ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT SECURITY & LOSS PREVENTION

Chapter 3 - Foundations of Security and Loss Prevention

Security and Loss Prevention: An Introduction, 5th Edition

by Philip P. Purpura

Evaluation of Loss Prevention Programs

How can a loss prevention program be evaluated? First, a research design can assist in the evaluation. A

look at a few simplified research designs demonstrates how loss prevention programs are determined to

be successful or unsuccessful.

One design is the pretest-posttest design . A robbery prevention program can serve as an example. First,

the robbery rate is measured (by compiling statistics) before the robbery prevention program is

implemented. The program then is implemented and the rate measured again. Robbery rates before and

after program implementation are compared. If the robbery rate declined, then the robbery prevention

program may be the causative factor.

A loss prevention training program can serve as another example. Loss prevention personnel are tested

prior to the training program, and their test scores are saved. The training program is implemented. After

the program is completed, another similar test is given the personnel. The pretest scores are compared to

the posttest scores. Higher posttest scores may indicate that the training program was effective.

Another evaluation design or research method is called the experimental control group design . As an

example, a crime prevention program within a corporation is subject to evaluation. Within the corporation,

two plants that are characteristically similar are selected. One plant (the experimental plant) receives the

crime prevention program, while the other plant (the control plant) does not. Before the program is

implemented, the rate of crime at each plant is measured. After the program has been in effect for a

predetermined period of time, the rate of crime is again measured at each plant. If the crime rate has

declined at the "experimental" plant while remaining the same at the "control" plant, then the crime

prevention program may be successful.

A good researcher should be cautious when formulating conclusions. In the crime prevention program at

the plant, crime may have declined for reasons unknown to the researcher. For instance, offenders at the

experimental plant may have refrained from crime because of the publicity surrounding the crime

prevention program. However, after the initial impact of the program and the novelty expired, offenders

could possibly continue to commit crimes. In other words, the program may have been successful in the

beginning but soon became ineffective. Thus, continued evaluations are vital to strengthen research

results.

Scientific Method

To assist planning and research, the scientific method can be used. Four steps are involved: statement of

the problem, hypothesis, testing, and conclusion . As an example, employee theft will serve as the problem.

The hypothesis is a statement whereby the problem and a possible solution (i.e., loss prevention strategy)

are noted. Testing involves an attempt to learn whether the strategy reduces the problem. Several

research designs are possible. Here is an example of the presentation of the problem according to the

style of scientific methodology:

◾ Problem : Employee theft.

◾ Hypothesis : Employee theft can be reduced by using CCTV.

◾ Testing : Control group (plant A—no CCTV); experimental group (plant B—CCTV). ◾ Conclusion : After several months of testing, plant A maintained previous levels of employee

theft, whereas plant B showed a drop in employee theft. Therefore, CCTV may be an

effective loss prevention strategy to reduce employee theft.

To strengthen research results, continued testing is necessary. In the example, CCTV can be tested at

other, similar locations. Further, other strategies can be combined with CCTV to see if the problem can be

reduced to a greater extent.

Sources of Research Assistance

A need exists for more research to identify successful and unsuccessful loss prevention methods. Four

potential sources of research assistance are in-house, university, private consulting, and insurance

companies.

In-house research may be the best because proprietary personnel are familiar with the unique problems at

hand. Salary costs could be a problem, but a loss prevention practitioner with a graduate degree can be an

asset to loss prevention planning and programming. In-house research, however, can result in increased

bias by the researcher because superiors may expect results that conform to their points of view.

University researchers usually have excellent credentials. Many educators are required to serve the

community and are eager to do research that can lead to publication. The cost is minimal.

Private consulting firms often have qualified personnel to conduct research and make recommendations to

enhance protection. This source can be the most expensive because these firms are in business for profit.

Careful consideration and a scrutiny of the consulting staff are wise. The buyer should beware.

Insurance companies are active in studying threats, hazards, and risks. They also participate in varying

degrees in research projects relevant to crime, fire, and safety. A major function of this industry is risk

management, whereby strategies are recommended to reduce possible losses.

Performance Measures

Traditionally, public police performance has been measured by reported crime rates, overall arrests,

crimes cleared by arrest, and response time to incidents. These metrics have become institutionalized,

and substantial investments have been made to develop IT systems to capture such data. However,

this data may tell little about police effectiveness in reducing crime and the fear of crime ( U.S.

Department of Justice, 1993 : ix). Furthermore, do these measures reflect outmoded policing, and do

they fail to account for many important contributions police make to the quality of life, such as efforts at

community cohesion and crime prevention? Here is an example of performance measures for police

that have implications for security:

◾ Goal: Promoting secure communities.

◾ Methods and activities: Promoting crime prevention and problem-solving initiatives.

◾ Performance indicators: Programs and resources allocated to crime prevention, public

trust and confidence in police, and reduced public fear of crime ( DiIulio, 1993 : 113–135).

What lessons can security practitioners learn from research on performance measures in the public

sector? Do security programs contain traditional systems of measuring performance that reflect

outmoded security efforts, while failing to account for important contributions to protection and the

business enterprise?

Performance measures do exist in security programs today, but how can they be improved? To

improve security programs, research should be directed at enhancing traditional performance

measures and metrics that more accurately reflect customer satisfaction, security expenditures, and

return on investments. Use of content on this site is subject to the restrictions set forth in the Terms of Use .

respective copyright holder.

Feedback | Privacy and Cookie Policy | v.4.0.78.212