www.cops.usdoj.gov

Street Robbery

Khadija M. Monk

Justin A. Heinonen

John E. Eck

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 59

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 59

Street Robbery

Khadija M. Monk

Justin A. Heinonen

John E. Eck

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

2007-CK-WX-K008 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office). 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services 

should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the 

author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references 

are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of 

June 2009. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, 

neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2010 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

April 2010

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific 

Guide Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how 

police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder 

problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the 

overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or 

handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the 

technical details about how to implement specific responses. The 

guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The 

guides will be most useful to officers who:

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods. The guides are not primers in problemoriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial 

decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to 

analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of 

a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 

to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 

problem they have already identified. (A companion series 

of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid 

in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend 

perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding to 

it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you 

design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your 

community. You should not blindly adopt the responses others 

have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to 

your local situation. What is true in one place may not be true 

elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Street Robbery

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. 

The guides describe responses that other police departments 

have used or that researchers have tested. While not all of these 

responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they 

should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you 

could do. You may think you cannot implement some of these 

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many 

places, when police have discovered a more effective response, 

they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. (A companion series of 

Response Guides has been produced to help you understand how 

commonly-used police responses work on a variety of problems.) 

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. 

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is available 

to the police; for other problems, little is available. Accordingly, 

some guides in this series summarize existing research whereas 

other guides illustrate the need for more research on that 

particular problem. Regardless, research has not provided 

definitive answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. 

This will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not 

every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references listed 

at the end of each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they 

are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

• Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions 

to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of 

the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently 

implement them in partnership with other responsible private 

and public bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public utilities, 

community groups, and individual citizens. An effective 

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships 

with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

in making these partnerships work. Each guide identifies 

particular individuals or groups in the community with 

whom police might work to improve the overall response to 

that problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals 

that individuals and groups other than the police are in a 

stronger position to address problems and that police ought 

to shift some greater responsibility to them to do so. Response 

Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public 

Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that 

promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic 

use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively 

address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety 

issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides 

emphasize problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 

most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problemsolving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and 

discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices 

in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New 

Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, 

customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is 

apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. 

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful practices 

beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature 

and reported police practice, and each guide is anonymously peerreviewed by a line police officer, a police executive and a researcher 

prior to publication. The review process is independently managed by 

the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 
iv Street Robbery

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. 

This website offers free online access to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series,

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving 

Tools series, 

• special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism,

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing and 

related topics, 

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise,

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module, 

• online access to important police research and practices, and

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences and 

award programs. 
Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center 

for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott 

(Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate Director) and Graeme R. 

Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff and 

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing 

text, recommending research and offering suggestions on matters of 

format and style.

The project team that developed the guide series comprised 

Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), 

Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law 

School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm 

Weisel (North Carolina State University).

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on the 

guides' format and style in the early stages of the project.

Debra Cohen, Ph.D. oversaw the project for the COPS Office 

and research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice 

Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly 

edited this guide.

Acknowledgments v

contents

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

The Problem of Street Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Times, Days and Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Harms Caused by Street Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Factors Contributing to Street Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Routines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Routines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Current and Previous Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . .34

Specific Responses to Street Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Offender-Oriented Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Victim-Oriented Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Location-Oriented Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Routine-Oriented Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Responses with Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Contents vii
viii Street Robbery

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Street Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
The Problem of Street Robbery 1

§

This guide uses the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI) Uniform 

Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's 

definition of robbery as "...the taking 

or attempting to take anything of value 

from the care, custody, or control of a 

person or persons by force or threat of 

force or violence and/or by putting the 

victim in fear." (FBI, 2008) www.fbi.

gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_

crime/robbery.html

The Problem of Street Robbery

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide addresses street robbery and reviews factors contributing 

to its occurrence. It then provides a series of questions to help 

you analyze your local street robbery problem. Finally, it reviews 

responses to the problem and what is known about them from 

evaluative research and police practice.

In this guide, a street robbery is defined as a crime with the 

following five characteristics:

• the offender targets a victim; 

• the victim is a pedestrian and a stranger;

• the offender attempts or completes a theft of cash or property;

• the offender uses force or the threat of force against the 

victim; and

• the offense occurs in a public or semipublic place, such as on 

a street, in an alley, in a parking garage, in a public park, on or 

near public transportation, or in a shared apartment hallway.

Importantly, a street robbery need not involve a weapon, nor is it 

necessary that the offender injures the victim.§

Several subtypes of street robbery exist that vary in frequency 

depending on local circumstances. Among the better known are:

• purse-snatching (referred to as “snatch theft” in this guide);

• robbery of migrant laborers;

• robbery at automated teller machines;

• robbery of drunken bar patrons; robbery of students (e.g., 

middle- and high-school students and college students); and

• robbery of passengers near public transportation systems.
2 Street Robbery

Street robbery is one form of a larger set of problems related to 

street crime and issues of violent crime among strangers. This guide, 

however, is limited to addressing the particular harms strangerperpetrated street robbery causes. Problems related to street 

robbery not directly addressed in this guide, because they have 

specific opportunity structures and require separate analyses and 

responses, include the following:

• commercial robbery (e.g., robbery of banks, gas stations and 

convenience stores);

• pickpocketing;

• vehicle-related robbery (e.g., robbery of armored trucks and taxi 

drivers, and carjacking);

• nonstranger street robbery (e.g., drug-related robberies, robberies 

by prostitutes and robberies by friends, relatives or spouses);

• home invasions;

• larceny-theft (note that some police agencies may record pursesnatching as larceny-theft);

• assaults; and

• drug-dealing.

Other guides in this series—a list of which you can find at the end 

of this guide—address some of these related problems. In particular, 

you may want to read several other robbery-related problemoriented policing guides in conjunction with this guide, including:

• Robbery at Automated Teller Machines;

• Robbery of Taxi Drivers;

• Robbery of Convenience Stores;

• Bank Robbery;

• Crime Against Tourists; and

• Drug-Dealing in Open-Air Markets.

For the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, see 

www.popcenter.org. 
The Problem of Street Robbery 3

§

2006 rates are not comparable with 

2005 rates due to the redesign of the 

2006 National Crime Victimization 

Survey (they switched from 

victimizations to incidents, among 

other changes). The 2006 data come 

from the Uniform Crime Reports.

General Description of the Problem

The street robbery patterns mentioned below are general and 

based on research from several different sources. Therefore, it 

is important that you study the particular patterns in your own 

community, as they may vary from these general patterns. 

Incidents

Street robberies constitute a considerable portion of all robberies. 

In 2006, 44 percent of robberies reported to U.S. police were 

street robberies.1 Nevertheless, U.S. robbery rates have declined 

since the mid-1990s. In 1994, the robbery rate was 6.3 per 1,000 

people, compared with a rate of 2.6 in 2005.§ These recent declines 

in street robbery, however, do not hold across all countries. For 

instance, robbery rates have increased in England and Wales over 

the last decade, particularly from 2000 to 2002.2 National robbery 

rates are informative, but it is sometimes unclear whether they 

fluctuate with nationwide economic changes, drug trends or some 

other pattern. 

Offenders

Research has provided a demographic sketch of typical street 

robbers. First, street robbery appears to be a young person’s 

crime. Offenders tend to be in their late teens and early 20s.3 In 

the United States, almost half of offenders arrested for robbery 

were under 21, and nearly two-thirds were under 25.4 Second, 

the overwhelming majority of arrested street robbers are male.5

Finally, regarding race, more blacks than whites are arrested for 

street robbery in the United States. Specifically, over half of the 

robbery arrestees in 2007 were black (56%), while 42 percent of 

the arrestees were white.6
4 Street Robbery

Victims

Street robbers search for victims who appear to have money or 

other valuables—for example, students and tourists. They also 

target people who appear to be the most vulnerable—like young 

adults using ATMs alone at night or under the influence of 

alcohol.7 Offenders also look for victims who seem unaware of their 

immediate surroundings. Pedestrians who look lost, are using a cell 

phone, are rummaging through their bags, or are listening to MP3 

players might appear less alert and more vulnerable to street robbers 

than other people. 

Times, Days and Locations

Overall, street robbery patterns appear to cluster by times, days and 

locations—for instance, street robberies often occur on weekends, 

when entertainment districts are busier and associated businesses 

are open later. With that in mind, below we have summarized how 

street robberies cluster by times, days and locations.

Times. Overall, most street robberies occur at night. For some 

groups, however, peak robbery times vary with their routine activity 

patterns. For instance, most elderly people run errands early in the 

day. Accordingly, offenders usually rob older people (65 and above) 

in the morning and early afternoons.8 By contrast, offenders are 

more likely to rob youths (aged 17 and below) between 3 p.m. and 

6 p.m.9 This timeframe aligns with school dismissal, when students 

routinely go home or elsewhere. Yet offenders usually rob young 

adults during the evening.10 This group is often in public later at 

night in pursuit of entertainment. Drunken bar patrons or migrant 

workers returning home after work on paydays might also be at 

high risk during late-night hours due to the absence of effective 

guardians and the remote locations of some entertainment venues. 

Days. In general, most street robberies occur on weekends. In 

Cincinnati, for example, most street robberies occur late on 

Saturday evenings and early on Sunday mornings.11 U.K. street 

robberies also increase on weekends—a pattern linked to social 

functions that attract many targets in a single area.12
The Problem of Street Robbery 5

Locations. Most street robberies occur in urban areas. U.S. robbery 

victimization rates are about twice as high for urban residents 

than suburban residents.13 This trend is similar in England and 

Wales. Almost half (44%) of street robberies occur one mile or less 

from the victims’ homes—perhaps because people are near home 

most of the time or offenders specifically target them near their 

homes. Other frequent robbery locations include parking lots and 

garages—followed by parks, fields, playgrounds, and areas near 

public transportation.14 Street robberies associated with public 

transportation are more prevalent in areas like larger cities, where 

its availability and use are common.

Source: Glendale (Arizona) Police Department.

Street robberies are often concentrated in specific areas, as shown here. Hot spot maps are useful for defining a specific robbery problem.
6 Street Robbery

Targets

Finally, street robbers tend to take certain items during a robbery: 

cash, purses, wallets, credit cards, mobile phones, MP3 players, 

jewelry, clothing, and other small electronic devices (e.g., cameras 

and smaller laptop computers). The proliferation of small, portable, 

expensive electronic items (see figure) may be linked with street 

Source: Glendale (Arizona) Police Department.

Even within a small area, there can be a range of types of street robberies. Here we see different types of weapons used. This might indicate 

overlapping street robbery problems, instead of a single problem.
The Problem of Street Robbery 7

robbery in some locations.15 The items listed above are “hot 

products”16 that have similar CRAVED characteristics:

• Concealable—the robber can hide the items on his or 

her person;

• Removable—the robber can easily take the items from the victim;

• Available—the items are commonly found on potential victims;

• Valuable—the items are useful to the robber or others;

• Enjoyable—the items are fun to use; and

• Disposable—the robber can easily sell the items to or trade the 

items with others.17

Source: Glendale (Arizona) Police Department.

Hot spots can contain smaller hot spots. The hot spot in the city scale map, upon close inspection, has several different clusters of street robberies. 

Small area analysis is usually better than wide area analysis.
8 Street Robbery

Harms Caused by Street Robbery

Street robbery is a major source of fear among the public because 

victims face a sudden threat to life, a loss of control, and an invasion 

of personal space.18 Street robbery is an especially fear-inducing 

crime because of the context in which it is likely to occur—during 

the course of someone’s routine activities. For instance, the 2005 

National Crime Victimization Survey showed that street robbers 

attacked most victims on their way to or from work, school, 

shopping, or running errands. The risk of injury and death 

during an attack further substantiates the public’s fear of robbery. 

Offenders physically attack approximately half of robbery victims, 

and about 20 percent require medical attention.19 In 2005, the 

FBI estimated that about 6 percent of all murders were robberyrelated.20 Some estimates suggest occurrences of robbery-murder 

are even greater. The type of weapon used typically distinguishes 

Photo by John Eck.

Distracted pedestrians with conspicuous CRAVED items make 

good robbery targets.
The Problem of Street Robbery 9

robbery from robbery-murder. Roughly two-thirds of robberymurders involve guns, but offenders use guns in less than one-third 

of robberies.21 Furthermore, gun robberies are about three times 

more likely to result in the victim’s death compared with knife 

robberies, and knife robberies are about three times more likely 

than robberies involving other kinds of weapons.22

Factors Contributing to Street Robbery

Understanding the factors that contribute to your community’s 

street robbery problem will help you frame your own local 

analysis questions, determine effectiveness measures, recognize key 

intervention points, and select appropriate responses. 

Local analysis may reveal unique situations, not on this list, that you 

may need to address. You should base local analysis on the street 

robbery analysis triangle (Figure 1). This triangle is a modification 

of the widely used problem analysis triangle (see www.popcenter.

org for a description). It organizes basic factors that contribute to 

robbery problems. Though no single factor completely accounts 

for the street robbery problem, the interrelated dynamics among 

victims, locations, offenders, and routines all contribute to street 

robbery patterns.

Figure 1. Street Robbery Analysis Triangle.
10 Street Robbery

Street robberies occur when motivated offenders encounter suitable 

victims in an environment that facilitates robbery. A street robbery 

problem emerges when victims repeatedly encounter offenders in 

the same area. In short, a combination of circumstances will lead 

to a robbery, not any single circumstance. For example, a street 

robbery is likely to occur when an offender, pressed for cash, spots 

a drunken person leaving a bar alone, heading toward a poorly lit, 

isolated location. A pattern of robberies could occur if offenders 

notice drunken people taking similar routes after leaving the bar. 

