Introduction 

Shoplifting and retail theft have become increasingly significant challenges for Colorado’s retail economy. Retail theft happens in two contexts: personal use and organized retail crime, or ORC. ORC occurs when individuals and groups steal from retail centers and sell the stolen goods in other venues, such as online marketplaces. 

Between the two, retail crime has reached record levels in Colorado. In 2024, law enforcement agencies across the state recorded 27,094 reported shoplifting incidents – a 22.4% growth rate increase over 2023 and nearly 10% higher than a decade ago (Figure 1). 

Yet these figures likely understate the true scale of the problem. Underreporting is a chronic problem in addressing the true cost of any particular category, as detailed in previous CSI findings. With shoplifting, this issue is even more pronounced. National surveys conducted by the Loss Prevention Research Council indicate roughly 89% of all retail theft incidents go unreported. This suggests the true number of theft events in Colorado is double what official data currently capture, closer to 51,228 statewide. 

Figure 1

The economic stakes are substantial accounting for both direct losses and the ensuing economic impacts. 

In 2022, Colorado retailers lost an estimated $278.75 in sales per capita to theft. While this loss rate is about 19% lower than the national average, its cumulative effects remain severe. Beyond shoplifting itself, return fraud and related retail scams are estimated to have cost Colorado businesses $1.4 billion in 2022, pushing total retail losses to as much as $2.69 billion.

These losses extend far beyond the retail floor into public finances. Unlike residential burglary, auto theft, or other personal property crimes, retail theft represents not only lost property but direct losses to taxable sales. The State of Colorado forfeited an estimated $37.4 million in sales tax revenue from retail theft alone, and an additional $40.6 million from fraudulent returns and sales, bringing the total estimated loss in tax revenue to $78 million.

Given the state’s budgetary condition, economic outlook, and challenges with crime generally in the last five years, legislators should consider means of deterring retail theft, including lowering the dollar threshold for felony theft and creating a new penalty for theft related to organized retail crime. 

Under current law, theft of $2,000 or more constitutes a felony in Colorado, distinguishing high-value or organized retail crime from smaller incidents. This threshold raises important policy questions about whether existing statutes are sufficient to deter coordinated, high-value crimes that increasingly target retailers across the state.

Key Points

• Colorado recorded 27,094 shoplifting incidents in 2024, a 22.4% year-over-year increase relative to 2023 and nearly 10% higher than a decade ago.
• Given that up to roughly 89% of retail thefts go unreported, the true number of incidents is likely closer to 246,309 statewide.
• In 2022, Colorado retailers lost an estimated $278.75 in sales per capita, totaling roughly $1.3 billion in stolen goods. When combined with $1.4 billion in return fraud and related schemes, total retail losses may have reached $2.69 billion statewide.
• CSI modeling shows that an annual $1.3 billion loss in retail sales value would reduce Colorado’s GDP by nearly $1,450 million and total economic output by approximately $2,539.4 million between 2026 and 2030.
• Employment would fall by 8,485 jobs in 2026 alone, with continued losses through 2030 as population and labor force growth slow.
• Retail theft and fraud cost the State of Colorado approximately $78 million in lost sales tax revenue in 2022 – funds that would have otherwise supported essential public services and infrastructure.
• Just ten of Colorado’s 64 counties account for nearly 85% of all shoplifting cases, with Adams, Jefferson, El Paso, and Denver Counties alone representing more than 60% of reported incidents. Retail theft is concentrated along the Front Range corridor, reflecting population density, retail clustering, and access to major transportation routes.
• Nationally, about 44% of shoplifting incidents involve merchandise valued between $100 and $299, while 4.3% exceed $1,000. The latter category – roughly 1,165 cases in Colorado based on the most recent data from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation – likely corresponds to organized retail crime (ORC) activity, involving theft for resale by coordinated groups.

 

Where the Shelves Go Empty: Mapping Shoplifting in Colorado 

Shoplifting activity in Colorado is far from evenly distributed. As shown in Table 1, Figure 2, just ten (out of 64) counties account for nearly 85% of all reported shoplifting incidents statewide in 2024, revealing a striking geographic concentration of retail theft. The bulk of incidents occurred along the state’s Front Range corridor, where higher population density, retail clustering, and major transportation networks increase both opportunities for theft and rates of reporting.

Adams County leads the state with 5,599 reported incidents, representing nearly one in five shoplifting cases statewide. Jefferson, El Paso, and Denver Counties follow closely, together contributing another 42% of total incidents. These counties encompass Colorado’s largest retail centers – major malls, big-box stores, and dense commercial corridors – where foot traffic and economic activity are highest.

While smaller in population, Douglas, Arapahoe, and Larimer Counties also rank high, each recording more than 1,400 incidents. This suggests that retail theft is not limited to urban centers but also extends into fast-growing suburban areas with expanding retail infrastructure.

