Ancient and Biblical Periods

Archaeological digs and historical evidence indicate that the most primitive of man was concerned with security and developed rudimentary security techniques. Cave drawings and other evidence clearly demonstrate that protection and enforcement of social codes were concerns of earliest man. Meeting these needs, from then until now, has resulted in the development of modern day public law enforcement and private security, and the development of those two now distinct and separate disciplines was, in the past, often interwoven and indistinguishable.

In tribal society, needs were basic; security probably did not extend beyond keeping marauding animals from devouring others in the tribe while they slept. While “laws,” as such, did not yet exist, we do know that tribal customs were followed and that some means of identifying and bringing violators of those customs before the tribal chief for punishment existed.

Because private security and public law enforcement had common origins, and their development has only really bifurcated in more recent times–and because to understand the development of both, we need first to understand the development of the concept of law (a very complex subject)–let’s define the term “law.”

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, law is “that which is laid down, ordained, or established and that which is obeyed and followed by all citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences.”(1)

Keep in mind that “law” is a general term and can be used in many concepts. For example, we have the law of gravity, “Murphy’s Law,” natural laws, criminal laws, civil laws, laws of nature, the law of the jungle, etc. Our use of the term “law” relates solely to those laws (codes of conduct) considered necessary for an orderly society.

We must not, however, confuse “law” in this sense (i.e., a code of conduct which carries sanctions) with “morality,” even though in many cases laws develop from moral codes, or refine or reinforce moral concepts. For example, the moral concept “thou shalt not bear false witness (lie)” is defined and refined by the law in the various penal codes enacted by the appropriate authority, which proscribes such conduct, attaches sanctions, and refines degrees of violations such as petty theft, grand theft, etc. In other areas, moral laws such as “thou shalt not lie” are limited to application only under certain circumstances, such as lying under oath (perjury) and under certain other specified situations; it is only then that lying is “illegal” or “against the law” and that sanctions apply if such behavior is proven to have been undertaken.

It has been said that the establishment of laws and a means of enforcing them is essential to a well-ordered society and is a keystone of democratic forms of government.

The earliest law was probably a combination of tribal custom and the wishes of tribal chiefs. It was passed on by word of mouth (not written or codified as it is today), and its sanctions, the implementation of which were probably overseen by the tribal chief or the entire tribe, were primarily personal, which is to say, designed to satisfy the aggrieved party.

The earliest evidence of any written law does not appear until about 2000 B.C. At that time, Hammurabi, King of Babylon, compiled a legal code which dealt with the behavior of individuals among themselves, as well as their responsibilities to the society as a whole.

The Code of Hammurabi set forth in writing the long-established customs regarding intra-group and interpersonal relationships, defined unacceptable behavior, and spelled out the penalties and punishment for violations. Penalties, for the most part, reflected the ancient “eye for an eye” philosophy; in many cases the offender suffered a penalty similar to the hurt or wrong done the victim.

The Old Testament is replete with laws relating to intra-group and inter-personal relationships. Laws relating to property, inheritance, slaves, and criminal offenses (theft, murder, and prostitution, among others) can be found throughout the Old Testament. In the New Testament, there are references to various crimes, including what we would call “highway robbery” and the placement of “watchtowers” in vineyards to prevent theft of the vines, its fruit, and the wine produced there. And “temple guards” with a “captain” were deployed in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem way before the time of Jesus Christ.

The next significant development in the chronology of the development of law and the protection of life and property occurred about 600–500 B.C. when the early Greek city-states developed systems for guarding highways and other strategic parts of their cities, including the protection of their ruler, the earliest evidence of executive protection.

The Roman Empire (100 B.C.–500 A.D.)

Significant events relating to the development of law, security, and law enforcement took place with the development of the Roman Empire (see Figure H-2). The “Twelve Tablets,” which covered the broad spectrum of the existing body of Roman law, appeared.

FIGURE H-2

Augustus (63 B.C.–14 A.D.), Emperor of Rome, formed a military unit known as a “Cohort” to protect the city. Members of the Cohort were known as “Praetorians” and the now-historically famous “Praetorian Guard” is considered by many historians as the first police force, even though its members were military personnel.

Later in his reign, Augustus formed the “Vigiles of Rome”; its members were civilian freemen whose task was to control fires and assist in controlling crime and quelling riots.

Perhaps the most significant contribution by the Romans came under the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (483–565 A.D.), who summarized Roman law into the world’s first law book known as “Corpus Juris Civilis” (Body of Civil Law).

Thus, by the end of the Roman period, tribal customs and trial by ordeal evolved into written laws, standardized punishments, and the beginnings of such concepts as proof of guilt and fair trials.