Different types of routines can change offender, victim and location 

characteristics, thus altering robbery patterns (e.g., midweek work 

and school routines may produce different robbery patterns from 

weekend or holiday routines). 

Depending on the specific details of a street robbery problem, 

the relative importance of each side of the triangle and routines 

will vary. Addressing any one element in Figure 1 might reduce a 

problem, but addressing more than one side will better ensure that 

the robbery problem will decline. The sections below describe each 

of the four factors in more detail. 

Offenders

Compared with commercial or other types of robberies, street 

robberies tend to be more opportunistic and occur in a more open 

and less predictable environment. Though some often consider 

street robbery a crime of opportunity involving little to no 

planning, street robbers do engage in decision-making processes.23

To implement the most appropriate interventions at the most 

appropriate locations and times, you should identify, in order, 

what factors affect their decision-making processes. The following 

sections describe three factors that influence a person’s decision to 

commit street robbery, and the acronym CAP summarizes them.

Cash needs. The immediate need for cash is a major reason why 

people rob. For instance, 80 out of 81 St. Louis (Missouri) street 

robbers claimed their immediate need for cash was a primary reason 

for committing the crime.24 Street robbery is a quick way for some 

to get the cash needed to purchase items related to success or status 

in street cultures (e.g., drugs, alcohol, fashionable clothing, jewelry, 
The Problem of Street Robbery 11

and electronics). If victims do not have cash on hand, robbers can 

take and sell other items to meet cash needs. 

Attack methods. The ability to use certain attack methods in 

particular settings might also affect a person’s decision to commit 

street robbery. Street robbers use four main attack methods: 

confrontations, cons, blitzes, and snatch-thefts.25 Offenders use 

some tactics more frequently. For example, confrontations were 

most common in one U.K. study (used in 37% of robberies), 

followed by blitzes (25%), cons (22%), and snatch-thefts (14%). 

These methods are not mutually exclusive and can change during 

the course of the robbery. Each attack method is described below.

Confrontations. The offender demands property or 

possessions at the moment of contact with the victim. The 

offender will usually use verbal commands to gain compliance 

(e.g., “Give me your money”). Violence might follow if the 

victim does not comply. 

Blitzes. The offender uses violence first to gain control 

over the victim (i.e., establish “who is in charge”). The actual 

robbery occurs after the offender immobilizes the victim. 

Cons. The offender uses a distraction to catch the victim 

off guard. For example, an offender might ask someone for 

the time or directions before attacking. Using a legitimate 

distraction enables the robber to gain contact with the victim 

without causing alarm. 

snatCh-thefts. This tactic occurs very quickly. No 

verbal communication occurs between the offender and 

the victim before the robbery. The offender typically grabs 

visible property (e.g., purses and cell phones), then escapes. 

U.S. snatch-thefts are often combined with pickpocketing 

in official statistics, making it difficult to determine its true 

prevalence and incidence.26 In fact, a snatch-theft might 

be officially counted only if the victim is injured, even if 

the robber uses force not resulting in injury. This issue has 

important implications for problem analysis because crimes 

identified as “street thefts” are actually street robberies.
12 Street Robbery

Planning. Street robberies appear tactically simple and quickly 

completed, but they are seldom completely unplanned. Robbers 

learn which tactics work in what situations based on prior 

experience. So what might appear as an impulsive act could be 

based on a plan developed from prior experience. Immediate 

circumstances might also affect planning. For example, a street 

robber might plan target selection based on the availability of 

weapons and accomplices. The idea is that offenders use basic 

planning to overcome some of the situational challenges of 

street robbery. Therefore, police could prevent street robbery by 

addressing certain situational factors. This guide’s response section 

addresses some of these opportunity-reducing strategies.

Victims 

Victim demographics are informative, but it is vital to understand 

how they relate to routine activities and risk. Finding that 

minorities have a heightened risk of street robbery in your 

community is helpful only as a first step. You still have to discover 

why. Perhaps the minorities are undocumented workers whom 

offenders rob because the victims often work in unfamiliar 

neighborhoods, carry cash and won’t report the crime to the 

police. This scenario shows how linking demographics to routines 

could reveal intervention points that would otherwise have gone 

unnoticed by examining demographics alone. Demographic 

information also identifies less-promising responses. Propertymarking for cell phones and MP3 players, for instance, might 

not reduce street robberies in areas where most victims are senior 

citizens who carry cash but not electronic gadgets. 

For prevention purposes, it is useful to look at victims from the 

robber’s perspective. Five characteristics of potential victims appear 

particularly critical, and the acronym VALUE summarizes them.

Vulnerable. Offenders prefer targets they can intimidate, subdue 

or overpower. For example, senior citizens or those unlikely 

to report their victimization to the police (e.g., drug users, 
The Problem of Street Robbery 13

prostitutes and illegal immigrants) might appear particularly 

vulnerable. Some targets, however, might be less vulnerable than 

initially perceived and able to defend themselves from an attack. 

In fact, using protective measures to resist robbery helped over 

half of U.S. victims in 2006, while aggravating the incident in less 

than 8 percent of cases.27

Attractive. Target attractiveness is in the eye of the robber. 

Therefore, attractiveness is not universal. Some robbers might be 

particularly attracted to people carrying a CRAVED item. Other 

robbers, however, might associate attractiveness with less tangible 

features and prefer attacking people of a particular sex, racial, or 

ethnic group. 

Lacking awareness. Street robbers could perceive people who are 

distracted (e.g., using a cell phone, drunk, and/or unfamiliar with 

their surroundings) as easier to approach and overpower. 

Uncomplicated. Offenders probably consider the ease of 

approaching targets. A potential target seen at a distance is likely 

less interesting than one nearby. How complex the robber perceives 

completing the robbery to be depends on the form of attack 

(confrontation, blitz, con, or snatch-theft) the robber usually uses.

Escapable. Offenders probably consider the ease of fleeing from 

targets. Robbers might altogether avoid targets they believe will 

chase them or use blitzes to disable them physically. Robbers might 

care less about escaping when some targets (e.g., senior citizens and 

drunken people) appear unlikely to chase or resist them. In this 

case, robbers might use a confrontation, a con or a snatch-theft 

because they don’t think they have to immobilize the target. 

Though considered separately, offenders probably consider VALUE 

as a package rather than a checklist. From a prevention perspective, 

however, VALUE can reveal potential countermeasures to protect 

possible victims.
14 Street Robbery

Locations

Street robbers prefer specific locations. Often, situational features 

make some locations appear more attractive or suitable for 

committing street robbery. Offenders might consider the type of 

location and the characteristics and routines of the people there. 

Furthermore, offenders prefer locations where they can blend in 

with the natural “flow” and easily escape.28

Overall, offenders’ journey to crime is relatively short and usually 

overlaps with their route to and from home.29 Some offenders 

lack transportation and are limited to robbing at locations within 

walking distance.30 Furthermore, street robbers lack information 

and familiarity with locations as distance increases from their 

homes.31 In general, younger robbers travel shorter distances than 

older robbers, but differences in travel distance depend on local 

situations (e.g., public transportation choices and street layouts).32

Finally, some street robbers prefer locations near places where they 

can quickly resell stolen property or buy drugs.

Pedestrian volume also influences where street robberies occur. 

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between street pedestrian 

density and robbery: as a person moves from a center of high 

pedestrian activity, the number of people on the street declines. 

Many targets are near the center of activity, but so are high 

guardianship levels. Far from the center, guardianship is nearly 

absent, but targets are also scarce. In between these extremes, there 

are some robbery targets and relatively little guardianship: this 

is the robbery zone. The size and location of the robbery zone 

will vary by time of day and other routine schedules. A transit 

node at rush hour will push the robbery zone away because of the 

commuter influx. Late at night, the robbery zone may encroach on 

the transit node. At other times, it may disappear altogether if there 

are so few targets around that robbers ignore the area.
The Problem of Street Robbery 15

We can summarize robbery offenders’ ideal locations with the 

acronym NEAR. Robbers are more attracted to small areas that fit 

these characteristics. 

Natural guardianship. As mentioned, dense pedestrian and 

vehicle traffic increase guardianship and increase the risks for street 

robbers, so they prefer areas where targets are relatively unguarded. 

Areas with dense pedestrian and vehicle traffic, however, could 

thwart detection by helping offenders blend into the environment 

after the robbery. However, robbers may select quicker and lessobvious attack modes in dense pedestrian areas compared with lessdense areas.

Figure 2. Pedestrian Density and Street Robberies.

Extremely

High Density

Robbery Zone

Robbery Zone

Frequency of Street Robberies

Top-down View of

Pedestrian Density

Graphical View of

Pedestrian Density

Zone A Zone B Zone C

A

B

C

Extremely

Low Density

Transit node, shopping 

center, entertainment district 

or other attraction.

Pedestrian density declines 

with distance from this 

attraction.

Offenders have 

many targets, 

but there are so 

many people on 

the street that 

they protect one 

another.

Offenders have 

enough targets, 

but people are 

too far apart to 

protect one 

another.

Though people on 

the street are so far 

apart they can’t 

protect one another, 

targets are so few 

that offenders don’t 

look for them here.
16 Street Robbery

Escape routes. Not only do robbers need to consider their ability 

to escape from a victim, but also they want routes that provide a 

quick escape from the crime scene.

Area familiarity. Robbers prefer familiar areas over unfamiliar 

areas. Being familiar with an area facilitates planning decisions 

and escape strategies. Familiarity also makes it easier to predict the 

routines of targets, guardians and police.

Resale opportunities for stolen goods. Robbers who steal 

noncash items for resale want to get cash and quickly dispose of 

evidence of the crime. Thus, robbers consider areas close to resale 

opportunities more desirable than areas farther away. When robbers 

steal only cash, they don’t fear getting caught as much.

Routines

Routines influence robbery-timing patterns because routines bring 

robbers and targets together at locations, or they separate robbers 

from targets. Disruptions to routines can also influence robbery 

patterns. Understanding routines and disruptions is critical for 

understanding temporal robbery patterns. Many types of routines 

can influence robbery patterns. Here, we list only some of the most 

common. Routines vary from city to city and neighborhood to 

neighborhood because some areas have special routines that others 

don’t. We use the acronym SHADE to summarize some of the 

routines that can influence street robbery.

Special events. Special events, like sports games, festivals and 

marathons, draw a lot of nonresidents to unfamiliar areas. Visitors 

might inadvertently make decisions that increase their risk of 

victimization (e.g., parking in a high-crime area). Event-goers also 

have several characteristics that make them attractive robbery 

targets: some drink and become less aware of their immediate 

surroundings, many stay out later than usual, and they likely have 

cash or other CRAVED items. Finally, police might close normal 

travel routes to accommodate event traffic. Some pedestrians might 

take less-familiar and riskier routes. 
The Problem of Street Robbery 17

§

We’ve taken this example from a 

2006 Downtown Cincinnati Inc. Safe/

Clean meeting.

Holidays. Certain holidays [e.g., Black Friday (the day after 

Thanksgiving, which is the busiest shopping day of the year in the 

United States)] increase the availability of victims in public with 

cash, presents and other CRAVED items. Victims might also be 

more vulnerable during holidays on which they might consume 

larger amounts of alcohol, such as New Year’s Eve and the United 

States’ St. Patrick’s Day, Fourth of July and Memorial Day. 

Annual routines. The beginning of the school year increases the 

number of CRAVED33 products (e.g., new clothes and laptop 

computers) and new students unfamiliar with places and routes near 

school buildings. Holiday breaks may also influence robbery patterns, 

either by removing students from robbery-prone areas, or by shifting 

their activities from relatively safe to relatively unsafe areas.

The timing of the school year also has implications for street 

robbery in college towns or areas with universities for the 

reasons mentioned above. In addition, events tied directly to the 

beginning of school, such as homecoming weekend, could draw 

large crowds of students, parents and other patrons to high-risk 

areas. Robbers might also target college students who go out 

at night or use drugs and alcohol throughout the school year. 

Working with campus police could shed light on the types of 

students most at risk and on high-risk times and locations. Other 

annual routines include seasonal work (e.g., landscaping and 

construction) and vacationing.

Disruptions to routines. Street repair and construction activity 

could force pedestrians off normal travel paths into unfamiliar 

locations. Furthermore, to save time, some pedestrians might try to 

avoid detours via unsafe alleys or side streets. Finally, street robbers 

could use construction debris as a weapon.§

At the same time, however, street repair and construction could 

reduce street robberies. For instance, offenders might avoid suitable 

robbery locations if construction crews are there. Furthermore, 

pedestrian traffic disruptions could reduce the number of potential 

victims in certain areas. Finally, temporary construction alters 

locations normally familiar to street robbers.
18 Street Robbery

It might be difficult to determine if a robbery pattern results from 

construction because work sites frequently change. Similarly, 

construction may temporarily disrupt a robbery hot spot, making 

the underlying conditions that facilitate robberies harder to discover. 

Mapping street robberies before, during and after construction 

may provide information for the police to use to reduce robbers’ 

opportunities during street repairs and construction.

Everyday routines. Certain everyday routines influence street 

robbery patterns, such as the following:

the sChool day (Grades K-12). Daily student routines 

based on the beginning and end of the school day could 

influence street robbery patterns (e.g., a cluster of robberies of 

students carrying MP3 players near a path to school between 

7 a.m. and 8 a.m.). 

