Daylight robbery

The British Retail Consortium's recently-published '8th Retail Crime Survey: 2000' ('Stock take', SMT, October 2001, pp28-30) states that the cost of crime prevention has soared to £626 million. Incidences of customer theft rose by 20% in 2001 alone, costing retailers £746 million. Add-in the fact that violence against shop staff is also on the rise – shop theft is rarely a victimless crime – and it's clear that everyday life in the retail environment is far removed from soap fiction.

For today's retail security manager, finding the right security package is crucial when it comes to protecting staff and safeguarding the bottom line for Board Members and shareholders alike. Solutions will inevitably depend on individual circumstances. If you decide to bring in an external consultant for advisory purposes, ask yourself some questions. Are you completely confident they are fully abreast of the latest system developments (after all, new technology is changing all the time)? Are they offering a tailored solution, a fully-integrated solution that will address inventory control, stock monitoring and store security?

And ask yourself this... Have you ever given any thought to offenders' perspectives, and how those perspectives might inform and improve security in your company's retail outlets? If not, you should.

Interviews with armed robbers conducted by researchers at The Scarman Centre have shown that important lessons can be learned by listening to what they have to say. By gaining a greater understanding of offenders' decision-making processes, retail security managers will learn more about the perceived effectiveness of various security measures, the ways in which criminal opportunities are exploited and how best to allocate resources to the problem.

Indeed, it's only by knowing how offenders might exploit different 'windows of opportunity' that effective prevention methods may be developed and – subsequently – improved upon.

With this in mind, one major retail organisation (who wish to remain anonymous) asked us to undertake a pathfinding investigation of shop and staff offender perspectives. Though only a small-scale study conducted over a period of weeks rather than months, it was hoped that the findings would provide valuable initial insights into the decision-making processes of offenders, and – more importantly, perhaps – highlight areas for future research (to this end, a more detailed study is now in the pipeline).

Capturing theft on video
The use of miniaturised video recording equipment in the research project provided a groundbreaking opportunity to capture the actions of offenders in a given store. By recording the participants' unguided interaction, we were able to elicit an entirely realistic and unprompted account of the types of product and security measure that attract their attention.

The two ex-shoplifters selected to take part in the study – both of whom had extensive experience of stealing from major retail outlets – were taken to a selected store on different occasions. They would then enter the store unaccompanied with the hidden camera, and proceed on their merry way as if intending to steal. On completion of their tours, each participant then reviewed the footage with the research teams, providing commentaries on their actions and observations.

Lastly, the study participants then had to revisit the store accompanied by members of The Scarman Centre research team so that they could talk through their formed opinions and respond to any questions on specific issues.

A somewhat more orthodox approach to generating meaningful information was adopted to 'test' staff offenders, who were quizzed by means of in-depth, semi-structured interviews. As you can imagine, making contact with members of staff who are thieves is problematic. Data protection legislation does not allow for sensitive personal records held by employers to be passed on to research teams, while 'staff thief' is probably not a label these people would apply to themselves.

We considered a number of methods to glean the necessary information, such as gaining access via the police or sending letters to accompany civil recovery notices. Ultimately, it was decided that the retailer should send letters to a sample of ex-employees dismissed for gross misconduct within the past year, and invite them to take part in the research.

Following on from discussions with each respondent about the remit and requirements of the project, three face-to-face interviews were then arranged. Those selected had all worked in different parts of the country, in different roles and for different lengths of time at the commissioning retail organisation – and would help to provide fresh ideas as to how and why employees commit theft in the workplace.

The motivation to steal
Both of the ex-offenders participating in the study had a history of drug dependency, and the constant need for drugs had (by their own admission) been the driving force behind their desire to steal. Indeed, the very fact that both individuals ceased to offend as soon as they had given up taking drugs offers support for the long-established link between shoplifting and substance abuse.

That said, a word of caution is needed here. Although the desire for drugs is a motivational force, younger people stealing for 'kicks' and more experienced offenders ('professionals') stealing to fund their lifestyles were also referred to as significant encouragers.

