Updated April 2026 · FBI UCR 2023 data
Motor Vehicle Theft Rates by City (2023)
U.S. cities ranked by per-capita motor vehicle theft rate. The national average is 318.3 per 100,000 residents. Among the top 50 cities here, the average rate is 339.7 — about 1.1x the national rate. 0 of those 50 cities run at more than 2x national, and 0 run at more than 3x.
Vehicle theft surged post-2021. Motor vehicle theft increased sharply in 2022–2023 nationally, driven primarily by online tutorials exposing vulnerabilities in specific vehicle models and amplified by social media. Many cities saw rates double or triple in two years. Manufacturer software fixes and public-awareness campaigns contributed to partial 2024 reversal in several metros. This page helps you understand which cities are most affected — always in per-capita terms.
What Drove the 2022–2023 Surge
Three factors converged. First, certain Hyundai and Kia models from approximately 2011–2021 lacked an engine immobilizer and were demonstrably easier to steal using a known method. Second, online video platforms spread method knowledge rapidly — the vulnerability went from specialty knowledge to widely-distributed how-to in a matter of months. Third, post-pandemic court and probation system disruption affected enforcement patterns. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has documented the resulting national pattern, with the steepest impacts in certain metro areas where the targeted model years were heavily represented in the local fleet.
By 2024, manufacturer software updates and aftermarket steering-lock distributions had begun to bend the curve in several metros. The reversal is real but uneven; cities with later-stage software-update penetration or different vehicle fleet composition continued to post elevated rates into 2024. The FBI Crime Data Explorer publishes monthly per-city counts for the most current view.
Top 10 Highest Vehicle Theft Rates
| # | City | Population | Vehicle Theft/100K | vs National |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Norfolk, VA | 238K | 421.9 | +33% |
| 2 | Oklahoma City, OK | 681K | 401.4 | +26% |
| 3 | Jacksonville, FL | 955K | 397.8 | +25% |
| 4 | Mesa, AZ | 504K | 397.8 | +25% |
| 5 | Oxnard, CA | 202K | 389.2 | +22% |
| 6 | Evansville, IN | 117K | 381.7 | +20% |
| 7 | Lakewood, CO | 156K | 381.7 | +20% |
| 8 | Kansas City, MO | 508K | 371.7 | +17% |
| 9 | Moreno Valley, CA | 212K | 366.5 | +15% |
| 10 | Durham, NC | 284K | 366.5 | +15% |
Practical Notes for Drivers
For drivers in elevated-rate cities, several practical measures meaningfully reduce theft probability. If your vehicle is one of the model years and brands targeted by the post-2021 surge, the manufacturer-issued software update is free and substantially reduces theft probability — check your VIN against the current recall and update database. After-market steering wheel locks and aftermarket alarms are inexpensive and effective additional deterrents. Parking choices matter too: garaged or well-lit street parking statistically beats unprotected driveway or street parking.
On the insurance side, the post-2021 surge has driven up comprehensive premiums in affected metros and led some carriers to decline new comprehensive coverage on the most-targeted Hyundai and Kia model years. If you have an affected vehicle, verify with your insurer that comprehensive coverage is in force, and keep documentation of any manufacturer software updates installed. Public-domain rate data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics remains the best source for tracking the trajectory in your specific metro.
