can use Caller ID to check to see whether the 
call is coming from a private or public address, a telephone 
booth, or a mobile phone. This technology has several 
uses: it can be used to trace callers if they fail to show up, 
evade the fare, or attack or rob the driver and it allows 
companies to match the telephone number to blacklisted 
numbers (if they have such a list). Passengers calling for 
cabs from public telephone booths or mobile phones may 
be more closely scrutinized by drivers since they are less 
traceable than some other passengers are. 

30. Exempting drivers from seat belt use. Taxi drivers 
who drive cabs without safety screens between themselves 
and their passengers should be permitted to decide when 
they will wear their seat belts.37 Seat belts can be used to 
strangle someone from behind. 

Responses With Limited Potential for Effectiveness 

Because so little is known about taxi robberies and their 
prevention, the only responses included here are ones that 
appear to hold little promise as effective protection 
strategies against robberies. 

31. Locking passengers in. Purpose-built taxicabs, such 
as the newer versions of London cabs, have systems that 
lock passengers in when the driver’s foot is on the brake. 
The driver can also control the locking mechanism 
independently. Posted signs and warning lights describe the 
braking system and notify customers when it is in operation. 


Drivers can use this type of system to prevent nonpayment of 
fares as well as keep passengers from getting 
out where it is not safe. Locking passengers in when no 
screen is present is likely to escalate the use of violence 
against drivers. Locking passengers in when there are 
screens may lead to vehicle damage. 

32. 
Working only during the day. Some drivers choose to 
work only during the daytime hours due to the risks of 
crime victimization and encountering difficult passengers 
at night. While this response may be effective for 
individual drivers, it holds little promise across an industry 
that relies in large part on nighttime trade. Furthermore, 
this strategy will only show limited results since not all 
robberies occur at night. 
33. 
Carrying a weapon. Many drivers carry something in 
their cabs that can be used as a weapon in an attack, such 
as a blunt instrument or spray.38 It is not known whether 
potential offenders will try to avoid drivers who they think 
may be carrying a weapon. The primary danger for drivers 
carrying such weapons is that the weapons may be used 
against them. In addition, it may not be legal for them to 
carry these types of weapons in their cabs. 



