U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

R o b b e r y o f 

C o n v e n i e n c e S t o r e s

by 

Alicia Altizio

Diana York

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 49
www.PopCenter.org

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:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• Online access to research and police practices

• Online problem analysis module.

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Robbery of Convenience 

Stores

Alicia Altizio

Diana York

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author(s) 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 thereof by the author(s) or the Justice Department. 

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of 

the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

April 2007

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 49

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides 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 problemoriented 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.

• 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 
ii Robbery of Convenience Stores

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 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

government agencies, non-governmental 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 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 policing philosophy that promotes and supports 

organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce 

the fear of crime and social disorder through problemsolving tactics and police-community partnerships.” 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 problem-solving and policecommunity 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 
iv Robbery of Convenience Stores

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 is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 

executives and researchers prior to publication. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your 

own agency’s experiences dealing with a similar problem. 

Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem 

using responses not considered in these guides and your 

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This 

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish 

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should 

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

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

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing 

and related topics

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module

• a manual for crime analysts

• online access to important police research and practices

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences 

and award programs. 
Acknowledgments v

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.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this 

guide.

contents

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

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

The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

About Convenience Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Extent of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Types of Convenience Store Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Harms Resulting from Convenience Store Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Physical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Psychological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Factors Contributing to Convenience Store Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Store Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Offender Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Time Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Contents vii
viii Robbery of Convenience Stores

Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Specific Responses to Reduce Convenience Store Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Retailer Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Police Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Responses with Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Robbery of Convenience Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 1

The Problem of Robbery of 

Convenience Stores

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide begins by describing the problem of 

convenience store robbery and reviewing factors that 

increase its risk. It then identifies a series of questions 

to help you analyze your local convenience store robbery 

problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and 

what is known about these from evaluative research and 

police practice.

Convenience store robbery is but one aspect of the larger 

set of problems related to robbery and to commercial 

establishments. Although all robbery types share some 

common features, convenience store robbery warrants 

special attention because convenience stores have special 

characteristics. Related problems not directly addressed in 

this guide, each requiring separate analysis, include:

bank robbery

burglary of retail establishments

check and card fraud

false burglar alarms

gasoline drive-offs 

gun violence

robbery at automated teller machines

robbery of taxi drivers

shoplifting

street muggings

theft by employees.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
2 Robbery of Convenience Stores

Some of these related problems are covered in other 

guides in this series, all of which are listed at the end of 

this guide. For the most up-to-date listing of current and 

future guides, see www.popcenter.org. 

General Description of the Problem

About Convenience Stores

Convenience stores are “retail business[es] with primary 

emphasis placed on providing the public a convenient 

location to quickly purchase from a wide array of 

consumable products (predominantly food and gasoline) 

and services.”1 There are over 135,000 convenience stores 

operating in the United States, and the number continues 

to grow.§ An estimated 100 million Americans visit a 

convenience store on any given day; each convenience 

store might serve hundreds, even thousands, of customers 

daily.2 Over 80 percent of all Americans, because of 

their busy schedules, prefer convenience stores to 

supermarkets.3

Extent of the Problem

Convenience store robberies account for approximately 6 

percent of all robberies known to the police.4 Although 

this comprises a relatively small percentage of total 

robberies, the problem is persistent. Over the last 30 

years, there has been little change in the proportion of 

convenience store robberies. Nevertheless, convenience 

stores in particular locations can be vulnerable to repeat 

victimization, especially those types of retailers that have 

large amounts of cash, low security, and few staff and 

customers likely to resist.5 

§ The Middle Atlantic States (New 

Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) 

led the increase in number of stores 

(9.8 percent from the previous 

year), although all U.S. regions 

experienced an increase within the 

past year (National Association of 

Convenience Stores 2005).
The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 3

The numbers of U.S. convenience store robberies rose 

significantly in the 1980s and then declined just as 

significantly in the 1990s, a reduction that could be due 

in part to the development of better crime prevention 

measures in convenience stores,6 many of which are 

discussed in the Responses section below.