CommutinG patterns. Morning and evening rush 

hours move commuters in and out of cities in a short time. 

How rush hours affect robbery patterns might vary from city 

to city and neighborhood to neighborhood because targets 

and natural guardianship both increase. 

pay routines. Regular payment schedules for some 

workers could influence street robbery patterns. Workers 

paid in cash daily (e.g., waitstaff and day laborers) are obvious 

targets as they go home. However, robbers might target even 

workers paid by check if they routinely cash their checks at 

the same time and place. In either case, the point is that a 

robbery problem could emerge if offenders identify certain 

times, days and places when specific people will have cash on 

hand. Thus, pay routines might influence street robberies near 

quick-loan stores, liquor stores, off-track betting parlors, bars, 

or other places commonly visited on paydays.

entertainment routines. Entertainment districts 

also experience an ebb and flow of pedestrian and vehicle 

traffic that could influence street robbery patterns. When 

crowds are dense, robberies will likely occur on the periphery 

of entertainment zones and may peak late in the evening as 

people go home (see Figure 2 on page 15).
The Problem of Street Robbery 19

§

These tactics are not mutually 

exclusive. For instance, though 

violence is a main component of blitz 

robberies, violence could also ensue 

in cons and confrontations if primary 

methods fail.

The discussion so far has shown who commits robberies (offenders) 

against what targets (victims), and where robberies will take place 

(locations) and when (routines). These situational factors might 

affect the specific techniques street robbers use. Table 1 shows how 

street robbery techniques might vary by the configuration of basic 

factors on the problem analysis triangle.

Table 1. Summary of Robberies.§

Type of Robbery How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Blitz Offenders use immediate 

violence to gain control.

...victims are isolated, 

and offenders can 

immediately physically 

immobilize them, using 

surprise.

A blitz is not useful in 

most crowds. Can be 

used when escape routes 

are limited. 

Snatch-theft Offenders spot visible 

items. They quickly take 

them without verbal 

demands.

...locations are crowded, 

there are many escape 

routes and crowds 

impede victims and allow 

offenders to escape by 

blending into them.

This is useful for many 

smaller offenders who 

can distract the victim. 

Multiple offenders can 

hide the snatch. It does 

not require weapons. 

Offenders must look like 

they belong in the area.

Confrontation Offenders approach 

victims with immediate 

verbal demands. 

Violence is possible but 

not necessary.

...victims are isolated, 

offenders can approach 

them without alerting 

them, and offenders 

can use overwhelming 

threats. 

Guns (real or fake) 

can substitute for the 

numbers and sizes of 

offenders. Distracted, 

impaired or encumbered 

victims are better for 

robbers. Victims may 

not have much of value.

Con Offenders use 

distractions to make 

contact with victims, 

then rob them.

...victims do not feel 

threatened by the 

place or offenders, and 

valuable items are visible 

and within reach.

Offender can use this 

method in both a 

crowd and in isolation. 

Offenders need a 

weapon only as a backup.

Understanding Your Local Problem 21

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is a generalized description of 

street robbery. To understand your local street robbery problem, 

you must combine this general knowledge with facts that illuminate 

your local conditions. Carefully analyzing your local problem will 

help you design an effective response strategy that fits your specific 

needs. However, the fewer robberies you have to analyze, the more 

difficult it will be to diagnose your problem. 

The first step in this process is identifying the specific form of street 

robbery affecting your community. Having identified a specific form 

of street robbery, the next step is analyzing its process. The process 

might vary from robbery problem to robbery problem. A useful 

approach is to divide the robbery process into four time blocks: 

• events occurring long before the robbery; 

• events occurring just before the robbery; 

• events occurring during the robbery; and 

• events occurring after the robbery. 

Figure 334 on page 22 summarizes the process and defines the types 

of actions that take place at each stage. The two examples that 

follow make use of this process and show the differences between 

two types of robberies.
22 Street Robbery

Figure 3. Robbery Process.

Preparation: Offenders identify a “target-rich area.” 

Potential victims develop routines that make them vulnerable 

to robbery. Private and public agencies make decisions about 

events and place management in the area.

Readying: Actions of specic people, at specic times and in 

specic areas put them at risk. Actions of potential offenders 

prepare to commit a robbery.

Robbery: Actions and interactions of offenders, victims and 

sometimes others occur while the robbery is taking place.

Aftermath: Offenders escape and dispose of stolen goods. 

Victims act to cope with the robbery, report the crime and 

attend to injuries.

Building a detailed street robbery profile could help develop a more 

useful process-analysis. Using alternatives to official crime statistics, 

like victim surveys, could prove useful. For instance, problem-solvers 

in England used a management information system (MIS) to identify 

robbery patterns in four key areas: crime locations/peak times, victim 

information, offender information, and property information. The 

MIS revealed that robbery risk was greatest for Gloucester residents 

aged 14 to 25 between 12 p.m. (noon) and 12 a.m. (midnight).35

This detailed street robbery profile helps local agencies focus 

prevention efforts on certain groups during certain times. An 

alternative for those agencies that lack a crime analyst or large budget 

is to use a computer with Internet access. One way to visually display 

your local robbery hot spots is to use free Internet mapping sites.§

§

A note of caution: Some websites 

offering free mapping software or 

maps may have outdated information 

or have a higher rate of error than 

other websites offering different 

mapping programs.
Understanding Your Local Problem 23

§

When working with universities, 

it is important to separate the 

interests of students from those of the 

administration. Student organizations 

may welcome the chance to work 

with local police to address a serious 

problem, while administrators may be 

reluctant to admit there is a problem. 

Universities could vary considerably 

in their willingness to aid prevention 

efforts, often because of their lack of 

resources (e.g., time, staff and funding) 

to address the problem and their fear 

of being identified as a risky place for 

students.

Stakeholders 

Understanding the process of specific types of street robbery not 

only aids prevention, but also helps identify stakeholders who have 

an interest in the problem. In addition to criminal justice agencies, 

including police, courts and corrections, the following groups 

have an interest in the street robbery problem, and you should 

consult them when gathering information about the problem and 

responding to it.

• Transportation and parks departments: 

Ƕ Street robberies could reduce the use of public 

transportation and parks as people become afraid 

of robbery. 

Ƕ These departments could provide useful information for 

analyzing the problem, beyond using official police data alone.

• Schools:

Ƕ Schools have an interest in protecting their students’ safety. 

Students who feel unsafe may avoid going to school.

Ƕ Local schools could help your agency identify at-risk 

students. 

Ƕ Schools are critical to developing and running robbery 

education/awareness campaigns if your community’s 

children and teens are a high-risk group. 

• Universities: 

Ƕ Universities have an interest in protecting their students’ 

safety and are required by law to disclose campus crime 

information.§

Ƕ University administrators may have information about 

robberies not reported to police. 

Ƕ Student organizations on college campuses have an interest 

in getting students involved in their own safety.
24 Street Robbery

Table 2. Street Robbery Process by Time Blocks.

Time Frame Victim (Student) Offender Location

Long Before A student (victim) moves 

into a new dorm room 

located in an unfamiliar 

neighborhood.

An offender needs cash. 

He identifies an area 

around the university as 

having many potential 

robbery victims and good 

escape routes.

A university campus

Just Before The student explores the 

new area off campus and 

wanders too far away (into 

an unknown area). The 

student pulls out a cell 

phone to call the dorm for 

directions back.

The offender spots a 

well-dressed pedestrian, 

alone, who appears to 

have money and starts to 

follow the pedestrian. The 

possible victim seems to 

be lost, and the offender 

sees the victim pull out a 

cell phone.

An area surrounding the 

campus, unknown to the 

student

During The victim complies with 

the offender’s demands.

The offender uses the 

confrontation method to 

steal money and property 

from the victim. 

An area surrounding the 

campus

After The victim is unsure of 

the location, has no cell 

phone and is not familiar 

with how to get help or 

report the crime. The 

victim doesn’t report the 

crime or reports it long 

after it occurs. 

The offender slips down a 

side street and follows an 

escape route.

The location will vary

Table adapted from Tilley et al. 2004
Understanding Your Local Problem 25

• Local business associations:

Ƕ Business districts have a stake in robbery prevention 

because they rely on a reputation of safety to stay profitable. 

They also have an interest in their employees’ safety. 

Businesses in areas perceived to be unsafe might have 

trouble recruiting new employees. 

Ƕ Business associations might have information about 

robbery concerns not reported to police and about 

businesses that are at special risk to attract robbers 

(e.g., those known to allow night cash deposits).

Ƕ Other business association stakeholders could also include 

real estate agencies and associations, especially those that 

specialize in low-cost rentals.

Time Frame Victim (Commuter) Offender Location

Long Before A commuter (victim) 

prepares to leave work for 

the day.

An offender needs cash. 

He knows commuters 

with valuables are getting 

on and off the subway. 

The offender can easily 

pick a target while 

legitimately hanging out at 

the station.

A public transportation 

system

Just Before The commuter arrives at 

the subway station while 

listening to an MP3 player.

The offender notices a 

potential victim distracted 

by a personal music device.

The subway platform

During The victim loses the MP3 

player to the offender, 

who uses the snatch-theft 

method.

The offender snatches 

and runs with the stolen 

goods.

The subway platform as 

the victim is boarding the 

train

After The victim 

authorities 

crime.

notifies the 

about the 

The offender tries to sell 

the MP3 player to a local 

pawnshop.

The next subway stop

Table adapted from Tilley et al. 2004

Table 3. Street Robbery Process by Time Blocks.
26 Street Robbery

• Community/neighborhood associations:

Ƕ These groups have an interest because their members are 

potential victims. 

Ƕ These groups could use their local knowledge to identify 

potential offenders, locations and other problem and 

potential contributing factors.

• Commerce or visitor’s centers:

Ƕ Robbery problems in business and tourist locations make 

it difficult for these groups to promote commerce and 

tourism.

Ƕ Center staff may be able to provide information about 

tourist robberies reported to them, but perhaps not to 

police, and information about popular tourist locations and 

routes.

• Insurance companies:

Ƕ Because insurance companies have a financial stake in 

claims for items lost through robbery, they might be apt to 

help develop and fund prevention efforts.

Ƕ Insurance companies may also have information about 

property loss and injury treatment claims, the causes of 

which the victims might not have reported to police.

• Product manufacturers:

Ƕ Manufacturers of CRAVED items have an interest in 

not having their products associated with robbery in the 

public’s mind. However, they might be reluctant to work 

with police because they do not want customers to think 

using their products increases robbery risk. Nevertheless, 

you could persuade these companies to include “safety” 

information in packaging or to design products to prevent 

robbery. If manufacturers market CRAVED items correctly, 

consumers may be more willing to buy those that are “theftresistant” or marked with “new safety features.”

Ƕ Manufacturers also have insights as to how they could 

design their products to discourage robbery.
Understanding Your Local Problem 27

• Local hospitals:

Ƕ Hospitals have an interest in reducing injuries from 

robberies.

Ƕ Hospital staff might have information about robberyrelated injuries not reported to police.

• Other local government agencies (e.g., city planning 

departments, city councils, public health departments, and 

social services providers):

Ƕ Such agencies could provide data for analyzing the problem 

or plan and implement responses—including those too 

costly for local neighborhood or resident groups. 

Asking the Right Questions

Ask the following questions to gain a better understanding of 

your community’s street robbery problem. The answers to these 

questions will help you develop an effective response that reduces 

the frequency of street robberies. 

Incidents

• How many street robberies occur in your jurisdiction or area of 

interest? 

• What percent of attempted street robberies are reported to the 

police, and why were those incidents not completed (e.g., did a 

passerby interrupt the incident)? 

• Is the number of street robberies increasing or decreasing? 

• What percent of street robberies involve the use of weapons? 

• Are there different types of street robbery attacks 

(confrontations, blitzes, cons, or snatch-thefts) reported in your 

jurisdiction? Do these types of attacks vary by circumstances, 

times, types of victims, or locations?
28 Street Robbery

Offenders

• What are street robbers’ characteristics (e.g., age, gender and/or 

race)?

• Are offenders local residents, or from out of town? Where, in 

relation to the robbery sites, do offenders live? How do they get 

to their target locations?

• Are offenders members of a group, or do they work alone?

• What percent of street robberies do repeat offenders commit? 

• What percent of offenders are on probation or parole at the 

time of their most recent robbery? 

• Are offenders on drugs or alcohol at the time of the robbery?

• What types of items do robbers take (e.g., drugs, cash, credit 

cards, and electronic items)?

• Where do street robbers sell their stolen goods, and to whom?

Victims 

• Are there noticeable demographic patterns among street 

robbery victims (e.g., age, sex, education level, and occupation)?

• Are there repeat robbery victims (e.g., people who work late 

at night)? 

• Are repeat victims different from one-time victims? 

• What are the victims doing right before the robbery (e.g., 

talking on a cell phone, listening to music, putting money 

away, or asking for directions)? Are they distracted due to 

intoxication?

• Where are victims traveling to and from when they are robbed, 

(e.g., a workplace, school, bar, or special event)?

• Do victims live near where offenders rob them? 

• What percent of victims resists, and how do they do so? How 

serious are the injuries, if there are any? 

• Under what circumstances are robberies thwarted either just 

before or during the attack? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 29

• Are victims visibly carrying cash or CRAVED items?

• What items do robbers take from the victims? 

• Do street robbers follow victims from another location, an 

ATM or a bus or train station? 

Locations/Times

• Where do most street robberies occur? Are there clear streetrobbery hot spots? 