Appendix: Summary of Responses to Robbery of 
Taxi Drivers 

The table below summarizes the responses to taxi driver 
robbery, the mechanism by which they are intended to 
work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, 
and some factors you should consider before implementing 
a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses 
to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 
based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective 
strategy will involve implementing several different responses. 
Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in 
reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
Vehicle Equipment 
1. 21 Separating drivers 
from passengers 
Keeps offenders 
from reaching 
drivers to carry 
out threats 
…most robbers 
attack from back 
seat, screens are 
fitted on all cabs, 
and cabs are 
purpose-built or 
large 
Screens are 
expensive to install, 
passengers need to 
wear seat belts to 
prevent sudden- 
stopping injuries 
2. 22 Recording 
activity with 
security cameras 
Increases chances 
of offenders 
being caught,
may discourage 
offenders from 
from doing crime 
…camera and 
any resultingprosecutions arepublicized 
Cameras need to 
be well-designed 
for the 
environment, 
passengers may 
question howimages will be 
used, offenders 
may try to destroycamera evidence, 
resulting inescalation of the 
crime event 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
3. 24 Using a radio oralarm to call for 
help 
Permits the driver 
to notify othersthat a crime is in 
progress or has 
occurred 
…technology is 
easy to use andunlikely to be 
tripped accidentally, 
location and 
problem can becommunicated, 
and help is closeat hand 
Good training inuse of equipment 
and clear protocolsfor use responseare needed 
4. 26 Keeping track of 
vehicle locations 
with automatic 
vehicle location 
(AVL) systems 
Allows a third 
party to know 
where the cab is 
if an alarm or 
distress call is 
received 
…used with an 
alarm system, 
system isconstantlymonitored, and 
help is close athand 
Systems areexpensive to install 
and clear protocolsfor response areneeded 
5. 26 Putting trunk 
latches on the 
inside of vehicle 
trunks as well as 
near drivers 
Allows drivers 
imprisoned intrunks to get out, 
and prevents 
drivers from 
having to get out 
if the vehicle if a 
…driver is not 
badly hurt when 
placed in the trunk, 
driver is able to 
correctly assess the 
dangerousness of 
a situation 
Latches in trunks 
are designed toreduce level of 
injury while latches 
in vehicles require 
driver judgement 
of a situation that 
situation seems 
unsafe 
may not always be 
clear 
6. 27 Disabling vehicles Prevents vehicles 
from getting to 
desired place forrobbery or 
offenders from 
…it is safe to stopthe cab and it is in 
an area where helpis readily available, 
and it is safer to 
Potential response 
from offenders 
may escalate the 
incident 
getting away in 
vehicles 
have robbers 
unable to get awaythan to have them 
escape after arobbery 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
Money Matters 
7. 27 Eliminating cash 
payments 
Lowers the 
amount of ready 
cash in vehicles, 
making drivers less 
attractive targets 
…variety of 
payments methods 
results in little or 
no cash in vehicle 
Nature of regular 
clientele may make 
it difficult for 
drivers to move to 
a cashless system,
and use of even 
small amounts of 
money may stillmake drivers 
attractive to some 
offenders 
8. 29 Dropping moneyoff 
Lowers the 
amount of ready 
cash in vehicles, 
making drivers 
less attractive 
targets 
…it is easy andsafe for drivers to 
drop money off at 
ATMs, home, or 
base 
Securing alternative 
sites may be 
difficult or costly, 
with some 
alternatives (ATMs) 
providing recordsof money earned 
9. 29 Keeping money 
locked up or out 
of sight 
Makes it difficult 
for offenders to 
find or get money, 
or to know exact 
…drivers can refer 
to some rule or 
practice thatconfirms that 
Money locked in 
safes, with notice 
given, could escalate 
the incident to 
amount carried little money isavailable 
kidnapping orvehicle theft 
10. 30 Minimizingexpectationsabout the amount 
of money present 
Prevents offenders 
from expecting orbeing tempted by 
the knowledge of 
large amounts of 
cash present 
…it is reasonable 
to believe the 
driver is telling 
the truth 
Offenders may not 
believe drivers, may 
be willing to robthem even for a 
very small amount 
of money 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
Other Driver Practices 
11. 31 Controlling whogets in 
Allows driver to 
assess who enters 
the vehicle and 
when, and how 
many people enterthe vehicle, since 
keeping people out 
is easier than 
getting them out 
once they are in 
…robberies in an 
area are committed 
by offenders who 
have characteristics 
that make them 
easily identifiable, 
such as being 
unruly, and allow 
the driver to legally 
refuse them entry 
Not enough isknown about 
robbers to make 
them easilyidentifiable so 
screening canlead to racial 
or residential 
discrimination, 
with drivers 
violating regulationsthat usually requirethem to take all 
passengers (exceptin limited 
circumstances) 
12. 33 Directing 
passengers to 
particular seats 
in the cab 
Keeps passengers 
from sitting in the 
seats most 
associated with 
robberies in an 
area 
…the cab is not 
crowded and the 
passenger is not 
insulted by the 
request 
Where safety 
screens have been 
installed, passengers 
should not be able 
to sit in the front 
seat if it is within 
the barrier 
13. 33 Finding out thedestination before 
moving 
Identifies those 
who are not 
seeking a ride butare looking for agood location to 
carry out a 
robbery 
…offenders do 
not have a plausible 
destination to offer 
driver 
Drivers should be 
alerted when 
passengers change 
destination en 
route 
14. 33 Sharingdestination 
information with 
others 
Informs passengers 
that someone 
outside the cab 
knows of their 
destination and 
possible route orhas seen them 
…offenders are 
uncertain who and 
how many people 
know destination 
or, if given within 
sight of another 
driver, whether 
another driver can 
identify them 
This strategy may 
not provide any 
additional crime 
prevention effect 
if the cab has an 
AVL device 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
15. 34 Putting additionalpeople in the cab 
Increases the 
perceived difficulty 
of doing a robbery 
and if successful, 
the risk that the 
offender will be 
