IIS INTELLIGENCE


'The states that top the cargo theft landscape do so largely due to a few important factors, such as the presence of large seaports, whose high volume of cargo allow for many information gathering opportunities for organized thieves.’


Cargo theft by State


44% of total thefts recorded by TAPA’s IIS in 2019 took place in just three states:


• California, which logged 23% of total thefts in 2019, claimed the top spot for cargo theft again, but saw a 10% drop in incidents compared to 2018


• Texas remained the second largest state for recorded cargo thefts, accounting for 11% of all crimes recorded in the United States – but, again, this was a double-digit drop of 30% over the previous year


• Georgia, meanwhile, jumped from fifth place in 2018 to the third highest state for reported cargo crime with a 34% rise in incidents year-on-year


Of the 40 states suffering cargo losses in 2019, other notable changes were in:


• Florida, where thefts dropped by 14% versus 2018


•


Illinois, which saw 34% fewer incidents compared to the previous year


• North Carolina, which climbed into the top 10 states for cargo thefts following a 591% increase in its annual incident rate


• Virginia, where despite only representing 2% of the total US crimes, incidents rose 1,017%.


The states that top the cargo theft landscape do so largely due to a few important factors, such as the presence of large seaports, whose high volume of cargo allow for many information gathering opportunities for organized thieves, and the confluence of major interstates which offer target rich and under protected truck stops.


In addition, the presence of Cargo Theft Task Forces in areas known to be hotspots of cargo theft activity does increase the level of uniform reporting in these areas. Knowing this, it is reasonable to believe that areas that record little to no cargo theft are likely to still be experiencing it, but inconsistencies in reporting lead to a lack of properly collated data.


Location can also indicate what product types are more at risk for cargo theft within certain states, due to a higher concentration of particular cargoes within those states.


For example, some product types and subtypes have very strong state specific trends. Examples include Building & Industrial, which recorded more thefts in Texas than any other state to account for 27% of total Building & Industrial thefts nationwide, and was the second most stolen product type within Texas, accounting for 17% of the state’s total.


Other states with disproportionally high thefts of a particular product type include: Alabama with 60% of its thefts of Home & Garden goods (11% of the national total), California logging 27% of its thefts in the IIS category for Electronics (37% of the national total) as well as 16% involving losses of Clothing & Shoes, Florida with 11% of its thefts consisting of Auto & Parts, Georgia with 19% of its thefts coming from Home & Garden, Illinois with 19% each for Electronics and Miscellaneous, Louisiana with 33% Auto & Parts, Maryland with 31% Home & Garden, Michigan with 43% Auto & Parts, New York with 80% Home & Garden, Utah with 100% Metals, and Virginia with 36% Electronics.


Cargo theft by product type


Electronics was the most stolen product type recorded by TAPA’s IIS in the United States for


PRODUCT TYPE Alcohol


Auto & Parts


Building & Industrial Clothing & Shoes Electronics


Food & Drinks Home & Garden Metals


Miscellaneous Personal Care


Pharmaceuticals Tobacco Total


VALUE 2019 $51,891 $90,253 $74,292 $121,082 $207,700 $87,733 $64,714 $128,156 $82,698 $263,926 $255,978 $54,000 $118,396


AVERAGE


VALUE 2018 $114,130 $104,921 $151,413 $389,402 $221,105 $76,233 $50,044 $62,656 $117,396 $285,443 $406,139 $148,080 $151,502


AVERAGE


17


the calendar year, 17% of the overall 2019 total, although this represents a drop of 15% from 2018.


• Food & Drinks accounted for 17% of the total, up 21%


• Miscellaneous product losses were up 57% year-on-year


• Home & Garden saw a 1% rise is product thefts


• Auto & Parts incidents were 7% higher than in 2018


• Building & Industrial product thefts, in contrast, reduced by 26% year-on-year


• Clothing & Shoes incidents were up 4% year-on-year


Looking more closely at specific products:


• The rate and average value of Pharmaceuticals thefts fell by 26% and 37% respectively, with an average loss value of $255,978.


• Food & Drinks losses accounted for just under 17% of total thefts nationwide. California (25%), Florida, and Texas (16% each) were the top three states for Food & Drinks thefts in 2019. The most commonly stolen subtypes in this sector were Meats (16%), Coffee, Energy & Sports Drinks (14%), and Canned & Dry Goods (13%). Seafood recorded the highest average value within Food & Drinks at $210,354.


•


Electronics thefts represented 17% of total loss incidents in 2019, and had the third highest average loss value at $207,700. California (37%), Florida and Georgia (10% each), were the top three states for Electronics thefts, together accounting for 57% of total Electronics losses.


• Home & Garden accounted for 17% of the total and an average value of $87,733.


Cargo Theft by event type and location


Due to risk of capture, cargo thieves in the United States largely tend to target loaded trailers and containers that are stationary and unattended. Fictitious Pickups (FPU) rose by 48% from 2018 to 2019 to account for 4% of the total.


In 2019, 80% of all thefts with a known location occurred within Unsecured Parking locations down from 83% in 2018. The most frequently targeted Unsecured Parking areas were Truck Stops (28%), Public Parking (19%), and Drop Lot (14%). Theft from Secured Parking fell from 9% of known locations in 2018 to 7% in 2019.


Please note: This data is taken from TAPA Americas’Cargo Theft: 2019 Annual Report and the incidents referenced may or may not be included in TAPA’s IIS database.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28