• Are robbery locations and hot spots associated with particular 

transportation routes, businesses, events, or other physical or 

social characteristics?

• When do robberies occur most frequently (e.g., day or night, 

day of week, and time of year)?

• Are there common safety features at high-robbery locations 

(e.g., proper lighting, clear visibility, surveillance cameras, and 

help phones)?

• Are weather conditions important? For instance, do more street 

robberies occur at bus stops that provide overhead cover in the 

winter than occur there in warmer months?

Routines

• Are street robberies common during particular special events?

• Do robberies increase around holidays?

• Are robberies associated with any annual routines? 

• Are robberies associated with any daily routines? 

• Are there disruptions to routines that increase or decrease 

street robberies? 
30 Street Robbery

Current and Previous Responses

• What anti-street robbery strategies have worked in the past in 

your community? What strategies have failed?

• What agencies have been involved in previous responses? 

What did they do?

• How do police typically handle street robberies 

(e.g., investigation)? 

• Do police have a special unit designed to handle street 

robberies?

• What happens to street robbers after arrest (e.g., prosecution 

and/or sentencing)?

Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement allows you to determine how well your efforts have 

succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses 

if they are not producing the intended results. You should take 

measures of your problem before you implement responses, to 

determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement 

them, to determine whether they have been effective. You should 

take all measures in both the target area and the surrounding 

area (for more-detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see 

Problem-Solving Tool Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: 

An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers). Evaluators need 

not have a great deal of expertise or technology. Even a small agency 

can use Google Maps, for example, to pinpoint and count area 

robberies. Larger agencies should have crime analysts to do this.

Your agency should evaluate a response on its impact on the actual 

problem (i.e., its so-called outcome measures). The following are 

potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to 

street robbery:

• reduced overall number of street robberies in your community,

• reduced number of robberies at hot spots,

• reduced number of calls for police service for robberies,
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 31

• reduced number and severity of injuries incurred during 

robberies, and

• reduced cash and property losses.

Offenders might change when, where and how they rob in 

response to prevention efforts. Anticipating possible forms and 

directions of crime displacement, however, can limit its occurrence. 

Though displacement should always be a concern, its occurrence 

is not inevitable, and it is often incomplete when it does occur. 

In addition, your response might create a diffusion of crime 

prevention benefits.36 For instance, reducing robberies in a hot 

spot might also contribute to a robbery reduction in nearby 

areas. (For more-detailed information on crime displacement and 

diffusion, see Problem-Solving Tool Guide No. 10, Analyzing 

Crime Displacement and Diffusion. For additional information on 

accounting for displacement and diffusion when assessing responses, 

see Problem-Solving Tool Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to 

Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers). Finally, 

it is important to remember that the goal is to reduce robberies. 

Measures like arrest numbers or robbery clearances tell us only what 

the police did, not what they have accomplished. 

Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 33

Responses to the Problem of Street 

Robbery

Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a 

baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible 

responses to address the problem. The following responses 

provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular street 

robbery problem. We have drawn these responses from a variety 

of research studies and police reports. Several of them might 

reduce the number of street robberies in your community. It is 

critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that 

you can justify each response based on reliable analysis of your 

local conditions. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve 

implementing several different responses. Law enforcement 

responses alone are seldom effective in creating sustainable 

reductions in street robberies, although they can, in some 

circumstances, produce short-term reductions.37

Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully 

consider whether others in your community share responsibility 

for the problem and can help police better respond to it. In 

some cases, your agency may need to shift the responsibility to 

those who can implement more-effective responses. For example, 

clearing a vacant lot of overgrown trees may be the most effective 

response to reducing the number of hiding places for offenders. 

In such a case, a nonpolice agency such as the city planning 

department must do most of the work in carrying out the 

response. For more-detailed information on shifting and sharing 

responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.

Many have written about robbery, but there are very few careful 

evaluations of interventions against stranger-perpetrated 

street robbery. Much of what we recommend here is based on 

information from other nonevaluative research and from informed 

judgments about what will likely prove effective. 
34 Street Robbery

General Considerations for an Effective Response 

Strategy

You should tailor your responses to street robbery problems as 

specifically as possible to the particular types of street robbery 

occurring in your jurisdiction. General robbery-reduction strategies 

are less likely to be effective. 

Any comprehensive intervention should address at least two 

sides of the street robbery triangle: offender, victim and location 

(see Figure 1 on page 11). Addressing more than one side of the 

triangle ensures that you modify at least some of the opportunities 

robbers exploit. In addition, it helps build in some redundancy, 

so that if one part of the intervention fails, then other parts of the 

intervention can still operate.

A comprehensive intervention should address multiple stages in 

the robbery process, particularly the earlier two stages (see Figure 

2 on page 16). This provides a layered approach that increases the 

likelihood the intervention will work.

Situational crime prevention provides multiple ways to influence 

offender decision-making (see www.popcenter.org).38 A 

comprehensive intervention should take advantage of several 

methods to discourage offenders.

Collaborative initiatives involving multiple partner agencies and 

organizations are often more effective than police efforts alone. 

Several of the responses mentioned below require partnerships 

among multiple agencies. Be sure, though, that collaborations have 

clear leadership, goals and management. 

Specific Responses to Street Robbery

We have organized the following specific responses to street robbery 

around the robbery triangle. We have also classified them by 

whether they have their influence long before, just before, during, 

or after a robbery. For example, providing emergency call boxes 

(blue lights) on campuses helps victims, but only after a robbery. 

By contrast, educating college students about displaying valuables 

influences potential victims long before a possible robbery.
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 35

Offender-Oriented Responses

1. Deploying visible foot/vehicle directed patrols (just before, 

during and after). Directed patrols appear to greatly deter 

street robbers and reduce street robbery (see text box below 

for an example). Directed patrols might work best as part 

of a robbery task force. The task force should be proactive, 

should be highly visible, should focus only on reducing street 

robberies, and should not handle service calls unrelated to 

robbery. You should use detailed crime analysis to station 

patrols at robbery hot spots and hot times. Directed patrols 

should be just one part of a larger initiative that focuses on 

other street-robbery aspects. For example, you might combine 

directed foot patrols with a robbery awareness program, a 

media campaign covering the patrols and the installation of 

CCTV cameras. Finally, you should not consider crackdown 

techniques, like directed patrols, a long-term strategy because 

these responses’ impact is often temporary (see Response Guide 

No. 1, The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns). 

Hull’s Anti-Robbery Patrols

Researchers analyzed high-visibility foot patrols in the city 

of Hull between April 2000 and March 2001. These highvisibility patrols consisted of 12 additional public-order foot 

patrol officers at specific high-robbery times (Friday and 

Saturday nights). One of the purposes of these high-visibility 

patrols was to deter potential offenders. Compared with the 

previous year, robbery fell by 16 percent during the year of 

the initiative. Further, a 5 percent increase occurred across 

the police force and a 15 percent increase occurred in the 

United Kingdom as a whole for the same period. Hull police 

used this type of directed patrol to keep the city center safe 

in general.

Source: Jones B. and Tilley N., 2004.
36 Street Robbery

2. Using covert directed patrols. In some cases, it is possible to 

use both covert (i.e., “not openly shown”) directed patrols and 

overt directed patrols to deter and catch offenders. U.K. police 

combined these strategies to reduce robbery at underground 

stations.39 First, London’s Metropolitan Police deployed highly 

visible uniformed officers in the streets surrounding the target 

area to deter potential offenders. Second, plainclothes officers 

targeted observed known robbery suspects and responded to 

robberies as they occurred. Overall, this strategy increased the 

number of people charged with street robbery by 30 percent 

after one year.40

3. Using intelligence to target repeat robbers (long before).

Your agency can gather intelligence to reduce street robbery 

in several ways. First, your agency could work with other 

organizations to build “intelligence databases” to learn more 

about repeat street robbers and their patterns. Ideal databases 

might include arrest data, probation and parole information, 

surveillance and CCTV footage, and hot-spot maps. 

Operation Eagle Eye,41 a U.K. robbery reduction strategy, used 

an intelligence database called “CRIMINT.” The database 

included several layers of data used to create suspect and 

target profiles. In addition, CRIMINT could map offenders’ 

robberies and play surveillance footage. You need to consider 

the additional training officers will need to use intelligence 

databases. Your agency could work with a local IT organization 

to create a database and train users. However, to avoid the 

potential for civil liability, check with your legal team before 

using this response.

 Second, you could also gather street robbery intelligence 

by examining other robbery-related crimes.42 For instance, 

investigations into theft or drug rings could reveal useful 

information about street robbery. 

 Third, you could pay informants to gather intelligence on 

offenders not yet known to police, popular target search areas, 

and products that robbers seek (such as MP3 players and 
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 37

mobile phones).43 Informants could also help your agency 

identify repeat robbers through network analysis (e.g., diagrams 

of offender associations). Network analysis could also reveal the 

individuals or groups robbers use to dispose of stolen items.44

4. Disrupting stolen goods markets (long before). Police do 

not usually consider disrupting stolen goods markets as a way 

to reduce street robbery.45 This strategy, however, may make 

sense when street robbers often take valuable noncash items. 

Street robbers have several options for handling stolen goods: 

they can sell the items to known fences or friends, use the 

items themselves, trade the items for drugs, or give the items 

away.46 Depending on offenders’ levels of sophistication, they 

may also use the Internet to sell stolen goods (e.g., via eBay and 

Craigslist). Your agency could work with local business owners, 

neighborhood groups, residents, or informants familiar with 

the community to identify potential groups or networks related 

to these transactions.47

 Your agency could also increase the risks and reduce the 

rewards of selling stolen items by focusing investigative 

attention on transporting, storing or selling them. Furthermore, 

you could work with consumers to register/mark valuable 

items to reduce the rewards of using stolen goods markets. 

For instance, U.K. police and mobile phone companies have 

teamed up to address stolen mobile phones. When someone 

reports a registered phone as stolen, the phone company blocks 

it within 48 hours, making it unusable. They also launched a 

marketing campaign to inform the public about this program. 

See Problem-Specific Guide No. 57 Stolen Goods Markets, for 

further information.

5. Publishing photos of known robbers (long before). This 

strategy might deter repeat robbers if police place photos 

in areas where robbers spend a lot of time. Posting photos 

would probably work best if you put them on robbery-specific

“WANTED” posters (rather than posters including various 

crime types). Your agency should pursue legal advice before 

publishing offender photos.
38 Street Robbery

6. Improving robber identification methods (after). Agencies 

are no longer limited to relying on stationary CCTV cameras 

to identify offenders. Technology advances have improved 

robber identification. Some innovative identification methods 

include the following. 

• PCFax:

48 PCFax is a computerized system that scans and 

transmits printable body maps/images. 

• DNA and forensic kits: Officers who arrive first at robbery 

scenes use these tools to collect any contact materials while 

they are still fresh.49

• Mobile robbery units: These vehicles pick up victims and 

process the scene immediately. Police drive victims around 

the area, and they provide information on-site.

• Facial recognition systems: The U.K.’s Metropolitan Police 

use a system called “Video Sentry.” They placed cameras in 

fixed locations near hot spots. 

• Mobile CCTV: You could install this system in an 

unmarked vehicle placed at different locations or in 

mobile units. Compared with the previous years, over six 

months this system reduced street robbery by 20 percent 

in one hot spot.50 Police have also used mobile CCTV for 

intelligence-gathering and prosecution evidence. In fact, 

witnesses can better positively identify offenders from video 

than from lineups.51

7. Diverting potential offenders to legitimate activities 

(long before). Some options include drug/alcohol counseling, 

employment services, education, and purposeful activity 

(e.g., youth groups and athletic programs) for young offenders. 

You could use post-arrest information to determine the best 

diversion tactic for specific offenders. One street robbery 

program in England52 used this information and found that 

85 percent of offenders robbed to support drug addictions. 
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 39

§

This strategy of getting buy-in from 

prosecutors and judges is similar to 

the Cincinnati Initiative To Reduce 

Violence and other Operation 

Ceasefire initiatives.

Accordingly, police created the Drug Arrest Referral Scheme 

(DARS) with a drug counselor (DARS employee).53 Providing 

employment services could also divert potential offenders. One 

study, however, revealed that only one-third offenders said they 

would stop robbing if given a decent job.54

 Your agency could also work with local schools to establish 

programs for young offenders who “rob out of boredom” or as 

part of a gang initiation. Furthermore, your agency could work 

with parks and recreation departments to develop additional 

after-school activities to divert young offenders. 

8. Using probation and parole information to target repeat 

offenders (long before). Probation and parole officers can 

notify your agency when detention centers release repeat 

robbers into the community. You can use this information to 

launch other offender-based strategies (e.g., directed patrols, 

covert operations and published offender photos) that hinge 

on knowing repeat offenders’ whereabouts. You could also use 

probation and parole information to process repeat robbers 

after arrest. For instance, you could flag an offender’s record as 

“high priority” so prosecutors and judges know the offender is a 

repeat robber and part of a robbery reduction strategy.55, §

9. Removing robbery “tools” (long before). Offenders 

commonly use weapons as a “tool” in many street robberies. 

