Are We Crying Wolf?

By Gabriel Levit, CFI
Loss Prevention Consultant
Loss Prevention Plus LLC

Whenever we visit conferences or participate in meetings highlighting Organized Retail Crime we are often painted an image of a massive theft epidemic that is led by highly sophisticated criminal entities, which are commonly referred to as "ORC Rings". These groups are linked to cargo theft, identity fraud, counterfeit goods, transient boosters, terrorism, and.... the homeless?

As I read news articles and various incident reports I am often surprised by how many of them bare titles such as "ORC Ring Taken Down By <insert retailer or law enforcement agency>". Scrolling through these would suggest absolute chaos in the world of retail theft. However upon reading the articles further, they tend to somewhat disappoint as they describe teenagers, drug addicts, and homeless people being apprehended with a couple hundred dollars worth of stolen merchandise. Why then, are they being placed into the same category as those who easily steal tens of thousands of dollars in just one swift event? A partial answer to this sits with the commonly accepted criteria for the ORC definition, which in part calls for the inclusion of those who might profit from the theft. This of course is somewhat ambiguous as there can be a wide application to the word "profit". It seems to technically include drug addicts looking for a quick fix or homeless people simply stealing to survive. These are far from organized, sophisticated, or profitable but they are definitely habitual offenders.

If indeed we commit to the profitability factor, every shoplifting incident could be seen as ORC related. For example, a customer takes a $19.99 shirt without payment. Do they not immediately profit by having this shirt for free? An additional identifying feature suggests the same party hitting multiple stores and/or multiple times. Although this is sensible for multi-state transient groups, news articles often inaccurately apply this to the local kleptomaniacs or habitual offenders who hit multiple locations in town on a weekly basis. Another criterion often referred to within the ORC definition is the theft of multiple items. Although boosters will absolutely fit this standard we must also consider that so will most shoplifters. With the exception of thefts involving large electronics, how many shoplifters are apprehended with one item? Many Loss Prevention departments will not even initiate a stop based on one item as the associated risk is far greater than the potential ROI.

Placing habitual offenders under the ORC umbrella is no different than categorizing a local drug dealer as a cartel lord or a smash and grab as a "heist". Nonetheless, they both pose significant risk but in different ways. A "true" ORC group will cause an immediate and substantial loss of product while habitual offenders bring forth safety issues as the subjects tend to be more desperate and aggressive in their methods. Both must be handled and deflected out of the business but this must be done by first separating one from the other. Many of us already see the clear border between the two but unfortunately in our attempts to force visibility on the ORC topic we have also over stimulated many retailers, journalists, and even law enforcement to essentially cry wolf at every situation that remotely fits the mold. In doing, not only are we misrepresenting the issue, but we are also risking its serious perception to be significantly watered down as it is polluted by countless reports that focus on a gross misconception of the problem.