Repeat Victimization§ 

Some stores are repeatedly victimized, either by the 

same offender or different offenders. Reasons for repeat 

victimization vary. A successful robber might return to 

rob the same store again or might tell other robbers about 

the store. Alternatively, a wide range of robbers might see 

the store as particularly attractive or vulnerable.§§ Media 

accounts may actually play up the vulnerability of the 

store by reporting successful robberies7 and may glamorize 

the crime, giving would-be offenders the notion that those 

that “rob with style” don’t get caught.8

Interviews with convicted robbers revealed that they 

often selected easy targets assuming that “victims 

[businesses] will not install preventative measures to stop 

them.”9 One study of convenience store robbery victims 

indicates that more than one-half of the respondents 

reported subsequent changes in store policy or practice 

after a robbery.10 It was also found that a store was most 

vulnerable to revictimization within the first few weeks 

after the first robbery.11 

§ See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 4, Analyzing Repeat Victimization. 

§§ See the Problem-Solving Tools 

Guide on Understanding Risky Facilities

for further discussion of why some 

places are more vulnerable to crime 

than other similar places.
4 Robbery of Convenience Stores

Types of Convenience Store Robbery

Convenience store robberies are classified according to the 

offender’s method of operation:12

Straight: Demanding money immediately upon entering 

a store.

Customer: Demanding money some time after entering 

a store and engaging in the act of making a purchase.

Another perhaps less common type is merchandise 

robbery,§ which involves the forcible taking of goods 

from a store. A higher number of employee injuries are 

reported in merchandise robberies, as active resistance and 

confrontation are more prevalent in these situations.13 

Harms Resulting From Convenience Store Robbery

Physical

Convenience store employees suffer from high rates of 

workplace homicide, second only to taxicab drivers.14,§§ 

Customers can also suffer injury from offender assaults. 

Injuries can result from an employee’s active resistance or 

from the offender’s misreading the employee’s nervousness 

or hesitation as resistance.15 When faced with an employee 

who chooses to actively resist and is in a face-to-face 

confrontation, robbers may resort to injuring the worker 

to avoid apprehension. Higher injury rates are consistently 

found to be correlated with measures employees take during 

the robbery.16

•

•

§ One study by the Ontario 

Convenience Store Association found 

that an increase in merchandise 

robberies at convenience stores 

between 2001 and 2002 was related to 

higher cigarette prices, the existence 

of illicit markets, and the ease of 

disposal (Inkster Group 2004).

§§ See the Problem-Oriented Policing 

Guide, Robbery of Taxi Drivers.
The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 5

Economic

Convenience store robberies are not only costly to the 

workers victimized but also to the store itself. Costs 

include loss of customers who may be deterred from 

shopping at a store that has been robbed, leading to a loss 

of income from reduced customer sales. Stores can also 

experience an increase in workers’ compensation costs and 

insurance premiums due to the robbery. Unfortunately, 

for those independently owned stores, losses may 

be unrecoverable, due to the inability of many small 

operations to afford insurance coverage.17 Stores that do 

not have insurance coverage may be forced to increase 

prices or potentially close. Other less direct costs include 

the various criminal justice activities of state and local 

governments, including police investigations, prosecutions, 

and incarceration and supervision of offenders.18 

The average cost to employers of a single episode of 

workplace violence can amount to $250,000 in lost work 

time and legal expenses.19 Workplace victimizations 

reportedly contribute to a loss of 3.5 days per employee 

per crime. Victimization can further limit the ability of 

these stores to attract and maintain employees for the 

night shifts, particularly in stores that operate 24 hours a 

day20 and those with a high volume of cash transactions, 

a characteristic of such stores. The combination of 

operational expenses and security challenges can be 

financially burdensome.21 
6 Robbery of Convenience Stores

Psychological

Victim employees can also suffer psychological harm.22

“Secondary victimization” can occur when employers, 

managers, employees, or those responding to the robbery 

fail to acknowledge the victim’s trauma.23 This may result 

from not believing the victim’s description of the attack, 

discounting the incident, and blaming or criticizing the 

victim. Psychological problems resulting from victimization 

may not only affect the employee’s subsequent workplace 

performance, but also can affect the store’s daily 

operations.§

Factors Contributing to Convenience Store Robbery

Understanding the factors that contribute to convenience 

store robbery will help you frame your own local analysis 

questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize 

key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

Research has identified many factors that influence a 

robbery’s likelihood or outcome. In some cases, the findings 

are inconsistent or contradictory. This may be because it 

can be difficult to interpret studies based on small numbers 

of stores or difficult to determine if certain store features 

influenced the robberies, or were changed in response to 

the robberies.24 The factors generally found to contribute to 

the incidence of convenience store robberies follow. 

