A 1972 Congressional Record reveals the extraordinary claims surrounding a pioneering property identification program.
On March 13, 1972, Representative Les Aspin of Wisconsin introduced federal legislation intended to expand a burglary prevention program that had originated nine years earlier in Monterey Park, California.
The program, Operation Identification, was developed in 1963 by Monterey Park Police Chief Everett F. Holladay. Its premise was straightforward: residents engraved identifying numbers on valuable possessions and displayed warning decals informing potential burglars that their property was marked.
The objective was twofold. Marked property would be less attractive to burglars because it was more difficult to sell, while police could more readily identify stolen possessions and establish their rightful ownership.
The Congressional Record
In remarks titled “Antiburglar Bill Legislation Introduced,” Aspin proposed legislation with Representative Claude Pepper of Florida authorizing $2 million in federal funding for engraving equipment, public education, and a standardized national property-marking system.
Aspin cited remarkable statistics from Monterey Park:
- 3,000 participating households: Only three reported burglaries.
- 7,000 nonparticipating households: More than 1,000 reported burglaries.
- Reporting period: Approximately nine years, beginning in 1963.
To support his proposal, Aspin entered three previously published articles into the Congressional Record.
What the Newspapers and Magazines Reported
The March 1971 issue of Better Homes and Gardens featured an article titled “Here’s a Plan Thieves Don’t Like.” It reported an even more dramatic comparison: just three burglaries among 4,000 participating households, versus more than 1,800 burglaries among 7,000 nonparticipants.
The article also described the remarkably modest investment required. Monterey Park’s Exchange Club had spent less than $300 purchasing engraving tools and printing identification decals.
A second article in Parade examined the program’s expansion into Michigan, including efforts by independent insurance agents to encourage participation. Their interest extended beyond preventing burglaries to reducing insurance claims and associated costs.
A third article, “Could a California Program Help Reduce D.C. Burglaries?”, written by Jack Harrison Pollack and published in The Washington Post on April 25, 1971, described how identification markings could help police connect recovered property with its owner.
Extraordinary Claims Deserve Examination
The reported burglary differences were enormous. Yet the published figures raise legitimate questions about the periods measured, participation patterns, and whether the households were otherwise comparable.
Furthermore, official FBI burglary totals for Monterey Park have not yet been reconciled with these claims.
Nevertheless, the historical importance of Operation Identification extends beyond burglary deterrence.
The program recognized that identifying property and establishing ownership are fundamental components of crime prevention and recovery.
More than fifty years later, that distinction remains relevant. Identifying an object is only the beginning; connecting it reliably to its rightful owner is what gives identification its practical value.
Historical Source
Congressional Record, March 13, 1972, pp. 8162–8163 — “Antiburglar Bill Legislation Introduced,” including the three reproduced articles from Better Homes and Gardens, Parade and the Washington Post.
