Responses to the Problem of Shoplifting

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of them may apply to your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it.

This section reviews what is known about the effectiveness of various practices in dealing with shoplifting. Unfortunately, the information is severely limited because few of the common preventive practices have been evaluated. Retailers have been reluctant to undertake the necessary studies, and to share the results of any studies they do complete. Government has funded little research in this field, generally regarding it as the private sector's domain.

In the absence of research, you cannot assume that retailers have learned through long experience what does and does not work. For example, hiring store detectives is a staple response to shoplifting, but as will be seen below, their effectiveness is questionable. Hiring them usually seems to be an economic choice dictated by the need to do something about shoplifting.

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

Police can do little on their own to prevent shoplifting, and you will have to persuade the retailers themselves to act. You may have to explain why police can achieve little through more patrols, and why heavier court sentences are of limited value. You may want to explain how the store's goods and sales practices may be contributing to the problem. You may have to convince retailers that they cannot ignore the problem, due to the costs to the community and, in the long run, the stores themselves. Finally, you will have to offer them guidance on preventive measures they can take to reduce the problem.

It is important that shoplifting responses be selective and based on a thorough understanding of the risks. For example, the highest-risk goods should be given the greatest protection.15 Trying to provide equal protection to all goods is inefficient and could lead to a loss of focus. In addition, it might be better to concentrate on preventing shoplifting by young or casual shoplifters, who are easier to deter and who may account for many thefts, than to focus on the much smaller number of "professionals," who are harder to defeat.

As explained, in framing advice, you must think carefully about the nature of the risk, which varies greatly with the kind of store and the goods offered. These factors also determine the nature of the remedies. The security approach required for a self-service supermarket is quite different from that required for a jewelry store. Department stores with huge turnovers of expensive goods can afford to spend much more on security than small retailers can. In all cases, you must appreciate stores' need to make a profit. This determines selling practices and how much money is available for preventing shoplifting.

Even when shops can afford more for security, they are likely to resist this expenditure. In making your case, you may need to:

• calculate the likely cost of measures such as installing CCTV or hiring security guards;
• convince owners that they can recoup the cost of increased security through reduced losses associated with shoplifting—item replacement, profit and lawsuit losses;
• enlist the support of the chamber of commerce or other business organizations in persuading owners to improve security; and
• brief the local media on the problem and the proposed solutions.

Effective prevention often depends on well-rounded strategies encompassing good retailing practices, appropriate staffing, carefully articulated shoplifting policies, and selective technology use.16 These components are reviewed below and are summarized in the appendix. Many depend on retailers' actions, but police may also have to collaborate with others in the community, including loss prevention specialists, business associations and court officials.

Specific Responses To Reduce Shoplifting Retailing Practice

Good management is the first line of defense against shoplifting. Managers must ensure that stores are properly laid out, have adequate inventory controls and follow standard security practices.

1. Improving store layout and displays. Store layout and displays must make it easier for staff to exercise effective surveillance. This includes:
   • reducing the number of exits, blind corners and recesses;
   • carefully placing mirrors;
   • providing good, even lighting;
   • eliminating clutter and obstructions;
   • placing goods away from entrances and exits;
   • creating clear sight lines in aisles and reducing the height of displays;
   • reducing crowding near displays of high-risk items;
   • moving hot products into higher-security zones with more staff surveillance; and
   • speeding up checkout to reduce congestion and waiting, which provide the opportunity for concealment.
2. Tightening stock controls. Inventory control procedures must permit shoplifting trends to be detected, and shoplifting to be distinguished from employee theft.
3. Upgrading retail security. Standard security must make shoplifting more difficult. This may include:
   • restricting the number of unaccompanied children allowed in small neighborhood stores;
   • establishing clear rules for use of changing rooms in clothing stores;
   • displaying only the cassette, CD and video cases in music and video stores (and only one shoe per pair in shoe shops);
   • keeping high-value items in locked displays, or securing them through cable locks and security hangers;
   • encouraging shoppers to use supermarket-type baskets for purchases (which removes the excuse for putting things in their own bags or pockets);
   • sealing bags of legitimate purchases to reduce impulse stealing;
   • giving receipts and, where there is a high risk of shoplifting, checking them against goods on exit; and
   • requiring proof of purchase for refunds.
4. Posting warning notices on high-risk merchandise. Many stores display signs reminding customers that shoplifting is a crime, and warning that shoplifters will be prosecuted. Some stores display these signs alongside a lifesize cardboard cutout of a police officer. Nothing is known about the effectiveness of these generalized warnings, and since most shoplifters know they might get caught and punished, it is doubtful that such warnings have more than a marginal deterrent effect on a few susceptible people. However, one well-known study showed that when specific merchandise was prominently marked with large red stars as being frequently taken by shoplifters, shoplifting was virtually eliminated. The researchers explained that publicly identifying specific items made the threat of detection and apprehension tangible.17
5. Hiring more and better-trained sales staff. Stores should hire sufficient numbers of staff to properly oversee goods and customers, especially at high-risk periods for shoplifting. Stores must train staff to be attentive to customers and alert for thieves. They also need to train staff in procedures for dealing with shoplifting incidents.†

   † Walsh (1978) quotes Fiber's (1972:250-251) essential advice: "To sustain a legal action against a customer for shoplifting, it is usually necessary to prove that the goods were taken away, that no payment was offered and that there was intent to avoid payment. It is therefore always advisable to wait until the suspect has left the shop before making the accusation; otherwise, they may claim they intended to pay before leaving."