identified 
…increasing thenumber of people 
in the cab does 
not lead to 
increased problemsfor driver, such as 
conflicts among 
passengers 
These schemes may 
only be popular 
among passengers 
where cabs are 
scarce (ride-sharing)
and driver 
companions are 
not seen as 
increasing the riskof assault on 
passengers bydrivers 
16. 34 Setting rules and 
asking those whodon't meet them 
to get out 
Informs potential 
offenders that 
drivers are willing 
to control what 
happens in thecab, or deflects 
potential offendersaway from the cab 
at an early stage 
of what may 
become a robbery 
event 
…driver rules are 
backed up by 
official rules from 
the regulator ortaxi company 
Research on the 
unfolding ofrobbery events is 
limited 
17. 35 Trying not to 
provoke 
passengers 
Prevents 
passengers from 
using driver 
behavior as an 
excuse for criminal 
behavior 
…drivers know the 
types of responses 
or situations that 
may provoke an 
aggressive response 
or escalate 
aggression by 
passengers 
Taxi regulators may 
eliminate some 
sources of conflict 
between drivers 
and passengers 
by setting rules 
for handlingcommon situations 
(No. 26) or runningtraining programs 
for drivers (No. 28) 
18. 35 Knowing where 
to go for help late 
at night 
Increases drivers' 
chances of gaining 
assistance before, 
during, or after a 
robbery event 
…those at the 
24-hour location 
know it has been 
identified as a placewhere assistance 
may be sought and 
are trained in 
Drivers must be 
kept informed 
when 24-hour 
locations close 
down, particularly 
if they are police 
stations 
handling thesetypes of situations 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
19. 35 Allowing others 
to see inside the 
cab 
Increases the 
possibility that athird party will see 
the driver in 
trouble and call 
the police 
…robbery occurs 
in an area where 
there is vehicle or 
street traffic 
This measure has 
not been evaluated 
in relation to 
taxicabs though itis among a group 
of factors found to 
be effective in 
limitingconvenience store 
robberies 
20. 36 Limiting wherethe cab will make 
a drop off 
Protects driver 
from beingsurprised by the 
passenger or 
others at the 
drop-off location 
or limited in his/
her ability to get 
away, allows 
onlookers to 
monitor events 
more easily 
…driver is aware 
of the physical 
layout of the street 
prior to entry into 
it 
Demonstrates the 
importance of 
having good data 
available to drivers 
about where crimes 
have occurred 
21. 36 Staying in the cab 
unless it is safe to 
get out 
Provides driver 
with a (limited)
physical barrier to 
an attack from 
outside the cab 
and may be a 
means of getting 
away from an 
offender located 
in the cab 
…driver is 
protected by a 
screen or otherwise 
physically separated 
from the offender 
Drivers should be 
trained to assess 
risks of leaving 
vehicles in 
different robbery 
scenarios and 
types of cabs, as 
they may vary 
greatly 
22. 36 Limiting injury 
when a robbery 
occurs 
Keeps the robbery 
from escalatinginto a robbery with 
injury, or one with 
serious injury 
…driver is not so 
seriously injuredthat he/she cannotcarry out protective 
activities 
Does not prevent 
the crime from 
occurring but may 
be useful in 
limited situations 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
Policing Practices 
23. 37 Authorizing police 
stops 
Allows police to 
stop a cab withoutreasonable 
suspicion orprobable cause 
…protocolfollowed by police 
is understood by 
drivers 
Program used 
must pass 
constitutional 
standards and limit 
the intrusion to the 
passengers 
24. 38 Targeting repeat 
offenders 
Incapacitates thosewho have 
committed and 
may be most likely 
to commit future 
taxi robberies 
…police can gather 
the information 
needed to identifyand locate repeat 
offenders, and have 
the resources to 
find them 
Requires substantial 
police and othercriminal justice 
system resources, 
as well as accurate 
information about 
the offenders 
Industry Rules, Regulations and Practices 
25. 39 Controlling theenvironment 
around taxi stands 
Allows drivers and 
others to see who 
is waiting at the 
stands or to 
supervise activity 
in the area 
…area can be 
controlled to allow 
orderly waiting and 
turn taking by 
passengers and 
drivers 
Orderly waiting at 
stands may increase 
the ability of all 
present to lookfor signs of danger 
among passengers 
as they enter cabsas well as while the 
cabs and passengersare waiting 
26. 39 Eliminatingpassenger and 
driver conflict 
over money 
Prevents common 
conflicts that may 
escalate into 
aggressive 
behaviors 
…rules set up 
actually eliminatethe conflict rather 
than setting upadditional conflicts 
While this strategy 
may be used to 
serve additional 
concerns besides 
crime prevention,
in terms of 
robbery, these 
standards may also 
prevent passengers 
from using driver 
behavior as an 
excuse for criminal 
behavior 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
27. 40 Setting driver 
competencystandards 
Prevents common 
conflicts that may 
escalate into 
aggressive 
behaviors 
…it is clear what 
types of knowledge 
or competency arerelated to driver-
passenger conflicts 
While this strategy 
may be used to 
serve additional 
concerns besides 
crime prevention,
in terms of 
robbery, these 
standards may also 
prevent passengers 
from using driver 
behavior as an 
excuse for criminal 
behavior 
28. 41 Running driver 
safety training 
programs 
Helps drivers deal 
with situations in 
which their 
response may 
affect whether a 
robbery is 
committed or not 
…programs are 
run by experts in 
the field and are 
seen as effective 
by drivers 
The costs of 
running the 
program should 
be split amongthe beneficiaries 
of better driver 
training, which 
may include the 
public, policing 
agencies, local taxi 
companies, as well 
as the drivers 
themselves 
29. 42 Screeningpassengers by the 
dispatching 
company 
Uses lists of 
previouslytroublesome 
passengers or 
addresses, or 
technology 
(Caller-ID), to set 
up blacklists 
…the blacklist is 
based on passenger 
identification rather 
than address 
location, and 
passengers causing 
one type of trouble 
are also likely to do 
robberies 
Can be over-
inclusive if it relies 
on location or 
address since other 
non-troublesome 
potential passengers 
may be included 
on the blacklist 
and could result 
in racial or 
residential 
discrimination if 
the focus is not 
on the actual pastbehavior of 
passengers 


