M
Malls and Shopping Centers
There is a symbiotic relationship between stores and shopping centers (malls) because one is dependent on the other. If either is considered unsafe or to present a security risk to patrons, there is a transfer of such concerns to their business partners. While malls and shopping centers have traditionally had at least minimal levels of uniformed security personnel, their function has been primarily pedestrian and vehicular traffic control and the prevention of juvenile vandalism and rowdiness. Historically, many malls and stores generally have “soft-pedaled” security in fear of their customers perceiving the environment as unfriendly and unsafe and avoiding shopping there.
Events subsequent to 9/11 have, however, prompted a reevaluation of mall security needs. As of this writing, two men have been charged in separate incidents (the latest in December 2006) with allegedly plotting to attack malls to disrupt shopping. Despite these indictments, and the fact that malls are considered “soft targets” by the Department of Homeland Security, few malls have undertaken any realistic actions to address the threat of a terrorist attack. True, some malls have increased the number of CCTV cameras and perhaps even increased uniformed security officer hours, but it is also fair to say these malls are the exception rather then the rule.
Beginning in 2007, however, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) in conjunction with the Homeland Security Policy Institute of George Washington University rolled out a program (at a cost of $2 million) providing a standardized antiterrorism training program for mall security officers. The program is reported to focus on awareness and effective response and uses a instructional DVD for the core of the training. The ICSC is funding the initial training, and private security companies providing mall security services have agreed to participate. The long-term viability of this program remains unknown.
This program is not without its critics, however. They claim that the retail industry and shopping malls are simply a small part of other public venues representing potential terrorist targets. It is also reported that mall security suffers from high turnover; most security officers allegedly leave their jobs within 1 year, and thus the effectiveness of antiterrorism training is questioned. Some authorities claim it is not feasible to teach mall guards the skills needed to identify potential terrorists and that, in reality, malls cannot prevent attacks but only respond to one. It is also alleged that mall security officers are poorly trained in terrorism awareness and ways to respond to any such attack. It is suggested that the best approach to dealing with potential terrorist threats at malls is for malls to develop well-thought-out emergency plans and train personnel to respond to any event effectively.
Irrespective of the security/loss prevention aspects of potential acts of terrorism, retailers have a distinct interest in the overall security of the malls and shopping centers in which they operate. More than likely, patrons of individual stores obtain their perception of their safety while shopping not from any individual store, but rather from the mall or shopping center. This is true because the mall generally has more visible security with the presence of uniformed security officers, whereas the stores’ security tends to be more invisible. Another factor that tends to translate the level of mall security to the mall’s tenants is the fact that incidents in the mall and its parking lot generally receive more publicity than incidents in individual stores within the mall. Consider also that the mall/shopping center has more exposure to untoward incidents when parking lots are taken into consideration.
Tenants’ association meetings are routinely held by mall/shopping center management. If the mall’s security is weak, it will eventually reflect on and affect the business of the tenants of that mall; it is, therefore, in the interest of the tenants, particularly the anchor stores, to assure that mall security is up to par.
And the tenants’ association is not the only vehicle for communication. Your authors have met on numerous occasions with mall management as well as the chief of a shopping center’s security department to discuss concerns, review incidents and problems, and coordinate efforts. One occasion comes to mind in which our employees in a major center were complaining about thefts from their vehicles and poor security in the lot. We met with the center’s management and security and learned our employees weren’t the only victims; other stores were experiencing similar problems. As a consequence, the mall erected a tower in the employees’ designated section of the lot and staffed it from time to time. There was a dramatic downturn in attacks in that area.
Manuals for Security/LP: Protection of Contents
In many situations, a company can be shown, via its manual, that it was reasonable in its loss prevention program and procedures, even if a particular agent may have veered off-course and broken the rules. It is generally agreed that this is a better position than having no rules at all, the absence of which tends to make the company appear more culpable, thus more vulnerable.