6. Hiring store detectives. Though certain kinds of stores widely employ store detectives, research suggests detectives may have only a limited impact on shoplifting. When researchers have followed random samples of people entering stores, few of those they have observed shoplifting have also been seen by the store detectives.18 A study in a large London music store, with four store detectives on duty at any one time, suggested that the store would need to hire 17 times this number to be able to catch all the shoplifters likely to enter the store—clearly not an economic proposition.19 Most stores do not advertise store detectives' presence, but some do. Advertising their presence may provide a greater deterrent, but it may also mean that shoplifters exercise greater caution. No research has evaluated these possibilities.

   While it must be assumed that store detectives have some deterrent value, it is possible that they lower other staff's vigilance. It is also important that store detectives spend as much time as possible on the shop floor, and not have their time consumed in court attendance or police liaison work.

7. Hiring security guards. Little is known from research about the effectiveness of uniformed security guards in any environment—and retail is no exception. Only one small study has been published, and it suggested that security guards had less value than electronic article surveillance (EAS) or store redesign in decreasing the risk of theft. However, only two stores with guards were studied, and "[o]ne [guard] had never been a guard before and asked the staff what he should do, while the other was aged over 60 and relatively small, so it was thought that he was unlikely to deter shoplifters."20

   In general, guards who continually move around, creating an active, visible presence, are likely to be more effective. To maximize guards' surveillance, it may be necessary to pay attention to layout and design, including mirror placement.

Shoplifting Policies

It is important that stores develop clear shoplifting policies, and that staff understand those policies. Most stores routinely refer apprehended shoplifters to the police. For persistent and blatant offenders, this is clearly necessary. In the case of more opportunistic shoplifters, many of whom show shock at getting caught, it is doubtful that police arrest has any additional deterrent value.† It is also possible that an inflexible policy of referring shoplifters to the police could result in reduced staff enthusiasm for apprehending them.21 Stores are probably best served by a flexible shoplifting policy that includes formal and informal avenues and, perhaps, civil recovery.

† Sherman and Gartin (1986), in a randomized experiment, found that recidivism rates did not differ for two large groups of apprehended shoplifters: those released and those arrested.

As mentioned earlier, there is little evidence that prosecuting ordinary shoplifters is an effective preventive measure. Even so, belief in the efficacy (and desirability) of prosecution is so strong among storekeepers and the general public alike that there is little chance the police will be relieved of this burden.†† Consequently, there is considerable value in making the arrest process more efficient. Ways of doing so fall outside the scope of this guide, but some police forces have developed systems whereby private security officers are authorized and trained to write criminal summonses themselves (after first checking with the police by phone for outstanding warrants and arrest histories). This obviates the need for patrol officers to process arrests, but gets the cases into the formal criminal process, nonetheless. [The police department in Mesa, Arizona, implemented the Theft Reduction Action Program (T.R.A.P.) in which store detectives at a local department store were trained to issue “Summons in Lieu of Citation.” Soon there was a dramatic drop in incidents of shoplifting at the store and the number of patrol hours spent dealing with shoplifting.”]

†† Not only is shoplifter prosecution of doubtful preventive value, but also, practice in this area is fraught with difficulties: Merchants may see the police as being at their beck and call; private security staff may expect the police to take cases that are not "good," or that reflect a lack of discretion (e.g., a 12-year-old stealing a candy bar) off their hands; and there are issues regarding obtaining proper evidence, identifying alleged offenders, using force, targeting minorities, imposing burdens on the criminal justice system, using statutes or ordinances/summonses or physical arrests, etc.

8. Using civil recovery. In nearly every state, retailers can use civil law to collect restitution from shoplifters, and many retailers take advantage of this.22 Civil recovery is designed to operate quickly, with little recourse to the courts. The typical sums sought are $250 for adult shoplifters and $120 for juveniles, and in nearly half the cases, these sums are paid. Civil recovery is not meant to be a substitute for criminal proceedings. Rather, it is meant to provide an additional shoplifting deterrent (though of unknown effectiveness). Civil recovery also allows retailers to defray some of the costs of loss prevention.

   In some states, such as Florida, statutes permit police to help retailers obtain civil recovery on the spot. With proper procedural safeguards and reports, the offender can pay the set civil recovery amount—around $200—directly to the retailer in the presence of the police, and thereby be spared arrest. This might cost offenders considerably more than the item stolen is worth, but it spares them an arrest record.

