Research Matters

There are many different methods used for marking property, and a wide range of products on the market from which end users might choose a solution. Retailers are into marking high risk items such as razor blades and batteries to deter shop theft, IT security managers mark data-rich, high value equipment including laptops while individuals will mark their own valuable items (like bicycles and digital/plasma screen televisions).

The web site www.crimereduction.gov.uk identifies three types of marking solution: overt, covert and serial number/database registration, in addition to the benefits of all marking solutions that are both permanent and highly visible.

Research has shown that there are a number of ways in which stolen items are sold on through legitimate businesses, second hand outlets, ‘fences’ or by way of personal networks. In some instances, of course, offenders will steal to order.

As a direct response, there are essentially four ways in which property marking might be viewed as helpful. First, when stolen items are subsequently recovered, they can be returned direct to their owner. Second, the fact that stolen items may be traced renders them ‘too hot to handle’, thereby serving as a deterrent to thieves. Third, when the police apprehend individuals hoarding property they believe to be stolen, property marking assists arresting officers in proving that is the case.

Last but not least property that’s marked is perceived to have a lower resale value, thus rendering it less attractive to thieves. That particular theory makes sense, but what do offenders say about it in the real world?

Evaluation ‘in the field’

A recent study by Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI) sought to evaluate the use of a certain property marking system within several schools in a UK city.

The product in question had been employed to mark all desirable, portable equipment in the schools (such as mobile telephones and CD players) regardless of value. Stickers were placed in school windows to highlight the fact that property marking had been carried out. In addition, a publicity campaign involving local radio stations and newspapers was launched to advertise the fact that property in these schools was now better protected than ever before.

To determine whether or not would-be offenders were deterred by the campaign, a Focus Group discussion was conducted with a group of young offenders in the city. All of those participating had at least heard of the property marking project prior to this consultation, and were aware that it was deployed in schools. However, members of the group held very negative views of property marking in general, suggesting that in no way would it stop them from seeking to commit burglaries and steal items.

One young offender told us: “You don’t think about whether or not an item has been marked. You just steal it.”

Indeed, when asked to rank a number of different security measures (and therefore show the biggest deterrent to the thief, as well as the least troublesome), property marking was bottom of the list. Offenders were most deterred by security officers and guard dogs.

“You don’t keep whatever you steal, so it doesn’t really matter whether or not it’s marked,” said another juvenile offender. “It’s gone the next day. Sometimes it’ll be gone within an hour or two. Whatever is robbed is sold on.” Continuing that theme, the young people interviewed reported that property marking didn’t affect their ability to sell goods on, and neither does it affect the price of those goods. When asked to whom they would sell stolen goods, one member of the group stated: “Anyone down the pub who wants it.”

The key for security managers and loss prevention professionals is to build several security measures within an integrated strategy that responds directly to specific threats identified by the risk assessment

Marking as a deterrent

In a different study, another batch of thieves were asked if property marking deterred them. During the interview process, shoplifters were shown a high risk product with a range of property marking measures, and were asked whether there was anything that made the product more difficult or easier to steal. They were also cross-examined as to what would cause them problems when trying to sell on stolen goods.

One product had stickers all over it warning that property marking had taken place. This was not viewed as a deterrent. Some thieves reported that they would merely peel off the stickers, while another said: “The stickers might even help us to sell goods on. They kind of prove it’s a genuine article, don’t they?”

Interviewees were also shown a product emblazoned with embossed markings, but this wasn’t seen to be a deterrent at all. “Not a problem,” said one previously convicted offender. “Quite a lot of people buy what we offer for their own use, not to sell on.”

The property marking techniques tested on thieves and ‘fences’ in the studies mentioned appear to be of minimal impact. At least in part, this may have been due to the fact that the embossing on the products shown to thieves wasn’t sufficiently visible, and/or because the labels on the products placed in front of potential trade buyers were easily removed.

However, the weight of evidence generated by this research supported by the views of police and trading standards officers with whom we also spoke would appear to suggest that property marking is of limited use as a deterrent to thieves.

That said, one retail security manager suggested that property marking is helpful in recovering stolen goods.

Challenges lie ahead

As stated, it’s important to note that there are many methods available for property marking. Not all are considered here.

While markings may be of assistance in recovering stolen or lost property, the aim of deterring thieves is somewhat more challenging (not least when the theft is carried out for ‘personal consumption’).

Few loss prevention methods will work well on a stand-alone basis. The key is to build several security measures within an integrated strategy that responds directly to specific threats identified by the risk assessment.