Anglo-Saxon Period (500–1066 A.D.)

England, from whence came the foundation of the current U.S. law, was a country of instability and confusion from 500 A.D. until the late 800s. The failure of the Roman conquest of England produced several hundred years of turbulence, aimlessness, and general lack of direction and forceful leadership in England.

Not until King Alfred (872–901) do we see the beginnings of legal developments in England which will continue and ultimately change and influence the entire body of legal concepts in the world of that time. The influence of Alfred is significant in two respects: He established the concept of the “King’s Peace” (i.e., widespread unlimited private warfare among the various English kingdoms was inconsistent with preserving the peace within the whole of England and would no longer be tolerated), and he established a new code of law which set forth standardized forms of punishment, including specific fines for certain offenses.

The Anglo-Saxon period also saw many customs and practices in the handling of the protection of the citizenry which are recognizable as the forerunners of today’s practices. For example, crime prevention and law enforcement were community responsibilities; therefore, whenever an offense occurred, a “hue and cry” went up and all persons were expected to assist in apprehending the offender. The term “hue and cry” is still heard today, and the concepts of citizen arrest and “posse comitatus,” which were first evidenced in this period, are very much alive and still in use today.

It was also during this time that the English kingdoms began to be subdivided to meet both agricultural and societal purposes. One of the larger geographical subdivisions was called a “shire” and governed by an appointed person with the title “ealdorman.”

A smaller subdivision, the “hundred,” was governed by a person known as a “reeve.” Eventually, “ealdorman” became an “Earl” (our present-day term “alderman,” common in East Coast cities to designate a political leader, emanates from “ealdorman”).

The King soon appointed a person to assume primary control of the reeve; that person was known as a “Shirereeve,” and our present day “sheriff” derives from the “Shirereeve.” Our office of sheriff has similarities to the duties of the Shirereeve, who was responsible for tax collection, law enforcement, and who served as an agent of the king.

Also during this period, we see the first primitive form of a court system. Landowners and royal officials met from time to time to conduct the business of the “shire” or “hundred,” which included resolving lawsuits and criminal complaints. While sitting on these matters, the officials became known as “courts,” and each had its own jurisdiction depending on the composition and residency of its members.

For persons charged with a criminal offense, guilt or innocence was determined by either “ordeal” or “oath,” neither of which placed any reliance on facts, but rather relied on some outward and resultant manifestation of God’s indication of guilt.

The ordeal took many forms. An accused might, for example, be required to carry hot coals for a specified distance. If his hands healed from the burns within a specified time, this was a sign from God of his innocence; conversely, if his hands had not healed, he was guilty.

Trial by oath consisted primarily of obtaining the required number of “compurgators” to testify as to the accused’s truthfulness or innocence. As might be expected, the higher the rank or position of the “compurgators,” the greater the weight given their oath. Compurgators were essentially character witnesses; it was not required that they have any knowledge of the events in question.

While capital punishment was used occasionally, branding, mutilation, and fines were more common forms of punishment. Fines were on a graduating scale: low for petty offenses and/or persons of lower rank and increased in amount for more serious offenses or persons of higher rank or class.

The Anglo-Saxon period can, with respect to law and justice, be characterized as a period when the law of private vengeance prevailed, and where the biblical law of Moses, which regarded a crime primarily as an offense against the individual rather than society as a whole, was totally accepted. Thus, a person who suffered an injury from another could seek his own redress; if a person was slain or disabled, it became the duty (and right) of his clan or village to exact atonement in kind from the transgressor.

The Middle Ages

The Middle Ages period began with William the Conqueror’s successful (and last in history) invasion of England and his accession to the throne on Christmas Day of 1066, and ends with the beginnings of the modern era at the end of the reign of Henry VII (1485–1509), the first of the Tudors. It is during this period that we see the development of many of the concepts of law, justice, and legal principles which form the underpinnings of our own cherished Western judicial system.

Norman Period (1066–1199)

One of the principal results of the Norman conquest was the establishment of feudalism in England. Feudalism was, among many things, a reciprocal and contractual relationship between the lord (landlord of the fief or land) and the vassal or tenant. Both parties had rights and responsibilities–one of which was for the vassal to report to the lord’s court and assist the lord in the administration of justice.

It must also be pointed out that during this period, there were two distinct legal jurisdictions: the lord’s courts and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. The church had an elaborate code of laws (canon law) governing the lives of the clergy and certain aspects of laymen. Lord’s courts had jurisdiction over nonchurch matters, although there were frequent disputes as to who had jurisdiction.

