Safety

A review of one recent mass shooting incident suggested some valuable questions that a retailer can ask to identify potential flaws in its procedures for handling potentially dangerous store associates.

Leveraging the Loss Prevention Research Council's (LPRC's) five zones of influence framework, many retailers implement solutions at each layer of the zones to reduce opportunities or incentives for violence.

There have always been arguments for and against each type of security staffing strategy, explains Breck Ellison [shown], COO of Gallaher and Associates , a Tennessee security and safety company.

According to a survey by SDR/LPM, loss prevention executives are more likely than security counterparts in other industries to believe that a pilot study or field test is an effective way to show senior management that a project is a good idea.

With no routine to follow, special event security is chaotic by definition, and may demand protection personnel to pull together a team and a plan with little notice.

Loss prevention executives have a responsibility to stay plugged into the threat-communication network, such as through a local joint terrorism task force and via contact with industry counterparts and law enforcement.

Since there is no standardized and accepted security level testing in North America, it is difficult for a loss prevention professional to verify and understand which physical security barrier products are best for their retail locations.

A fortunate trend stemming from unfortunate roots is a movement for companies to get ahead of the curve of active threat response.

Interventions must be highly visible if they are to play a role in amplifying risk. There is no point in hiding it away or making it less than obvious to the would-be thief.

One idea to limit lawsuits: Conduct periodic surprise store audits to ensure compliance, identify gaps in training, and weed out problem employees.