Street robbers, however, can’t always get real guns and opt 

for fake or replica guns. If this is part of your community’s 

street robbery problem, your agency could work with local 

retailers to stop or regulate the sale of authentic-looking toy 

guns. One Minneapolis group asked a local K-Mart to stop 

selling replica guns offenders used in some street robberies. In 

response to publicity and the Minneapolis (Minnesota) Police 

Department’s request, K-Mart stopped selling the fake guns.56

To avoid losing profits, some retailers might resist this strategy. 
40 Street Robbery

Victim-Oriented Responses

10. Launching a robbery awareness campaign (long before).

Some pedestrians might not accurately perceive the risk of 

street robbery. You could develop and hold information 

seminars reminding people to keep possessions well hidden 

and to remain alert to their surroundings (e.g., avoid speaking 

on cell phones and listening to MP3 players outdoors). In 

addition, your agency could create a website with interactive 

maps showing safe routes and destinations.

 Your campaign could also enlist local media. Police in England, 

for instance, worked with radio stations to broadcast crimerelated interviews.57 These interviews enabled concerned 

citizens to speak with police about local crime issues. The same 

agency also worked with the local government council to install 

crime prevention displays at recreation places and libraries. 

Finally, they distributed safety leaflets among residents and 

held Community Safety Days to promote robbery awareness 

and safe behavior.58

 Awareness campaigns succeed more when they target people 

directly at risk of the problem (see Response Guide No. 5, Crime 

Prevention Publicity Campaigns). For instance, if the problem 

involves a particular group’s routines, then the campaign 

should focus on that group and not on other groups. General 

public-safety campaigns targeting the larger community 

prove generally ineffective, as the problem doesn’t affect most 

people, and the few whom the problem does affect overlook the 

message before they need to apply it.

11. Providing safe transportation (long before). Providing 

safe and easily accessible transportation from entertainment 

districts, bars or special events can reduce the number of 

suitable targets on the street at peak robbery times and days. 
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 41

The University of Cincinnati (UC), for instance, offers a 

shuttle service that picks up and drops off students from nearby 

entertainment venues. UC also provides an escort service 

for students walking to and from class or to other on- and 

off-campus destinations.59 Furthermore, many cities provide 

reduced-price or free transportation during holiday celebrations 

when normally safe areas could be riskier. This strategy helps 

remove more vulnerable, and potentially drunken, people from 

the streets.

12. Improving how victims report robberies (after). The faster 

someone reports a robbery to your agency, the faster your agency 

can respond, and the better your chances are of collecting useful 

evidence, identifying suspects and uncovering current offender 

information.60 Using mobile robbery units improves information 

collection and encourages quicker reporting. When using this 

response, you must ensure that dispatchers immediately inform 

patrolling officers of the street crimes victims report to local 

stations, which dispatchers often don’t do.61

 Making reporting procedures easy for victims also can improve 

the likelihood of victims’ reporting their victimization. 

Operation Eagle Eye used several tactics to improve victims’ 

willingness to report robberies by encouraging involvement 

and providing help. First, the program automatically referred 

all robbery victims to a victim support group. Second, police 

advised victims of any developments in the investigation. 

(This tactic may benefit those areas where police-community 

relations are weak. Community members may be more willing 

to provide information if they believe police will follow 

through with a robbery report.) Police allowed victims to use 

pseudonyms when giving accounts to ensure anonymity in 

reporting and protection from retaliation. Finally, encouraging 

victims to report crimes committed against them will help you 

collect the data needed to analyze specific robbery problems. 

This step can provide your agency with a clearer picture of 

when, where and how robberies occur in your community.
42 Street Robbery

13. Reducing target attractiveness (just before). Your agency 

could deal with “hot products” (e.g., CRAVED items) that 

make some people more attractive to street robbers. The Home 

Office, for instance, has launched several campaigns to reduce 

thefts from youth by encouraging them to keep cell phones 

concealed. For example, MP3 players may come with white or 

other brightly colored leads, making users obvious to potential 

robbers. Using a dark-colored lead, however, might reduce a 

target’s attractiveness by preventing offenders from detecting the 

device from a distance.62 Concealing CRAVED items to reduce 

target attractiveness could also increase robbers’ efforts.63

14. Reducing intoxication in high-risk areas (long before and 

just before). Street robbers might perceive drunken people 

as lacking awareness, making them more vulnerable to attack. 

Therefore, this response is likely most appropriate in “night 

life” areas where people drink. Your agency could work with 

entertainment venues and bars to better monitor serving 

practices. For instance, you could encourage bar staff to stop 

serving obviously drunken patrons. Or, like in the Bristol AntiRobbery Strategy, local council members could arrange taxi 

and night bus services from bars to reduce the risk of student 

robbery (see response No. 11).64

15. Rewarding awareness and safety (long before). You could 

improve participation in robbery interventions by providing 

incentives beyond personal safety. In England, for example, 

anti-robbery advice cards were printed with coupons on the 

back. These cards were a useful tool for encouraging students 

to participate in their own safety. Incentives could include 

discounts at local hangouts or on textbooks.65 People could 

also earn coupons after completing a robbery education 

program. Regardless of the incentive, the idea is to make 

receiving robbery safety information attractive. 

16. Redesigning certain CRAVED items (long before). Since 

robbers often take cash or other items not always observable 

before an attack, marking property might do little to reduce 

their anticipated rewards. However, when robbers steal items 
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 43

§

For more information on TRIAD 

branches, see www.kanecountytriad.

com/index.html.

for personal use or resale, manufacturers could design Internetdependent electronic items to stop working or become less 

functional once reported stolen. For example, robbers might not 

steal MP3 players knowing they can’t connect the devices online 

or upload new files. This strategy would work best if people 

knew certain items had security enhancements. Redesigning 

products, however, is likely costly for manufacturers and suggests 

that owning their products is risky. 

17. Making senior citizens less vulnerable. If offenders 

disproportionately rob your community’s senior citizens, you 

could tailor responses specific to their needs. Your agency 

could work with senior citizen groups in your community. For 

example, numerous branches of the TRIAD program currently 

exist throughout the United States. The National Sheriff ’s 

Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

and the American Association of Retired Persons developed 

TRIAD to increase awareness of crimes against senior citizens, 

sponsor crime safety programs and connect senior citizens 

with local law enforcement. The website for the Central Kane 

County, IL, TRIAD branch, for instance, provides information 

about transportation services and posts dates for upcoming 

personal safety events. Improving transportation might help 

senior citizens avoid having to walk through high-risk areas, 

while safety events could provide them with tips for reducing 

their risk of robbery.§

18. Making immigrants less vulnerable. Robbers often target 

immigrants because they carry a lot of cash instead of 

depositing it into a bank account. Your agency could work 

with community social and cultural agencies to educate and 

help immigrants so they can avoid robbery. For example, when 

robberies of the Charlotte, NC, Hispanic population increased, 

the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department created the 

International Relations Unit. This multiagency unit held 

monthly meetings (with Spanish speakers) with the Hispanic 

community and built relationships between the financial and 

Hispanic communities, while also educating Hispanics with 

crime prevention literature.66
44 Street Robbery

Location-Oriented Responses

19. Removing hiding spots (long before and after). You might 

find it useful to work with city planners and sanitation services 

to remove overgrowth and trash from vacant lots that could 

provide cover to street robbers. Similarly, your agency could 

work with building inspectors to either demolish or board up 

abandoned buildings that could provide cover to an offender 

before and after a robbery. Certain legitimate locations, such 

as parks, might also provide hiding spots for street robbers. 

Therefore, your agency could work with the parks department 

to either close access to high-risk routes or close the park 

during peak robbery times and days. See Problem-Specific 

Guide No. 9, Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks.

20. Increasing lighting at high-risk sites (long before).

Increasing lighting could decrease the risk of street robbery. 

Improved lighting was one part of the Home Office’s Safer 

Cities Program.67 Specifically, police used improved lighting in 

conjunction with CCTV and target-hardening measures (e.g., 

access control). The lighting intervention included controlling 

lights via infrared heat detectors and using stationary lights 

on businesses and homes. No one has yet evaluated the Safer 

Cities Program. This response is more likely to be effective 

if your agency can install lighting at street robbery hot spots 

that are especially risky at night. Finally, if lights are already 

present at such areas, you should have their brightness assessed 

and increased, if needed. Researchers have conducted other 

studies of lighting and crime in parking garages, residential 

neighborhoods and markets, for example. However, the 

majority of these studies often examine “personal or property 

crimes,” rather than focus specifically on street robbery.68 See 

Response Guide No. 8, on Improving Street Lighting To Reduce 

Crime in Residential Areas, for further information.

21. Installing CCTV (long before and after). Installing CCTV 

to reduce crime is most promising if you can identify reliable 

hot spots.69 Once you identify them, you should regularly 
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 45

analyze them (either daily or weekly) to assess any changes at 

those locations.70 You could also improve your CCTV strategy 

by adding signs at the locations notifying the public to be on 

guard and warning would-be offenders that cameras are in 

use.71 Your agency might need to work with place managers 

to install CCTV if offenders are robbing people going to 

and from their establishments. Using CCTV to reduce street 

robberies might be challenging because offenses occur in public 

(e.g., on the street).

 CCTV might prevent street robbery long before a potential 

offense, but you can also use to address a robbery’s aftermath. 

For instance, police could use CCTV footage as evidence in 

street robbery cases.72 Furthermore, local police and media 

could use images to identify, locate and apprehend street 

robbers. See Response Guide No. 4, Video Surveillance of Public 

Places, for further information.

22. Increasing pedestrian density near risky places (long before 

and just before). Recall that street robbery usually occurs in 

“critical-intensity zones,” where there are sufficient pedestrians 

to make robbery attractive, but not enough pedestrians to 

protect one another.73 Accordingly, increasing pedestrian 

density might reduce street robberies because targets are better 

guarded and the risk of apprehension is high (this may not be 

true for pickpocketing). You could increase pedestrian density 

by rerouting pedestrian traffic during high-risk robbery times 

and days. 

23. Removing escape routes (long before and after). Robbers 

often look for easy escape routes.74 You could solicit city 

planners or place managers to increase the effort needed to 

escape from certain locations after committing a robbery. For 

example, a bar owner could install fencing around the bar’s 

parking lot or block adjacent alleys. These obstructions might 

eliminate shortcuts that provide robbers with a quick and 

uncomplicated getaway. 
46 Street Robbery

24. Increasing site-specific robbery awareness (just before). You 

could use posters and billboards at high-risk locations, such 

as ATM machines, transportation stops and entertainment 

districts, to make people aware of safety near robbery hot spots, 

For example, U.K. police bought and posted four high-profile 

signs in robbery hot spots. The signs read as follows: “Robbery 

is a crime of concern in the city of Gloucester. For your safety 

and security, plain-clothed police officers and mobile CCTV 

cameras may be deployed in this area.”75 Not only do such 

signs alert victims just before a robbery, but also they can deter 

potential offenders. Your agency could also encourage local 

bars and restaurants to provide safety information on menus 

or drink coasters. Increasing robbery awareness at specific sites 

might be less expensive and require less planning than broad 

education campaigns.

25. Installing emergency call stations (just before and after).

Many colleges and universities have installed victim call stations 

on their campuses. These stations are equipped with emergency 

lights and telephones directly linked to campus police. Just 

before victimization, people might be able to quickly contact 

the police. In turn, police could identify the victim’s exact 

location. Therefore, call stations could deter potential robbers 

or help police apprehend a robber shortly after the offense. 

You might apply this campus strategy to your community’s 

robbery hot spots. Once your agency has identified high-risk 

locations, you could install call stations directly linked to your 

department.

Routine-Oriented Responses

26. Improving special event planning (long before). It is 

important for your community to consider safety when planning 

special holiday events, festivals or other occasions that draw 

large crowds. You could prevent street robberies of event-goers 

by routing them away from unsafe areas or providing warnings 
Responses to the Problem of Street Robbery 47

about intoxication and robbery risk. You should provide special 

training on responsible serving practices at events where people 

serve alcohol. Finally, you could use police foot patrols or hired 

security officers to provide guardianship near event edges (e.g., 

robbery zones). Strategies that emphasize crime and safety at 

special events could dissuade would-be event-goers. Therefore, 

it might be best to publicize affirmative safety tips for event 

attendees rather than dire warnings about the robbery risk. 

27. Planning for holiday shopping (long before). Retail stores 

and other shopping venues are usually concentrated in certain 

areas. Therefore, people at risk of street robbery while holiday 

shopping are likely restricted to a limited number of areas in 

your community—that is, where the stores are. Therefore, you 

can launch a highly directed safety strategy to protect holiday 

shoppers. For instance, you could post signs in a shopping area 

cautioning shoppers to stay alert and aware of their surroundings, 

money and property. While this strategy has the advantage of 

being confined to a very specific area (which could help reduce 

costs), it likely has no effect on shoppers once they leave the 

shopping area. For example, street robbers could target shoppers 

as they take gifts from their parked cars to their homes.

28. Notifying parents just before the school year starts. As 

mentioned, the beginning of the school year marks a time when 

many youths converge upon a specific area carrying various 

CRAVED items (e.g., new electronics and clothes). School 

administrators could notify parents (by mail or email) that 

robbers view these students as attractive targets. These messages 

should encourage parents to work with children to reduce their 

target attractiveness (e.g., to conceal possessions when traveling 

to school and map out safe routes). School administrators could 

apply similar strategies to reduce robberies associated with daily 

school routines (e.g., starting and dismissal times).
48 Street Robbery

29. Providing safe routes during construction. Your agency could 

work with builder associations to plan construction detour 

routes through low-risk robbery areas—for example, walkways 

with sufficient pedestrian density and minimal escape routes. 

Furthermore, your agency could encourage construction firms 

to dispose of debris and other construction materials that 

prospective robbers could use as weapons.