The Norman conquest produced three significant developments in England, all of which impacted upon the justice system. These three events were

1. The introduction of feudalism

2. The centralization of government

3. The reorganization of the church

Some of the direct results of William the Conqueror’s leadership on the justice system were

1. The formation of the “curia regis,” or King’s court

2. The institution of itinerant justices

The King’s courts had jurisdiction over more major matters and serious offenses such as homicide and robbery. The King’s courts were generally in-session, followed their own precedents, developed uniform procedures, and tended to be more impartial than local courts.

FIGURE H-3

As a result of the preceding factors, these courts became quite popular among the citizenry. Because the “curia regis” traveled with the king on his constant journeys, it was difficult for prospective litigants to know the location of the currently sitting court. To solve this problem, the king often sent members of the “curia regis” to various parts of the country to hold court. These justices became known as itinerant justices.

The end of the Norman period saw Henry II (1154–1189) on the throne. Henry II’s reign saw the writing of a treatise on the law of England, and the development of the differentiation of the various levels of crime and the first use of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. Other significant changes under Henry II included

• Widely extended jurisdiction of the King’s court

• Enlarging of the criminal jurisdiction of the King’s court

• Extending the writ process to assure that any freeman having business before the King’s court would be heard

• Expansion of itinerant justices

• The recording of court decisions and the use of previous decisions as precedent for future holdings, thus establishing a body of common law and the principle of “stare decisis” (to stand by decided cases and uphold precedent)

Finally, and most significant, was the introduction of the forerunner of our jury system as a standard part of the King’s court procedures. In fact, in cases involving land ownership, a freeman had an absolute right to trial by jury. Simultaneously, deciding cases by oath was abolished. For these reasons, Henry II is generally credited with laying the foundation of our modern system of trial by jury.

Modern Period (1500–Present)

1800s & World War II

The 1800s

The year 1829 is generally conceded as the year in which the real beginnings of a modern police system took place. It was in this year that Sir Robert Peel, Home Secretary of England, guided a bill through Parliament titled “An Act for Improving the Police in and Near the Metropolis.” This legislation authorized a new uniformed, full-time salaried 1600-member police force.

These features, coupled with other new ideas such as rigorous pre-employment screening, semi-military principles of discipline, and lifetime tenure (provided established standards were maintained) resulted in a growth of the force to over 3200 men within 3 years.

Of historical note is the fact that the headquarters of this new force was on a small London side street called Scotland Yard, and that the term “Bobbie,” which is recognized worldwide as the nickname for London police officers, derives out of respect for Sir Robert.

In the United States, such famous lawmen as Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Pat Garrett, “Wild Bill” Hickok, along with the Texas Rangers, all gained fame in the “Old West” for their own methods of bringing law and order to the frontier.

In the East, cities were growing and forming their more formalized police departments. True police agencies, following Peel’s example, began to flourish in the 1800s. Police departments were established in New York (1844), Chicago (1850), Cincinnati (1852), Philadelphia (1855), and Detroit (1865).

On a national level, crime was also a problem, and we see the federal government forming investigative agencies. The Post Office Investigative Service was formed in 1828, the law enforcement arm of the Treasury Department was formed in 1864, and the U.S. Justice Department in 1902 began its law enforcement arm, which was the forerunner of the FBI. The Federal Bureau of Investigations, as we know it today, began in 1932 under J. Edgar Hoover.

We have spent a good deal of time reviewing the development of law and policing agencies, not without reason. The development of private security was, by the very nature of its function, closely related to public law enforcement and under the proscriptions of the law. As will be subsequently noted, some aspects of loss prevention have a “law enforcement” correlation and must be conducted within the parameters of established laws and statutes. For these reasons it is helpful for security personnel to understand how their work-related laws developed and essential that they keep up-to-date with changes and court decisions affecting them.

It was in the mid- to late-1890s that modern-day private security had its beginnings. This was the era of the department store’s beginnings. Macy’s in New York opened in 1858; Marshall Fields in Chicago opened in 1860; Strawbridge & Clothiers opened in Philadelphia in 1866; Wanamakers opened in New Jersey in 1876, and The Broadway in Los Angeles opened its doors in 1897. And with multistory big-city department stores came shoplifting problems, which caused the creation of the early term “floor walkers,” private citizen-employees who were responsible for the repression and/or detection of crime inside the stores. One of your authors had the occasion to review turn-of-the-century security department records of San Francisco’s Emporium Department Store, reflecting numerous shoplifting arrests made by the staff.

Records as well as oral accounts tell of how some “floor walkers” were conspicuous, wearing a bowler hat, smoking a cigar with thumbs inside suspenders, whereas others worked “undercover” and worked stealthily to observe and detain shoplifters. Books were kept bearing photographs of those caught, utilizing in those days the most current technology, photography. Clearly, the genesis of retail security and “loss prevention” was in the big department stores and their “floor walkers.”

