Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribe
Share This!We’re always game to try holiday-themed snacks, so we were happy to pick up the Graveyard Worms ‘n’ Dirt on Sunset Boulevard at Disney’s Hollywood Studios. Priced at $4.99, or a Disney Dining Plan snack credit, this dessert includes a layer of chocolate pudding, a layer of cookies and cream mousse, a layer of crushed cookies (the “dirt”), boba pearls, and a gummy worm. The signage shows this with a white chocolate Mickey “tombstone,” but when we bought it they were out of the them. Though part of the dish was missing, there was no reduction in price.We found the cookie layer to be wetter than we wanted. There should be a textural contrast with the pudding, but because it had been pre-assembled and refrigerated, it was more pasty than crumbly. Otherwise this tasted about as you would expect it to. However, were confused about what the boba was supposed to represent (rocks?) other than that Disney now requires 23.57% of all dessert items to include boba pearls. This version is not any more special than what you’d find at your average eight-year-old’s October birthday party. Photos: Christina Harrison
25 November 2010 India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) have joined forces to help boost job creation worldwide, launching a South-South cooperation programme at the International Labour Organisation in Geneva to help the global economy rebound after the recession. The programme aims to promote a job-intensive recovery from the global economic downturn, create a framework for sustainable growth and support for the International Labour Organisation’s Global Jobs Pact. “It reflects the view of the IBSA governments that through a spirit of solidarity and non-conditionality, developing countries can provide sustainable solutions to their own problems, can change people’s lives and make a positive impact,” the Department of International Relations and Cooperation said on Wednesday. “The purpose … is to promote national ownership of the project, strengthen local capacity, and ensure sustainable development.” Earlier this year, the United Nations honoured IBSA for their efforts in the fight against poverty using innovative approaches to share, replicate and scale up successful development paradigms. Each IBSA country contributes US$1-million annually to a fund which is managed by the UN Development Programme Special Unit for South-South Cooperation. Projects are executed by various UN agencies and partners across the globe, with a strong emphasis on national ownership. These projects focus on the sharing of best practices and proven experiences, and include initiatives as diverse as improving agricultural techniques in remote villages, reducing urban violence in slums, and delivering safe drinking water. Current IBSA initiatives include projects in Haiti, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Burundi, Palestine, Cambodia and Lao PDR. IBSA is a trilateral developmental initiative between the three countries aimed at promoting South-South cooperation and exchange. The group, which was established in 2003 to boost South-South ties, has a combined population of about 1.4-billion people and total gross domestic product of over US$3.2-trillion. Source: BuaNews
Retail stores often seem to take the brunt of whatever malady that occurs—storms, flooding, hacking, and, of course, civil disobedience. Media headlines, communities, police, and retailers continue to deal with fallout from police officers’ physically dealing with individuals who they believe are resisting their enforcement efforts. No matter where any particular American stands on what, why, and how specific incidents occurred or should have transpired, it seems the topic of protective process and decision-making is always very relevant to loss prevention.This column should not be considered definitive or comprehensive. How individuals, communities, and organizations should best protect lives, property, and reputation is rapidly evolving and absolutely requires much more research. But this writing is simply designed to provide discussion material to loss prevention decision makers continually developing their programs.Decisions and ChoicesFirst off, it seems some lawyers, media members, and others insist on defining crime and crime response discussion points and choices in isolation, when scientists and LP practitioners alike realize context is also critical. The notion that events are simplistic or isolated is generally not the case. People and places influence behavior. Actions and reactions flow and trigger each other.- Sponsor – And it is in this complex context that organizational executives must make decisions on how to protect their people and other assets. It is also in this context that offenders make their proactive and reactive decisions as well. These dynamics interact and drive each other over time. They are not mutually exclusive.LP FocusThis specific discussion deals more with organizational and individual employee decisions than with offender decisions, but both are interdependent. In actuality, it is offenders themselves who decide to become offenders and, then, to actually offend. Genetics, childhood experiences, peer interactions, current financial and relational circumstances, mood, intoxicants, proximate environment, and situational crime opportunities come together in place and time to create a particular type of behavior.But regardless of how much each of these factors shape an individual and, in part, their behavior, it is the offenders themselves who personally decide to commit a crime, to actually initiate that crime, to continue a crime attempt despite anti-crime hurdles, and, if relevant, to resist efforts to detain them for their crime.As this column has previously stated, asset protection is mostly about reducing crime and loss by attempting to cost-effectively shape the vulnerabilities