What the offenders say

Focusing on customer retail theft, this has proven to be an interesting project as it involved filming offenders 'at work' – ie committing acts of theft – then soliciting their views regarding what they chose to steal and the security measures currently in place to prevent them from doing so.

The initial video we've produced is really aimed at facilitating the training of primarily non-security staff who possess little or no knowledge of offenders' behaviour. After all, there's no Security Department in the land that can hope to deploy its eyes and ears to every corner of the business. As crime is everyone's problem, it makes perfectly good sense to doall that's possible in raising general awareness of suspicious behaviour.

Moreover, having thieves offer their perspectives in their own words provides an interesting form of training delivery. Indeed, early test showings have yielded an enthusiastic response from viewers. It does indeed appear that such videos can and do appeal to a wider audience of non-security retail personnel (including members of senior management, which is excellent news).

Clearly, little short of a Steven Spielberg epic could hope to be fully comprehensive when looking to cover the full gamut of tricks used by retail thieves. However, the material presented in PRCI's video does suggest – and this point is frequently missing from any available literature to date – that thieves can be highly skilled at what they do. If security managers are going to be more effective with their crime prevention measures and tactics, we need to understand the thieves' motives and methods with a far greater clarity than at present.

Of course, what offenders say isn't any more legitimate, credible or accurate than 'information' emanating from any other group. Like the rest of us, thieves sometimes get it wrong (as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that all of the offenders who took part in our project have been caught, and many have since served custodial sentences for their trouble).

That said, their view of the world certainly deserves due consideration alongside that of others such that security professionals might be able to exploit fresh insights and ensure a truly effective, preventative approach to retail theft – rather than one we'd simply like to work.

What did they have to say?
Offenders were asked about various issues concerning shop theft, ranging from how they chose which stores to steal from through to how they then dispose of the goods they manage to procure. Opinions varied from one offender to the next, providing us with a rich and yet often contradictory set of perspectives.

The offenders' comments potentially lead to a variety of conclusions, perhaps the most important of which is that retail thieves can be highly creative. They are always ready to exploit opportunities, and are often capable of spontaneous actions in response to a given set of circumstances.

It's the balance between spontaneity – implying little or no planning – and rational choice (which suggests at least some form of process of reflection) that's perhaps most interesting. Regarding the selection of stores to steal from and which products to steal, offenders were highly rational. They tended to prefer stores that were easy to reach from where they lived, and that stocked products they could sell on quickly and easily (usually with a view to financing their drug habit).

In terms of store location, city centres are obviously attractive because of the wide choice of goods on offer (not to mention ease of escape on foot in the event of any challenge from a member of the public or a security officer). However, others chose to seek out shops in the quieter suburbs because – they claimed – they were less likely to be fully-staffed, and because 'security' was much less in evidence.

Think about it. Those little convenience stores are often staffed by a couple of pensioners working part-time for pin money, and employ teenagers who are wet behind the ears to work the tills. On top of that, there's always nice rows of high shelving to use as camouflage, and if the thief's very lucky they can simply reach behind the counter for the expensive booze and tobacco products.

Our interviews have also shown that timing emerges as an important factor, with some offenders preferring peak periods because of the anonymity they afford, while others opt for opening and closing times when they believe staff are somewhat less likely to remain vigilant.

Once the time and place are decided, a more detailed risk assessment is required. When offenders enter a store with the intention of stealing, they tend to form a quick appraisal of the security measures in place and the general 'feeling' of security and vigilance. They will form their opinion, often intuitively, while browsing the store in the style of a regular shopper. They'll also use this opportunity to identify the location of their desired products.

Many of the offenders questioned were disparaging of security personnel, whether uniformed or plain clothed. They regard security officers as some form of ‘competition’ in an ongoing game

It seems to be at this point that a more spontaneous, opportunistic and improvisatory mode of thinking starts to kick-in.

Arrest as an occupational hazard
Even when operating in an unfamiliar store, thieves can quickly identify with their environment. Something that's greatly assisted by the strong similarities between different retail outlets. When asked their views about store security, certain offenders indicated they had seen some improvement over recent years, and that this had acted as a form of deterrent. However, others were far more critical and felt retail security in general to be very predictable.

Perhaps the most recurring and striking feature of offenders' overall attitudes to stealing was their approach to the risk of being caught in the act. While many considered the risks to be generally low, most said they had accepted detection and arrest as an "occupational hazard" (before reforming themselves) and – particularly when they were regular drug users – said it didn't put them off. This may sound like mere bravado, but their rather determined attitude also influences their approach to dealing with a range of common security measures.

For example, CCTV was heavily criticised, with offenders claiming that surveillance cameras can either be 'managed' by them seeking out blind spots, or simply ignored on the basis that the images were unlikely to be monitored in any case.

However, confirming Professor Martin Gill and Karen Loveday's findings on interviewing convicted offenders in prison ('What do offenders think about CCTV', 2003), such claims were also tempered by experience ("CCTV doesn't put me off, but it's probably the reason why I've been caught most times").

Other security measures received similar reviews. Many participants demonstrated how easily they could remove Electronic Article Surveillance tags, for instance. "You can just pull the tags off. Most of them don't work anyway," said one interviewee. "Tags can actually work to your advantage," said another offender, "because they make security officers and general members of staff lax."

Interestingly, offenders also stated that they don't like to remove security tags that 'scar' a product's packaging. Such obvious signs of theft may reduce an item's value.

Physical security measures appear to be highly effective, both as a deterrent and as a preventative solution. However, many offenders liked to 'talk tough' about such security methods, arguing that they could be defeated either by stealth, force or simply by waiting for the right opportunity.

Staff diligence is always vital
The requirement for staff diligence is seen to be of prime importance. One of the things most likely to deter thieves in retail outlets is receiving the full attention of store employees. "I just don't want to be seen or noticed at all," commented one of the offenders when questioned. "Sometimes it puts me off when employees keep on asking if I need any help".

Entering a store and experiencing frequent greetings as well as offers of help from friendly employees seems to have considerable merit in encouraging offenders to seek opportunities elsewhere. This seems to signal one of the key differences between legitimate customers and thieves, as it appears that in every other respect all that retailers do to attract one party inadvertently attracts or repels the other.

Many of the offenders questioned were disparaging of security personnel, whether uniformed or plain clothed. They seemingly regard security officers as some form of 'competition' in an ongoing game, and spoke with pride about how they had either outwitted or out-run store security personnel when caught in the act.

When it comes to dedicated store detectives, they're often easy to pick out as retail managers will often deploy the same ones to work in the same store on a regular basis. Therein lies the lesson for security managers.

Widening the net for tests
Following the experience of making our video 'Shoplifters on shoplifting' (see footnote), we'd like to suggest that the offenders' perspective is invaluable to the retail security manager and – with all expected 'health warnings' – should be sought far more frequently and certainly before substantial investments are made in new technology.

In response to that very need, some end user organisations have already approached us to use experienced officers in conducting penetration tests as part of their piloting of new security technologies and/or policies. SMT's readers will also be keen to learn that we've just started a major project on the effectiveness of security officers in the retail environment.