Remember, this was during the time when police departments were new and forming to provide “security” services to their respective communities.

Alan Pinkerton, who was born in Scotland, emigrated to the United States after his police officer father died when Alan was a small boy. In 1850, after 4 years as deputy sheriff in Cane County, Illinois, Pinkerton was made a deputy in Cook County (Chicago). Later, he became a special agent of the U.S. Post Office Department, and then Chicago’s first and only police detective. He then left the police department to form a private detective agency, specializing in providing investigative and security services for railroads and industrial organizations (see Figure H-4).

FIGURE H-4

Pinkerton’s reputation as a “master sleuth” led to his acquiring a national reputation. During the Civil War, Pinkerton’s agency and its agents provided the Union with the organization for intelligence and counter-espionage services and also served to provide personal protection for President Lincoln.

After the Civil War, Pinkerton returned to private clients, and because of the relatively few number of public law enforcement agencies coupled with jurisdictional restrictions, he provided the only investigative agency with truly national capabilities.

In 1885 William G. Baldwin commenced his private detective career at the age of 25 with an agency named the Eureka Detective Agency in Charleston, West Virginia, and with the passage of time created one of the foremost private police agencies in America. His Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, with strong ties in the railroad industry, often received and exercised governmental powers in handling criminal investigation assignments which public sector police agencies were unable or unwilling to undertake.(2)

In 1889, Brinks Incorporated was formed to protect property and payrolls. In 1909, William J. Burns, Inc., formed a private detective agency and became the investigative arm of the American Banking Association (see Figure H-5). The Pinkerton, Brinks, and Burns companies all continue in business today. Regrettably, there were no “Pinkertons,” “Baldwins,” or “Burnses” who led the way in the early giant department store security programs.

FIGURE H-5

Simultaneous with the founding and growth of these giant pioneers, the various railroads, which had great political power, got state legislatures to pass Railroad Police Acts authorizing the railroads to establish their own security forces with full police powers. By 1914, over 12,000 railroad police agents were in operation.(3)

The Future

The future of private security is (on balance) bright. The rapid growth of our industry, over the past two or three decades, has seen the leaders of industry recognize the importance of the security (in some businesses known as “Loss Prevention”) as evidenced by the elevation of the head of security to the vice president level in many organizations over the past decade or two. The post-9/11 world has seen the dramatic increase in security in both public and private. Terrorist bombings and other threats have led to the demand for tighter and increased security at all levels of everyday life. Consider the use of large numbers of security officers at sporting events, transportation systems, and theatrical and social events, to name just a few. The increased use of CCTV, once used almost exclusively by the private sector, to monitor public streets and gatherings is unprecedented. The recent designation of Chief Security Officer (CSO) on a level with the COO, CFO, and CIO of major corporations attests to the vitality and importance of this function in the 21^st century. These advances, however, also give rise to some challenges which our profession must meet and overcome if it is to enjoy both continued growth and the respect and confidence of its employers, clients, the public, and governmental and regulatory agencies.

Some of the challenges facing us are described next.

Summary

Traditionally, society’s efforts to prevent and control crime have been the province of public (government) law enforcement, although private “security” efforts have been woven into the fabric of crime control since earliest times.

Beginning in the second half of the 20th century, private security (whether proprietary or contractual) has taken an increasingly larger role in crime control and prevention, so that as of 1985 the resources of money (over $20 billion annually) and personnel (over 700,000) exceed that of public law enforcement. Indeed, the most recent trend is the “privatization” of functions such as running jails and prisons, which were previously the jobs of government exclusively.

Private security is big business and growing in all free-world countries and ranges from the single owner/operator private detective agency or security consultant through national contract security guard companies and investigative agencies, to multinational security firms and alarm companies. The thousands of proprietary security personnel, working only for a single employer and in his or her interests only, must also be included.

The industry, because of its size, has begun to attract the attention of legislatures and of the courts, and in those instances in which self-restraint and legal and ethical considerations are neglected, the legislatures and courts are establishing the standards under which we are required to operate.

In other cases, the courts are also punishing, through monetary awards to injured parties, those private security practitioners who “go too far” and offend public sensibilities.

The industry is also growing in sophistication and professionalism. It is attracting personnel and leaders who would be a credit to any profession. With both continued growth and professionalism, both of which seem assured, the future of private security and that of those in the profession seems bright.

1850–1899

Until the mid-1800s retail stores in the United States were typically owner-operated businesses. Merchandise was primarily offered for sale from behind counters, and the selling staff waited on each customer. Shoplifting was primarily accomplished through sleight-of-hand tricks within close proximity of a sales clerk. Retail stores relied on the management staff and sales clerks to detect theft and therefore had no need for full-time dedicated security personnel.

