Advertisement

Security Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 357–369 | Cite as

Evaluating the effects of protective Keeper boxes on ‘hot product’ loss and sales: A randomized controlled trial

  • Read HayesEmail author
  • Tracy Johns
  • Mike Scicchitano
  • Daniel Downs
  • Barbara Pietrawska
Original Article

Abstract

Retail companies lose large quantities of key merchandise because of errors, omissions, fraud and theft. Lost inventory frustrates consumers, skews stocking processes and reduces sales. Further, theft events introduce violence and concern into retail environments. Victimized businesses fight back against losses by installing crime prevention measures, but fail to use rigorous research to design, evaluate and refine countermeasures. Grounded in situational crime prevention, this article describes a 10-store randomized controlled trial on the effects of plastic protective Keeper boxes on loss and sales levels of a ‘hot product’. The study provided evidence of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the countermeasure in a micro place environment.

Keywords

situational crime prevention overload shoplifting hot products RCT evidence-based 

References

  1. Bamfield, J. (2003) Stealing from shops: A survey of the European dimension. In: M. Gill (ed.) Crime at Work Volume 3: Managing Security. Leicester, UK: Perpetuity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bamfield, J. (2004) Shrinkage, shoplifting and the cost of retail crime in Europe: A cross-sectional analysis of major retailers in 16 European countries. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 32 (5): 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamfield, J. (2009) The Global Retail Theft Barometer. Thorofare, NJ: Checkpoint Systems.Google Scholar
  4. Bamfield, J. and Hollinger, R.C. (1996) Managing losses in the retail store: A comparison of loss prevention activity in the United States and Great Britain. Security Journal 7 (1): 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, K.J., Sidebottom, A. and Ekblom, P. (2009) CRITIC: A prospective planning tool for crime prevention evaluation designs. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11: 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga, A.A. (2001) The effects of hot spots on policing. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578 (1): 104–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1993) Environment, routine and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In: R.V. Clarke and M. Felson (eds.) Routine Activity and Rational Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, R.V. (1997) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, 2nd edn. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, R.V. (1999) Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating and Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods. London, UK: Home Office. Police Research Series, Paper 112.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, R.V. (2008) Situational crime prevention. In: R. Wortley and L. Mazzerolle (eds.) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, R.V. (2009) Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In: M.D. Krohn, A.J. Lizotte and G.P. Hall (eds.) Handbook of Crime and Deviance. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, R.V. and Eck, J.E. (2005) Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers. In 60 Small Steps. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, L. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (2003) Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention. Prevention Studies 16: 41–96.Google Scholar
  15. Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (2008) The rational choice perspective. In: R. Wortley and L. Mazerolle (eds.) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Cromwell, P., Parker, L. and Mobley, S. (2010) The five-finger discount. In: P. Cromwell (ed.) In Their Own Words: Criminals on Crime, 5th edn. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eck, J.E. (2002) Preventing crime at places. In: L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B. Welsh and D.L. MacKenzie (eds.) Evidence-based Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge, pp. 241–294.Google Scholar
  18. Eck, J., Clarke, R.V. and Guerette, R. (2007) Risky facilities: Crime concentrations in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. In: G. Farrell, K. Bowers and S. Johnson (eds.) Crime Prevention Studies: Vol. 21. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 225–264.Google Scholar
  19. Farrington, D.P. (1983) Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In: M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 4, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Farrington, D.P., Bowen, S., Buckle, A., Burns-Howell, T., Burrows, J. and Speed, M. (1993) An experiment on the prevention of shoplifting. In: R.V. Clarke (ed.) Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 1, Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.Google Scholar
  21. Felson, M. (1997) Technology, business, and crime. In: M. Felson and R.V. Clarke (eds.) Business and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  22. Felson, M. and Boba, R. (2009) Crime and Every Day Life, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1992) Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 4th edn. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gill, M., Bilby, C. and Turbin, V. (1999) Retail security: Understanding what deters shop thieves. Journal of Security Administration 22 (1): 29–40.Google Scholar
  25. Groff, E.R., Weisburd, D. and Yang, S. (2010) Is it important to examine crime trends at a local ‘micro’ level?: A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26 (7): 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guerette, R.T. and Bowers, K.J. (2009) Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology 47 (4): 1331–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes, R. (1991) Retail Security and Loss Prevention. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  28. Hayes, R. (1997a) Retail crime control: A new operational strategy. Security Journal 8: 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayes, R. (1997b) Shop theft: An analysis of apprehended shoplifters. Security Journal 7 (1): 11–14.Google Scholar
  30. Hayes, R. (1999) Shop theft: An analysis of shoplifter perceptions and situational factors. Security Journal 12 (2): 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, R. (2003) Loss prevention: Senior management views on current trends and issues. Security Journal 16 (2): 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes, R. (2007) Retail Security and Loss Prevention, 2nd edn. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hayes, R. and Blackwood, R. (2006) Evaluating the effects of EAS on product sales and loss: Results of a large-scale field experiment. Security Journal 19 (4): 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hayes, R. and Cardone, C. (2005) Shoptheft. In: M. Gill (ed.) Security Handbook. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  35. Hayes, R. and Rogers, K. (2000) Shoplifting and science: Inside the mind of the offender. Paper presented at the National Retail Federation‘s Annual Loss Prevention Conference; 5 June, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  36. Hollinger, R. and Adams, A. (2009) 2008 National Retail Security Survey: Final Report. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.Google Scholar
  37. Hollinger, R. and Hayes, R. (1993) The National Shopping Center Security Report. New York: Chain Store Age Executive.Google Scholar
  38. Jacobs, B.A. (2010) Deterrence and deterrability. Criminology 48 (2): 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lab, S.R. (2010) Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices and Evaluations, 7th edn. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perry, A.E. (2010) Descriptive validity and transparent reporting in randomised controlled trials. In: A. Piquero and D. Weisburd (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (2002) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  42. Sherman, L.W. (1990) Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In: M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sherman, L.W. (2006) ‘To develop and test’: The inventive difference between evaluation and experimentation. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2: 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sherman, L.W. (2007) The power few: Experimental criminology and the reduction of harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology 3 (4): 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sherman, L.W. (2010) An introduction to experimental criminology. In: A. Piquero and D. Weisburd (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Sherman, L.W., Gartin, P.R. and Buerger, M.E. (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27 (1): 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. and Bushway, S. (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What's Promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice.Google Scholar
  48. Sherman, L.W., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B. and MacKenzie, D. (2002) Evidence-based Crime Prevention. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tonglet, M. (2002) Consumer misbehaviour: An exploratory study of shoplifting. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1 (4): 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weisburd, D. (2010) Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: Challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology 6 (2): 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wellsmith, M. and Burrell, A. (2005) The influence of purchase price and ownership levels on theft targets. British Journal of Criminology 45 (5): 741–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (eds.) (2007) Conclusions and directions from evidence-based crime prevention. Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims and Places. New York: Springer Business.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P. and Sherman, L.W. (2000) Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  54. Whitehead, S., Mailley, J., Storer, I., McCardle, J., Torrens, G. and Farrell, G. (2008) In safe hands: A review of mobile phone anti-theft designs. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 14: 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Read Hayes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tracy Johns
    • 2
  • Mike Scicchitano
    • 2
  • Daniel Downs
    • 1
  • Barbara Pietrawska
    • 3
  1. 1.Loss Prevention Research Council, University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Florida Survey Research CentreGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.CapIndexExtonUSA

Personalised recommendations