By contrast, rural and mountain counties – despite facing their own economic pressures – report relatively few incidents, reflecting both fewer large retailers and limited enforcement or reporting capacity.

This spatial pattern underscores that shoplifting is as much an economic geography issue as it is a criminal justice one. Concentrated losses in a few populous counties amplify the fiscal and employment effects on Colorado’s retail economy, while also shaping the allocation of local prevention and enforcement resources.

Figure 2

Table 1: Colorado’s Shoplifting Hotspots: Top 10 Counties by Reported Incidents, 2024 

Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation 

Table 1 

  

Changing Geography of Retail Theft: 2023 vs. 2024

Shoplifting is highly concentrated in a handful of Front Range counties. This concentration underscores the strong correlation between retail density, population concentration, and theft opportunity.

Adams, Jefferson, El Paso, and Denver Counties were Colorado’s primary shoplifting hotspots in both 2023 and 2024. Adams County strengthened its position as the epicenter of retail theft, rising from 4,333 reported incidents (19.9%) in 2023 to 5,599 incidents (20.8%) in 2024, a 29% increase. Jefferson County’s shoplifting rose even more sharply in the same time, rising 58% year over year, from 2,757 to 4,349 incidents. It is now the state’s second highest concentration of shoplifting, surpassing El Paso County. Meanwhile, El Paso County, despite a smaller increase in raw numbers, saw its share of statewide thefts fall from 15.6% to 13.0%.

The Front Range corridor continues to dominate retail theft activity: nine of the ten counties clocking the highest shoplifting totals are located along the Denver Metro or its neighboring metros to the north and south. In 2023, the top ten counties accounted for 88.6% of all reported incidents. 

Table 2: Year-over-Year Change in Reported Shoplifting Crimes by County (2023–2024)

Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation (2023-2024 data)

Table 2

 

Between 2023 and 2024, several Front Range counties saw striking increases in shoplifting activity. Jefferson County and Denver County experienced the largest proportional growth with a growth of 58% and 57%, respectively. Arapahoe County saw a 43% increase. Among major counties, only Larimer County recorded a decline in shoplifting. The emergence of Boulder and Otero Counties in the 2024 top ten suggests that theft is diffusing into both affluent suburban markets and smaller regional centers, potentially driven by changing retail footprints, reporting practices, or organized theft activity.

Not All Thefts Are Equal: A Look at the Dollars Behind the Crime

Not all shoplifting follows the same pattern. It is committed by a range of people for a range of reasons and across a wide range of values. 

Most shoplifting is of middling levels of merchandise. Nationally, most shoplifting losses cluster in the $100–$299 range (about 44% combined for $100–$199 and $200–$299), with another 15% at $300–$399 (Figure 3). In other words, mid-value merchandise drives the bulk of incidents, since items are easy to steal and easy to resell. 

Industry analyses of organized retail crime emphasize that organized groups typically target everyday consumer goods for this exact balance of ease of theft, monetary value, and resaleability.

Figure 3 

Why the $1,000+ Slice Matters

High-value shoplifting is less common. At the high end, 4.3% of incidents involve theft of $1,000 or more in goods. While organized retail theft is not responsible for all, it is defined as coordinated, large-scale theft for the purpose of resale. It skews toward higher-value hauls and repeat, coordinated activity rather than single-item personal-use shoplifting. 

Using Colorado’s 2024 count of 27,094 reported shoplifting crimes, applying the 4.3% national share for $1,000 or over thefts implies roughly 1,165 incidents at or above $1,000 in value. Those cases are far more consistent with ORC patterns than with one-off, personal-use shoplifting, although federal researchers caution that crime data does not easily parse out what is and isn’t organized retail crime.

Under current Colorado law (C.R.S. 18-4-401), theft becomes a felony at $2,000 of stolen merchandise. Colorado also allows aggregation of multiple thefts within a scheme or six-month period to determine the charge level. This mirrors the proportionality schema of former auto theft penalty law, in which penalties changed with value of the vehicle stolen. 

Colorado’s felony theft threshold is one of the nation’s highest. Only five other states have an equivalent or higher threshold: Texas ($2,500), Wisconsin ($2,500), Connecticut ($2,000), Pennsylvania ($2,000), and South Carolina ($2,000). As a whole, U.S. states have an average felony threshold level of about $1,100.

This threshold has risen in the last two decades. Beginning in the 2000s, many states began raising their felony theft thresholds to adjust for inflation. From 2005 to 2019, 40 states increased these thresholds.

Changes in felony theft thresholds are linked in academic literature to higher theft rates.

Researchers including the University of Colorado’s Stephen B. Billings conducted a difference-in-differences analysis of the impact on retail crime of raising felony theft thresholds. According to their findings, “the adoption of a higher felony threshold generates a 4% increase in theft, without any corresponding change in property crimes that are not subject to felony thresholds.”