This 1869 account serves as a typical example, “Storekeepers are often victimized by that class of depredators known as shoplifters, who frequently stop in a shop, and, at a glance, ascertain what can most easily be removed without detection. Grocers, especially, frequently find a whole or part of a ham, which has been left on the block for convenience, among the things taken.”

During the 1870s things began to change. Retailers in some of the major metropolitan areas began to grow rapidly, adding selling square footage faster than sales clerks. Some stores began to recognize the need for in-store dedicated security personnel. One of the first of these was Frederick Loeser’s & Company, a New York City department store, which hired David N. Corwin as a full-time store detective in 1880. Corwin had spent the previous 25 years in the detective bureau of the New York City Police Department, where his specialty was identifying and apprehending shoplifters and pickpockets. The police commissioner described Corwin this way, “There isn’t an old hand he doesn’t know, and it takes him a mighty short time to find out the new ones. He’s made some good arrests in his day, and he’s pulled in shoplifters that other officers wouldn’t have dared to touch. It’s a risky thing, sometimes, a man has to be very shrewd and very sure too, and Dave is just that man. There were a couple of women he brought in one day, and I doubt if anyone else would have risked it. Why, one of them had on a thousand dollar shawl, and the way they kicked against being arrested was a caution. They were respectable people, they said, and if they were arrested they would sue the department and have the officer imprisoned for false arrest. All this sort of talk went in one of Dave’s ears and out the other. They were searched, stuff found on them, and sent up (to prison), they proved to be old shoplifters too, a couple of professionals.”

In the early 1890s, Corwin left Loeser’s & Co. store and went to work handling the store detective duties at Abraham & Strauss, where he stayed until his death in 1901. Corwin’s 20-year career in retail security/loss prevention is worth recognizing because most retail stores did not begin hiring dedicated security personnel until after 1900. Up until that time, most stores relied on the local police to handle shoplifting, pickpockets, and other petty crimes. When significant crimes and employee theft occurred, store owners typically engaged the services of a private detective agency.

A great example is the relationship that existed for nearly 100 years between the Jeweler’s Security Alliance and the Pinkerton Detective Agency. First created in 1883 by a group of independently owned jewelry stores, the Jeweler’s Security Alliance was one of the first to recognize the value of taking a proactive stance against retail criminals by retaining the services of a well-organized and professional group of detectives. With offices located in nearly every major city in the United States, Pinkerton detectives were at the disposal of the Jeweler’s Security Alliance members anytime a need arose.

1900–1949

Two major developments at the beginning of the 20th century significantly changed patterns of criminal behavior and made a significant impact on retail security that have been felt to this day. In 1903 Henry Ford and 11 Detroit-area businessmen founded the Ford Motor Company, and 10 years later, by implementing assembly line processes, made automobile ownership affordable for many Americans. A year later, the first commercial airline began operating between St. Petersburg and Tampa, Florida. Suddenly, professional criminals (including shoplifters) had a much wider territory they could work in. No longer were they at the mercy of train schedules and horse-drawn carriages. Criminals could move quickly from one city to another and then move on before being recognized by the local police.

Many more retailers began establishing an in-house security department, drawing largely on the experience of police officers to fill the newly created role of Director of Security. The R.H. Macy Company serves as a good example. Located at Herald Square in New York City, Macy’s soon became known as a retail innovator and the “World’s Largest Store.” In 1907 Macy’s hired William H. Wall to lead the security function, then called the “protection department.” Wall was a former police officer with the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad and was uniquely qualified to take on the multiple and unusual tasks associated with running the security department at Macy’s. In 1901, while still employed by the railroad, William Wall was appointed the Chief of the Special Police for the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. In that capacity he handled the planning for the safety and well-being of an estimated eleven million exposition visitors. This experience served him well, as he later became responsible for handling security for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.

During his 27 years as the Director of the Protection Department at Macy’s, William Wall introduced a number of innovative retail security concepts. He instituted the use of guard dogs to supplement the night watchman in the store, he had jail cells built in the store where shoplifters could be held until turned over to the police, and he played an important part in establishing the first Stores Mutual Association, then known as the Stores Mutual Protective League.

The original Stores Mutual Protective League was an organization supported by member retailers that provided store detectives to all members in New York City. Each store detective was a sworn special police officer with the authority to make arrests anywhere in the city. It was not unusual for store detectives to follow a potential shoplifter from Macy’s, to Gimbels, and then to Lord & Taylor, until they caught the person in the act of stealing or became satisfied that the person was not a thief. This freedom to work in more than one store on a given day and to follow suspects through the public streets made it much easier to recognize and apprehend professional shoplifters.