§ Most victims’ organizations agree 

that immediate intervention and 

support after a victim endures a 

robbery is beneficial to the victim’s 

recovery, yet statistics show that of the 

86,000 robbery victims (irrespective 

of location of victimization) in 

1991, only 4 percent of the reported 

robbery victims were treated by 

mental health care providers (National 

Center for Victims of Crime 1997).
The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 7

Store Characteristics

Operation hours

Operation hours are by far the strongest factor 

contributing to convenience story robbery, particularly 

for stores open 24 hours a day.25 Late evening to early 

morning hours carry a greater risk of being targeted, 

perhaps because fewer people—other customers, police, 

or passersby—who might intervene are about. 

Interior store layout 

Several characteristics of a store’s interior layout can 

influence its vulnerability to a robbery. Common among 

these is visibility, from two perspectives. First, employees 

should be able to see their surroundings, and second, 

people outside the store, including police on patrol, 

should be able to see into the store.26 Robbers are 

deterred by brightly lit stores in which employees and the 

store’s cash registers are clearly visible from the street.27

The height and placement of store displays and shelving 

also determine whether there are unobstructed views 

inside the store. 

Exterior store environment 

Visibility is also a factor outside the store. Poorly lit 

gasoline islands and parking lots increase the chances of 

a robber’s selecting a particular store,28 since employees 

cannot see what is occurring outside the store. There 

is also a relationship between parking lot size and store 

vulnerability in that a large parking area in front of the 

store reduces the ability of passersby to provide informal 
8 Robbery of Convenience Stores

surveillance of the store’s interior and exterior.29 The 

availability of viable escape routes is also a consideration 

in determining whether or not a store is a prime 

robbery target. For instance, poorly designed fencing or 

landscaping can facilitate a robber’s quick flight from the 

store, thereby making the store a more attractive target. 

Location

There may be a relationship between the location and 

surrounding environment of a convenience store and 

its risk of becoming a robbery target. For instance, one 

study found that stores located in shopping complexes 

or strip malls had fewer robberies than those not in 

more concentrated commercial settings.30 A study of 

robberies at service stations and pharmacies produced 

similar findings.31 According to another study, stores in 

neighborhoods with older buildings and structures, close 

to graffiti and subsidized housing, and not located in a 

shopping center showed an increased risk of robbery.32

Convenience store type

Convenience stores can be distinguished from other retail 

establishments by the hours they operate, store size, 

and products sold. Most are open every day until late in 

the evening, with some open 24 hours a day. Some are 

corporate franchises, others are independently owned. 

Single-store businesses that are owned and operated as a 

one-store business or franchise dominate the market.33

There are generally six convenience store formats. Each 

is categorized by the size of the store and the products it 

sells, as shown in Table 1.34
The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 9

Type Size Typical 

Products

Parking

Kiosk < 800 sq. ft. Gasoline and 

“fast-moving” 

items (tobacco, 

beverages, snacks, 

and confectioneries)

Usually only at 

the pumps

Mini 800 to 1200 sq. ft. Limited grocery 

selection 

(predominantly 

prepared sandwiches)

At the pumps and 

some with striped 

parking

Limited 

selection

1,500 to 2,200 sq. ft. Broader product mix 

and added prepared 

foods (hot dogs, 

nachos, popcorn)

Striped parking 

(with extended 

hours)

Traditional 2,400 to 2,500 sq. ft. Expanded product 

mix (including dairy, 

bakery, snack foods, 

and beverages)

Six to 12 parking 

spaces and 

pedestrian access

Expanded 2,800 to 3,600 sq. ft. Traditional product 

mix

10 to 20 marked 

parking spaces

Hyper 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. Can include a bakery, 

restaurant area, or a 

pharmacy

Multiple parking 

spaces (usually 

larger than the 

expanded store)

Table 1 Convenience Store Types
10 Robbery of Convenience Stores

Risk of robbery based on a variety of administrative 

and environmental factors has been proposed. For 

instance, stores with gas pumps, sometimes referred to as 

convenience gas stations, are less likely to be robbed than 

stores without pumps.35 Another study has found that 

independent stores less than two years old were at higher 

risk for robbery than older stores that are company owned 

and operated.36

Ownership

The security and crime prevention measures convenience 

store owners employ vary considerably with the type 

and structure of ownership. 7-Eleven, Inc. has its own 

security department, policies, and employee crimeprevention training program.37 A “mom and pop” owned 

establishment would likely have very few resources and 

less access to current techniques. 