Breaking the Cycle: The Economic Case for Rethinking Theft Prevention in Colorado

In 2022, Colorado retailers lost an estimated $1.3 billion in product value to police-reported theft, equivalent to roughly $300 in lost sales. Notably, this was a year with approximately 32% fewer reported shoplifting incidents than in 2024, underscoring the sharp rise in retail crime in recent years., 

Methodology

To evaluate the broader economic implications of this problem, CSI employed REMI econometric modeling to project the statewide impacts of $1.3 billion of retail theft, the same amount as was recorded in 2022, each year between 2026 and 2030. This simulation captures both the direct impacts on the retail sector and the indirect and induced effects transmitted throughout the state economy via supply chain linkages, household spending, and employment.

Given that current shoplifting rates are nearly 1.5 times the statewide 2022 level, this modeling approach likely understates the true scale of potential economic losses, offering a conservative estimate of the fiscal and employment impacts associated with rising retail theft in Colorado. 

The primary input variables incorporated into the REMI analysis include:

• Production Cost: A $1.3 billion increase in gross production costs for the two-digit Retail Trade sector across Colorado to represent retailers’ losses from theft. The Production Cost policy variables change the relative production costs of a specified industry.
• Current Transfer Payments from Businesses to Individuals: This variable captures payments from businesses to individuals that are not tied to current services rendered, along with net insurance settlement amounts. In this study, it represents the utility that thieves receive from the items that they steal. It was calculated by subtracting retailers’ average profit margin (estimated at 3% in 2024) and a rough estimate of theft’s effect on retail sale prices ($1.3 billion divided by total retail sales, estimated at $161 billion in Colorado in 2024) from the $1.3 billion estimate of value lost to theft.
• Government Output: Because it costs state and local governments in Colorado effort and money to police retail theft, a government output variable was incorporated into the model. CSI estimated that cost by multiplying the 2024 count of police-reported thefts statewide (27,094) by inflation-adjusted costs of public services and adjudication in cases of theft according to a 2020 cost-of-crime model developed by Ted R. Miller (estimated at $4,176 per police reported incident). 

This modeling framework provides a rigorous, system-level perspective on how retail theft extends beyond individual businesses, generating measurable economic consequences for employment, tax revenues, and consumer spending across Colorado.

The Production Cost variable represents the total value of production within the sector, encompassing both intermediate goods purchased and value added (including wages, benefits, and profits). In other words, this variable can be interpreted as the sector’s total output or supply to meet demand from non-export, in-state sources.

The REMI model links these effects through the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Benchmark Input-Output Accounts, which maps how changes in one industry’s output ripple through the broader economy. Adjustments for labor productivity and compensation rates are incorporated using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data to reflect differences among detailed industries within the retail trade sector.

The Retail Trade supersector includes nine NAICS-defined industries, each contributing uniquely to overall retail activity:

• Motor vehicle and parts dealers;
•  Food and beverage stores;
• General merchandise stores;
• Building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers;
• Health and personal care stores;
• Gasoline stations;
• Clothing and clothing accessories stores;
• Nonstore retailers; and
• All other retail. 

Together, these industries form the foundation of Colorado’s retail economy – and, consequently, the basis for estimating how theft-related losses reverberate through the state’s broader economic system.

Results: The Economic Ripple Effects of Retail Theft 

As emphasized in the methodology section, to quantify the broader economic toll of retail theft, CSI modeled the statewide impacts of an estimated $1.3 billion loss in retail sales value – the approximate value of goods stolen from Colorado retailers in 2022 – using the REMI economic forecasting model. This model assumes a comparable magnitude of lost sales in 2026 through 2030, allowing us to estimate the cascading effects of reduced retail activity on employment, income, and overall economic output.

CSI's modeling results indicate that rising retail theft would have a substantial and sustained negative effect on Colorado’s economy over the 2026–2030 period. The model projects broad-based losses across employment, income, output, and population, demonstrating that the consequences of retail crime extend well beyond the retail sector itself. 

A $1.3 billion reduction in retail sales translates to an estimated 8,485 fewer jobs in 2026 alone, with continued effects over the following years. Although the magnitude of the losses gradually lessens over time, the state is still expected to have 7,221 fewer jobs by 2030 than it would under baseline conditions. Similarly, private non-farm employment, which captures nearly all business-sector jobs outside of agriculture, is projected to decline by 8,076 positions in 2026 and remain 6,738 below baseline by 2030 (Table 3 and Figure 4).

