« Just a few of many press pieces previewing SCOTUS argument in Rahimi Second Amendment case | Main | US Solicitor General supports SCOTUS review and application of Sixth Amendment rights for key issue for applying Armed Career Criminal Act »

November 7, 2023

Council on Criminal Justice’s Crime Trends Working Group releases "Shoplifting Trends: What You Need to Know"

Via email, I received notice of this notable new report released today by Council on Criminal Justice.  The report is titled  "Shoplifting Trends: What You Need to Know November 2023" and was authored by Ernesto Lopez, Robert Boxerman and  Kelsey Cundiff.  Here is part of the report's "Introduction" and "Key Takeaways":

Since shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council on Criminal Justice has tracked changing rates of violent and property crime in large cities across the United States. The pandemic, as well as the social justice protests during the summer of 2020 and other factors, have altered the motives, means, and opportunities to commit crimes.

Retail theft, especially organized retail theft, has received extensive media coverage and has caught the attention of policymakers. Dozens of shoplifting and “smash and grab” incidents in a variety of cities have been captured on video and have gone viral on social and mass media. Major grocers, drugstores, and other retail outlets have cited shoplifting as their reason for closing multiple locations and placing goods behind counters and in locked cases. California allocated $267 million in 2023 to a new initiative to combat retail thefts. In June 2023, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance held a hearing on incidents of organized retail theft.

Prepared for the Council on Criminal Justice’s Crime Trends Working Group, this report focuses on trends in shoplifting, a subset of retail theft which, in turn, is a subset of overall larceny-theft. The FBI defines larceny-theft as the unlawful taking of property without force, violence, or fraud.

The report looks at shoplifting patterns from before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic through mid-year 2023. To date, attempts to measure changes in retail theft, including organized retail theft, have relied on retail industry data or have been limited to one state.

The city-specific data included in this report are drawn from open-data sources from 24 cities that, over the past five years, have consistently reported specific shoplifting data. Additional data come from the U.S. Justice Department’s National Incident-Based Reporting Program (NIBRS). The NIBRS data include a sample of 3,812 local law enforcement agencies. The analyses examine the changing frequency of reported shoplifting, trends in other property offenses, changes in the value of stolen goods, offenses that co-occur with shoplifting, and the number of people involved in each incident....

Shoplifting incidents reported to police have rebounded since falling dramatically in 24 large American cities during 2020. But whether the overall tally is up or down compared with pre-pandemic levels depends on the inclusion of New York City. With New York’s numbers included, reported incidents were 16% higher (8,453 more incidents) in the study cities during the first half of 2023 compared to the first half of 2019; without New York, the number was 7% lower (-2, 552 incidents).

New York (64%) and Los Angeles (61%) had the largest increases in reported shoplifting among the study cities from mid-year 2019 to mid-year 2023. St. Petersburg (-78%) and St. Paul (-65%) had the largest decreases.

Comparing the most recent trends, from the first halves of 2022 and 2023, Los Angeles (109%) and Dallas (73%) experienced the largest increases among the study cities; San Francisco (-35%) and Seattle (-31%) saw the largest decreases.

Shoplifting generally followed the same patterns as other acquisitive crimes (except motor vehicle theft) over the past five years, according to the FBI’s national data. But unlike other types of larcenies, shoplifting rates remained below pre-pandemic levels through 2022.

November 7, 2023 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

Comments

Nonsense.

In other words, it is counting a group of people in a “smash and grab” as an “incident,” just like a single teenage girl putting some makeup in her purse.

Also, many stores are not even reporting some shoplifting because nothing will happen. Store employees are also not allowed to stop and detain shoplifters in most cases. Putting items behind glass surely limits shoplifting and makes the data look better, but are we better off for it as far as quality of life?

It’s worse than this report is showing.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 7, 2023 1:34:42 PM

Tarls is correct.

Posted by: federalist | Nov 7, 2023 5:34:43 PM

"...without New York, the number was 7% lower (-2, 552 incidents)."

And without Tom Brady, the Patriots stank all those years.

Academics crack me up, they really do.

As TarlsQtr and federalist say, this study is just leftish legerdemain designed to minimize the problem, which is driving merchants out of business, or driving them to move, or driving them to hire more security, all over the place. The stories about this are legion.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2023 7:10:32 PM

Ah yes, Bill, we should focus on "stories" and ignore FBI data. But I get that you are only eager to credit FBI data, like federalist, when it supports your desired narratives.

That said, I agree that all sorts of crime data from police and the FBI and from other law enforcement sources should always be questioned. Crime data, from any and every source, is always imperfect. But, of course, so too are "stories." As you well know, Bill, many people in prison say they are innocent -- indeed, "stories about this are legion."

Posted by: Doug B | Nov 7, 2023 10:29:07 PM

Doug --

Could you quote me on saying we should ignore FBI data? Good luck with that one! I actually CITED the data. It's the study's twisting of the data -- "study to New York: Drop Dead" -- that cracks me up. Like I say, it's like analyzing the Patriots for the past twenty years while blanking out Tom Brady.

All those merchants packing up -- they're just delusional, right? Because STUDIES KNOW BETTER.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 7, 2023 11:23:40 PM

Doug,

How about looking at this data and using your brain?

Are any of my observations correct? Which ones?

If so, doesn’t it severely undercut the intent of this report? It’s not the FBI’s data. It’s the erroneous conclusions being drawn.

Be better.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 7, 2023 11:28:42 PM

Doug,

If the conclusions of the report are correct, what are your theories on these retail stores closing, moving, or locking things up? Are they not into that whole “profit motive” thing? Do they enjoy watching people have to ask a clerk to get them a tube of toothpaste?