Staff number

Several studies have evaluated the presence of two or 

more clerks to reduce the risk of robbery. The findings 

have been inconsistent, and are highly debated.38 The 1986 

Gainesville, Florida studies concluded that the number 

of clerks on duty was a strong predictor of robbery 

potential.39 However, a review of convenience store 

robberies by the National Association of Convenience 

Stores in 1997 did not support this conclusion.40

Cash-control procedures

The handling and storage of cash has a significant 

influence on the targeting of stores for robbery. The 

Athena Research Corporation studies of armed robbers in 

1985 and 1995 have shown that “80 percent of potential 
The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 11

§ One study found that there was 

approximately a “sevenfold increase 

in the risk of a worker being killed 

in workplaces that allowed guns,” 

implying that workplaces that 

respond to a prior experience with 

crime by allowing firearms may 

actually be creating a greater risk 

for workplace homicide by allowing 

weapons on the premises (Loomis, 

Marshall, and Ta 2005).

§§ Although some researchers 

believe that limiting cash on hand to 

less than $100 could reduce robbery 

risk and injury rates, other research 

has found that limiting cash and 

escape routes can force a robber to 

take greater risks, thereby potentially 

increasing employee injury rates. 

Other suggestions include installing a 

visible drop safe to allow for natural 

surveillance throughout the store 

(Faulkner, Landsittel, and Hendricks 

2001). 

robbers can be deterred if a convenience store limits the 

amount of money kept in its cash register.”41 There are 

a number of cash-control units available to retailers that 

have both a drop safe and money dispenser, with various 

access methods. Again, both the ability to purchase such 

units and the implementation of strict cash protocol 

depend on the ownership type and structure.

Incident response policies

Employers’ policies, particularly about firearms in the 

workplace,§ and various administrative and environmental 

measures

§§ have an impact on workplace violence 

and homicide rates.42 Furthermore, the combination 

of inexperienced employees and inadequate training 

procedures can contribute to higher victimization rates.43 

One multistate study found that clerks’ behavior might 

be the most significant factor in determining the extent 

of injuries during a robbery.44 For instance, injury can be 

caused by two different offender assaults: the blitz attack, 

which catches the victim by surprise and is unprovoked by 

the victim or another, and the response to perceived resistance, 

which can result from either misreading the employee’s 

nervousness as resistance, or wanting to get in and out of 

the store as quickly as possible.45 Employees can, in turn, 

A strict cash control protocol can significantly 

reduce the chances a store will be targeted by 

potential robbers.

Nancy Leach
12 Robbery of Convenience Stores

employ certain behavior to keep themselves safe. This 

includes following the offender’s instructions, staying calm 

and quiet, avoiding eye contact, not making any sudden 

movements, remaining inside the workplace, not attacking 

the offender, while making mental notes to provide to the 

police regarding the offender’s physical description.46

Offender Characteristics 

Like robbers in general, most convenience store robbers 

are male (95 percent) with about two-thirds of them 

under the age of 25.47 They are often impulsive and 

opportunistic, and do limited planning before attempting 

the actual robbery. Most are seeking quick cash, often to 

buy drugs. A high proportion report that they were under 

the influence of alcohol and/or drugs while committing 

the robbery.48 

Serial robbers, particularly those that victimize the same 

location on more than one occasion, appear to be more 

professional, even determined, in their approach. They 

are significantly more likely to carry a gun, to have been 

in prison before, to wear a disguise, and to choose a 

specific time for the robbery. They are also more likely to 

be violent and cause a higher rate of employee injury.49

Their robberies display distinct geographical patterns over 

time.50

Since it has been found that certain stores are more 

vulnerable to repeat victimization, we can conclude 

that robbers are selecting those stores because of the 

opportunities they offer for successful completion of 

a robbery.51 Offenders prefer areas in or near their 

neighborhoods, thus increasing the risk for those stores 
in areas where many offenders live.52 However, many 