Table 3: Impacts of an Annual $1.3 Billion Revenue Theft in Retail Sales: 2026-2030

Source: CSI Modeling & Analytics 

Table 3

Figure 4

These employment effects reflect both direct job reductions in the retail industry and indirect spillovers across supporting sectors such as logistics, wholesale trade, and professional services. As theft-related costs rise, businesses face tighter profit margins, higher insurance premiums, and reduced capacity for hiring or investment, all of which contribute to job contraction.

In macroeconomic terms, the losses are both deep and persistent. The model projects Colorado’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to decline by $298.6 million in 2026, reaching a trough of $314.3 million in 2027, before moderating somewhat to $250.1 million in 2030. Total output, which captures the overall value of goods and services produced, follows a similar pattern—falling by $532.2 million in 2026 and $430.5 million in 2030. Likewise, value added, a close proxy for total income, declines by $300.9 million in 2026 and remains $251.4 million below baseline by 2030.

These results underscore how sustained retail theft erodes economic activity across multiple dimensions: lower business revenues, reduced investment, and weaker consumer spending all contribute to a self-reinforcing cycle of slower growth and diminished economic vitality.

CSI projections suggest that the economic costs of retail theft extend far beyond direct merchandise losses. The data point to a prolonged economic drag that reduces employment, constrains income growth, and contributes to population decline. Even modest improvements in theft prevention or deterrence could therefore yield significant economic benefits, helping to stabilize employment, restore consumer confidence, and protect Colorado’s long-term economic health.

Figure 5

Recommendations 

Policymakers could reexamine Colorado’s current $2,000 felony theft threshold, particularly in light of research showing that higher thresholds are often associated with increased rates of shoplifting. A moderate reduction to $1,000 would bring Colorado in line with the national average, better distinguish between organized, high-value theft and lower-level, personal-use incidents, and strengthen the deterrent effect against large-scale retail crime. Such an adjustment would ensure penalties more accurately reflect the severity and intent of the offense while maintaining proportionality across theft categories.

Additionally, Colorado policymakers could advance and adopt Initiative #155, Definition and Sentencing for Theft, to more effectively respond to rising rates of retail and property crime. The measure, approved for title by the Colorado Title Board in October 2025, proposes to update statutory definitions and penalties for theft-related offenses, including organized retail theft and motor-vehicle theft. It introduces higher classifications for repeat and large-scale offenses and establishes limited mandatory minimum sentencing for chronic offenders.

Current statutory thresholds in Colorado have not kept pace with inflation or the increasing organization of retail theft operations. As a result, offenders often face inconsistent consequences, reducing deterrence and straining local enforcement resources. Initiative #155 seeks to create a more proportional and transparent sentencing framework that distinguishes between isolated petty theft and coordinated or repeated criminal activity.

From a policy perspective, the initiative balances deterrence and fairness by preserving judicial discretion in most cases while reinforcing accountability for persistent offenders. Strengthening theft statutes in this manner would likely enhance retail security, reduce economic losses to local businesses, and restore public confidence in the justice system’s capacity to address property crime. Accordingly, adoption of Initiative #155 represents a prudent and data-informed step toward improving public safety and economic stability in Colorado.

Lastly, lawmakers could address organized retail crime (ORC) directly through improved data collection and classification. Public reporting by law enforcement and prosecutors should clearly differentiate between organized retail theft and individual, opportunistic shoplifting, enabling more accurate tracking and targeted enforcement. The legislature could also establish a distinct statutory category for organized retail crime, supported by a more robust sentencing framework, to ensure that repeat and coordinated offenders face penalties commensurate with the economic harm they cause.

Bottom Line

Retail theft in Colorado is no longer an isolated criminal concern, but an economic one. The data show that shoplifting and organized retail crime (ORC) are rising at a pace that directly affects Colorado’s workforce, households, and public finances. With more than 27,000 reported shoplifting incidents in 2024 — and likely twice that number when accounting for underreporting — the state’s retailers are contending with losses that exceed $2.6 billion annually, including direct theft, return fraud, and related scams.

The consequences of these losses extend well beyond store shelves. Retail theft erodes taxable sales, costing the state an estimated $78 million in lost tax revenue each year. Modeling by CSI indicates that a $1.3 billion loss in retail revenue translates to fewer jobs, a reduced GDP, and a multi-year drag on growth that persists long after the initial economic shock.

Given the state’s fiscal outlook and the growing sophistication of organized theft networks, Colorado’s existing $2,000 felony threshold may no longer reflect current market realities or effectively deter high value, coordinated retail crime. With most states setting felony thresholds closer to $1,100, a moderate policy adjustment could improve deterrence while preserving proportionality for smaller, personal-use thefts.

Ultimately, the evidence underscores that retail theft is a systemic drain on Colorado’s economy. Addressing it requires a balanced policy approach that combines deterrence, enforcement, and collaboration between retailers, law enforcement, and policymakers to protect jobs, revenue, and the vitality of Colorado’s communities.