and capabilities of the retail environment, as well as influencing crime and other poor decisions on their properties. Other than with employees, retailers generally can’t select visitors to their locations, so they must do the best they can to persuade people to behave themselves on property.Tough ChoicesRetail organizations face difficult asset protection choices. Ignoring or ineffectively addressing ongoing crime and loss exposure and problems can result in death and injury, crippling losses, and financially destructive avoidance behavior by shoppers. On the other hand, taking preventive and responsive LP action creates responses like any intervention does and can result in damaging liability claims, detrimental media coverage, harmful social dialogue and actions, and other damaging business effects.These tough choices mean retailers must do the best they can with limited available scientific evidence to carefully design their protective response to inevitable crime. Retailers continue to shape what they do to prevent crime and loss, and how they respond to crime and loss events; learning from research, testing, and others.Most retailers strive to implement a focused protection process. This process can differ greatly since retailers sell so many different types of merchandise in so many different store sizes and shapes, and in so many different parts of the country. Regardless, most LP programs aim to help their businesses thrive by deterring, detecting, responding, and documenting problematic people and incidents. They should also continuously analyze impact and cost-benefit while improving their LP people, programs, and systems.Protect Or Not ProtectRetailers respond to the constant and evolving crime threat, but should part of that response include detaining offenders? Each retailer decides the answer to this question based on their own analyses. The previously mentioned tough choices dilemma means this decision is carefully weighed. One argument for many retailers continuing to apprehend offenders is the “DODO concept.” The non-technical DODO term simply stands for “dumb or determined offenders.” In other words no matter how much a retailer does to deploy anti-theft people, processes, and technologies, many offenders don’t notice or care about them, so harmful losses and other problems continue and often at an unacceptable rate.This reality leads many retailers to decide to apprehend theft offenders in order to continue to operate. Communities have the same issue since their family support and crime prevention activities only reduce crime, they don’t eliminate it. Chronic and high-impact criminals and “criminogenic” places are targeted for special enforcement activities to reduce more serious offending and consequences and to allow honest, productive people to live in safer communities.There is no broadly accepted “model” offender-handling process, but most contain some version of the following topics:Detection of probable offenders or actual theft attempts,How to observe and confirm a theft,Criteria needed to decide whether to break off an observation or engage a shoplifter,Handling the actual detention,How to handle offender resistance,How to properly document the crime, andHow to criminally and civilly process offenders.BDP ConceptThe National Retail Federation team recognized the need for retailers to conduct meaningful discussion and research around better ways to identify and deal with theft offenders, particularly in light of profiling concerns, and commissioned a special general session on the topic at their 2014 loss prevention conference. It was as part of preparing for this session that I tried to develop a quick and easy term to help guide the first part of the theft offender handling process—actual detection and prioritization.Real-world theft detections and apprehensions can unfold very quickly and are fluid and often unpredictable. And, of course, they’re sometimes dangerous. Regardless of this complexity, LP operatives should always strive to act professionally, objectively, and without malice or prejudice. Be smart, be in charge, and lead by example no matter how stressful the situation. So the proposed term “BDP” is designed to be easy to recall, simple to follow, and help reduce unhealthy bias or inappropriate detentions.BD means behavioral detection since we primarily use observed behaviors as cues to decide who to initially pay more attention to, while the P means prioritization, since the protocol helps decide who to continue watching, especially if there are multiple people exhibiting interesting in-store cues. Following are some BDP specifics discussed in an earlier LP Magazine issue for more detail.Store employees are constantly picking up cues from shoppers and looking for patterns that might mean a theft is underway. The important thing to remember, however, is there should be a logical, non-biased suspect pick-up and observation process. And we believe that process means this:We should only respond to logical cues (discussed more below).Cues shouldn’t occur solo, but rather appear in clusters.Cue clusters should occur in proper context.In other words, stealers versus non-stealers can in part be identified by clusters of cues taken in context. No single behavior such as repeatedly “looking around” signals theft every time. Someone could be looking for a friend or restroom. But a group of behavioral and enabling cues like (1) frequent looking around, (2) standing at an extreme angle and (3) very close to a fixture (4) filled with small, high-loss items (5) with their hands down, (6) while holding a shopping or other bag in hand should prompt an employee to more closely watch that individual.We’re looking at further categorizing cues into behavioral actions and reactions, and non-behavioral enablers or tools as part of the logical offender actions and needs for successful theft.Theft actions include head and hand