Response 
No. 
Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations 
30. 43 Exempting drivers 
from seat belt use 
Prevents an 
offender from 
using a belt tostrangle the driver 
and allows the 
driver to exit the 
vehicle quickly 
…local area 
conditions provide 
a safe backdrop 
for beltless driving 
Should not be 
needed if cabs are 
equipped with ascreen between 
the passenger and 
the driver 
Responses With Limited Potential for Effectiveness 
31. 43 Locking 
passengers in 
Prevents 
passengers from 
exiting the cabwithout the 
driver's awareness 
or permission 
…there is a screen 
between passengers 
and drivers 
If there is no 
screen, then 
passengers may 
attack the driver 
unless he/she hasexited the vehicle 
32. 44 Working only 
during the day 
Keeps drivers from 
working during the 
times when 
robberies most 
often occur 
…industry 
conditions allow 
drivers to make a 
living only working 
daytime hours and 
no nights 
May only work for 
some drivers since 
the company may 
require 24-houravailability, and 
may only be a 
limited protectionsince some 
robberies occur 
during the daytime 
33. 44 Carrying a weapon Acts as a means 
for drivers to 
protect themselves 
during a crime ormay deter 
offenders from 
attacking drivers 
who they thinkare armed 
…driver is trained 
in use of this 
weapon 
May result in 
weapon being 
used against driver 


Endnotes 

1 Castillo and Jenkins (1994); Rosen (2001)
2 Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000)
3 Block, Felson, and Block (1984)
4 Mayhew (1999)
5 Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000)
6 Bourette and Hanes (2000)
7 Haines (1997)
8 Smith (forthcoming)
9 Smith (forthcoming)
10 Mayhew (1999)
11 Easteal and Wilson (1991)
12 NIOSH (1995); Fisher, Jenkins, and Williams (1998)
13 Mayhew (1999)
14 Okeson and Smith (1997)
15 Haines (1998)
16 Stone and Bienvenu (1995)
17 Schwartzman (2001); Mayersohn (2001); New York City Taxi and Limousine
Commission (2000b)
18 Jackman and Smith (2001)
19 Stone and Stevens (2000)
20 Stone and Bienvenu (1995)
21 Mayhew (1999)
22 Pflaum (n.d.); New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (2000a)
23 Jackman and Smith (2001)
24 U.S. Department of Labor (2000)
25 Mayersohn (2001)
26 Pandya (2001)
27 Easteal and Wilson (1991)
28 Schaller (1999)
29 Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000)
30 People v. Abad (2002)
31 Matter of Muhammad F. and People v. Boswell (1999)
32 U.S. v. Santiago (1996)
33 U.S. v. Woodrum (2000)



