How can retailers disrupt the ram raids?

In this final article in his three-part series on the recent spate of ram raids, FIRST Security’s Scott La Franchie writes that understanding perpetrator psychology is key to selecting the most effective store security measures.

In my previous article we discussed how the brazen nature of the recent ram raids suggests that the perpetrators perceive their likelihood of being caught to be negligible. From a ‘deterrence theory’ perspective this is bad news because as research indicates, the likelihood of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than the consequences of being caught (ie. punishment).

In a study of shoplifters, US academics Frances Weaver and John Carroll found that seasoned shoplifters are deterred less by potential consequences such as arrest, trial, fines, and jail, and more by ‘strategy-specific problems’ such as “item size, security devices, and the chance of being observed.”

Weaver and Carrol found that expert shoplifters perceive the risks of being detected and caught as under their own control because they can rely on their expertise to avoid detection, ie. their expertise enables them to shoplift with a high degree of confidence of success.

Indeed, apart from the perpetrator’s skill and experience in the planning and execution of an act, the two key factors influencing their likelihood of failure (in no particular order) are (i) police response; and (ii) the efficacy of any security measures put in place by the store owner.

While retailers can’t control the law enforcement approach to retail crime (apart from reporting crimes to the police and lobbying for greater police focus on retail crime), they can exert control over how they secure their stores. This brings us logically to the ultimate question: what store security measures are most likely to thwart the criminals undertaking these brazen acts?

According to Collins et al, for most businesses, “the best overall strategy is to ensure that likely entry points are safely guarded by physical and visible means of discouragement such as lights, locks, fencing, and alarms, making entry appear difficult. This is called “target hardening.”

First impressions count. Faced with a visibly ‘hard target’ bristling with a range of security controls, a would-be perpetrator may be minded to move on and select an easier – or ‘softer’ – target.

Security literature often talks about security measures in terms of their ability to “deter, delay, detect and deny” a perpetrator from successfully carrying out a criminal act (referred to as ‘the four Ds’). To a large extent, the efficacy of measures to ‘deter’ a perpetrator really depends on their ability to convince the perpetrator that they will be delayed, detected, and ultimately denied.

CCTV, for example, can act as a visible deterrent as well as a tool for detection. Bollards and bars can deter ram raids and ultimately deny them success. Locks and other forms of hardening can delay intruders, and a security guarding presence delivers strong deterrence, observational and reporting capability and an effective interface with police responders.

In his research, UK academic Gavin Butler conducted interviews with convicted commercial burglars who were on probation or in prison in order to identify the types of decisions involved in deciding how to carry out this type of offence – with particular reference to security systems. Some general observations included:

• Most retail burglars select stores located in isolated areas or those known to have poor security features, such as low lighting, insufficient locks, no window bars or lack of formal security systems
• Burglars tend to choose targets based on convenience or the attraction of high value goods located in the store.
• Burglaries are not chance occurrences with both business size and the surrounding area playing some role in the likelihood of being burgled.

When participants in the study were asked what security systems and measures deterred them from undertaking a burglary, among the responses were bolted doors (4%), alarmed doors (15%), alarmed windows (19%), PIR sensors (37%), CCTV (41%), overlooked premises (52%), and security guards (67%).

According to Butler, “the presence of security guards would appear to be the most effective deterrent against commercial burglary. The presence of houses/premises overlooking the target, and the installation of external and internal CCTV cameras were also seen as important.”

Interestingly, Butler commented that both security guards and premises overlooking the target “involve people rather than physical or electronic systems”, and that the deterrent value of CCTV is “dependent on the human role in monitoring it.”

“The biggest risk perceived by an offender is being caught,” he notes, “and this risk is increased by the possibility of being watched.”

Ultimately, security measures are least effective when used as ‘point solutions’, and are most effective when deployed as part of a range of measures specific to the premises and the threats it faces – and the most effective measures are the result of good professional security advice.

If you’re interested in reading more on this topic, take a look at my previous posts on this topic.

If you’re a retailer and would like to know more about how you can mitigate the risks posed by theft to your business, get in touch with FIRST Security.