factors may affect offender decisions. For example, since 

offenders commonly use guns in convenience store 

robberies, some offenders looking for quick cash may 

think that a weapon overcomes any other obstacles to 

carrying out the crime. Novice offenders might be less 

likely to differentiate between low-risk and high-risk 

targets.53 Robbers commonly consider escape routes an 

important factor in selecting a target.54 

Time Patterns

To limit the risk of apprehension, robbery offenders 

generally operate at night, when concealment is more 

likely. Convenience store robberies have been found to be 

consistent with this time pattern. One study of robberies 

in 30 Leon County, Florida convenience stores over a 

four-year period found significant correlations not only 

to time but also to day of the week, and month. Fifty 

percent occurred between 10 PM and 12 AM, generally 

times when business traffic is minimal. Three days 

(Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) accounted for 60 percent 

of the robberies. More than 50 percent occurred between 

November and February, consistent with findings that 

property crimes occur more frequently during winter 

months.55

The Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 13

Understanding Your Local Problem 15

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized 

description of convenience store robbery. You 

must combine the basic facts with a more specific 

understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local 

problem carefully will help you design a more effective 

response strategy.

Your analysis should examine the different risks evident 

in the stores, and be particularly focused on repeat 

victimization. Gathering information is labor-intensive 

and detailed. The more standardized your department’s 

information-gathering process, the more opportunity 

you have to understand your robbery problem and reach 

conclusions.

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following 

groups have an interest in the convenience-store robbery 

problem and should be considered for the contribution 

they might make to gathering information about the 

problem and responding to it:

local business associations (e.g., chambers of 

commerce)

convenience store associations

state and federal workplace safety agencies

worker’s compensation agencies

insurance companies

convenience store corporation loss-prevention 

departments

private security firms.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
16 Robbery of Convenience Stores

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should 

ask in analyzing your particular problem of convenience 

store robbery, even if the answers are not always readily 

available. Your answers to these and other questions will 

help you choose the most appropriate set of responses 

later on.

Since environmental details are particularly relevant to this 

type of crime, it is important to listen carefully to victims’ 

description of the robbery. You can collect pertinent 

information by asking victims incisive questions about the 

setting and circumstances of the crime. 

It is also crucial to interview as many apprehended 

offenders as possible to find out how they make their 

decisions. See Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 3, Using 

Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving, for further 

guidance on gathering information from offenders.

Offenses

How many convenience store robberies have 

occurred?

What is the ratio of attempted robberies to 

completed robberies? 

What proportion of robberies (and attempts) is 

reported to police? If some robberies are not 

reported to police, why?

What proportion of robberies have been repeat 

robberies (occurring at the same convenience store) 

within the past year? 

What is the typical length of time between repeat 

robberies? 

How long do robbers take to complete the robbery? 

Do they use a “straight” or “customer” approach 

(as described above)? 

•

•

•

•

•

•
How do employees react to robberies?

What types of weapons are used, if any? Have any 

injuries resulted?

How many employees and customers are typically 

present in the store during robberies?

What are the usual escape routes or methods? 

How much money or merchandise is typically 

stolen?

What other financial costs do convenience stores 

incur from robberies (e.g., repair costs, lost 

business, insurance premium increases)? 

Offenders

Are there many different offenders involved in the 

robberies, or is a small group of prolific offenders 

responsible? 

How many of the prolific offenders have records 

for committing store robberies? How many have 

recently been released from prison? 

How much planning do offenders do? 

Do offenders work in gangs? How many offenders 

are in the gangs? 

Do offenders belong to any particular ethnic, 

occupational, or other group? 

What proportion of offenders are juveniles? 

Are offenders under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol while committing robberies?

What proportion of offenders commits robberies 

primarily to support a drug or alcohol habit? 

Do offenders appear to be familiar with the 

premises robbed? If so, how do they get the 

information (e.g., from complicit employees, by 

careful casing of the store, by prior visits as a 

customer, by prior robberies at that store)? 

Do employees recognize offenders as familiar to the 

location?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Understanding Your Local Problem 17
18 Robbery of Convenience Stores

How do offenders get to the stores? On foot? In 

vehicles? 

Are offenders drawn to the area by robbery 

opportunities or for some other reason (e.g., illegal 

drug markets)? 

Targets

Which types of convenience stores are most at risk 

of robbery? What types are at least risk? 

Which stores are being robbed repeatedly? What do 

high-risk stores have in common with one another? 

How do they differ from low-risk stores? 

How long have high-risk stores been in business? 

How big are the stores? Are they part of a larger 

chain? If so, how does the robbery experience vary 

among stores in the chain? How does it compare 

with that of similar stores in other chains? 

What time do the stores close? 

Is the property isolated? Is lack of natural 

surveillance a contributory factor?