Highest Vehicle Theft Rates (Top 100)
| # | City | Population | Vehicle Theft/100K | vs National Avg | Property/100K | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Norfolk, VA | 238K | 421.9 | +33% | 2,482 | C |
| 2 | Oklahoma City, OK | 681K | 401.4 | +26% | 2,676 | C |
| 3 | Jacksonville, FL | 955K | 397.8 | +25% | 2,486 | D |
| 4 | Mesa, AZ | 504K | 397.8 | +25% | 2,486 | D |
| 5 | Oxnard, CA | 202K | 389.2 | +22% | 2,290 | D |
| 6 | Evansville, IN | 117K | 381.7 | +20% | 2,246 | C |
| 7 | Lakewood, CO | 156K | 381.7 | +20% | 2,246 | C |
| 8 | Kansas City, MO | 508K | 371.7 | +17% | 2,655 | C |
| 9 | Moreno Valley, CA | 212K | 366.5 | +15% | 2,443 | C |
| 10 | Durham, NC | 284K | 366.5 | +15% | 2,443 | C |
| 11 | Riverside, CA | 315K | 363.2 | +14% | 2,270 | B |
| 12 | Irvine, CA | 308K | 363.2 | +14% | 2,270 | B |
| 13 | Salt Lake City, UT | 200K | 356.5 | +12% | 2,228 | C |
| 14 | Gainesville, FL | 141K | 356.5 | +12% | 2,228 | C |
| 15 | Salem, OR | 179K | 356.5 | +12% | 2,228 | D |
| 16 | Murrieta, CA | 113K | 356.5 | +12% | 2,228 | D |
| 17 | Buffalo, NY | 278K | 356.5 | +12% | 2,097 | D |
| 18 | Nashville, TN | 689K | 354.6 | +11% | 2,086 | B |
| 19 | Fort Worth, TX | 919K | 354.6 | +11% | 2,086 | D |
| 20 | Cary, NC | 175K | 352.1 | +11% | 2,071 | B |
| 21 | Ontario, CA | 175K | 352.1 | +11% | 2,071 | C |
| 22 | Manchester, NH | 116K | 352.1 | +11% | 2,071 | C |
| 23 | San Bernardino, CA | 222K | 339.4 | +7% | 2,424 | C |
| 24 | Los Angeles, CA | 4.0M | 338.2 | +6% | 2,255 | C |
| 25 | Baton Rouge, LA | 228K | 337.7 | +6% | 2,251 | B |
| 26 | Tampa, FL | 400K | 332.4 | +4% | 2,078 | C |
| 27 | Torrance, CA | 144K | 331.6 | +4% | 2,211 | C |
| 28 | Corona, CA | 157K | 331.6 | +4% | 2,211 | D |
| 29 | Simi Valley, CA | 127K | 331.6 | +4% | 2,211 | D |
| 30 | Fresno, CA | 542K | 330.4 | +4% | 2,065 | D |
| 31 | Fargo, ND | 126K | 328.6 | +3% | 2,054 | B |
| 32 | Cape Coral, FL | 194K | 328.6 | +3% | 2,054 | C |
| 33 | Winston-Salem, NC | 250K | 323.8 | +2% | 1,905 | C |
| 34 | Providence, RI | 191K | 322.5 | +1% | 1,897 | C |
| 35 | Dallas, TX | 1.3M | 313.5 | -2% | 2,613 | D |
| 36 | Boston, MA | 676K | 312.7 | -2% | 2,234 | C |
| 37 | Virginia Beach, VA | 459K | 312.6 | -2% | 2,405 | C |
| 38 | Miami, FL | 442K | 312.4 | -2% | 2,232 | B |
| 39 | Newark, NJ | 312K | 308.8 | -3% | 2,059 | C |
| 40 | Miramar, FL | 135K | 307.1 | -4% | 2,193 | C |
| 41 | San Jose, CA | 1.0M | 306.6 | -4% | 2,044 | B |
| 42 | Killeen, TX | 153K | 305.5 | -4% | 2,037 | B |
| 43 | Joliet, IL | 150K | 305.5 | -4% | 2,037 | C |
| 44 | Cleveland, OH | 373K | 301.7 | -5% | 1,885 | C |
| 45 | Tallahassee, FL | 196K | 300.8 | -5% | 1,880 | C |
| 46 | Centennial, CO | 108K | 300.8 | -5% | 1,880 | C |
| 47 | Savannah, GA | 148K | 293 | -8% | 1,723 | B |
| 48 | Surprise, AZ | 142K | 293 | -8% | 1,723 | B |
| 49 | Palmdale, CA | 169K | 293 | -8% | 1,723 | C |
| 50 | Plano, TX | 285K | 291.1 | -9% | 1,712 | C |
| 51 | San Diego, CA | 1.4M | 288.3 | -9% | 2,402 | C |
