Risk analysis in loss prevention research
Conventional risk management models identify risks, assess the probability of their occurrence and potential impact, and then implement steps to reduce the risk or the impact of the risk. Although almost all retailers implement measures to try to eliminate or reduce theft (the end step of risk management), we know little about how many undertake systematic risk assessments of loss to guide solutions and the methods that they may use to do so. This study presents the results of a survey of 22 diverse retail companies about their LP/AP risk management process, including the types of risk data collected, types of risk assessment and analyses conducted, and how these data are used in management decisions.
How to Evaluate the Impact of CCTV on Crime
The main aim of this paper is to specify how researchers could carry out high-quality evaluations of the effect of CCTV on crime rates. Five criteria of methodological quality are described: statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity, external validity and descriptive validity. The quality of CCTV evaluations can be assessed using the Maryland scientific methods scale. The minimum acceptable evaluation design is to have before and after measures of crime in experimental and comparable control areas. Desirable features of future evaluations include using several experimental and control areas, conducting a randomized experiment, carrying out surveys of potential victims and potential offenders, having a long time series of crime rates before and after CCTV, measuring displacement and diffusion of benefits by using adjacent and non-adjacent control areas, testing hypotheses about mediators and moderators, carefully measuring features of the CCTV scheme and features of persons and settings, having independent evaluators and carrying out cost-benefit analysis.
Consumer Responses to Electronic Article Surveillance Alarms
Abstract Electronic article surveillance (EAS) is a primary weapon in retailers' arsenal for abating shoplifting. Although the evidence does suggest that EAS decreases shoplifting, no research has been conducted to assess the unintended effects from errant EAS alarms. Based on a survey administered to 250 individuals selected from a systematic random sample, the results of this study reveal that nearly half of all consumers have experienced an accidental EAS alarm. Most importantly, 16 percent of consumers may never shop again at a store that subjects them to an errant EAS alarm.