9. Using informal police sanctions. In many jurisdictions, large proportions of shoplifters referred to police are dealt with informally and not brought before the courts. In the United States, this often entails "first offender" programs. Upon arrest, first offenders are given the option, as an alternative to prosecution, of participating in programs in which they are instructed about the harms of shoplifting. If the offender completes the program, which usually translates into attending the required meetings, the initial charge is dismissed and, sometimes, upon petition, can be erased from the records, so that the person does not have a "criminal" record.† In Britain, similar police programs are called "cautioning." A recent program introduced by the Thames Valley Police combines counseling modules and a formal caution, and claims to have substantially reduced re-offending among juvenile shoplifters. The counseling modules are selected according to the offender's specific circumstances. Modules include meetings with store managers, informational sessions with youth workers about available leisure activities, and group work to learn about resisting peer pressure to offend.23

   † As an alternative to prosecution, police sometimes also refer first offenders to structured programs like the Stop Shoplifting Education Program, operated by the Better Business Bureau of WNY Inc., or the program offered by Shoplifters Alternative, a nonprofit organization based in New York. The Stop Shoplifting Education Program claims to reduce recidivism (Better Business Bureau of WNY Inc. 1993). In addition, stores themselves sometimes run first-offender warning programs, without extensive police involvement. Stores might check with police to determine whether the offender has been charged before and, if not, issue their own warning, without having an arrest made.

10. Establishing early warning systems. Merchants in some areas have found it useful to establish a same-day early warning system whereby they notify one another about the presence of mobile gangs of shoplifters, but there have been no formal evaluations of this practice.24
11. Banning known shoplifters. A related but more controversial practice entails banning offenders from, and posting their pictures in, stores. Little is known about the effectiveness of this practice, but if it publicizes shoplifters' identity, it might have some limited value. Where courts have not convicted those identified, both the merchants and the police engaged in the practice are vulnerable to criticism and legal challenge.
12. Launching public information campaigns. Some communities have launched media campaigns to inform the public about the harms of shoplifting, encourage people to report it, and increase knowledge about the consequences of apprehension. Posters, pamphlets, classes, and public service announcements have all been used to get the message across.25 Evaluations of these programs have produced little evidence that they reduce shoplifting.26

Technology

13. Installing and monitoring CCTV. Improvements in quality and reductions in cost have resulted in the widespread use of CCTV to prevent shoplifting. Few evaluations have been published, though one careful study of 15 clothing stores in England found that the value of CCTV was directly related to the sophistication of the system used. Effectiveness was quite marked in the first few months after installation, but declined rapidly thereafter, which the researchers explained by arguing that "would-be offenders became progressively inured or desensitized to CCTV's deterrent potential."27 Little is known about the value of CCTV in other kinds of stores, and there is "a raft of unanswered questions about its impact. These questions relate to:
    • the detection of offenders;
    • the deterrence of would-be offenders, and possible displacement of criminal activities elsewhere;
    • the relative value of video recordings and real-time images;
    • the ability of operators to monitor and make sense of multiple images;
    • the impact on customers (who may be reassured, even when there are no measurable benefits); and
    • the effect on shop staff (who may become less vigilant about crime following its installation)."28
14. Using electronic article surveillance. Electronic article surveillance (EAS) is often known as electronic tagging. A tag is either pinned onto a garment or fixed with adhesive to an item's packaging. Exit gates detect tags that have not been removed or deactivated, and sound an alarm. The tags have been made progressively smaller and more versatile, and the detectors have become more reliable.† These systems are in widespread use, but only recently have any evaluations been published.29 The most comprehensive of these evaluations used comparisons between stores with and without EAS systems, and before-and-after studies, in a variety of retail settings. The authors concluded that EAS could reduce shoplifting and total inventory shortage from 35 to 75 percent.30 The considerable costs of buying and running EAS systems must be set against these benefits. Moreover, knowledgeable offenders can sometimes defeat EAS systems (see Box).

    † Increasingly, tags are now being included in the packaging of goods at manufacture (Hobson 2001). This "source tagging" helps to reduce the costs of using this method.

    Ways of Trying To Beat EAS Systems

    • Removing and discarding product packaging in the store, thereby removing the tag and giving the appearance that the item is "used." Thieves then may wear the item in plain view, or conceal it.
    • Peeling off the tag, which can sometimes be done despite strong adhesives—large stores afford offenders plenty of cover for this.
    • Holding the item—and the tag—tightly against the body.
    • Walking out in a group, or closely behind someone.
    • Holding items outside the reach of the electronic surveillance, i.e., lower than a foot above ground (with shoes, for example), or above shoulder height.
    • Using products to deactivate tags.
    • Running through the electronic gates and trying to escape before staff can respond.
    • Putting items in insulated bags; the insulation can prevent the tag from being activated.
15. Attaching ink tags to merchandise. Retailers may attach ink tags to clothing; such tags are quite different from electronic tags. Rather than sounding an alarm when removed from the store, and thus increasing the offender's risk of getting caught, ink tags remove the rewards of theft by ruining the garments to which they are affixed when the thief tries to detach them. To date, only one rigorous evaluation has been reported; it concluded that ink tags might be more effective than EAS when used in the same retail environments.31 Devices are now available that combine the advantages of both electronic and ink tags, but with the inevitable disadvantage of increased costs. Other devices not containing ink are also available, such as small clamps that cannot be removed from items such as jewelry or eyeglasses.