| 52 | Boise, ID | 236K | 286.3 | -10% | 2,386 | C |
| 53 | Wichita, KS | 398K | 286.3 | -10% | 2,386 | D |
| 54 | Corpus Christi, TX | 318K | 286.3 | -10% | 2,386 | D |
| 55 | Chicago, IL | 2.7M | 283.2 | -11% | 2,023 | B |
| 56 | Clearwater, FL | 117K | 282.9 | -11% | 2,176 | C |
| 57 | Columbia, MO | 126K | 282.9 | -11% | 2,176 | D |
| 58 | Paterson, NJ | 160K | 282.9 | -11% | 2,176 | D |
| 59 | Hampton, VA | 137K | 282.9 | -11% | 2,176 | D |
| 60 | Sterling Heights, MI | 134K | 282.7 | -11% | 2,019 | B |
| 61 | Shreveport, LA | 188K | 282.7 | -11% | 2,019 | C |
| 62 | Elk Grove, CA | 176K | 279.4 | -12% | 1,863 | C |
| 63 | Overland Park, KS | 197K | 279.4 | -12% | 1,863 | C |
| 64 | Sparks, NV | 108K | 279.4 | -12% | 1,863 | D |
| 65 | Tacoma, WA | 219K | 270.9 | -15% | 1,693 | C |
| 66 | Warwick, RI | 83K | 269.1 | -15% | 1,682 | B |
| 67 | Grand Rapids, MI | 199K | 263.4 | -17% | 1,549 | C |
| 68 | Carrollton, TX | 133K | 263.4 | -17% | 1,549 | C |
| 69 | Scottsdale, AZ | 241K | 263.2 | -17% | 2,193 | B |
| 70 | Charlotte, NC | 875K | 263 | -17% | 2,191 | C |
| 71 | Seattle, WA | 749K | 261.9 | -18% | 2,381 | C |
| 72 | Montgomery, AL | 201K | 260.3 | -18% | 2,366 | D |
| 73 | Phoenix, AZ | 1.7M | 260.2 | -18% | 2,002 | C |
| 74 | Charleston, SC | 150K | 259 | -19% | 2,158 | B |
| 75 | Thousand Oaks, CA | 127K | 259 | -19% | 2,158 | D |
| 76 | Orlando, FL | 308K | 258.6 | -19% | 1,847 | B |
| 77 | Minneapolis, MN | 430K | 258.4 | -19% | 1,520 | B |
| 78 | Worcester, MA | 207K | 258.4 | -19% | 1,520 | B |
| 79 | Murfreesboro, TN | 153K | 258.3 | -19% | 1,845 | B |
| 80 | Bridgeport, CT | 149K | 258.3 | -19% | 1,845 | B |
| 81 | Fishers, IN | 101K | 258.3 | -19% | 1,845 | B |
| 82 | San Francisco, CA | 874K | 253.7 | -20% | 1,812 | C |
| 83 | College Station, TX | 121K | 253.3 | -20% | 1,689 | B |
| 84 | Lubbock, TX | 264K | 251.1 | -21% | 1,674 | C |
| 85 | Peoria, AZ | 191K | 245.1 | -23% | 1,532 | B |
| 86 | Provo, UT | 115K | 245.1 | -23% | 1,532 | B |
| 87 | Toledo, OH | 271K | 239.1 | -25% | 2,174 | C |
| 88 | Hartford, CT | 121K | 238.1 | -25% | 1,984 | B |
| 89 | League City, TX | 115K | 238.1 | -25% | 1,984 | B |
| 90 | New York, NY | 8.3M | 237.7 | -25% | 1,981 | C |
| 91 | Akron, OH | 190K | 237.6 | -25% | 1,828 | B |
| 92 | Reno, NV | 264K | 237.6 | -25% | 1,828 | C |
| 93 | McKinney, TX | 195K | 237.6 | -25% | 1,828 | D |
| 94 | Alexandria, VA | 159K | 237.6 | -25% | 1,828 | D |
| 95 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA | 178K | 235.5 | -26% | 2,141 | B |
| 96 | Lakeland, FL | 113K | 235.5 | -26% | 2,141 | B |
| 97 | Lewisville, TX | 112K | 235.5 | -26% | 2,141 | B |
| 98 | Concord, CA | 129K | 235.5 | -26% | 2,141 | D |
| 99 | Lansing, MI | 113K | 235.5 | -26% | 2,141 | D |
| 100 | Independence, MO | 123K | 235.5 | -26% | 2,141 | D |
Lowest Vehicle Theft Rates
Cities where motor vehicle theft is least common — useful as a counterpoint and as a calibration for what the bottom of the distribution looks like.