What proportion of stores has gas pumps?

What site features facilitate robbery? Corner 

location? Rear access? 

Is there evidence of collusion between staff and 

robbers? 

Locations/Times

When do robberies usually occur (time of day, day 

of week, month or season of year)? 

What is the nature of the surrounding 

neighborhood? 

Where do events concentrate? Are they clustered 

near major roads? Near known drug markets? 

(Computerized crime mapping can facilitate robbery 

analysis.56,§)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

§ For more information on crime 

mapping tools, see www.iaca.net/

software.asp.
Current Responses

What is the clearance rate for convenience store 

robberies? 

What security measures have the stores taken to 

prevent robbery? 

Do store employees follow correct cash-handling 

and other robbery prevention procedures? 

What robbery prevention measures, if any, are 

mandated by law? To what extent are those 

mandates inspected and enforced?

What training or robbery prevention information 

is provided to store owners, managers, and 

employees?

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree 

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. 

All measures should be taken in both the target area and 

the surrounding area. For more detailed guidance on 

measuring effectiveness, see the Problem-Solving Tools 

Guide, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

for Police Problem-Solvers.

The following outcome measures can be useful in 

assessing whether your responses have impacted the 

convenience store robbery problem:

fewer reported convenience store robberies and 

related calls for service

fewer repeat victims and offenders

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Understanding Your Local Problem 19
20 Robbery of Convenience Stores

fewer robbery-related financial losses and insurance 

claims

fewer business closures resulting from robberies

fewer or less-severe injuries of employees and 

customers resulting from robberies

greater perception of safety among store owners, 

employees, customers, and the community at large.

In addition, the following process measures might provide 

some indication of the degree to which selected responses 

are being properly implemented:

higher proportion of stores following standard 

security practices, installing security devices, and/or 

using guard services

higher proportion of store personnel formally 

trained in crime prevention.

•

•

•

•

•

•
Responses to the Problem of Robbery 

of Convenience Stores

Analysis of your local problem should give you a better 

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once 

you have analyzed your local problem and established 

a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should then 

consider possible responses to address the problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation 

of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These 

strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies 

and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply 

to your community’s problem. 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. 

Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: 

give careful consideration to who else in your community 

shares responsibility for the problem and can help police 

better respond to it. The responsibility of responding, 

in some cases, may need to be shifted toward those who 

have the capacity to implement more effective responses. 

(For more detailed information on shifting and sharing 

responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and 

Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems).

Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 21
22 Robbery of Convenience Stores

§ See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 5, Partnering with Businesses to 

Address Public Safety Problems and 

such Problem-Specific Guides as 

Shoplifting and Robbery of ATMs for 

further information on police-private 

security collaboration.

General Considerations for an Effective Response 

Strategy

1. Understanding the ownership, management 

structure, and operations of local convenience stores.

To build and sustain a working relationship with the 

stores in your locality, you must have this understanding. 

Chain stores may have in-house security departments and 

specific protocols for crime prevention. This may enhance 

a cooperative effort to prevent robberies, but individual 

store managers may not have the authority to directly 

implement certain measures. Single-owner establishments 

will be generally unrestricted in their potential responses 

or partnership with the police, but will have fewer 

resources to devote to security and crime prevention. The 

convenience store industry as a whole may not support all 

police recommendations for security measures.

Understanding the operations, community context, and 

interpersonal dynamics of these businesses allows you to 

more effectively implement the specific responses below. 

For example, a sole owner who has used a weapon to 

scare a would-be robber may require a different approach 

and response than the store that employs 18-year-olds 

with little experience for late-night shifts.

2. Collaborating with private security. Creating 

structures and programs that encourage routine 

collaboration between police and private security can 

facilitate convenience store robbery prevention.57,§ Police 

might coordinate or facilitate convenience stores’ adoption 

of specialized robbery prevention concepts and programs. 

For example, police might promote the application of 

the principles and methods of crime prevention through 

environmental design, which aims to reduce crime by 

controlling the retail business environment through natural 
surveillance, access control, and boundary definition.58,§

Although implementing the specific measures would 

primarily be the retailer’s responsibility (see retailer 

responses below), models such as this can be integrated 

into a local police or private security crime prevention 

strategy. 

