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

Real Uncle Tom the scale Of the problem – retailers lost $ 36,5 billion the previous year – the slight Decrease shows the industry ‘s Increaser efforts to Protect Inventories and stay a step ahead of criminals is paying off.

“Retail crime, like Any Other type of crime, is a crime of Opportunity, ” said Ann Lindstrom, a spokeswoman for ADT Security Services, Which co – founded the study. “When retailers remove That Opportunity or make it harder for people to steal , the trend is That It Decr. ”

Consistent with previous Trends, the bulk of retailing crime last year Was due to Employee Theft , Which accounted for $ 14.4 Billion or 43%, of losses. Shoplifting, Which Affects Consumers by taking Goods off shelves and Increasing prices , Deprived Retailers of $ 11.7 billion .

One of the most common Ways Employees steal is by ” sweethearting , “ringing up an item at a lower price. Then the employee Either Keeps it or Gives it to someone who’s in on the scheme, Lindstrom said.

In the case of external Crime rings, she said , perpetrators Typically target items ” Consumers Really Want – the hottest brand names, the Things That Retailers Want To keep on the shelves. That Could Be The Most popular kind of blue jeans or It Could Be a particular kind of baby formula. ”

Operational errors weitere cost retailers $ 4.9 billion . Vendor Fraud took $ 1.3 Billion According To the report .

Retailers Have Been fraud targets for years . Most recently, return fraud – The act of Returning Items That Were Used or Never Bought in the first place – you compound the problem. As a result , the industry has stepped up Loss Prevention efforts , Through a combination of new anti -theft technology tools and Better Coordination with police.

” Retailers lose billions to Shoplifting , internal theft and Other types of criminal activity Every year , so it’s encouraging to see These small Successes when it comes to shrink rates, ” said Joe LaRocca, NRF senior asset protection advisor . “Just as the industry battles Organized crime rings on a daily basis , retailers are Also faced with the daunting task of Protecting Their merchandise from everyday criminals Because They are greedy and self -serving. ”

The National Retail Security Survey is Taken Every Year Among Loss Prevention executives to IDENTIFY trends in retail Theft and best practices for preventing losses.

The recent Today Show segment below highlights a portion of the problem.

Retailers are constantly trying to fine-tune return policies to create guidelines that honest customers can live with and dishonest people can’t get around. In addition to people that abuse the unique relationship and good will of retailers, some return fraud is committed by people who use technology to produce counterfeit receipts, or take advantage of lenient return policies by stealing large quantities of merchandise and returning it to dozens of stores without a receipt.

NRF’s annual return fraud survey comes out every year in November – check out the results from last year.

Security experts say the most effective anti-shoplifting tools these days are CCTV and the tag-and-alarm systems, better known as electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems. Separately, these are good options. Used together, experts say, they’re almost unbeatable. EAS is a technology used to identify articles as they pass through a gated area in a store. This identification is used to alert someone that unauthorized removal of items is being attempted. According to the Association of Automated Identification Manufacturers, over 800,000 EAS systems have been installed worldwide, primarily in the retail arena. EAS systems are useful anywhere there is an opportunity for theft of items of any size. Using an EAS system enables the retailer to display popular items on the floor, where they can be seen, rather than putting them in locked cases or behind the counter.

Loss prevention expert Robert L. DiLonardo, says new EAS technologies are being produced — not only to reduce shoplifting — but also to help increase sales, lower labor costs, speed inventory, improve stockroom logistics and, one day, to replace inventory record-keeping. But for now, we’ll stick to the role of EAS in battling shoplifting in your imaginary store!

Three types of EAS systems dominate the retail industry. In each case, an EAS tag or label is attached to an item. The tag is then deactivated, or taken from an active state where it will alarm an EAS system to an inactive state where it will not flag the alarm. If the tag is a hard, reusable tag, a detacher is used to remove it when a customer purchases the item it’s attached to. If it’s a disposable, paper tag, it can be deactivated by swiping it over a pad or with a handheld scanner that “tells” the tag it’s been authorized to leave the store. If the item has not been deactivated or detached by the clerk, when it is carried through the gates, an alarm will sound.

The use of EAS systems does not completely eliminate shoplifting. However, experts say, theft can be reduced by 60 percent or more when a reliable system is used. Even when a shoplifter manages to leave the store with a tagged item, the tag still must be removed — something that is no longer as easy as it once was. For example, some EAS tags contain special ink capsules, which will damage the stolen item when forcibly, and illegally, removed. (This type of device is known in the industry as benefit denial — we’ll discuss it more later!). Other popular EAS components today include source tagging, whereby an inexpensive label is integrated into the product or its packaging by the manufacturer.

The type of EAS system dictates how wide the exit/entrance aisle may be, and the physics of a particular EAS tag and technology determines which frequency range is used to create a surveillance area. EAS systems range from very low frequencies through the radio frequency range (see How Radio Scanners Work). These EAS systems operate on different principles, are not compatible and have specific benefits and disadvantages. That’s why the Consumer Products Manufacturers Association is encouraging a “tower-centric” EAS approach that can “read” multiple tag technologies rather than the “tag-centric” models that exist today.

4.6 MHz Standard Tag

one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.

one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.one or two sentences.