| # | City | Population | Vehicle Theft/100K | vs National Avg | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pueblo, CO | 112K | 97.5 | -69% | A |
| 2 | Chattanooga, TN | 181K | 97.5 | -69% | B |
| 3 | Garden Grove, CA | 173K | 97.5 | -69% | B |
| 4 | Pearland, TX | 126K | 97.5 | -69% | B |
| 5 | Santa Rosa, CA | 178K | 97.5 | -69% | B |
| 6 | Modesto, CA | 218K | 107.7 | -66% | A |
| 7 | Honolulu, HI | 351K | 107.7 | -66% | C |
| 8 | Irving, TX | 257K | 107.7 | -66% | C |
| 9 | Columbia, SC | 137K | 111.2 | -65% | C |
| 10 | Bismarck, ND | 74K | 113.5 | -64% | B |
| 11 | Augusta, GA | 202K | 122.9 | -61% | C |
| 12 | Pasadena, CA | 139K | 125.3 | -61% | A |
| 13 | Wilmington, NC | 115K | 125.3 | -61% | A |
| 14 | Springfield, MO | 169K | 125.3 | -61% | C |
| 15 | Pomona, CA | 151K | 126.9 | -60% | B |
| 16 | Clarksville, TN | 167K | 126.9 | -60% | C |
| 17 | Birmingham, AL | 201K | 138.5 | -56% | A |
| 18 | Madison, WI | 270K | 138.5 | -56% | C |
| 19 | Spokane, WA | 229K | 138.5 | -56% | C |
| 20 | Amarillo, TX | 200K | 138.5 | -56% | C |
| 21 | Pasadena, TX | 152K | 139.3 | -56% | B |
| 22 | Mobile, AL | 187K | 139.3 | -56% | B |
| 23 | Tyler, TX | 106K | 139.8 | -56% | C |
| 24 | Henderson, NV | 320K | 140.3 | -56% | B |
| 25 | Charleston, WV | 47K | 141.6 | -56% | C |
| 26 | Naperville, IL | 150K | 142.7 | -55% | B |
| 27 | Palm Bay, FL | 120K | 142.7 | -55% | B |
| 28 | Billings, MT | 117K | 142.7 | -55% | B |
| 29 | Portland, OR | 653K | 151.7 | -52% | B |
| 30 | Vallejo, CA | 122K | 153.2 | -52% | A |
| 31 | Visalia, CA | 141K | 153.2 | -52% | A |
| 32 | Norman, OK | 128K | 153.2 | -52% | C |
| 33 | Sunnyvale, CA | 156K | 153.2 | -52% | C |
| 34 | Chula Vista, CA | 275K | 153.9 | -52% | B |
| 35 | Laredo, TX | 255K | 153.9 | -52% | B |
| 36 | Glendale, AZ | 248K | 153.9 | -52% | B |
| 37 | Fontana, CA | 215K | 153.9 | -52% | D |
| 38 | Anchorage, AK | 291K | 154.5 | -51% | B |
| 39 | Des Moines, IA | 214K | 154.5 | -51% | B |
| 40 | Rochester, NY | 211K | 154.5 | -51% | B |
| 41 | Lexington, KY | 323K | 154.5 | -51% | C |
| 42 | Lincoln, NE | 291K | 154.5 | -51% | C |
| 43 | Federal Way, WA | 101K | 154.6 | -51% | C |
| 44 | Rockford, IL | 149K | 154.6 | -51% | C |
| 45 | Tulsa, OK | 413K | 157.8 | -50% | B |
| 46 | Raleigh, NC | 468K | 157.8 | -50% | D |
| 47 | Greensboro, NC | 299K | 157.8 | -50% | D |
| 48 | Topeka, KS | 127K | 158.2 | -50% | B |
| 49 | Round Rock, TX | 133K | 158.9 | -50% | C |
| 50 | Oceanside, CA | 176K | 160.1 | -50% | C |
National average: 318.3 motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 residents. Source: FBI UCR via FBI Crime Data Explorer 2023.