With respect to their choice of shoplifting over other forms of crime as a means of supporting their drug habits, both participants emphasised the ease with which shop theft could be committed as a major factor underpinning their actions. In simple terms, shoplifting "gives you an instant opportunity to grab something quickly, and easily".

Seemingly, a number of factors influence the selection of appropriate targets to steal. The evidence from this study would suggest that shop thieves pay serious consideration to price tags before choosing their target. Why? High value goods will inevitably entice them as their re-sale value will often be higher.

Having decided that a particular product would be easy to steal, it appears that the participants' most important consideration was indeed the ease with which a given product could be sold on.

Stolen goods were commonly passed to people they knew, since both had an extensive list of sources and 'fences' which had grown as their shoplifting careers developed. Stealing to order was also found to be a common practice.

Measuring security's effectiveness
Clearly, some security measures will be perceived as more effective than others. While this study was not designed to test the effectiveness of various end user solutions, the participants did admit a certain dislike to being watched (or the sensation that they were being watched). CCTV cameras, for example, were sought out by our 'thieves' when they first entered the store, and during the entire time that they spent there.

Video monitors also helped to create a feeling of unease inside the mind of each study participant, adding to their sense of 'being watched' – as would "physically intimidating" security guards and a high staff presence.

Other methods of preventing shop theft – including the protection of goods behind display cabinets and counters – seemed to have an immediate deterrent effect, in particular when staff were present behind the counters.

Alarm wires leading from goods on display also tended to be a significant deterrent, while the removal of products from their packaging helped to create the impression that all boxes would be empty throughout the store.

Finally, while the presence of visible tags on products would not in itself prevent a theft (according to our study participants), they would help to raise doubts in the offender's mind as to whether they would have sufficient time to remove the tags before being noticed.

Of course, the mere presence of any given security measures doesn't prevent theft if a 'blind spot' can be found (whereby offenders might remove tags and appropriate goods at will because they cannot be seen doing so).

The smaller products upon which both study participants tended to focus would usually have visible tags on the external packaging. Tags which could easily be ripped off either there and then or, more commonly, in one of the store's 'hidden' areas.

Theft through the back door
All three former employees questioned considered their behaviour to be a reaction to their particular circumstances rather than examples of criminal behaviour, stressing that they would not normally commit such offences.

Generally, each regarded themselves to be 'honest' individuals whose conscience would ordinarily prevent them from being involved in anything dishonest. A major factor behind the employees' decision to offend was the dissatisfaction each had felt within their working environment. None of those interviewed had particularly relished their roles, and the monotony of their duties was a common factor behind their discontent. "It was just repetitive. Stack this up, stack those up," claimed one of the interviewees. "You can just turn off your brain. Machines could have been doing my job."
An excessive workload was another unanimous complaint, all three interviewees laying much of the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of upper management. Unpleasant personal experiences – including incidents of victimisation and delays in receiving pay – had also influenced their attitude towards the company, and were used in defence of their behaviour.

When asked about how easy it was to steal products from their employer, all three felt that warehouses offered numerous opportunities for theft – due (for the most part) to the large supply of goods and a lack of any discernible security provisions. The shop floor was believed to offer rather more limited opportunities for stealing, primarily due to tighter security and a higher staff presence.

A culture of offending
None of those interviewed had discussed the issue of theft with any of their workmates, nor had they known of colleagues 'on the take' (although they had harboured suspicions in respect of certain individuals). The overriding impression was that anyone stealing from the company would keep it quiet.

That said, the research did indicate that certain forms of dishonesty were regarded as more acceptable than others, and were therefore discussed more openly. Such examples of 'rule bending' were said to be commonplace and part of work culture.

"If there was no box or instructions they'd knock 50% off the price," commented one of the ex-offenders, "so a box and instruction book would just go missing. Things like that. Not stealing, just making things appear not what they were so that goods could be purchased at a cheaper price."

Staff should be trusted – but there is a danger of trusting people too much.