30. Encouraging businesses to use alternative pay methods. 

Requiring employees to enroll in direct deposit programs or 

mailing paychecks could reduce street robberies of workers 

paid in cash. 

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

31. Using police decoys. Decoy operations are another form of 

covert directed patrol. Decoy operations involve undercover 

police officers’ posing as potential victims in high-robbery 

areas. Backup officers are positioned nearby to intervene if 

robbers attack the decoys. There are no reliable evaluations of 

whether decoy operations reduce crime, even if they produce 

many arrests. A major limitation of this strategy is the risk it 

poses to decoy officers. In addition, this type of operation can 

be costly and time-consuming.76 To avoid these risks, placing 

decoy or “dummy” police vehicles at hot spots might deter 

some offenders.77

32. Arming potential victims. Resistance to robbery appears 

to have beneficial results, on average.78 Therefore, it is 

possible that arming potential victims with chemical sprays, 

electric shocking devices (e.g., Tasers) or guns may reduce 

robberies. However, the research on this topic is inconclusive, 

contradictory and controversial. Further, it is possible that 

offenders could escalate violence, making a bad situation worse. 

In addition, it is possible that potential victims might attack 

nonoffenders whom they mistakenly view as a threat.
Appendix 49

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Street Robbery

The table below summarizes the responses to street robbery, the means by which they are intended to 

work, the conditions under which they should work best, and some factors you should consider before 

implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and 

that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will 

involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective 

in reducing or solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Offender-Oriented Responses

1 35 Deploying visible 

foot/vehicle directed 

patrols

It increases robbers’ 

risk of detection and 

apprehension by 

strengthening formal 

surveillance.

...police use it as part 

of a highly visible, 

proactive task force. 

The task force should 

be part of a larger 

initiative focusing 

on other aspects of 

street crime.

2 36 Using covert directed 

patrols 

It increases robbers’ 

risk of apprehension.

...plainclothes officers 

target observed 

known robbery 

suspects and respond 

immediately to 

robberies as they occur.

Police should use 

covert operations 

in conjunction with 

overt directed patrols 

to deter and catch 

offenders. 

3 36 Using intelligence to 

target repeat robbers

It increases the 

likelihood of 

apprehending prolific 

offenders.

...police enter 

intelligence 

information into a 

central database with 

different sources, such 

as probation, parole 

and arrest records, 

and any surveillance 

or other visual data 

(e.g., photographs 

and maps).

Police may need 

additional training, 

or they may 

need a civilian 

IT professional 

to maintain the 

database. Continually 

working with other 

agencies to obtain 

current information 

(e.g., weekly or 

monthly updates) 

may be difficult to 

coordinate.
50 Street Robbery

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

4 37 Disrupting stolen 

goods markets

It reduces the 

rewards for offenders 

by disrupting the 

networks they use to 

fence noncash items.

...your agency 

works with local 

business owners, 

neighborhood 

groups, residents, or 

informants familiar 

with the community 

who can identify 

potential networks/

groups related to 

these transactions.

Depending on the 

offenders’ level of 

sophistication, your 

agency may need to 

consider Internet 

sites (e.g., eBay and 

Craigslist) as another 

type of network to 

track stolen goods.

5 37 Publishing photos of 

known robbers

It increases the risk to 

offenders by reducing 

their anonymity.

...police post photos 

on robbery-specific 

“WANTED” 

posters, rather than 

on posters including 

various crime types.

You should get 

legal advice before 

publishing offender 

photos.

6 38 Improving robber 

identification 

It increases the risk 

of identification 

...police use it 

with additional 

Newer robbery 

identification 

methods through formal 

surveillance and 

technological 

improvements. 

intelligence-gathering 

databases and 

informants.

methods may be 

costly for an agency. 

It may be better to 

work with other city 

agencies that have 

technical expertise.

7 38 Diverting potential 

offenders to 

legitimate activities

It removes excuses 

for offending 

(e.g., a need for 

cash, drug and/or 

alcohol addiction, 

lack of education, 

and boredom) by 

connecting offenders 

to various social 

...your agency works 

with social service 

agencies, schools and 

park and recreation 

departments.

Once you establish 

these partnerships, 

you should sustain 

them through 

regular meetings 

(e.g., monthly or 

quarterly). 

services.
Appendix 51

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

8 39 Using probation and 

parole information 

to target repeat 

offenders

It increases the 

risk of detection 

by strengthening 

formal surveillance. 

In this case, each 

agency communicates 

with one another 

regarding the release, 

monitoring or arrest 

of repeat offenders. 

...each agency agrees 

on a schedule (e.g., 

daily or weekly) 

and a method (e.g., 

email) for sending 

updated information 

on repeat offenders. 

Each agency then 

alerts the others 

regarding their next 

steps.

This strategy requires 

that agencies share 

sensitive information 

on offenders. 

Therefore, the 

agencies should 

agree ahead of time 

on what specific 

information they 

need to transmit so 

they can track repeat 

offenders in the 

system.

9 39 Removing robbery 

“tools”

It increases the effort 

for offenders by 

restricting access to 

alternative weapons.

...local retailers agree 

to regulate the sale 

of authentic-looking 

guns.

Some retailers may 

resist regulating these 

sales to avoid losing 

profits.

Victim-Oriented Responses

10 40 Launching a robbery 

awareness campaign

It uses various media 

outlets to disseminate 

a prevention message.

...awareness 

campaigns target the 

people most at risk 

for robbery.

Your agency may 

want to work with 

a local PR firm or 

university to help 

create a prevention 

campaign.

11 40 Providing safe 

transportation

It reduces the 

number of potential 

targets on the street.

...accessible 

transportation is 

provided at reduced 

prices or for free at 

peak robbery times 

and places.

Your agency may 

want to work 

with your local 

transportation 

agency, taxi services 

and universities 

to coordinate 

transportation needs.

12 41 Improving how 

victims report 

robberies

It improves 

intelligence, 

which increases 

the likelihood of 

preventing and 

detecting offenders.

... the reporting of 

robberies is fast and 

easy for the victim, 

and the victim 

is provided with 

support. 

Make sure street 

robberies reported 

to local stations are 

immediately relayed 

to patrolling officers.
52 Street Robbery

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

13 42 Reducing target 

attractiveness

It educates potential 

targets about the 

value of concealing 

CRAVED items 

when in public, 

which makes targets 

less attractive to 

...campaigns are 

aimed at high-risk 

targets most likely 

to carry CRAVED 

items in public 

(e.g., young adults, 

students and 

You should be 

sensitive when 

placing safety 

education materials 

in robbery hot 

spots. For example, 

entertainment venues 

offenders. tourists). do not want visitors 

to think the area is 

unsafe.

14 42 Reducing 

intoxication in highrisk areas

It reduces the chances 

of a drunken person 

becoming a street 

robbery target.

...police work with 

entertainment venues 

and bars to better 

monitor serving 

practices.

Entertainment 

venues, bars and 

tourist areas may 

be more willing to 

participate or train 

bar staff if incentives 

are involved (e.g., 

recognition in a 

travel brochure).

15 42 Rewarding awareness 

and safety

It makes receiving 

safety information 

attractive to potential 

targets.

...police provide 

coupons or discounts 

to people who attend 

a safety education 

program.

Your agency should 

contact those 

merchants who have 

high-risk targets as 

customers and are 

most likely to work 

out a coupon or 

discount program.

16 42 Redesigning certain 

CRAVED items

It reduces the 

functionality of 

highly desired 

products after a 

robbery. 

...it is well known 

that certain products 

contain security 

enhancements.

Redesigning products 

may be costly for 

manufacturers. 

Also, consumers 

might avoid buying 

products perceived as 

risky to own.
Appendix 53

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

17 43 Making senior 

citizens less 

vulnerable

It reduces their risk 

of victimization.

...special 

circumstances put 

senior citizens at 

particular risk.

You need to examine 

carefully senior 

citizens’ particular 

needs, which might 

be difficult for your 

agency if there are no 

community senior 

citizen groups (e.g., 

TRIAD) with which 

to work.

18 43 Making immigrants 

less vulnerable

It reduces their risk 

of victimization.

... there are nativelanguage speakers 

available to 

communicate with 

immigrants.

Your community may 

not have cultural or 

social services that 

specifically address 

immigrants’ needs. 

Location-Oriented Responses

19 44 Removing hiding 

spots

It increases the risk 

of detection by 

removing robbers’ 

cover before and after 

an attack.

...your agency 

works with building 

inspectors, park 

districts and other 

agencies with the 

authority to make 

changes to public 

landscape. Also, it 

works best against 

snatch robbers 

needing cover for 

surprise attacks.

Business districts, 

park districts and 

local residents might 

resist the removal 

of attractive trees 

and shrubbery. 

Also, demolishing 

abandoned buildings 

is costly.

20 44 Increasing lighting at 

high-risk sites

It increases offenders’ 

risk of detection.

...workers install 

lighting in or near 

areas especially risky 

at night.

Installing and 

maintaining lights 

could be costly. Also, 

lights could help 

robbers spot items to 

snatch from a victim.
54 Street Robbery

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

21 44 Installing CCTV It increases offenders’ 

risk of detection 

through continuous 

guardianship.

...police can identify 

reliable hot spots.

Stationary CCTV 

systems might be 

ineffective if robbery 

displaces to nearby 

areas.

22 45 Increasing pedestrian 

density near risky 

places

It increases the 

offenders’ risk of 

detection and better 

protects potential 

victims.

...police implement 

their strategy in 

critical-intensity 

robbery zones.

Rerouting pedestrian 

traffic could result 

in pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities. 

23 45 Removing escape 

routes

It increases the effort 

offenders need to 

make to escape from 

certain locations after 

a robbery.

...robbery hot 

spots cluster near 

areas with multiple 

shortcuts.

Robbers might 

use weapons to 

immobilize victims, 

making a quick 

escape less important.

24 46 Increasing sitespecific robbery 

awareness

It increases the effort 

robbery entails 

by raising public 

awareness.

...police post 

awareness materials 

in high-risk areas and 

gear them toward 

at-risk groups.

Posting robbery 

materials in business 

and entertainment 

districts could 

increase fear among 

employees and 

patrons. This would 

also be true for places 

such as high-rise 

apartments, public 

housing and public 

parking garages.

25 46 Installing emergency 

call stations

It increases the 

likelihood of quickly 

apprehending 

suspects.

...call stations are 

installed near highrisk areas and directly 

linked to local police.

False alarms could 

waste police 

resources. Immobile 

call stations are 

ineffective if spatial 

robbery patterns 

change.
Appendix 55

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Routine-Oriented Responses

26 46 Improving special 

event planning

It reduces robbery 

risks.

...most event-goers 

are from out of town 

and unfamiliar with 

the local area, or are 

drinking alcohol 

and less alert to 

their immediate 

surroundings.

Emphasizing crime 

and safety at special 

events could dissuade 

would-be event goers, 

so it is important 

to publicize safety 

tips rather than dire 

warnings.

27 47 Planning for holiday 

shopping

It reduces the 

attractiveness of 

clusters of potential 

targets confined to a 

very specific area.

...robberies occur at 

shopping centers or 

in their parking areas.

This strategy does 

not protect shoppers 

as they take gifts 

from their cars to 

their homes.

28 47 Notifying parents 

just before the school 

year starts

It reduces the 

attractiveness of a 

specific group of 

targets at a specific 

time.

...parents are willing 

to relay safety 

information to 

children and work 

with them to increase 

their personal safety.

Schools might be 

hesitant to call too 

much attention to 

robbery risks on or 

near school grounds. 

29 48 Providing safe routes 

during construction

It ensures that 

pedestrians are not 

rerouted to isolated 

areas with escape 

routes for robbers.

...your agency 

works with building 

companies to 

monitor routes as 

work sites change.

Construction sites 

are temporary and 

frequently change; 

changing conditions 

could make 

monitoring difficult.

30 48 Encouraging 

businesses to use 

alternative pay 

methods

It reduces the 

rewards of robbery 

by eliminating 

cash payments to 

employees.

...your community’s 

robbery problem 

involves workers 

traditionally paid in 

cash (e.g., waitstaff 

and day laborers).

Electronic deposits or 

mailed checks could 

upset employees used 

to receiving cash 

payments. 
56 Street Robbery

Response Page Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

No. No.

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

31 48 Using police decoys It increases offenders’ ...the goal is to There is little 

risk of apprehension. increase short-term evidence that using 

arrests of street decoys has lasting 

robbers. effects.

32 48 Arming potential It deters offenders. ...offenders perceive Its effectiveness 

victims an increased risk and is unknown and 

they can’t escalate controversial. There 

violence. is the potential of 

greater harm through 

escalation. 
Endnotes 57

Endnotes

1	 FBI (2006).

2	 Curran et al. (2005); Holt and Spencer (2005).

3	 U.S. Department of Justice (2007). 

4	 U.S. Department of Justice (2007). 

5	 U.S. Department of Justice (2007); Smith (2003).

6	 U.S. Department of Justice (2007). 

7	 Wright and Decker (1997).

8	 Klaus (2000).

9	 Tilley et al. (2004).

10	Tilley et al. (2004).

11	Cincinnati Police Department (2006, 2005). 

12	Pratt (1980).

13	U.S. Department of Justice (2005). 

14	U.S. Department of Justice (2005). 

15	Roman and Chalfin (2007).

16	Clarke (1999).

17	Clarke (1999).

18	Gale and Coupe (2005); Feeney (1986).

19	Cook (2009).

20	Cook (2009).

21	Cook (1987).

22	Cook (1987).

23	Wright and Decker (1997).

24	Jacobs and Wright (1999).

25	Smith (2003).

26	Smith (2003).

27	“Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online” (2006). 
58 Street Robbery

28	Brantingham and Brantingham (1993).

29	Brantingham and Brantingham (1981).

30	Jacobs and Wright (1999).

31	Brantingham and Brantingham (1981); Eck (1993). 

32	Wiles and Costello (2000).

33	Clarke (1999).

34	Adapted from Jacobs and Wright (1999).

35	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).