34 Luo (2004)
35 Manchester City Council (2003)
36 Stenning (1996)
37 Radbone (1997)
38 Stenning (1996)



References 

Block, R., M. Felson, and C. Block (1984). “Crime 
Victimization Rates for Incumbents of 246 Occupations.” 
Sociology and Social Research 69(3):442-451. 

Bourette, S., and A. Hanes (2000). “Assaults, Slayings from 
Halifax to Calgary Frightening Cab Operators.” Globe 
and Mail, January 5. www.taxi-l.org/toronto02.htm 

Casteel, C., and C. Peek-Asa (2000). “Effectiveness of 
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design 
(CPTED) in Reducing Robberies.” American Journal of 
Preventive Medicine 18(4S): 99-115. 

Castillo, D., and E. Jenkins (1994). “Industries and 
Occupations at High Risk for Work-Related Homicide.” 
Journal of Occupational Medicine 36(2):125-132. 

Cornish, D. (1994). “The Procedural Analysis of Offending 
and Its Relevance for Situational Crime Prevention.” In 

R.V. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3.
Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.


Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 
(2003). “Taxi Industry Amendment (Security Cameras) 
Regulations 2004 – Regulatory Impact Statement.” 
www.transport.tas.gov.au/miscellaneous.html 

Easteal, P., and P. Wilson (1991). Preventing Crime on 
Transport: Rail, Buses, Taxis and Planes. Canberra: 
Australian Institute of Criminology. 

Eck, J. (2002). Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 
Guide for Problem-Solvers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Justice. www.popcenter.org 


Elzinga, A. (1996). “Security of Taxi Drivers in the 
Netherlands: Fear of Crime, Actual Victimization and 
Recommended Security Measures.” Security Journal 
7(3):205-210. 

The Equal Rights Center (2003). Service Denied: Responding to 
Taxicab Discrimination in the District of Columbia. 
Washington, D.C.: The Equal Rights Center. 
www.equalrightscenter.org/ 

Feuer, A. (2003). “In Cab, Elmo and Friends Will Stop the 
Nagging.” The New York Times, February 9. 

Fisher, B., E.L. Jenkins, and N. Williams (1998). “The 
Extent and Nature of Homicide and Non-fatal 
Workplace Violence in the United States: Implications 
for Prevention and Security.” In M. Gill (ed.), Crime at 
Work: Increasing the Risk for Offenders, Vol. II. Leicester, 
United Kingdom: Perpetuity Press. 

Haines, F. (1998). “Technology and Taxis: The Challenge 
of Uncoupling Risk from Reward.” Security Journal 
10(2):65-78. 

———— (1997). Taxi Driver Survey-Victoria: Understanding 
Victorian Taxi Drivers’ Experiences of Victimization and 
their Preferred Preventative Measures. Melbourne: Victorian 
Taxi Driver Safety Committee. 

Home Office (1998). The Crime and Disorder Act: Guidance on 
Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships. London, United 
Kingdom: Home Office Communication Directorate. 
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/cdaguid.html 


Jackman, T., and L. Smith (2001). “Taxi Camera Develops 
Its First Lead for Police: Armed Robbery in Mount 
Vernon Caught in Digital Clarity.” Washington Post, 
August 22. 

Keatsdale Pty. Ltd. (1995). Taxi Driver Safety: A Report to the 
NSW Department of Transport. Burleigh Waters, 
Australia: Keatsdale Pty. Ltd. 

Kovaleski, S. (2003). “Taking a Stand Against 
Discrimination: D.C. Taxi Company Settles Suit over 
Refusal to Pick up Black Passenger.” The Washington 
Post, October 16. 

Kovaleski, S., and S. Chan (2003). “D.C. Cabs Still Bypass 
Minorities, Study Finds: City Crackdown Called 
Sporadic.” The Washington Post, October 7. 

Luo, M. (2004). “Police Measures Avert Livery-Cab 
Killings.” The New York Times, February 7. 

Manchester City Council (2003). “New ‘Taxi Warden’ 
Service for Manchester City Centre.” 
www.manchester.gov.uk/news/2003/dec/taxi.htm 

Manitoba Taxicab Board (1991). Taxicab Safety Shields: 
Report & Recommendations. Winnipeg: Manitoba Taxicab 
Board. www.taxi-l.org/shields.htm 

Marosi, R. (n.d.). “One of the Most Dangerous Jobs in 
New York: Gypsy Cab Driver.” New York: Columbia 
University News Service. www.taxi-l.org/marosi.htm 

Mayersohn, N. (2001). “A Mayday System for New York 
Taxi and Livery Cabs.” The New York Times, November 

16. 


Mayhew, C. (2000a). “Preventing Assaults on Taxi Drivers.” 
Report No. 179. Canberra, AUS: Australian Institute of 
Criminology. 
www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/index4.html 

———— (2000b). “Violent Assaults on Taxi Drivers: 
Incidence Patterns and Risk Factors.” Report No. 178. 
Canberra, AUS: Australian Institute of Criminology. 
www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/index4.html 

———— (1999). “Occupational Violence: A Case Study 
of the Taxi Industry.” In C. Mayhew and C. Peterson 
(eds.), Occupational Health and Safety in Australia: Industry, 
Public Sector and Small Business. St. Leonards, NSW, AUS: 
Allen and Unwin. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) (1995). “Preventing Homicide in the 
Workplace: Workers in Certain Industries and 
Occupations are at Increased Risk of Homicide.” 
NIOSH Alert, Publication No. 93-109. 

New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (2002). 
“TLC Survey to Measure Effectiveness of ‘Celebrity 
Talking Taxi’ Program.” Press Release No. 02-11. 
www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/news/press_main.shtml 

———— (2001). “July 1, 2001 is Effective Date of $35 
Flat Fair from JFK Airport to Manhattan: TLC Directs 
Stickers Must Reflect New Flat Fare.” Industry Notice 
No. 01-14. 
www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/news/ind_archive.shtml 

———— (2000a). “TLC Directs Livery Base Owners to 
Familiarize Drivers with Digital Camera Operation 
Protocols.” Industry Notice No. 00-25. 
www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/news/ind_archive.shtml 


References 

———— (2000b). “ITLC [sic] Sets July 21 as Date for 
Compliance with Rule Requiring Partitions or Cameras 
in Independently Owned/Operated TLC-Licensed 
Vehicles.” Industry Notice No. 00-21. 
www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/news/ind_archive.shtml 

Okeson, S., and A. Smith (1997). “Cabbies Not Afraid 
Despite Shooting Death.” Copley News Service, 
November 4. 

Pandya, N. (2001). “Pay Your Way with a Mobile.” The 
Guardian, September 22. 

Pflaum, G. (n.d.). “Camera Surveillance Systems for Taxis.” 
No longer available at www.ventil-taximagazin.com/ 
Magazin/Beitrag.mag1699_0020799b.htm 

Radbone, I. (1997). Taxi Safety Initiatives Study: Final Report. 
Adelaide: University of South Australia. 

Rathbone, C. (n.d.). “Taxicabs San Francisco: Effectiveness 
of Taxi Security Cameras Not Established.” 
c.rathbone.home.att.net/cameras.htm 

Rosen, J. (2001). “A Labor Perspective of Workplace 
Violence Prevention: Identifying Research Needs.” 
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(2):161-168. 

Schaller, B. (1999). “Causes and Solutions to Service 
Refusals.” GothamGazette.com, December. 
www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/refusal.htm 

Schwartzman, P. (2001). “For Cabdriver, Each Night Brings 
Prayer for Survival.” Washington Post, May 6, pp. C8. 


Smith, M. (forthcoming). Developing Crime Prevention 
Techniques for Taxi Drivers: A Study of Taxi Drivers and 
Crime Prevention in Cardiff. Final Report for Safer 
Cardiff Ltd. 

Spelman, W. (1990). Repeat Offender Program for Law 
Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 
Research Forum. 

Stenning, P. (1996). Fare Game, Fare Cop: Victimization of, 
and Policing by, Taxi Drivers in Three Canadian Cities. 
Ottawa: Department of Justice, Canada. 
www.taxi-l.org/papers.htm 

Stone, J., and M. Bienvenu (1995). Assaults Against Taxi 
Drivers and Protection Strategies. Raleigh, North Carolina: 
Southeastern Transportation Center. 

Stone, J., and D. Stevens (2000). “Effectiveness of Taxi 
Partitions: Baltimore, Maryland, Case Study.” 
Transportation Research Record 1731:71-78. 

Sweeney, A. (2004). Personal communication. Captain, 
Boston Police Department, Hackney Carriage Unit. 
March 18. 

Taxi Driver Safety Committee (1996). Progress Report to the 
Minister for Roads and Ports. Melbourne, Australia: 
Victorian Taxi and Tow Truck Directorate. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) (2002). Problem-
Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder 
through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: 
COPS. 


U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) (2000). Risk Factors and 
Protective Measures for Taxi and Livery Drivers. 
Washington, D.C.: OSHA. 
www.osha.gov/OSHAFacts/taxi-livery-drivers.pdf 

Westmarland, N., and J. Anderson (2001). “Safe at the 
Wheel? Security Issues for Female Taxi Drivers.” 
Security Journal 14(2):29-40. 

Yinger. J. (n.d.). “Case: Discrimination by Taxi Drivers in 
New York City.” faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/ 
PPA786/readings/taxi.html 

Cases cited: 

Matter of Muhammad F. and People v. Boswell, (1999) 94 NY2d 
136, cert. denied, 531 US 1044 (2000). 

Mitchell v. Diamond Cab Company, (2003) 2003 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 12492. 

Padberg v. McGrath-McKechnie, (2002) 203 F. Supp. 2d 261 
(E.D.N.Y.), affd 60 Fed. Appx. 861 (2nd Cir.), cert. 
denied, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 7738. 

People v. Abad, (2002) 98 NY2d 12. 

U.S. 
v. Santiago, (1996) 950 F. Supp. 590. 
U.S. 
v. Woodrum, (2000) 202 F3d 1 (1st Cir.), reh and reh en 
banc denied 208 F3d 8 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 531 US 
1035. 



About the Author 

Martha J. Smith 

Martha J. Smith is an associate professor of criminal justice in 
the School of Community Affairs at Wichita State University in 
Wichita, Kansas. She teaches courses in criminological theory to 
graduates and undergraduates, as well as a criminal procedure 
course for graduate students. Her research interests include crime 
on public transit and paratransit (taxis); vandalism; and decision-
making by victims, offenders, police officers, and judges. Dr. 
Smith has worked as a senior research analyst at the New York 
City Criminal Justice Agency, the executive director of the 
Nebraska Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, the research 
director at the Center for Crime Prevention Studies at Rutgers 
University, and a research consultant in London. She has been 
involved in a number of different types of research projects, and 
has taken the lead in studies of crime on the New York City 
subway system, crime prevention measures used by taxi drivers in 
Cardiff, Wales, and vandalism decision-making among youngsters 
in London. She recently edited (with Derek Cornish) Theory for 
Practice in Situational Crime Prevention. Dr. Smith has taught at 
the University of Nebraska at Omaha and at Cardiff University. 
She received her bachelor’s degree in psychology and sociology 
from Brown University, her law degree from New York University, 
and her master’s and doctorate in criminal justice from Rutgers 
University. 


Recommended Readings 

• 
A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 
Environments, 
Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 
guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 
to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 
public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 
provides guidance on whether and how to conduct cost-
effective surveys. 
• 
Assessing Responses to Problems: An 
Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by 
John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is 
a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It 
provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 
problem-oriented policing efforts. 
• 
Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 
(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 
accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 
pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 
document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 
• 
Crime Prevention Studies, 
edited by Ronald V. Clarke 
(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 
volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 
opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 
initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 





• 
Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999 
Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document 
produced by the National Institute of Justice in 
collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 
provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 
annual award program that recognizes exemplary problem-
oriented responses to various community problems. A 
similar publication is available for the award winners from 
subsequent years. The documents are also available at 
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. 
• 
Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 
Reduction, 
by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 
Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 
describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or 
ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 
England and Wales. 
• 
Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for 
Crime Prevention, 
by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 
Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 
1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 
theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have 
practical implications for the police in their efforts to 
prevent crime. 
• 
Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 
Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 
analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 
can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 
policing practices. 