positions, in-store travel speed and direction, distance and angles to displays, signaling to others, diversion actions and tests (to put us off or to see if we’re watching).Theft stress reactions include flushing, yawning, stretching, and grooming or other nervous gestures.Theft enabling cues include carrying bags or other conveyances, athletic footwear for rapid escape, theft tools like cable or package cutters, special lined bags to defeat EAS systems, and false receipts.As mentioned, these cues should appear in clusters, and the context of the situation should add power to the overall prediction.Detention and ResistanceNext comes another difficult decision sequence. If a trained employee uses their BDP protocol, observes a theft, and decides to engage and detain a suspected thief, they are expected to try and follow their employer’s apprehension guidelines to minimize chances of problems. Detentions can suddenly become violent at any point during the process, sometimes making strict procedural compliance difficult. Regardless, thorough and repeated training and testing on properly handling the variety of more common shoplifter detention reactions help store-level people become more proficient and ultimately support the LP mission while minimizing negative outcomes. Safety of store employees, bystanders, and offenders is the priority.Retailers often seek experienced, thoughtful trainers to provide initial and periodic training. Like anything we need to get right and stay effective on, detecting, observing, and apprehending offenders should be constantly rehearsed with multiple scenarios. Get good, and stay good. Always be ready and able.Loss prevention like law enforcement is tough, real, and important. Logical and, whenever possible, evidence-based protective programs help protect assets and people from harm and make shopping and working at a given store safe and fun. Stay UpdatedGet critical information for loss prevention professionals, security and retail management delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now
Stay focused; we hear that a lot. But what should those charged with protecting people and places really fixate on? Criminologist Jerry Ratcliffe stresses law enforcement teams should use the acronym HIPE to provide their operational frameworks and actions necessary guidance and focus. HIPE stands for harm-focused, intelligence-led, problem-oriented, and evidence-based policing. Retailers might also look at this concept in developing prioritized protective strategies.Harm-focused. Data support that HIPE components can provide more precision and impact. So let’s first explore harm-focused. To support an enterprise’s success, asset protection leaders strive to focus their teams on key company process points and success metrics they’re uniquely suited to affect. At the Loss Prevention Research Council (LPRC) and the University of Florida, our teams concentrate research and development on on-shelf availability, quick but secure checkout, and making place-users and their personal information safer and more secure.In other words, leaders should design ways to measure and prioritize actions on processes, places, and people that create the most loss, theft, fraud, and fear of crime harm. The more a loss or crime issue is impacting a key process, the more life-safety risk, the greater a problem’s financial effects, the more harm, and the great the priority it’s given. Some loss events might be more frequent, but actual harm to people and business success drives the fight.- Sponsor – Intelligence-led. A powerful adjunct to focusing on a business’s priority problems is using organizational loss and crime event, risk rating, and other data with prolific offender intelligence to tightly focus efforts on the hottest assets, offenders, and places.Problem-oriented. Many will recall our team repeatedly uses the SARA problem-solving method to focus our research efforts and always recommends retailers adopt the simple process to provide a consistent, across-chain protocol. SARA means better problem understanding, leading to more precise solution-set options, and a deployment and outcomes assessment.Problem-solving then includes these important components:Scanning to identify and prioritize recurring problemsAnalyzing problems using a variety of data sources and perspectivesResponding with focused strategies designed and implemented based on your problem analysisAssessing how the treatments were actually deployed and their real-world effects on the identified and defined problem.Evidence-based. The reason the LPRC community includes seventy major retail chains is they’re working together with each other, solution partners, and scientists to gather problem and solution evidence to up their game and results. Research-derived evidence can be used to develop a better understanding of an issue by describing the nature, extent, and possible causes of a problem, or looking at how a change was implemented. It can also be used to assess the effect of a protective intervention by testing the impact of a new initiative in a specific context with pre and post looks, against some control, or exploring the possible consequences of a change in process.Featured Research on Self-CheckoutWe’re all working to convince people not to initiate theft, fraud, or violence. It is easier said than done, but LP exists to enable the retail enterprise in the face of a lot of bad actors. To this end, our almost 300 research projects to date are designed to help us understand what’s behind bad behavior and how we might influence those headed our way.Self-serve checkout is here and most likely will remain for a long time to come. This is one of several current or recent projects to help us learn, improve, and adapt to evolving businesses and people. In this study the LPRC team collected data from twenty-four active shoplifting offenders after the installations of small, enhanced public-view