This 1918 account serves as an interesting example. On September 25 of that year, store detectives Anna Coschina and Frances Mullin noticed two 30-something women acting suspiciously in the New York City Wanamaker’s store. One of the women appeared to be acting as a lookout and shielding for the other as merchandise vanished. The detectives struggled to remain inconspicuous while trying to obtain a clear observation of the theft. The two shoplifting suspects left Wanamaker’s and went to Best & Co., then to Saks Fifth Avenue, on to Macy’s, and then to Lord & Taylor. Finally, after spending several hours following the women all over town, the detectives watched as the younger of the two women concealed two pairs of ladies gloves in her handbag. Anna and Frances waited until the two women left Lord & Taylor and then apprehended them on the sidewalk.

In addition to the two pairs of gloves, each valued at $2.00, the detectives found two handbags from Lord & Taylor valued at $6.50 each; two veils from Best & Co. valued at $2.25 each; two sets of pins from Saks Fifth Avenue valued at $1.50 each; one waist from Wanamakers valued at $2.85; and nine pairs of ladies gloves, valued at $12.41, from Macy’s. The women gave their names as Bessie Clark, age 33, and Mary Leaman, age 39. Both women acknowledged that they supported themselves by shoplifting and that they were currently living at the Hotel Marie Antoinette. They were turned over to the police and each held on $300.00 bail. They remained incarcerated until October 7, when they appeared in court and pleaded guilty. Bessie was fined $50.00 and released. Mary, who had been charged as an accomplice, was fined $25.00 and released.

As the aforementioned account illustrates, another noteworthy aspect of early retail security is that stores recognized that plainclothes store detectives needed to represent the populations they served. Women and minorities were hired in these quasi-law enforcement positions long before opportunities occurred in public law enforcement. In fact, the first recorded example of a woman given full police powers did not occur until 1905, and even then, police departments did not generally embrace the hiring of women until the 1970s. Meanwhile, women like Anna Coschina and Frances Mullin demonstrated that they had the patience, fortitude, and ability to trail criminals and make arrests.

1950–1999

Perhaps the most significant change to ever affect retail security/loss prevention occurred in 1950. That year television ownership leapt from fewer than 5 million to more than 10 million by the end of the year. This 100% plus increase marked the beginning of a decade of explosive growth. By 1960, 80% of homes in the United States had at least one television set. Combined with the post World War II “baby boomer” generation beginning to reach their teenage years, the result was a sharp increase in the number of teenagers with a desire to own things they could not all afford.

Retailers soon realized that catching every shoplifter was impossible. The concept of preventing retail crime began to take root. A renewed emphasis on customer service and the introduction of “uniformed” (red blazers) security personnel led many departments to change their name from “Security” to “Loss Prevention.”

The “prevention” mantra exploded during the 1970s as retail business organizations began sponsoring antishoplifting public service announcement campaigns; electronic article surveillance technology was introduced in many stores; state legislatures began passing civil recovery statutes so that retailers could recoup some of their losses from shoplifters; and store mutual associations shared apprehension data with member retailers in an increased effort to prevent the hiring of known criminals. The convenience store retailers were now staying open 24 hours per day and began aggressive prevention campaigns to reduce the probability of armed robberies. Their tactics included using drop safes so that a limited amount of funds would be available, installing CCTV equipment with public view monitors, increasing both interior and exterior lighting, and removing obstructions blocking the view of police officers driving by.

Some of these concepts and many others became known as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) after the 1971 publication of C. Ray Jeffery’s book by that name. Jeffery, a criminologist at Florida State University, postulated that environmental design features influenced the probability of certain types of criminal behavior. His theories were refined and updated in the 1977 edition of his book and expanded further in his 1990 book, Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Retail security/loss prevention professionals followed these studies and began working more closely with their construction and planning departments to incorporate crime prevention design features in new store and remodel projects.

Recognition of retail security as a legitimate and distinct profession began to occur in the 1970s as books like Successful Retail Security: An Anthology by Mary Margaret Hughes (1974); Retail Security: A Management Function by Denis E. Byrne (1977); Effective Security Management by Charles A. Sennewald (1978); and Investigative Technique for the Retail Security Investigator by Joseph M. Di Domenico (1979) gained widespread attention. The “rent-a-cop” and “door-shaker” stereotypes were being replaced with images of educated professionals serving an important business function.

By 1980 some of the best retail security directors had come to realize they could mold and develop their replacements and provide high-caliber candidates to the retail industry by developing and promoting from within. Prior police, military, or federal law enforcement experience was no longer felt to be a prerequisite for a top-level retail loss prevention position. Succession planning and comprehensive training programs began to become commonplace.

