Author: Maurice kinloch

The-cost-of-retail-theft-in-Harlem-PDF

Harlem-Step-three-PDF

Annotated bibliography

Blankenburg, E. (1976). The selectivity of legal sanctions: an empirical investigation of shoplifting. Law & Society Review, 11(1), 109–130. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.2307/3053206

This study aimed to gather statistical data on who retail stores decide to sanction for the crime of shoplifting. Their methodology consisted of two parts, the first was self reporting interviews. The second method had the researchers themselves shoplifting from several store. They would ask permission from upper management to take part in the study, but none of the store staff was informed about the study. The goal was to see how many times the researchers were sanctioned if witnessed shoplifting by both the staff and customers. At the end of their study the researchers found that not all shoplifting is witnessed and or reported and that when store staff do decide to sanction shoplifters, foreigners (non Germans), adults, and blue collar workers are usually the type of people they decide to go after. Based on their study these groups of people are disproportionately represented among the population that are actually shoplifting.

Finklea, K. M. (2012). Organized retail crime. Journal of Current Issues in Crime, Law & Law Enforcement, 5(3), 163–187.

This article discuses retail theft on a much larger scale, otherwise known as “Organized Retail Crime” or ORC. The journal discuses both the organized groups that steal merchandise known as “boosters” and the groups who they offload the stolen goods to known as “fences”. Also discussed are the types of methods that both boosters and fences use to both steal and offload merchandise. And lastly, the article discusses the impact of organized retail crime and the governments efforts to combat ORC groups. 

Hartmann, D. P., Gelfand, D. M., Page, B., & Walder, P. (1972). Rates of bystander observation and reporting of contrived shoplifting incidents. Criminology, 10(3), 247–267. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1972.tb00561.x

The study here aimed to answer the question of what would it take for bystander customers who witnessed shoplifting to report it. The method that the researchers used were to have a subject act as a shoplifter while the researchers observed a customers reaction who witnessed the shoplifting. The researchers then reviewed the witness either personally after they had just left the store or over the phone. The interviewed questions pertained to the subjects awareness of the shoplifting, their decision to report (or not) the shoplifting and their attitude towards shoplifting. The subject was also asked what factors would get them to report shoplifting to store staff.

Johns, T., Hayes, R., Scicchitano, M., & Grottini, K. (2017). Testing the effectiveness of two retail theft control approaches: an experimental research design. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(2), 267–273. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1007/s11292-017-9284-4

In this article researchers attempted to test the deterring effect of shoplifting using two different methods. The first method was a a display fixture the housed the products (shaving products), the second method is called an “enhanced in-aisle public view monitor” or “eVPM”. The display fixture method attempts to deter shoplifting by needing to use two hands to retrieve the products on display which makes it difficult to grab multiple items at once. It also sounds a chime when opened which alerts nearby store associates that the case is being opened. The “eVPM” method looks to deter shoplifters by having a display screen 5 feet away from the products which is motion activated and will display an image of the customer on screen with the message “recording in progress” flashing across the screen. Forty-two stores were monitored for testing (randomly assigned), 14 with display fixtures, 14 using the “eVPM” method, and the remaining 14 were used as a control group. The experiment resulted in the display fixtures being the most effective in reducing shrink, while the “eVPM” method didn’t show any significant effect against shoplifting. The control group results remained unchanged from the pretest period to the posttest period.




Nelson, D., & Perrone, S. (2000). Understanding and controlling retail theft. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice, 152, 1–6.

This study is pretty much an overview of retail theft as a whole and different methods that are used to deter theft. Some topics discussed are the percentage loss in sales that some retailers experience from shoplifter, for example retailers experience 2-3% loss in sales from shoplifting which translates to up to 25% percent of losses in profit. The study also explains that only a small amount of shoplifting is detected or reported. Major reasons for this is that retail managers were more concerned with recovering merchandise or that little to no action would be taken by authorities if they turned over apprehended shoplifters to police. Topics discussed in the study are methods used by thieves, like “tag switching” and “refund fraud”. Another important piece of this study talks about what a “typical thief” looks like and how thieves might not always fit the description that people have in their minds.

Does the decline in “mom and pop” stores and the arrival of larger corporate retailers have an effect on the rate of theft in Harlem?

With “mom and pop” locations usually being a product of members of the community and big box retailers being looked at as more of a faceless corporate entity I want to explore the idea of the arrival of these corporations having an effect on the theft rate in Harlem. My initial theory on the matter is that with the “hands off” approach that many of these big box stores have when it comes to theft that they become a more desirable target to thieves.