monitors (ePVMs) at the self-checkout kiosks, large ePVMs above the self-checkout area, in-aisle ePVMs in the seafood, liquor, and health and beauty areas, and ePVMs at the pushout-prevention cart-containment system.This research focused on determining the noticeability of these small-area (zone 2) deterrent LP measures, offender perceptions, and how these measures affect offenders’ decisions of whether to steal from the store.Initially, offenders were asked to provide feedback on their perception of theft using self-checkout services (see pie chart above).All offenders reported they shoplifted from self-checkout by scanning some but not other items. Five also indicated they switched labels, four tricked the scale, and three indicated other methods.More important is the proportion of shoplifters that noticed the security measures.Ideate, Simulate, TestPlease plan to visit our new Ideation and Simulation Lab (ISL) spaces and learn more about our latest initiative called LPRC INNOVATE led by Jordan Burchell, which is leveraging cutting-edge technologies and processes to help your organization get better now and in the future.We’re already working on new projects using the ISL design-thinking space, followed by mixed reality (VR, AR, video immersion) in our sim space. These places, especially when connected to actual stores and distribution centers, can speed up learnings about multiple design, technology, and people options without costly renovations.Engage with the LPRC CommunityWe’re already way ahead of last year’s enrollment at this point for our annual LPRC IMPACT conference scheduled for September 30 to October 2 at the University of Florida. We strongly encourage you to consider participating in the annual event and to register soon to ensure you have a space. We’re featuring dozens of new, practical LP research results, Learning Lab breakouts, our brand new Ideation and Simulation Lab, cool networking receptions, and much more. Register at LPresearch.org/impact. Stay UpdatedGet critical information for loss prevention professionals, security and retail management delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now
Leonardo Semplici believes SPAL are on the right track as they take on Udinese, because the defeat to Sampdoria was “undeserved.” It kicks off at 14.00 GMT, click here for a match preview. The Stadio Paolo Mazza side are bottom of the table and desperately need to start picking up positive results. “We have spent the week trying to analyse certain things and need to give a strong response in a match situation,” said Semplici in his press conference. “We had tried to create positive situations against Sampdoria, putting us in a position to win, but it didn’t go to plan. At least we got back to being a team and playing better football, with lots of crosses, forcing many corners. It’s just we were unable to make it stick. “Losing that game to Samp was a real let-down, because even one point would’ve been negative considering the performance. Their goal came from a lucky ricochet. Sampdoria really didn’t deserve to win.” Watch Serie A live in the UK on Premier Sports for just £11.99 per month including live LaLiga, Eredivisie, Scottish Cup Football and more. Visit: https://subscribe.premiersports.tv/
Posted on December 17, 2010October 3, 2017By: Emily Puckart, Program Associate, MHTFClick to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)During the latest Woodrow Wilson International Center Dialogue on maternal undernutrition, Amy Webb Girard highlighted some effects of maternal undernutrition. Anemia, increased susceptibility to infection, depression, fatigue, low work productivity, and poor cognitive development can plague undernourished women. Just as undernutrition has a widespread effect on women’s lives, the root causes of undernourishment are varied and spread across a variety of sectors and areas of programming. In fact, addressing maternal undernutrition with a multi-sector approach was emphasized many times during the policy dialogue.Instead of viewing maternal nutrition in isolation from other maternal health programs, maternal nutrition programs can be combined with other programs to increase the chances of maternal nutrition success. Handing out iron supplements to anemic women who come for antenatal care is not effective if women only seek antenatal care late in their pregnancies, preventing them from taking the full course of iron and folic acid supplements.Similarly, encouraging women to take iron supplements is not useful if hospitals and health clinics do not keep enough tablets in their facility. Combining maternal nutrition programs with, for example, health facility strengthening programs can improve not only the care women receive but also the nutrition women receive from these facilities.How can we ensure that nutrition becomes a critical component of maternal health-focused programs? Although integrating maternal nutrition into a variety of programs is a promising approach, there are a number challenges to integration. Among these challenges, and highlighted by Doyin Oluwole, it can be difficult to keep stakeholders engaged with maternal nutrition, especially as stakeholders must content with shifting and competing priorities.Despite these challenges, it appears that addressing maternal undernutrition as a multi-sector issue could lead to promising change for women.This is the first post by Emily Puckart on “Maternal Undernutrition: Evidence, Links, and Solutions.” Read the second and the third.Share this: ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read:
APTN National NewsA group protesting a potential nuclear waste dump is walking from northern Saskatchewan to Regina.Their community of Pinehouse Lake is one of the three being looked at as a potential place to store tonnes of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.APTN National News reporter Delaney Windigo has more on this story.