The Commodore 64 “personal computer,” first introduced in 1982, and the Apple Macintosh released in 1984 completely revolutionized retail loss prevention. Within a decade, criminals were using home computers to counterfeit everything from fraudulent receipts to United States currency. Progressive loss prevention professionals found hundreds of ways to use computers to mine point of sale data, improve efficiency, and collect and retain information for later use. Time-keeping systems, return authorization systems, advance ship notices, electronic fund transfers, electronic gift cards, and many other computerized programs created new vulnerabilities for retailers. This ever-expanding use of computer technology in all aspects of the retail business soon made computer literacy a requirement among loss prevention personnel.

The conventional role of the vice president or director of security/loss prevention began to change dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s. Whereas previously the position often focused on shoplifting, internal theft, and shortage, by the end of the century it was not unusual to find the vice president not only overseeing security/loss prevention, but also supervising internal audit, safety, and/or risk management.

2000–Present

On September 11, 2001, terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field, killing over 3,000 innocent victims. The retail loss prevention profession underwent a dramatic change that day. Suddenly, shoplifting, internal theft, and shortage seemed a whole lot less important than safety and disaster recovery. The few retail companies that already had a disaster recovery plan discovered that there were ways to improve on their plan, and those companies that did not have a plan began working to develop one immediately. Retail loss prevention personnel began learning all they could about terrorism, anthrax, hurricanes, bird flu, and many other potential business-interrupting possibilities. The safety of retail employees and the protection of the business was now of paramount importance.

In many companies the responsibilities of the senior loss prevention executive expanded to include human resources, information security, and/or ethics and compliance programs. A few companies began to recognize the talent and importance of multifaceted retail loss prevention executives and began promoting these individuals to senior vice presidents, executive vice presidents, and chief security officers.

The beginning of the 21^st century also ushered in an unprecedented increase in the use of technology. Remote video monitoring and digital video recording became much more prevalent, and radio frequency identification (RFID) began to gain momentum. Online auctions became popular and created a new method for the disposal of stolen merchandise. Global positioning satellites were used to enhance tracking of company trucks and other vehicles. Cell phones and Blackberrys became standard equipment among retail executives. The speed of information exchange (both accurate and inaccurate) made it more important than ever that the security/loss prevention personnel communicate quickly, clearly, and accurately. Rumors, Internet bulletin board postings, and blogs having the potential to hurt a company’s reputation and thus cause loss became the concern of security/loss prevention.

In many respects the security/loss prevention profession has changed dramatically since David Corwin caught his first shoplifter. Shoplifting has become big business with organized retail theft gangs stealing millions of dollars’ worth of merchandise each year. Retailers are working more closely with local and federal law enforcement than ever before, and some retailers have implemented their own organized retail theft squads that actively seek out fences and the groups that keep them supplied. But two things haven’t changed. Sometime today a sales clerk will steal cash out of a register, and somebody else will try to walk out of a grocery store without paying for a ham hidden under his or her clothing.

Next Steps

The employee hotline, functioning as the report receipt mechanism, however, is only part of the overall solution. The legal mandates described previously also require organizations to effectively investigate, document, and retain all records related to the initial employee report. Effective incident report management should not be viewed from a “one size fits all” perspective but rather requires the commitment of multiple organizational decision makers and the development and implementation of a structured management process. Furthermore, the implementation of any employee reporting mechanism must fit into the overall objectives and mission of the organization and be appropriately communicated to employees as part of a comprehensive ethics and compliance program.

Prior to implementation of any hotline solution, the appropriate organizational representatives should conduct an analysis of their present situation. How do employees bring concerns forward? Is there a way to do it anonymously yet maintain ongoing communication for the purpose of proper investigation? Who is responsible for investigating reports of employee misconduct? How is incident report management documented, and where is it stored? Is the existing documentation process efficient, and are records readily located by the appropriate individuals? What are the company policies governing standards of conduct? Are the policies up-to-date? How does an employee hotline solution fit into the organization’s overall objectives and corporate governance program? Answering questions like these will help identify the strengths and opportunities in the organization’s program and highlight the areas needing improvement. Communications to employees can then be targeted to those specific areas of opportunity.

Perhaps most importantly, all relevant organizational parties must be well informed of the implementation plan and take responsibility for whatever aspects directly impact them or their department. Without whole-organization commitment to the solution and the corporate processes and procedures put in place, a hotline solution, in any form, is destined to fail. At best, the system will fail to live up to its potential in terms of making the workplace safer and more productive—typically one of the foremost objectives in the implementation of such a reporting mechanism. Designating and enlisting the cooperation of all those responsible for reviewing, investigating, and responding to the incidents reported are critical to the organization’s ability to limit its liability exposure should employee misconduct, fraudulent activity, or unsafe work conditions be uncovered.