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 7, 2023 11:35:33 PM

Master Tarls and Bill: Did you actually read the full report before you decided it was "nonsense" and "liberal legerdemain"? I have many prior posts noting crime data reports from CCJ/these authors, and I have generally viewed the work-product of the Council on Criminal Justice’s Crime Trends Working Group to be fairly balanced and thoughtful. (Disclosure: I am a member of CCJ and have worked with some CCJ staff on sentencing projects, though I have had zero connection to CCJ's crime data team.) I do not recall you all assailing prior data reports from this group as "nonsense" and "liberal legerdemain," and my comment to Bill resulted from being struck by how eager you all were assail CCJ's work and the data reported here.

That all said, I concur with Master Tarls that these data alone do not fully reflect the "quality of life" problems of retail theft and shoplifting. And, as you suggest Master Tarls, these data could reflect significant under-reporting and/or self-help measures by retailers. (Of course, the report itself, at the very outset, notes these concerns: "Potential factors [impacted reported data] include changes in retailers’ anti-theft measures and changes in how retailers report shoplifting to law enforcement, which could be based on their perceptions of the extent to which local police or prosecutors will apprehend suspects and pursue criminal charges. Because these data rely on reported incidents, they almost certainly undercount total shoplifting." The points are also stressed again at the end of the data presentation.)

But I am unsure what "conclusions" you see in the CCJ report, Master Tarls, and why you call them "erroneous." This seems to be just a data report and the entire "key takeaway" section of the report is focused on data. What "conclusions" are you referencing and what do you find "erroneous" about them? I will aspire to "Be better" once you help me better understand what you consider "the erroneous conclusions being drawn."

(As for store closings, the National Retail Federation points to economic/social factors, not crime: https://nrf.com/blog/store-closing-announcements-along-retail-bankruptcies. But the NRF also has data showing increases in retail losses and added security, and I do not mean to minimize the extent to which retailers and consumers feel the impact and problems --- both economic and non-economic --- with retail crime issues. These are important parts of the story, but so too is data.)

Finally, Bill, your Patriots analogy is off: Pulling NYC crime data out of national data would be like pulling Brady's numbers out of a broader analysis of average career TD passes or playoff wins by other quarterbacks in the NFL. If/when one obvious outlier can distort an average, it can actually be quite valuable to report data with and without the outlier in order help readers get a more complete and accurate picture of what's afoot. (For any Brady fans, he had 35 career playoff wins, the next top 10 quarterbacks averaged just over 13 career playoff wins.)

Posted by: Doug B | Nov 8, 2023 8:03:53 AM

The conclusion is that shoplifting rates are below prepandemic levels. When you essentially legalize shoplifting, you get more of it.

Nonsense.

As far as retail crime, some of these stores are admitting outright that shoplifting is the factor, or a major factor, in these decisions.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 8, 2023 5:29:54 PM

Master Tarls, are you disputing the data that the CCJ reports regarding the "reported shoplifting rate" or do you accept the data being reported and just do not think the (valid?) data supports what you see as a "conclusion ... that shoplifting rates are below prepandemic levels"?

This CCJ report repeatedly notes that the "reported shoplifting rate" which is discussed "almost certainly undercount total shoplifting." I appreciate the point, suggested by both you and CCJ, that the "reported shoplifting rate" does not fully reflect "real" shoplifting rates. But do you fault the effort to gather and report on the "reported shoplifting rate" that CCJ does here? Most people readily note that the any and every "reported" crime rate fails to capture all "real" crime. But I still think it quite valuable and meaningful to collect and discuss "reported" crime rates.

Can you point to any other data sources or report that collect useful multi-city information about shoplifting rates (whether reported or real)?

Posted by: Doug B | Nov 8, 2023 8:40:45 PM

Doug,

The data is not complete enough. When you have a significant change in the law, such as essentially legalizing shoplifting, you are no longer counting the same thing. Society reacts to the change. The police are not going to take it seriously, stores will be less likely to report it, etc, Of course less will be recorded.

It’s not any dishonesty on the FBI’s behalf, but making accurate comparisons between years without a way to properly account for the changes is not possible. If it was comparing 2024 with 2023, I think it would have more validity, assuming no huge CJ changes next year.

As far as CCJ, perhaps I’m too cynical and I know you are a member, but their little mea culpa about the changes in legal circumstances smells of, “…all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.”

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 9, 2023 2:18:49 AM

What "significant changes in the law" are you talking about, Master Tarls? Are you referencing Prop 47 in California which downgraded certain low-level property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors? Prop 47 passed in Nov 2014, so I struggle to see how that change would significantly impact data between the study/data period of January 2018–June 2023. (Also, the CCJ data show distinct results in CA cities, with LA shoplifting up a lot and SF flat between Jan 2019 and June 2023 (see Figure 3).)

The CCJ study also covered data from 22 other cities in multiple other states, including numerous "red" states like Arkansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas (see Figures 2 and 3). Were there "significant changes in the law ... such as essentially legalizing shoplifting" in those states that you think impacted data from 2019 to mid-2023?

I asked earlier in this thread: "Did you actually read the full report before you decided it was 'nonsense'"? You have not responded to that inquiry, but I am getting a strong sense that you have not even bothered to skim the report, and that you have your mind made up on these matters without actually caring about what the report actually says. If you have some (Trumpian?) conception of law and data that makes you always "cynical" about actual data --- or disinclined to get informed before criticizing a report's failure to conform to your worldview --- I will not bother to try to encourage you to actually pay attention to actual law and data from the FBI or CCJ or any other source. But, to quote you, if you care to engage thoughtfully with legal and data realities here, "Be Better." At the very least, take the time to read a report before attacking it as "nonsense."

Posted by: Doug B | Nov 9, 2023 9:10:54 AM

New York City should obviously be included.

Posted by: William Jockusch | Nov 10, 2023 9:22:28 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB