EVIDENCE-BASED LP

Safe, Easy, Fun

Retailers today are battling online selling for their lives, and so in my opinion three variables are critical. Brick-and-mortar shopping needs to be safe, easy, and fun for customers. If not, then everyone can just buy most things online.

Loss prevention organizations can affect the first two factors. Sound crime and loss control means using problem-solving processes to evaluate and cost-effectively control the causes of “fear of crime” by customers, such as potential violent crime in the parking lot and stores, while deploying better open-selling of key merchandise and mobile POS tools means shoppers can try and buy hassle-free.

Problem-Oriented Policing

To some, everything’s a problem; to others, an opportunity. Regardless of our orientation, LP practitioners exist to support their company’s objectives and operations by preventing and solving its crime and loss issues. Being a skilled problem-solver is a major part of what we do.

Law enforcement, like medicine, has identified evidence-based practice as their future since multiple research projects revealed random patrol and after-the-fact crime investigations were not making their geographic areas safer.

Far-sighted law enforcement practitioners and researchers began to look for a process to increase their crime-control effectiveness. They found it in three similar processes entitled community policing (CP), intelligence-led policing (ILP), and problem-oriented policing (POP). These processes work to focus police action to reduce crime events.

Community policing primarily creates partnerships with other governmental entities and faith-based and other citizen groups to use problem-solving techniques to proactively address conditions that can breed public-safety issues like crime.

Intelligence-led policing can be defined as a strategic, targeted approach to crime control, focusing on identification, analysis, and management of persisting and developing problems or social and environmental risks that enable problems.

Finally, problem-oriented policing identifies and analyzes specific crime and disorder problems to develop effective response strategies in conjunction with ongoing assessment. At the LPRC and University of Florida, we primarily refer to this third process, but regardless, all these policing programs use a simple, but thorough problem-solving process to increase police impact—the SARA model.

SARA is a very problem-specific process, so every problem that is identified should get special, specific attention to discover the best possible solution to the problem in question. By using the SARA model, LP teams will be able to accurately and costeffectively identify and control crime, loss, and safety issues.

by Read Hayes, Ph.D., CPP

Dr. Hayes is director of the Loss Prevention Research Council and coordinator of the Loss Prevention Research Team at the University of Florida. He can be reached at 321-303-6193 or via email at rhayes@lpresearch.org. © 2012 Loss Prevention Research Council

The SARA Model

Like law enforcement, LP practitioners and their solutions partners typically use systematic problem-solving tools to better understand problems in order to carefully design retailer-friendly, cost-effective solutions. At the LPRC, we use the SARA model to address all projects retailers and others bring to us.

The SARA model can assist in the decision-making process, for a wide variety of issues from medical diagnosis to car repair. SARA is an acronym that stands for scan, analyze, respond, and assess. SARA is a very problem-specific process, so every problem that is identified should get special, specific attention to discover the best possible solution to the problem in question. By using the SARA model, LP teams will be able to accurately and cost-effectively identify and control crime, loss, and safety issues. (Thanks to my former student Justin Gorrell’s support on this SARA description.)

The SARA Process

Scan. Scanning is arguably the easiest step in the SARA process. Think of this step as radar—simply identify and

describe a current or upcoming problem. Data can come from personal observations, employee reports, unit-and-dollar loss data, CCTV footage, incident reports, and a myriad of other sources. In the same sense that a doctor would ask “Where does it hurt?,” this is the first step towards developing a solution.

Other questions and statements that may be considered in the scanning step are: ■ Identifying recurring problems, ■ Identifying the consequences of the problem, ■ Prioritizing those problems and developing broad goals, ■ Confirming that the problems exist, ■ Identifying real-time indicators that a crime or crimes has been committed, ■ Determining the frequency and duration of the problem, and ■ Determining how widespread or clustered the problem is.

Analyze. Having identified characteristics of the problem, it is pertinent that more background information is compiled to identify primary, actionable causes. Being as specific as possible, the analyze step should answer the following questions: [NOTE: To create a SARA worksheet, add multiple blank lines after each question where you can place your answers.] 1. Identify the events and conditions that precede, accompany, and result from the problem. 2. Identify relevant data to be collected, such as sales reports, employee statements, etc. 3. Research what is known about the problem type or identify sources of information for use later. 4. How is the problem currently being addressed? How do others respond to similar problems? Identify strengths and limitations of the current response. 5. Develop a working hypothesis about why and specifically how the problem is occurring.

Respond. Within loss prevention there are several tools available to combat problems. Call this your “tool box” of technologies or techniques that can be used to counteract the problem identified in the scanning phase. By using the SARA process, LP teams will have research to justify the cost of new or upgraded solutions and procedures. This targeted implementation will likely show a greater return on investment as opposed to the traditional method of throwing every tool at numerous problems. In the respond stage, it is important to identify and answer the following questions: 1. Brainstorm new interventions or possible upgrades to current interventions that address each specific cause of the problem; that is make the problem harder, riskier, or less rewarding for offenders. 2. Outline a response plan and identify responsible parties. 3. State the specific objectives for the response plan. 4. Put the plan in action.

All of the work and research thus far has led to this point, but the work is still not over. There is still one more part to the SARA process.

Assessment. This is the section of SARA that makes this process so unique. As opposed to implementing new solutions and looking to tackle the next problem, the SARA process also provides for follow-up. This section of the SARA process asks the question, “Did the plan that was developed help solve the problem?” A few questions or tests may include: 1. Conduct a process evaluation. Was the plan implemented?

Was it done so in accordance with the outline produced in the respond phase? 2. Collect pre- and post-response qualitative and quantitative data. Did crime or loss levels come down in test locations compared to non-test (control) locations? How do the employees and customers feel about the implementations? 3. Were the broad goals stated earlier and the specific objectives outlined attained? Why or why not?

After reviewing the answers above, identify any new strategies needed to augment the original plan. This is a good time to also refer back to any research conducted in the analyze phase to compare and contrast the findings.

Lastly, conduct ongoing assessments to ensure continued effectiveness in order to stay at least one step ahead of the next problem. The SARA process is versatile enough to be used again on the same problem. However, the earlier stages will now include information and solutions that were identified in this SARA problem-solving form.

Next steps. Regardless of the problem, we should use our problem-solving template to make sure we accurately diagnose, more effectively treat, and then measure and adjust for the future. This consistent process means more precision and a safer and more profitable environment.

LPRC Impact Conference and Action Teams

Over 120 leading LP and vendor executives participated in three days of new LP research briefings, panel discussions, and breakout action sessions on the University of Florida campus October 15 – 17. Thanks to all of our conference sponsors, participants, and planners who worked hard to pull off a successful conference. If you missed this event, please stay tuned as we announce next year’s date and location.

Several new action teams have been designed so LP executives along with solutions and manufacturing partners can direct actionable research in their most critical needs.

The Sporting Goods Action Team has added Walmart, Cabela’s, and Dick’s Sporting Goods, along with the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) for independent gun shop owners.

The Apparel/Footwear Action Team has Marmaxx and dressbarn, which is part of Ascena Retail Group that includes maurices, Justice, Lane Bryant, and Catherines brands. This team is recruiting new members.

The Department/Mass Merchandisers Action Team has formed with Sears Holdings, jcpenney, Bloomingdales, and Marmaxx. This team is also recruiting other retailers and has identified the first project focusing on employee communication and motivation, with digital selling protection next.

The Food/Drug Action Team is just starting to form with CVS/pharmacy, Walgreens, Rite Aid, SUPERVALU, Publix, Wegmans, Kroger, Kmart, and Walmart with more to come.

Other action teams are also forming. If you are interested in participating in these or other research teams, please contact me at the phone number or email address on page 50.