Another critical activity impacting the success of an employee hotline solution relies on the effectiveness of its communication to those on whom it has the greatest impact—the employees. It probably goes without saying that the hotline will only rarely, if ever, be utilized if employees are not made aware that it exists and how to use it. Further, failure to communicate the purpose of the hotline to the employee base will often lead to the organization being inundated with frivolous or routine complaints that are more appropriately resolved through other reporting channels, such as directly through human resources. The poorly communicated hotline will find itself used for purposes of resolving payroll problems, scheduling complaints, and office temperature control—all of which impact employee morale but also are more efficiently handled directly by the responsible department. Anonymous hotlines, typically, should be reserved for more serious and potentially costly and safety-compromising issues such as substance abuse problems, embezzlement schemes, and theft activities.

Communication of the employee hotline is typically most successful when it is rolled out in conjunction with company policy reminders as well as reminders regarding existing communication and reporting channels, such as “open door” policies. An anonymous hotline should never serve to replace existing reporting avenues; rather, it should serve to augment a culture of openness, response, and resolution in which employees have multiple ways to bring workplace concerns forward. Communication, further, should come in multiple forms to ensure the entire employee base is reached. Such methods can include a companywide email announcement, an article in the company newsletter, a company-issued memo or letter, posters placed in high-traffic areas, updates to the employee handbook or policy manual, or an announcement posted to the company intranet.

It will then be the responsibility of those designated within the organization to review each employee incident report generated through the hotline. If the communication campaign was successful, the organization is likely to see an overall increase in incident reports (in comparison to those received prior to the implementation of the hotline), but a good percentage of those reports will be of a relatively serious nature, necessitating the appropriate organizational response. The astute and prudent organization will recognize the benefits of this increase in employee incident reports, namely, that they have an opportunity to uncover potentially costly employee misconduct and avoid the liability exposure resulting when such behavior (e.g., sexual harassment, substance abuse) is allowed to continue. Sophisticated employee hotlines, in conjunction with a robust and targeted employee communication campaign, serve to provide employers with a keyhole view of their organization that may, perhaps, be otherwise unavailable.

Organizations should respond to reported incidents in a manner consistent with their existing company policies and past practices. A complete and thorough investigation is often warranted and requires commitment of the necessary resources to that end. Again, in the interests of minimizing the organization’s potential exposure, such an investigation should proceed according to existing protocols. Also, recognizing circumstances and incidents which may be beyond the expertise of those charged with the investigation of particular matters is a critical step in the process of reviewing incidents. Requesting consultative and/or investigative assistance, both internally and externally, may be the best approach if it appears a problem may be widespread or particularly egregious.

If the organization has chosen to contract its employee hotline services with a third-party vendor, the organization will often find that documenting all investigatory measures will be much more streamlined, and all relevant organizational parties can easily be kept up-to-date regarding all developments. Many vendors offer a robust case management system within the software or web-based database they provide. Such a system often has the capability to house all activities related to a particular incident report in a secure, centralized Internet-based location, which all appropriate organizational managers can access when necessary. Furthermore, this type of tool drastically reduces the amount of paperwork associated with any given investigation. As organizations expand both nationally and internationally, having the ability to make records available to all appropriate individuals, no matter their location, is critical to the successful companywide resolution of identified problems.

Final Thoughts

The implementation of an anonymous employee hotline makes good business sense for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is compliance with federal mandates. However, an employee hotline can further provide organizations with insight into the organization which may be otherwise unavailable to those charged with ensuring a safe and productive workplace is provided for all employees. Such insight can prove invaluable to the savvy employer with a desire for and commitment to principled corporate governance. Outsourcing employee hotline services can provide the organization an added layer of benefit, potentially increasing the likelihood that employees will feel a greater sense of comfort and confidence in bringing their concerns forward. The organization can go a long way in engendering employee confidence by responding to reported matters in a timely and efficient manner according to existing company protocols. Premier hotline solutions greatly assist organizations in doing so.

If the hotline is properly communicated to employees, organizations have an opportunity to reinforce existing reporting channels as well as remind employees of key company policies governing workplace conduct and employee responsibilities. Providing employees another method of communication to the organization helps them recognize that the organization does care about them and their well-being in the workplace. The organization committed to resolving problems, especially those posing a safety risk to employees, will reap the benefits of a healthy workplace: increased job satisfaction among employees, increased physical and psychological health of employees, lower levels of stress in the workplace, decreased rates of on-the-job accidents, decreased tardiness and absenteeism, etc. (4) The lists of benefits goes on and on with the end result being the same: increased productivity and profitability for the organization, securing the organization for the long term.