Care should be taken in the preparation of a loss prevention manual; the LP manual should be reviewed by counsel or other qualified persons to assure that no unethical or illegal methods of investigation are authorized or included. Should a company be sued over a security or loss prevention issue, the LP manual will certainly be sought, and usually successfully, by the plaintiff in discovery (the legal process whereby attorneys may obtain proprietary information, including documents, from their adversary).
One issue which frequently arises with respect to LP manuals is their proprietary nature and protection of their contents. As just noted, the LP manual is one of the first items sought by attorneys when they bring a suit against a retailer involving LP issues. Since manuals are discoverable, it behooves the retailer who wants to protect the information in the manual to insist upon confidentiality agreements and protective orders prior to releasing the manual.
In recent cases (2006), disgruntled ex-LP employees have published copies of their ex-company’s LP manual on the Web; obviously, this was an unauthorized publication. We have heard of other cases in which persons who received copies of manuals legally but inadvertently have threatened to expose them to widespread publicity. Protecting the confidentiality of LP manuals is, we feel, important.
To accomplish this protection, we suggest that some, or all, of the following steps be taken:
1. Label every page “Company Confidential and Restricted Dissemination.” If appropriate, also label each page “Duplication Prohibited.”
2. Number each copy of the document (e.g., Copy #10 of 50) and document the recipient of each copy.
3. Conduct periodic audits to assure each copy is where it is supposed to be.
4. Prohibit duplication of these documents. If duplication is necessary, treat every duplicated copy identical to original documents.
5. If the content is reduced to electronic form, require password access, and if on disc, make the disc password-protected and subject to the same accountability as a restricted paper document.
6. Have all LP agents and all other recipients sign “nondisclosure” agreements; renew such signing every year.
7. Use copyright procedures if applicable.
8. Take aggressive action if any of the preceding rules are violated, including termination of offending employees and criminal/civil prosecution if available.
Finally, with respect to manuals, we strongly urge that manual pages be dated and/or that revisions be noted as “Rev. Mo/Yr” so that when changes are made, there is a time reference as to the date of the change.
The nondisclosure agreement signed by LP agents could, at the company’s discretion, also include LP reports, videos, budgetary matters, etc.
Membership Stores
Membership stores are subject to much the same loss prevention problems as nonmembership stores but do have some advantages when it comes to controlling external theft.
To begin with, membership stores are just that: one must be a member to gain entrance. This requirement is waived by federal regulations to customers desiring to obtain medical prescriptions and also waived by many state laws for the purchase of alcohol. Membership card requirements at time of purchase prevent abuse of these waivers.
Based on the fact that membership requires a payment up front (usually $100 or less, depending on the level of membership), the store has some degree of control over who is permitted membership benefits. Members are also issued photo ID membership cards, which provide additional proof of identity.
Additionally, the membership agreement normally provides an agreement between the customer and the store which, in part, requires the customer to agree to merchandise checks, which compare goods being taken out against receipts, when exiting the store. This procedure, which cannot help but deter some shoplifting, does not, however, totally prevent all thefts. Indeed, we’ve assisted in some shoplifting arrest matters which found their way to litigation.
The store may revoke membership of any member apprehended shoplifting.
Merchandise Inventory
| Prior Book Value | $ 50,000 |
| Plus: Purchases | 50,000 |
| Mark-ups | -0- |
| Returns from customers | -0- |
| _____ | |
| Book Value of Merchandise | $100,000 |
| Minus: Sales | $ 50,000 |
| Markdowns | -0- |
| RTVs | 1,000 |
| _____ | |
| Present Book Value | $ 49,000 |
| PHYSICAL COUNT | $ 48,000 |
| SHORTAGE | 1,000 * |
| * | As % of a sales: 2% |
| National Average Shortage for Retail (1) | |
| As % of: | Retail Sales |
| 2005 | 1.59 |
| 2004 | 1.54 |
| 2003 | 1.65 |
| 2002 | 1.70 |
| 2001 | 1.80 |
| 2000 | 1.69 |
(1) Hollinger, R. C. (2005). 2005 National Retail Security Survey, Final Report. University of Florida.
