Impact_of_Cctv_on_Shoplifting

The impact of CCTV on Shoplifting Requirements for effectiveness of CCTV in the retail sector Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) is a security system, with cameras used to collect images which are transferred to a recording device while displaying live images on a monitor where it can be watched by an operator. It is a situational measure aimed at deterring potential offenders and detecting crime by those who choose to ignore the deterrent effect of CCTV; enabling the police and other statutory agencies to respond to incidents effectively. The recorded images can then be used as evidence in court in the prosecution of offenders, (Gill and Spriggs, 2005:1). This article explores the extent to which CCTV impacts on shoplifters and then ‘shop theft’ in commercial settings. Particularly, this article focuses on the impact of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) on shoplifters as used in the retail sector to deter or detect shoplifting; examining potential offender’s perception of CCTV as a crime reduction tool with a view to identifying the favourable conditions that improve the effectiveness of CCTV in the retail sector in dealing with shoplifters. Further more, it aims to determine the requirements for effectiveness of CCTV in retail stores; the extent to which CCTV impacts on the decision making process of a shoplifter and the extent to which it is deterred; to also determine conditions under which CCTV can be effective and the skill required to counter any change in offender behaviour. But first, it is important to examine findings of facts from notable recent researches on the effectiveness of CCTV in specific settings. CCTV has become an important crime prevention tool in recent years. The branding of technology as the central ornamental element of security systems; seen as the ultimate security measure began in the US in the eighties. The European Union has since adopted CCTV technology as well as almost all developed countries, (Ceyman, 2007:102). CCTV is widely admired and accepted in the retail industry, due in part to its wide range of applications extending from situational crime prevention in retail shops to its use in reducing the fear of crime in members of the public. It is believed to have a dominating influence over other security measures in retail shops in tackling shop thefts. Shoplifting has been in existence for as long as shopping itself, Edwards; Walsh (1976; 1974, as cited in Hayes and Cardone, 2006:302). It is a wrongful acquisition of property belonging to another, defined as an act of stealing from a retailer during the opening hours of the store to the public by a person appearing to be a legitimate customer (Cleary, 1986; Keckeisen, 1993; Sennewald and Christman, 1992, as cited in Hayes and Cardone, 2006:302). As a result, many retailers have relied on crime prevention theories such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), routine activity theory, rational choice theory and other security concepts aimed at crime reduction precipitating both human and technological approaches to shoplifting leading to the use of security guards, CCTV with the view to increasing the ‘risk’ to offenders. Despite the huge investment in security and security equipments, such as CCTV, retailers continue to experience losses due to shoplifting. Hayes and Cardone, (2006:302) look at shoplifting as a cross-national problem while referring to a 2004 survey of European Theft, where retailers estimated and attributed 48 percent of merchandise losses to shoplifting, totaling £1850 million in losses, (Bamfield, 2004 as cited in Hayes and Cardone, 2006:302). Despite this scale of shoplifting, it is surprising to note that other countries such as US, Canada, Australia, Mexico also blame shoplifting as a major source of loss after employee theft each blaming approximately 30 percent of their losses on theft by customers (Bamfield, 2005 as cited in Hayes and Cardone 2006:302). Again three recent surveys by British Retail Consortium, (2004) regarding retail crime in New Zealand identified shoplifting as the main cause of retail loss in the country, blamed for 68 percent of losses, (Guthrie, 2003 as cited in Hayes and Cardone, 2006:302). Welsh and Farrington (2002:45, as cited in Gill and Spriggs, 2005:4) offer conclusion that CCTV works better in car parks; raising a question of the possibility that the effectiveness of CCTV in car parks could be attributed to CCTV as part of a package of interventions focused on a specific crime type. Situational application of CCTV requires that other security measures compliment its use as a security provider reducing benefits of crime and crime opportunities, making crime difficult for offender by increasing the risk of getting caught, (Beck and Willis, 1998). In addition, other situational factors like the territorial nature of the car parks and access control might have created a circle of ownership within the car park, with the help of CCTV altogether inducing the perception of risk in the minds of offenders. The car park study is particularly interesting and relevant to this topic of CCTV impact on shoplifters due to its similarity with retail (commercial) settings; as both have marked boundaries and exhibit some sense of territoriality. However, Welsh and Farrington (2002, as cited in Department of Criminology, 2009/2010) analysing the impact of CCTV on crimes advocated the need for further research that explains what it is about CCTV that impacts on crime. Welsh and Farrington’s view indicate that any study of CCTV impact on crime must take a subjective view and would require interviewing of offenders. It may be appropriate to take the view that anyone with access to goods on the shop floors is a potential offender, (Farrell; Pease, 2006:181). The work of Welsh and Farrington (2002, as cited in Department of Criminology, 2009/2010) meta-analysis on the impact of CCTV initially involved 46 studies, but only considered 22 