The research for Drift Theory and Neutralization Theory has remained stagnant in recent decades as criminologists tend to ignore drift while focusing only on identifying unique neutralizing techniques through interviews and ethnographies. Additionally, these theories suffer from a dearth of quantitative research due to long-standing critiques concerning how to properly conduct measurement, the lack of statistical significance, the competition for explanatory power among theories, and how to include a variable for the general acceptance of deviance. I remedy these previous issues by reimagining how these theories relate to the process of deviance and crime and how quantitative neutralization measures can be condensed into two outcomes that supplement current criminological scales. The product of this process, which I term NeuDrift, should be applied to situational theories in criminology that explain how internal/external controls (self-control and social bond) are neutralized rather than acting as a competing explanation. I use a convergent parallel mixed methods model with data gathered from a convenience sample of 335 university students to confirm NeuDrift as a measurable and viable path forward in situational crime prevention. Quantitatively, I find that neutralizations do not follow a tiered pattern of predictability, which also suggests that there is an element of drift that is routinely unacknowledged in most criminological literature. Qualitatively, I find that respondent written accounts serve as nuanced resources for determining the details of deviant events, what elements could have altered the outcomes, and how situational prevention can address unexpected social variables in these events. Finally, I provide a demonstration of the viability of NeuDrift for situational crime prevention and suggest practical applications.