pract 2(20)

You Decide!

What Is Wrong With This Facility?

The Chandler Office Building is a six-story, 40-year-old structure located in an urban area. It houses numerous business tenants, some of whom work late into the night. During the day, one security officer is posted at the front entrance and one is posted at the rear entrance. A card access system is available after hours for access. Parking is available on all four sides of the building. The architects who designed the building gave no thought to defensible space,

CPTED, rational choice theory, routine activity theory, and situational crime prevention. Low walls, berms, and valleys that accommodate a variety of overgrown shrubbery and trees surround the building. The outside lighting is poor and made worse by large trees that sur- round light fixtures; dark shadows are cast on walkways and parking lots. Motorists seeking to avoid a traffic light and intersection use the back parking lot as a shortcut.

As a security specialist, you are assigned the task of improving security at this office building following a robbery-murder that occurred in the late evening between the rear entrance and the nearby back parking lot. Furthermore, during the last 5 years, numerous larcenies occurred in the building and in the parking lots. What action do you take?

Research and Evaluation of Loss Prevention Programs

Evaluation is essential to help prove or disprove the success of security and loss pre- vention strategies and programs. Inquiring minds (e.g., senior executives) want to know about success. So how is evaluation accomplished? Several methods are available and each contains positive and negative characteristics. Adding to the challenge is the dif- ficulty of measuring the deterrence value of protection. For example, how many crimes were prevented when they did not occur?

If we look to metrics for evaluation, we see practitioners measuring what they are doing. This is important and useful; although bias is an issue. For instance, which metrics are included and which ones are excluded in an evaluation? An overemphasis on measuring pilferage at a manufacturing company may miss greater losses from fraud.

Surveys are another method of evaluation. Pertinent questions are as follows: Do employees feel safe on the premises? How can safety and security be improved? Survey must be prepared carefully to meet the tests of validity and reliability.

Various research designs are applicable to evaluate protection. The goal is to produce evidence-based research that is the best existing research answering whether a partic- ular strategy or program works. Practitioners then have an improved basis for allocating resources rather than guesstimating. At the same time, research faces methodological problems and bias. In addition, research and evaluation should be repeated to strengthen results and conclusions. A look at a few simplified research designs dem- onstrates how programs are determined to be successful or unsuccessful.

One design is the pretesteposttest design. A robbery prevention program can serve as an example. First, the robbery rate is measured (by compiling metrics) before the robbery prevention program is implemented. The program is then 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. Personnel are tested before the training program. The training program is implemented. After the program is completed, another similar test is given the personnel. The pretest scores are compared with 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, whereas 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, 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.

Good researchers are cautious when formulating conclusions and repeat their research. 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 publicity surrounding the crime prevention program. However, after the initial impact of the program and the novelty expired, of- fenders could possibly continue to commit crimes.

Scientific Method

To assist planning and research, the scientific method is applicable. As written earlier in this chapter, the four steps are 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 prob- lem. Several research designs are possible. The following list 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 applying video surveillance.

·  Testing: Control group (plant Adno video); experimental group (plant Bdvideo).

·  Conclusion: After several months of testing, plant A maintained previous levels of

employee theft, whereas plant B showed a drop in employee theft. Therefore, video may be an effective loss prevention strategy to reduce employee theft.

To strengthen research results, continued testing is necessary. In the example, video can be tested at other, similar locations. Furthermore, other strategies can be combined with video to see if the problem can be reduced even more.

Sources of Research Assistance

More research is needed to identify successful and unsuccessful loss prevention methods. Five potential sources of research assistance include in-house, associations, university, insurance companies, and private consulting firms.

In-house research may be the best because proprietary personnel are familiar with unique difficulties at hand, although internal bias can be an issue. Salary costs could be a problem, but a practitioner with a graduate degree and a background in research can be an asset to planning and programming.

Associations seek to advance the profession and are typically interested in research. ASIS International, for instance, maintains an active research agenda.

University researchers usually have excellent credentials. Many educators are required to serve the community and are eager to do research that can lead to publi- cation (i.e., publish or perish).

Insurance companies are active in studying threats, hazards, and risks. They also participate in research projects relevant to crime, fire, and safety. Two major functions of this industry are loss prevention and risk management.

Private consulting firms often have qualified personnel to conduct research and make recommendations to enhance protection. This source can be the most expensive. Careful consideration and a scrutiny of the staff are wise. The buyer should beware.

Security Management

Whether a proprietary (in-house) security organization or a contract security company, QM is essential to optimize resources to reach goals. The International Organization for Standardization offers the ISO 9001 standard for QM. It is flexible and applicable to any organization. QM principles include satisfying customer needs, facilitating quality leadership, involving all employees, and seeking improvement. ASIS International offers a variety of standards to enhance security organizations. These include manage- ment systems for quality private security companies and the selection of security personnel.

The terms and practical management tools described next characterize businesses and organizations of any type.