research papers, in which they found CCTV to have desirable effect on 11 of the studies; inconclusive in 1 of the studies; undesirable impact on crime in 5 of the studies and null effect in 5 out of the 22 studies obtained. Gill and Spriggs, (2005) carried out a separate study on the impact of CCTV based on a variety of contexts; car parks, town centers, city centres, hospitals and residential areas using 13 CCTV projects with 14 separate systems. The aim was to measure crime data in control and intervention areas before CCTV installations; then measure change in existing crime figures for a long duration following CCTV installation. The method used in this study differs from Welsh and Farrington’s meta-analysis of existing findings of previous studies. Firstly, control and intervention areas were established and police recorded crime statistics in both areas obtained before and after CCTV installation. Secondly, public attitude surveys were carried out in residential and town centre areas. Thirdly, other security measures operating alongside CCTV and the extent to which they offer any explanation to effect on crime were identified. Next, technical specification and installation of CCTV were looked at; together with the assessment of CCTV control room and how it partners with external agencies. Finally, economic impact of each CCTV system was assessed. Gill and Spriggs, (2005:vi), found that six out of thirteen systems show decrease in crime in the intervention area; while only two of the systems show crime reduction in the control areas relative to the intervention or target areas. Conversely, crime was found to increase in seven areas and this was found to have nothing to do with CCTV, rather fluctuations in crime in line with seasonal and national patterns were to blame. While systems installed in car parks and hospitals were found to be encouraging, results from town centres and residential systems were found to be inconclusive. CCTV was found to have less impact on alcohol related offences compared to property or premeditated offences like theft of cars. Subsequently, violent offences were found to increase in all areas. Further more, camera coverage and density were found to have significant effect on crime while CCTV was found to yield positive results in locations with access control points. Three systems were found to show displacement of crime, with one of them showing displacement of burglary and one other showing displacement of car crime. Public attitude survey carried out in nine residential and three city centre areas, covering ‘camera awareness’ showed 61-97 percent awareness level in residential areas; whereas awareness level in city areas only increased with camera density. Fear of crime or victimisation decreased in intervention areas compared to control areas and this change was found to be unaffected by whether or not it is a residential or city area. However, awareness of camera was found to increase the fear of victimisation in some of the persons surveyed. Overall, a feeling of safety was found to increase in all but one area following CCTV installation. In eight areas reported victimisation came down following CCTV installations compared to control areas. Again, victimisation was not found to be affected by type of area and worry about being a victim of crime reduced in line with reported victimisation. Gill and Spriggs, (2005: ii), suggested existence of direct proportionality between crime level in a given area and fear of victimisation, as one increases with increase in the other and vice versa. Consequently, Gill and Spriggs concluded that increase in victimisation could be attributed to crime levels in an area and not the number of cameras. Change in behaviour was not significant as out of the 15 percent that said they would visit areas they had previously avoided following CCTV installation only 2 percent actually went to places they had previously avoided after installation. It was also found that support for CCTV went down in areas amongst those who previously expressed delight in having camera in their area. Concern for civil liberties was also found to decrease in those who expressed such concern before installation. Overall, support for CCTV remained high at 70 percent of all sample areas except in one area. Further more, Gill and Spriggs found that perceived effectiveness fell following installation in all areas surveyed. The respondents did not believe installations made any difference to the rate at which people reported incidents to the police nor did they see any increase in police response to reported incidents following installations. In the end, there are characteristics that were found to determine whether a CCTV scheme meets its objectives; ‘scheme objectives, management, density, camera coverage, and positioning, technical characteristics and operation of the control room’. However, none of the characteristics was found to have any direct link with the outcomes but each contributed to the outcomes in various levels, (Gill and Spriggs, 2005: x). Theoretical perspective The situational concept within which CCTV finds its application as derived from the rational choice theory focuses on the crime event by increasing the risk of getting caught. It could be proposed that the greater the number of potential offenders within the target retail store that perceive this risk the more the impact on the shoplifters and therefore the more the impact on crime. As far as crime prevention is concerned, a positive impact is one which also reduces crime. Drawing from the approach of Wikstrom, (2008:129) to the explanation of process (mechanism) by which ‘cause’ produces ‘effect’ and the process (mechanism) that ‘connects cause and effect that brings about the effect’; what triggers the crime event in an individual in a particular context or environment (situational mechanism) needs to be understood in order to understand the process by which CCTV achieves its results in some settings, (Wikstrom 2008:129). The