36	Clarke and Weisburd (1994).

37	Kane (2006).

38	Also see Eck and Clarke (2003).

39	Burney (1990).

40	Burney (1990).

41	Stockdale and Gresham (1998).

42	Burrows et al. (2003).

43	Stockdale and Gresham (1998).

44	Burrows et al. (2003).

45	Burrows et al. (2003).

46	Sutton (1998). 

47	Sutton (1998);Schneider (2005). 

48	Stockdale and Gresham (1998). 

49	Burrows et al. (2003).

50	Burrows et al. (2003).

51	Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2003).

52	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003). 

53	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).

54	Wright and Decker (1997).

55	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).
Endnotes 59

56	Lowe (2008). 

57	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).

58	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).

59	University of Cincinnati Public Safety Division (2009). 

www.uc.edu/pubsafety/police_services/

60	Burrows et al. (2003).

61	Burrows et al. (2003).

62	Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2003); “BBC News” 

(2005); Clarke (1997, 1995); Home Office (2009) 

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/robbery/.

63	Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2003).

64	Thomas (2001).

65	Thomas (2001).

66	Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (2002). 

67	Ramsay and Newton (1991).

68	See Farrington and Welsh (2007, 2002); Welsh and 

Farrington (2006).

69	Sherman, Gartin and Buerger (1989).

70	Greater Manchester Police, Bury Police Station (2005).

71	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).

72	Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2003).

73	Block and Block (2000).

74	Jacobs and Wright (1999).

75	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003). 

76	Newman and Socia (2007).

77	Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).

78	Cook (2009).

References 61

References 

Allen, C. (2005). “Links Between Heroin, Crack Cocaine and 

Crime: Where Does Street Crime Fit In?” British Journal 

of Criminology 45(3):355–372.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street: Decency, Violence and 

the Moral Life of the Inner City. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press.

——— (1990). Streetwise: Race, Class and Change in an Urban 

Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Arvanites, T., and R. DeFina (2006). “Business Cycles and Street 

Crime.” Criminology 44(1):139–164.

Barker, M., J. Geraghty, B. Webb, and T. Key (1993). “The 

Prevention of Street Robbery.” Crime Prevention Unit Series. 

Paper No. 44. London: Home Office.

Barker, M., and S. Page (2002). “Visitor Safety in Urban Tourism 

Environments: The Case of Auckland, New Zealand.” Cities 

19(4):273–282.

“BBC News” (2005). “iPods ‘fueling street robbery,’” May 26. 

Bellair, P. (2000). “Informal Surveillance and Street Crime: 

A Complex Relationship.” Criminology 38(1):137–169. 

——— (1997). “Social Interaction and Community Crime: 

Examining the Importance of Neighbor Networks.”

Criminology 35(4):677. 

Block, R., and C. Block (2000). “The Bronx and Chicago: 

Street Robbery in the Environs of Rapid Transit Stations.” 

In V. Goldsmith, P. McGuire, J. Mollenkopf, and T. Ross 

(eds.), Analyzing Crime Patterns: Frontiers of Practice. 

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. 

Block, R., and S. Davis (1996). “The Environs of Rapid Transit 

Stations: A Focus for Street Crime or Just Another Risky 

Place?” In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, 

N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 
62 Street Robbery

Borgatti, S. (2006). “Identifying Sets of Key Players in a Social 

Network.” Computational and Mathematical Organization 

Theory 12:21–34.

 Brantingham, P. J., and P. L. Brantingham (eds.) (1981). 

Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Brantingham, P. L., and P. J. Brantingham (1993). “Nodes, Paths 

and Edges: Considerations on the Complexity of Crime 

and the Physical Environment.” Journal of Environmental 

Psychology 13:3–28.

Brookman, F., C. Mullins, T. Bennett, and R. Wright (2007). 

“Gender, Motivation and the Accomplishment of Street 

Robbery in the United Kingdom.” British Journal of 

Criminology 47(4):861–884. 

Brunt, P., and Z. Hambly (1999). “Tourism and Crime: A Research 

Agenda.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An 

International Journal 1(2):25–36. 

Brunt, P., R. Mawby and A. Hambly (2000). “Tourist Victimization 

and the Fear of Crime on Holiday: Case Study.” Tourism 

Management 21(4):417–424. 

Burney, E. (1990). “Putting Street Crime in Its Place: A Report to 

the Community/Police Consultative Group for Lambeth.” 

London: Center for Inner-City Studies, Goldsmiths College, 

University of London. 

Burrows, J., H. Poole, T. Read, and S. Webb (2003). “Tackling 

Personal Robbery: Lessons Learnt From the Police and 

Community Safety Partnerships.” No. 5. London: Home Office. 

Bursik, J., J. Robert and H. Grasmick (1993). Neighborhoods and 

Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New 

York: Lexington Books. 

Catalano, S. (2005). Criminal Victimization. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
References 63

Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department 

(2002). “Hispanic Robbery Initiative: Reducing Robbery 

Victimization and Increasing Trust of Police and Financial 

Institutions in a Hispanic Community.” Submission for 

the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing.

City of Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department (2008). City of 

Cincinnati – Statistics. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from www.

cincinnati-oh.gov/police/pages/-4258-/. 

Clarke, R. (1999). Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating and 

Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods. London: Home Office 

Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

——— 1997. Introduction. In R.V. Clarke (ed.) Situational Crime 

Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Guilderland, NY: Harrow 

and Heston.

——— (1995). Situational Crime Prevention. In Crime and 

Justice (vol. 19), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to 

crime prevention, pp. 91-150, Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press.

Clarke, R., and D. Weisburd (1994). “Diffusion of Crime Control 

Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of Displacement.” In 

R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, N.Y.: 

Criminal Justice Press. 

Cohen, L. (1981). “Robbery Victimization in the U.S.: An Analysis 

of a Nonrandom Event.” Social Science Quarterly 62(4):644–657. 

Cook, P. (2009). “Robbery.” In M. Tonry (ed.), The Oxford 

Handbook of Crime and Public Policy. New York: Oxford 

University Press.

——— (1987). “Robbery Violence.” Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology 70(2):357–376.

Copes, H., and A. Hochstetler (2003). “Situational Construction 

of Masculinity Among Male Street Thieves.” Journal of 

Contemporary Ethnography 32(3):279–304. 
64 Street Robbery

Curran, K., M. Dale, M. Edmunds, M. House, A. Millie, and 

M. Wagstaff (2005). Street Crime in London: Deterrence, 

Disruption and Displacement. London: Government Office 

for London, Crime and Drugs Division. 

Davison, E., and W. Smith (2001). “Informing Community Policing 

Initiatives With GIS-Assisted Multisource Data and MicroLevel Analysis.” Journal of Crime and Justice 24(1):85–108. 

De Haan, W. (1998). “Running Risks and Managing Dangers: 

Street Robbery as a Matter of Trust.” In V. Ruggiero, N. South 

and I. Taylor (eds.), The New European Criminology: Crime 

and Social Disorder in Europe. London: Routledge. 

Deakin, J., H. Smithson., J. Spencer, and J. Medina-Ariza (2007). 

“Taxing on the Streets: Understanding the Methods and 

Process of Street Robbery.” Crime Prevention and Community 

Safety: An International Journal 9(1):52–67. 

Dimanche, F., and A. Lepetic (1999). “New Orleans Tourism and 

Crime: A Case Study.” Journal of Travel Research 38(1):19-23. 

Downtown Cincinnati Inc. website (2009). http://

downtowncincinnati.com/. 

Eck, John E. (1993). “The Threat of Crime Displacement.” 

Criminal Justice Abstracts 25(3):527-546.

Eck, J., and R. Clarke (2003). “Classifying Common Police 

Problems: A Routine Activity Approach.” In M. Smith and 

D. Cornish (eds.), Theory for Practice in Situational Crime 

Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal 

Justice Press. 

Erickson, R. (2003). Teenage Robbers: How and Why They Rob. 

San Diego: Athena Research Corp. 

Everett, M., and S. Borgatti (1999). “The Centrality of Groups and 

Classes.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 23(3):181–201. 

Faggiani, D., and M. Owens (1999). “Robbery of Older Adults: 

A Descriptive Analysis Using the National Incident-Based 

Reporting System.” Justice Research and Policy 1(1):97–117. 
References 65

Farrington, D., and B. Welsh (2007). Improved Street Lighting and 

Crime Prevention: A Systematic Review.

——— (2002). “Improved Street Lighting and Crime Prevention.”

Justice Quarterly 19(2): 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States, 

2006. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from www.fbi.gov/ucr/

cius2006/index.html. 

Feeney, F. (1986). “Robbers as Decision-Makers.” In D. Cornish 

and R. Clarke (eds.), The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice 

Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Feeney, F., and A. Weir (1975). “The Prevention and Control of 

Robbery.” Criminology 13(1):102–105. 

Felson, C., and R. Clarke (1998). “Opportunity Makes the Thief: 

Practical Theory for Crime Prevention.” Paper No. 98. 

London: Home Office. Research Development and Statistics 

Directorate.

Fisher, B., and A. Wilkes (2003). “A Tale of Two Ivory Towers. 

A Comparative Analysis of Victimization Rates and Risks 

Between University Students in the United States and 

England.” The British Journal of Criminology 43(3):526. 

FitzGerald, M., J. Stockdale and C. Hale (2003). Young People and 

Street Crime: Research Into Young People’s Involvement in Street 

Crime. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. 

Fleisher, M. (1995). Beggars and Thieves: Lives of Urban Street 

Criminals. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. 

Gale, J., and T. Coupe (2005). “The Behavioral, Emotional 

and Psychological Effects of Street Robbery on Victims.”

International Review of Victimology 12(1):1–22. 

Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. 

New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Glensor, R., and K. Peak (2004). Crimes Against Tourists. ProblemOriented Guides for Police, Problem-Specific Guide No. 26. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services. 
66 Street Robbery

Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003). “Forest and Gloucester 

Division: ROBBERY SARA Project and GCDRP Prioritized 

Robbery Action Plan.” Submission for the Tilley Award for 

Problem-Solving Excellence. 

Gottfredson, M. (1986). “Substantive Contribution of 

Victimization Surveys.” In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.), 

Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Granovetter, M. (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American 

Journal of Sociology 78:1360–1380. 

Greater Manchester Police (2001). "'Baits his hook and takes your 

cash.' Problem-Solving Street Robbery." Submission for the 

Tilley Award for Problem-Solving Excellence.

Greater Manchester Police (2001). “Problem-Solving Street 

Robbery.” Submission for the Tilley Award for ProblemSolving Excellence.

Greater Manchester Police, Bury Police Station (2005). “Operation 

Rockingham—Reducing Robbery in Bury.” Submission for the 

Tilley Award for Problem-Solving Excellence. 

Groff, E. (2007). “Simulation for Theory Testing and 

Experimentation: An Example Using Routine Activity Theory 

and Street Robbery.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology

23(2):75–103. 

Hallsworth, S. (2005). Street Crime. Cullompton, England: Willan. 

Harper, D. (2006). “The Tourist and His Criminal: Patterns in 

Street Robbery.” In Y. Mansfield and A. Pizam (eds.), Tourism, 

Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice. Amsterdam and 

Boston: Elsevier and Butterworth-Heinemann. 

——— (2001). “Comparing Tourists’ Crime Victimization.”

Annals of Tourism Research 28(4):1053–1056. 

Harrell, E. (2007). Black Victims of Violent Crime. Washington, 

D.C.: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
References 67

Harrington, V., and P. Mayhew (2001). “Mobile Phone Theft.” 

Research study No. 235. London: Home Office Research. 

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2003). Streets Ahead: 

A Joint Inspection of the Street Crime Initiative. London: Home 

Office Communication Directorate. 

Hindelang, M., M. Gottfredson and J. Garofalo (1978). Victims 

of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of 

Personal Victimization. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. 

Hochstetler, A., and N. Shover (1997). “Street Crime, Labor 

Surplus and Criminal Punishment, 1980–1990.” Social 

Problems 44(3):358–368. 

Holt, T., and J. Spencer (2005). “Little Yellow Box: The Targeting 

of Automatic Teller Machines as a Strategy in Reducing 

Street Robbery.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An 

International Journal 7(2):15–28. 

Home Office (2009). Robbery and Street Crime. London: Home 

Office. Retrieved from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/

reducing-crime/robbery/ 

Hoyt, L. (2005). “Do Business Improvement Districts 

Organizations Make a Difference? Crime in and Around 

Commercial Areas in Philadelphia.” Journal of Planning 

Education and Research 25:185–199. 

Jacobs, B., and R. Wright (1999). “Stickup, Street Culture and 

Offender Motivation.” Criminology 37(1):149–173. 

Jochelson, R. (1997). Crime and Place: An Analysis of Assaults and 

Robberies in Inner Sydney. Canberra, Australia: New South 

Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 

Jones, B., and N. Tilley (2004). The Impact of High-Visibility Patrols 

on Personal Robbery. Research Findings No. 201. London: 

Home Office.