Miranda Rights
In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by Phoenix police for the theft of $8. He was questioned for two hours, without the benefit of an attorney by his side. During that interrogative period, he admitted not only to the $8 theft, but also to the kidnap and rape of an 18-year-old girl a few days earlier. On the strength of that confession, Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.
His attorney’s appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the trial court’s conviction.
His attorneys then took the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. That court, on June 13, 1966, reversed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in deciding the now famous case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which established the “Miranda” rights of persons accused of crimes.
Those “Miranda” rights are best reflected in the common warning required of the police (or any law enforcement or investigative local, state, or federal agency) as follows:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
The basic premise upon which this decision and subsequent requirement is made is that an individual is prone to intimidation by the weight of the sovereignty of government, and every person who becomes suspect must not and cannot be forced by any governmental agency into making incriminating statements against himself or herself without the benefit of counsel of an attorney.
Private persons, such as retail loss prevention agents, bank security investigators, utility company security agents, etc., who are employed by private sector businesses and enterprises don’t represent the sovereignty of the state. They represent the interests of their employer, private companies or corporations, and hence, unless specifically working with the police (or allied agency), are immune from the requirement to “Mirandize” or provide a suspect with his or her “Miranda” rights.
Indeed, we caution all those in the private sector against “Mirandizing.” Some have adopted the policy to Mirandize, which could only lead to the setting of an unwanted and unneeded restriction on our rights to protect such private enterprises. While we are comfortable in stating private security personnel need not Mirandize persons arrested by them, we suggest that local policies be checked, since we have heard of isolated cases in which local courts require that “Miranda” rights be given by private personnel.
Mission Statement
What function or role does the loss prevention department play in a retail company? What is its purpose and function? These questions are best answered by a “mission statement.”
Every security and loss prevention department must have (or should have) a mission statement. The mission statement is a proclamation of the department’s role in the greater organization, and its direction and purpose. Every loss prevention employee should know and understand that statement.
A mission statement could read as follows:
The objective of the department is to professionally engage in the prevention of criminal attacks against the company’s employees, customers, vendors, and other invitees, as well as prevent criminal attacks against the company’s assets, merchandise, proprietary information and to protect the company’s reputation and customer goodwill.
Here’s another example of a mission statement:
The Loss Prevention Department mission is to
Develop and implement policies, programs, and procedures which
1. Prevent loss of company assets due to dishonesty and procedural error;
2. Investigate when preventative measures fail or are circumvented;
3. Detect dishonesty and procedural error through inspection or investigation;
4. Protect all associates, customers, invitees, and facilities from intentional harm or wrongdoing;
5. Preserve the good will and reputation of the organization.
An actual mission statement used by one company is reproduced here:
Security Department Function
The primary function of the (Name of Store) Security Department is to protect the company’s assets. The assets include personnel, merchandise, money, property, proprietary information, and reputation.
The goal of the Security Department is to create a “shortage Awareness and Loss Prevention atmosphere” among both our employees and customers. Our efforts must create an atmosphere which will establish a pleasant shopping environment, while protecting the assets of the company.
Inherent in this philosophy is the selection, training and retention of a highly skilled and professional security staff. Establishing the Loss Prevention atmosphere, as well as detecting and apprehending those who commit offenses and violate policies, is essential to our success. We must strive to remain an integral part of the company through daily liaison with departments such as merchandising, Operations, Human Relations and all other areas of the company.
These contacts must be tailored toward promoting the success of the company’s business efforts, while maximizing the security and loss prevention efforts that are essential to that success.
Security personnel must deal with all individuals they come into contact with in a fair, courteous, and impartial manner.
We must demonstrate competence, integrity and professionalism in all of our actions. The Security Department should take pride in their role within the company, and complete their responsibilities in a manner that affirms our role as an integral part of (Name of store).
Note the reference to protecting people as well as objects in both examples. The question arises: Is there a duty to protect people who work or visit your property? The answer lies in another question: If you have the resources and commitment to protect goods and material assets, should you not have the same reasonable protective responsibility for people? The answer, in the affirmative, is clear.