possible mechanisms (what it is about CCTV) that affect individual offenders resulting in an outcome can be investigated from the rational choice and routine activity perspectives, (Beck and Peacock 2009:97). The rational choice perspective which forms the basis for situational crime prevention, (Cornish and Clarke, 1986, vi, as cited in Cote, 2002) describes the decision making process of an offender and their choices in stages; that first, offender decides whether they are willing to satisfy their wants by getting involved in crime, followed by the type of offence they are likely to commit as informed by the individuals current situation, then eventually choosing a target. It is believed that crimes which can be completed in a short space of time are hardly reduced by the presence of CCTV compared to those that take more time to complete given the offender’s calculation of time and effort, (Tilley, 1993). Thus, assessing the impact of CCTV in a retail shop will inevitably take account of ‘the routine activity theory’ that an offender in the presence of a suitable target and absence of a capable guardian results in a crime event. This theory is complemented by Wortley & Mazerolle’s (2008) view of the rational choice perspective that an offender still needs to calculate if expected benefits meet the expected costs or risks. If this is the case, it could be proposed that CCTV produces a desirable outcome only specific to rational crimes perpetrated by rational offenders. This is evident in the Gill and Spriggs, (2005) research finding that produced desirable effects in car parks and residential areas as opposed to the inconclusive results in city centres; with violent crimes showing no reduction in the intervention areas. Therefore, the context within which CCTV can be expected to produce a desired outcome must be one which induces rationality in the minds of potential offenders. Consequently, Gill and Spriggs (2005) found CCTV to produce desirable effects in places with access control. It may be inferred that access control induces territoriality, (Crowe, 2000:36) enhancing both natural surveillance and electronic (CCTV) surveillance precipitating some sense of rationality in the minds of potential offenders. In order to ascertain CCTV effectiveness, it might be necessary evaluate through interviewing techniques the varying degrees of this rationality in individual offenders, as effectiveness of CCTV is dependent on the individual offender’s perception of risk. According to Tilley, (1993), CCTV fires mechanisms by way of making it more likely that offenders will be caught, stopped or removed, punished or deterred. In addition, the offenders may not wish to risk apprehension or prosecution using the evidence captured on video tape or observed. More so, increased publicity about CCTV and its usage in catching thieves are received by potential offenders thereby deterring them from committing crime as risk exceeds benefit. This can only be possible if the context (environment) can induce security awareness or rationality in potential offenders in that context. In summary, a particular crime prevention measure in one context (in this case CCTV) fires mechanisms which produces a particular outcome, (Tilley, 1993:3). ‘Mechanism’ can be said to be the impact the security measure has on the potential offender leading to the CCTV producing a certain outcome in a specific ‘context’. While ‘context’ refers to the conditions necessary for the crime prevention measure to impact on a potential offender (mechanism) to achieve the desired outcome; out-come patterns seek to know what the practical effects of causal mechanisms fired from a given context are, (Tilley, 1993:3). In conclusion, from the theory analysis above, the conditions that make CCTV do better in some setting than others can be linked to environmental design and individual offender’s rationality. The level of rationality and how it varies from person to person have a bearing on how CCTV can achieve its desired outcome in retail shops and this can be evaluated if we can interview all those that may have to target property. References: Beck, A., Peackock, C. (2009) New Loss Prevention: Redefining Shrinkage Management, New York: Palgrave Macmillan Beck, A., Willis, A (1998) ‘Crime at Work’ in M. Gill (eds) Increasing The Risk for Offenders: Volume ii, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 95 Cote, S. (2002) ‘Crime as Rational Choice in Criminological Theories: Bridging the Past to the Future’ in S. Cote (ed) The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice perspectives on offending, London: Sage Publications, 291-296 Crowe, T.D. (2000) CPTED Concepts and Strategies in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: Applications of Architectural Design and Space Management Concepts (2nd Edition), Butterworth-Heinemann: National Crime Prevention Institute, an imprint of Elsevier. Farrell, G. and Pease, K., (2006) ‘Criminology and Security’ in M. Gill (eds) The Handbook of Security, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 179-181. Fielding, N and Thomas, H (2008) ‘Qualitative Interviewing’ in N Gilbert (ed) Researching Social Life, London: Sage, 245-266 Gill, M and Spriggs, A. (2005) Assessing the Impact of CCTV, Home Office Research Study 1, London: Home Office. Hayes, R., and Cardone, C. (2006) ‘Shoptheft’ in M. Gill (eds) The Handbook of Security, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 302-303. Schneider, R.H. (2006) ‘Contributions of Environmental Studies to Security’ in M.Gill (ed) The Handbook of Security, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 90-111. Tilley, N (1993) Understanding car parks, crime and CCTV: Evaluation Lessons from Safer Cities, Home Office Crime Prevention Unit Series paper No. 42, London: Home Office Winkstrom, P. (2008) ‘In search of Causes and explanations of Crime’ in RD King and E Wincup (eds) Doing Research on Crime and Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, 118-136.