Kane, R. (2006). “On the Limits of Social Control: Structural 

Deterrence and the Policing of ‘Suppressible’ Crimes.” Justice 

Quarterly 23(2):186–213. 
68 Street Robbery

Katz, J. (1991). “The Motivation of the Persistent Robber.” In 

M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. 

14th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Kennedy, L., and D. Forde (1990). “Routine Activities and Crime: 

An Analysis of Victimization in Canada.” Criminology

28(1):137. 

Klaus, P. (2000). “Crimes Against Persons Age 65 or Older, 1992–

1997.” No. NCJ 176352. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, Office of Justice Programs. 

Kleiman, M. (1988). Crackdowns: The Effects of Intensive 

Enforcement on Retail Heroin-Dealing. Cambridge, Mass.: 

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 

Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal 

of Analytic Models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

LaFree, G. (1998). Losing Legitimacy: Street Crime and the Decline 

of Social Institutions in America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. 

Lauritsen, J., J. Laub and R. Sampson (1992). “Conventional and 

Delinquent Activities: Implications for the Prevention of 

Violent Victimization Among Adolescents.” Violence and 

Victims 7(2):91. 

Lejeune, R. (1977). “The Management of a Mugging.” Urban Life: 

A Journal of Ethnographic Research 6(2):123–148. 

Lejeune, R., and N. Alex (1973). “On Being Mugged: The Event 

and Its Aftermath.” Urban Life and Culture 2(3):259–287. 

Loewen, L., G. Steel and P. Suedfeld (1993). “Perceived Safety 

From Crime in the Urban Environment.” Journal of 

Environmental Psychology 13(4):323–331. 

Lowe, C. (2008). K-Mart Pulls Realistic Guns in Minneapolis. 

Retrieved from http://wcco.com/crime/fake.guns.

minneapolis.2.861130.html. 

Madensen, T. (2007). “Bar Management and Crime: Toward a 

Dynamic Theory of Place Management and Crime Hot Spots.”

PhD diss., University of Cincinnati. 
References 69

Matthews, R. (1993). “Kerb-Crawling, Prostitution and 

Multiagency Policing.” Crime Prevention Unit Series, Paper 

No. 43. London: Home Office. 

Mawby, R. (2000). “Tourists’ Perceptions of Security: The RiskFear Paradox.” Tourism Economics 6(2):109–121. 

McCarthy, B., and J. Hagan (1995). “Getting Into Street Crime: 

The Structure and Process of Criminal Embeddedness.” Social 

Science Research 24(1):63–95. 

McElrath, K., D. Chitwood and M. Comerford (1997). “Crime 

Victimization Among Injection Drug Users.” Journal of Drug 

Issues 27(4):771. 

Messner, S., and J. Blau (1987). “Routine Leisure Activities and 

Rates of Crime: A Macro-Level Analysis.” Social Forces

65(4):1035. 

Messner, S., Z. Lu, L. Zhang, and J. Liu (2007). “Risk of 

Victimization in Contemporary Urban China: An 

Application of Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory.”

Justice Quarterly 24(3):496.

Miethe, T., M. Stafford and S. Long (1987). “Social Differentiation 

in Criminal Victimization: A Test of Routine Activities/

Lifestyle Theories.” American Sociological Review 52:184. 

Miller, J. (1998). “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of 

Street Robbery.” Criminology 36(1):37–66. 

Mooney, J. (1993). Street Robbery and Snatch in Islington: A Study 

of “Highway Robbery” Today. London: Middlesex Polytechnic, 

Center for Criminology. 

Mouzos, J., and M. Borzycki (2003). “An Exploratory Analysis 

of Armed Robbery in Australia.” Technical and Background 

Paper Series. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of 

Criminology. 

Mustaine Ehrhardt, E., and R. Tewksbury (1998). “Predicting Risks 

of Larceny Theft Victimization: A Routine Activity Analysis 

Using Refined Lifestyle Measures.” Criminology 36(4):829. 
70 Street Robbery

Newman, G., and K. Socia (2007). Sting Operations. ProblemOriented Guides for Police, Response Guide No. 6. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Painter, K., and D. Farrington (1999). “Street Lighting and Crime: 

Diffusion of Benefits in the Stroke-on-Trent Project.” In K. 

Painter and N. Tilley (eds.), Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, 

Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention 

Studies, Vol. 10. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 

Petrosino, A., and M. Kass (2000). “The Top 10 Types of 

Robbers Imprisoned in Massachusetts.” Journal of Security 

Administration 23(2):29–36. 

Pizam, A. (1999). “A Comprehensive Approach to Classifying Acts 

of Crime and Violence at Tourism Destinations.” Journal of 

Travel Research 38(1):5–12. 

Porter, L., and L. Alison (2004). “Behavioral Coherence in Group 

Robbery: A Circumflex Model of Offender and Victim 

Interactions.” Aggressive Behavior 32(4):330–342. 

Pratt, M. (1980). Mugging as a Social Problem. London: Routledge 

and Kegan Paul. 

Ramsey, M., and R. Newton (1991). “The Effect of Better Street 

Lighting on Crime and Fear: A Review.” Crime Prevention 

Unit, Paper No. 29. London: Home Office Crime Prevention 

Unit. 

Richardson, J. (1976). “Purse Snatch: Robbery’s Ugly Stepchild.” In 

J. Goldsmith and S. Goldsmith (eds.), Crime and the Elderly: 

Challenge and Response. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. 

Roman, J., and A. Chalfin (2007). “Is There an iCrime Wave?” 

Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute: Justice Policy Center. 

Retrieved from www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411552_

icrime_wave.pdf 

Roncek, D., and P. Maier (1991). “Bars, Blocks and Crime 

Revisited: Linking the Theory of Routine Activities to the 

Empiricism of Hot Spots.” Criminology 29(4):725–753. 
References 71

Sampson, R. (1985). “Neighborhood and Crime: The Structural 

Determinants of Personal Victimization.” Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 22(1):7–40. 

Sampson, R., and J. Lauritsen (1985). “Deviant Lifestyles, 

Proximity to Crime and the Offender-Victim Link in Personal 

Violence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

27(2):110–139. 

Schneider, J. (2005). “Stolen-Goods Markets: Methods of 

Disposal.” British Journal of Criminology 45(2): 129-140.

Schuster, B. (2007). “Police Lineups: Making Eyewitness 

Identification More Reliable.” Report No. 258. Washington, 

D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

Sherman, L., P. Gartin and M. Buerger (1989). “Hot Spots of 

Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology 

of Place.” Criminology 27(1):27–55. 

Smith, J. (2003). “The Nature of Personal Robbery.” London: 

Home Office Research Study, No. 254, Development and 

Statistics Directorate. 

Smith, W., S Frazee and E. Davidson (2000). “Furthering the 

Integration of Routine Activity and Social Disorganization 

Theories: Small Units of Analysis and the Study of Street 

Robbery as a Diffusion Process.” Criminology 38(2):489–521. 

“Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online” (2006). Albany, 

N.Y.: University of Albany. Retrieved from www.albany.edu/

sourcebook/tost_3.html#3_ad.

Stahl, A. (2006). “Person Offenses in Juvenile Court, 1985–2002.” 

OJJDP Fact Sheet No. 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. 

Stockdale, J., and P. Gresham (1998). “Tackling Street Robbery: 

A Comparative Evaluation of Operation Eagle Eye.” Crime 

Detection and Prevention Series, Paper No. 87. London: 

Home Office Police Research Group. 
72 Street Robbery

Sutton, M. (1998). “Handling Stolen Goods and Theft: A Market 

Reduction Approach.” Home Office Research Study, No. 178. 

London, UK: Home Office.

Taylor, R., and A. Harrell (1996). “Physical Environment and 

Crime”. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. NCJ 157311.

Thomas, C. (2001). “Bristol Anti-Robbery Strategy.” Avon and 

Somerset Constabulary’s Submission for the Tilley Award for 

Problem-Solving Excellence.

Tilley, N., J. Smith, S. Finer, R. Erol, C. Charles, and J. Dobby 

(2004). Problem-Solving Street Crime: Practical Lessons From 

the Street Crime Initiative. London: Home Office Research, 

Development and Statistics Directorate. 

University of Cincinnati Public Safety Division (2009). Retrieved 

from www.uc.edu/pubsafety/police_services/.

Upchurch, R., and J. Bharath (2000). “An Ounce of Prevention: 

Crime Strategies in a Tourist Community.” Tourism Analysis

5(1):37–48. 

U.S. Department of Justice (2007). “Criminal Victimization in 

the United States, 2007, Statistical Tables: National Crime 

Victimization Survey.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Program.

 ——— (2006). “Criminal Victimization in the United States, 

2006, Statistical Tables: National Crime Victimization Survey.” 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Program.

——— (2005). “Criminal Victimization in the United States, 

2005, Statistical Tables: National Crime Victimization Survey.” 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Program.

Ward, R., T. Ward and J. Feeley (1975). Police Robbery Control 

Manual: Prescriptive Package. Washington, D.C.: Department 

of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 

National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. 
References 73

Warr, M. (1984). “Fear of Victimization: Why Are Women and the 

Elderly More Afraid?” Social Science Quarterly 65(3):681–702. 

Wasserman, S., and K. Faust (2004). Social Network Analysis. New 

York: Cambridge University Press. 

Welsh, B., and D. Farrington (eds.) (2006). Preventing Crime: 

What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims, and Places. The 

Netherlands: Springer. 

Wilcox Rountree, P., K. Land and T. Miethe (1994). “Macro-Micro 

Integration in the Study of Victimization: A Hierarchical 

Logistic Model Analysis Across Seattle Neighborhoods.”

Criminology 32(3):387. 

Wiles, P., and A. Costello (2000). “The Road to Nowhere: The 

Evidence for Traveling Criminals.” Home Office Research 

Study, No. 207. London: Home Office. 

Willison, R. (2006). “Understanding the Offender/Environment 

Dynamic for Computer Crimes.” Information Technology and 

People 19(2):170–186. 

Wright, R., F. Brookman and T. Bennett (2006). “The Foreground 

Dynamics of Street Robbery in Britain.” British Journal of 

Criminology 46(1):1–15. 

Wright, R., and S. Decker (1997). Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups 

and Street Culture. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

About the Authors 75

About the Authors 

Khadija M. Monk

Khadija M. Monk is a visiting assistant professor at California 

State University Long Beach. While pursuing her doctorate and 

working as a research associate with the University of Cincinnati 

Policing Institute, Monk traveled across Ohio helping cities to 

implement an antiviolence campaign based on the Boston Gun 

Project, referred to as the Ohio Community Initiative to Reduce 

Violence. In addition, she worked on the Uptown Consortium 

Project with Justin Heinonen. Monk also worked as a community 

crime analyst for Cincinnati’s Community Police Partnering 

Center. This organization sought to improve the relationship 

between the police and high-crime communities in an effort to 

address crime and disorder problems. Her research interests include 

crime prevention, crime patterns and problem-oriented policing. 

Monk holds a bachelor’s degree in both psychology and criminal 

justice and a master’s degree in criminal justice from the University 

of Cincinnati. 

Justin A. Heinonen

Justin A. Heinonen is a visiting scholar in the School of Criminal 

Justice’s Anticounterfeiting and Product Protection Program 

at Michigan State University. In this capacity, his research 

focuses on using situational crime prevention to reduce product 

counterfeiting. Heinonen’s general research interests include 

problem-oriented policing, crime mapping and criminological 

theory. Heinonen is a doctoral candidate in the University of 

Cincinnati’s School of Criminal Justice. He received his bachelor’s 

degree from the University of Toledo and his master’s degree from 

Bowling Green State University, both in criminal justice.
76 Street Robbery

John E. Eck

John E. Eck is a criminal justice professor at the University of 

Cincinnati, where he teaches police effectiveness, criminal justice 

policy, research methods, and crime prevention. His research has 

focused on the development of problem-oriented policing, police 

effectiveness, crime patterns, and crime prevention. Eck was a 

member of the National Academy of Science’s Committee To 

Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. He is an individual 

affiliate of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. Eck is the 

coauthor (with Ronald Clarke) of Crime Analysis for ProblemSolvers: In 60 Small Steps, as well as the author or coauthor of many 

publications on problem-oriented policing, crime mapping and 

crime prevention. Eck received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees 

from the University of Michigan, and his doctorate from the 

University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology. 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 77

Other Problem-Oriented Guides 

for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

with David K. Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael 

S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9
78 Street Robbery

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. 

Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 

1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and 

Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 79

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. 

Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and 

Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel 

Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana 

York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and 

Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and 

John E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3
80 Street Robbery

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and 

John E. Eck. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars.

Shane D. Johnson, Kate J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen 

Mamerow and Anna Warne. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You 

Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of 

Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008

ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential 

Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks.

Jim Hilborn. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 

2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 81

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and 

Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis 

Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

Rob T Guerette. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,

Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide. 

Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A ProblemOriented Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County 

Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 
82 Street Robbery

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Aggressive Driving

Missing Persons

Stranger Rape

Theft of Vehicles for Export

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

Problem-Oriented Policing Implementation Manual

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP 

Guides, see the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770, via e-mail 

at askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

• Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention:

• A complete listing of other POP Guides

• A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office).
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

April 2010

e041021268

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

Street Robbery provides an overview of the problem of 

stranger perpetrated street robbery and the factors contributing 

to its occurrence. This guide also provides a series of questions 

to consider when analyzing your street robbery problem and 

reviews responses to the problem and what is known about 

them from evaluative research and police practice.