• 
Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 
(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 
Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 
policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 
how a police agency can implement the concept. 
• 
Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime 
Prevention, by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice 
Press, 2003). Provides a thorough review of significant 
policing research about problem places, high-activity 
offenders, and repeat victims, with a focus on the 
applicability of those findings to problem-oriented 
policing. Explains how police departments can facilitate 
problem-oriented policing by improving crime analysis, 
measuring performance, and securing productive 
partnerships. 
• 
Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 
First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
2000). Describes how the most critical elements of Herman 
Goldstein’s problem-oriented policing model have 
developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 
future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 
is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
• 
Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 
Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 
(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 
rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 
problem-solving process, and provides examples of 
effective problem-solving in one agency. 




• 
Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 
Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 
Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). 
Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, basic 
information on the SARA model and detailed suggestions 
about the problem-solving process. 
• 
Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 
Studies, 
Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 
(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 
methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 
20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 
• 
Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 
Case Studies in Problem-Solving, 
by Rana Sampson 
and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 
at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 
police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 
problems. 
• 
Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A 
Guidebook for Law Enforcement, 
by Timothy S. 
Bynum (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction 
for police to analyzing problems within the context of 
problem-oriented policing. 
• 
Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 
Managers, 
Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 
LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 
many of the basics of research as it applies to police 
management and problem-solving. 



Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. 
Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 
2. 
Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 
3. 
Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 
4. 
Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana 
Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 
5. 
False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 
6. 
Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 
7. 
Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 
8. 
Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 
9. 
Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 
10. 
Thefts Of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 
2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 
11. 
Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 
12. 
Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 
13. 
Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 
14. 
Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 
15. 
Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 
16. 
Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 
17. 
Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 
18. 
Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 
19. 
Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 
20. 
Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 


Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 

21. 
Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 
ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 


22. 
Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 
23. 
Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. Braga. 
2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 
24. 
Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 
25. 
Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 
26. 
Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 
27. 
Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 
28. 
Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 
29. 
Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 
30. 
Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 
31. 
Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 
2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 
32. 
Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 
33. 
Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 
34. 
Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 


Response Guides series: 

The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go 
Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 


Problem-Solving Tools series: 


Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 
for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-93258219-3 
Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 
Schultze. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 
Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 
Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5 


Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 
Domestic Violence 
Mentally Ill Persons 
Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 
Vandalism and Break-Ins at Schools 
Drunk Driving 
Bank Robbery 
Witness Intimidation 
Drive-by Shootings 
Runaway Juveniles 
Exploitation of Trafficked Women 
Disorderly Day Laborers in Public Places 
Child Pornography 
Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 
Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Problem-Solving Tools 
Analyzing Repeat Victimization 
Forming and Sustaining Problem-Solving Partnerships With Businesses 
Risky Facilities 


Response Guides 
Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns 
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 
Video Surveillance of Public Places 
Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems 


Other Related COPS Office Publications 

Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for 
Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 
Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 
20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 
Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and 
Michael S. Scott. 2000. 
Community Policing, Community Justice, and 
Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the 
Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety. 
Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999. 


Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and 
Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 
2000. 
Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime 
and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 
Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998. 
Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The 
National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police 
Foundation. 2002. 
Call Management and Community Policing. Tom 
McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell 
and Barbara Webster. 2003. 
Crime Analysis in America. Timothy C. O’Shea and 
Keith Nicholls. 2003. 
Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba. 2003. 



Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons 
From a Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke 
and Herman Goldstein. 2003. 
The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, 
Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Gwen O. 
Briscoe, Anna T. Laszlo and Tammy A. Rinehart. 2001. 
The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, 
purchase and manage technology (successfully!). 


Kelly J. Harris and William H. Romesburg. 2002. 

Theft From Cars in Center City Parking 
Facilities - A Case Study. Ronald V. Clarke and 
Herman Goldstein. 2003. 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 
Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 
the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 
COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 


FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

e03180001 Created Date: March 14, 2005 
ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 
www.cops.usdoj.gov