How These Rates Are Computed
For each city, the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program publishes annual counts of motor vehicle theft (a Part I property offense) as reported by the local police agency. We divide by U.S. Census population estimates and scale to per-100,000 residents. Cities with reporting gaps in the most recent year are excluded from this rate-based ranking. Read the full methodology.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has motor vehicle theft surged since 2021?
Three factors converged. First, online tutorials demonstrated method-specific vulnerabilities in certain vehicle models (Hyundai and Kia models without engine immobilizers from model years roughly 2011–2021 were the most-cited example). Second, social media amplification spread method knowledge rapidly. Third, post-pandemic court and probation system disruption affected enforcement and deterrence patterns. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has documented sharp post-2021 increases in vehicle theft rates in many U.S. metros, with partial reversal in 2024 as manufacturers issued software fixes and law-enforcement responses scaled. Among the top 50 cities here, the average rate is 339.7 per 100,000 — about 1.1x the national average of 318.3.
Are some vehicle models really more at risk?
Yes, and this is well-documented. Insurance loss data published by the Highway Loss Data Institute showed certain Hyundai and Kia models from approximately 2011–2021 had theft claim rates several times the industry average, traceable to the absence of an engine immobilizer. The manufacturers issued software updates and steering-lock replacements; some cities sued or sought settlement, and class action settlements were reached. If you drive a vehicle from those years and models, the manufacturer-issued software update materially reduces theft probability. Always check your VIN against current recall and update lists.
Are insurance rates being affected?
Yes. Auto insurance carriers responded to the post-2021 surge by raising comprehensive premiums in affected metros and by declining to write new comprehensive coverage on the most-targeted Hyundai and Kia model years. The effect is primarily on comprehensive coverage (which covers theft and non-collision damage); collision and liability premiums were less affected. Insurance pricing data from the Insurance Information Institute documents the regional premium impact. For consumers in high-rate cities, parking choices, after-market security devices, and steering wheel locks all measurably reduce theft probability.
How likely is the trend to reverse?
The 2024 data has shown partial reversal in many metros that had peaked in 2022–2023. Manufacturer software updates, public-awareness campaigns about steering wheel locks, and law-enforcement focus on the specific theft methods all contribute. Whether reversal is durable depends on factors that vary city by city. Trend direction for any specific city is on its individual profile and on the cities-getting-safer or cities-getting-worse pages. Of the top 50 here, 0 cities currently run more than 2x the national average and 0 run more than 3x.
Where does the underlying data come from?
All motor vehicle theft rates come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, accessed via the FBI Crime Data Explorer (CDE). Annual counts of motor vehicle thefts (a Part I property offense category) are reported by local police agencies and aggregated by the FBI; rates per 100,000 residents are computed using U.S. Census population estimates. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) publishes complementary methodological notes. All sources are U.S. government public domain.
Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program via FBI Crime Data Explorer (2023); Bureau of Justice Statistics ( bjs.ojp.gov). Public domain.
Last updated 2026-04-06 · 100 cities ranked. We never publish raw crime counts and never sensationalize the data.