3. Targeting repeat victims. Certain convenience stores 

in your locality are more likely to be robbed than others.§§ 

When the concentration of crimes at a few places is 

relatively stable over time, it is likely that something about 

those few places facilitates crimes and something about 

most places that prevents crimes.59 A study of police 

responses to armed robbery by the U.K. Home Office 

found that there is a period of time after an incident (up 

to three months) when the target is most vulnerable to a 

repeat attack. Swift analysis and follow-up to robberies 

is important to limit or minimize the chance of repeat 

robberies, and responding to repeat victimization is 

effective in a number of ways. These include identifying 

the vulnerabilities of a given target, thereby assisting in 

the protection of likely targets from future robberies.60,§§§ 

4. Reevaluating responses consistently. Responses to 

convenience store robberies may not always withstand 

changing times and circumstances. One study of 

convenience store robberies in Tallahassee was reexamined 

to identify changes, if any, in a number of environmental 

and other factors that influenced their robberies. The 

follow-up study found that several high robbery-risk 

stores had experienced declines, and some low-risk stores 

had considerable increases. The researchers concluded 

that “robbery prevention strategies lose their effectiveness 

over time and must be constantly upgraded.”61 You 

should review robbery prevention strategies periodically, 

modifying them as appropriate to respond to offenders 

who consistently test the limits of measures in place.

Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 23

§ See the Problem-Solving Tools 

guide on Using Crime Prevention 

Through Environmental Design 

in Problem-Solving for further 

information.

§§ This is the so-called “80/20” 

rule: that crime tends to be heavily 

concentrated in a relatively small 

percentage of places, against a 

relatively small percentage of 

victims, and by a relatively small 

percentage of offenders. See Crime 

Analysis for Problem-Solvers (Clarke and 

Eck 2005).

§§§ A given store’s vulnerability can 

unfortunately result from media 

accounts of a successful robbery, 

absent any publicity of increased 

security measures. Incarcerated 

robbers believe that a victimized 

business will not install preventive 

measures (Gill and Pease 1998).
Specific Responses To Reduce Convenience Store 

Robbery

Retailer Responses

The following responses are rooted in situational crime 

prevention.62,§ These responses are voluntary in some 

jurisdictions and mandated by law in others. Legislation 

requiring the implementation of security measures may affect 

the likelihood of convenience store robberies.§§ 7-Eleven, 

Inc. implemented many of these measures, maintaining that 

their implementation contributed to a 70 percent reduction in 

robberies over 20 years.63 Local governments should ensure 

that their licensing and permitting regulations and procedures 

do not discourage sensible crime prevention measures.§§§

5. Maximizing natural surveillance. Employees should 

have an optimal view of the entrance and interior of the 

store. This involves having adequate interior and exterior 

lighting, unobstructed views into the store, and strategic 

placement of the cash register. Sandwich boards or 

unobtrusive banners are preferable to window signage if 

local regulation permits such.64 Low-profile display units 

allow clearer customer observation. Natural surveillance of 

safes is also desirable.§§§§ This measure increases the risk of 

apprehending the offender.

24 Robbery of Convenience Stores

§ For further information on 

situational crime prevention 

techniques, see www.popcenter.

org/25techniques.htm. 

§§ In April 1998, OSHA issued its 

Recommendations for Workplace Violence 

Prevention Programs in Late-Night Retail 

Establishments, marking the first time 

it explicitly sanctioned specific retail 

crime prevention measures. For 

additional information on OSHA 

recommendations, see www.osha.

gov/Publications/osha3153.pdf.

§§§ In a study of convenience stores 

in Austin, Texas, it was found that 

the process of installing brighter or 

additional lighting in store lots could 

be burdensome. It involves hiring 

an electrical technician, preparing 

estimates, and obtaining a permit 

(LaVigne 1994).

§§§§ The Starbucks chain 

implemented a security model that 

includes moving the store safe to 

the street-front sales area, taking 

advantage of natural surveillance 

from the glass windows (D’Addario 

2001).
Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 25

6. Having multiple employees on duty during highrisk periods. The state of Florida, in its Convenience 

Business Security Act of 1992, has mandated businesses 

that remain open between 11 PM and 5AM to use at 

least one of the following security measures: two or 

more employees, bullet-resistant safety enclosures, a 

security guard, or a pass-through window to conduct 

business. Since implementation, convenience store 

robbery rates in Florida have dropped significantly.65

New Mexico’s Environmental Improvement Board also 

passed regulations for stores open between 5 PM and 

5 AM. These include either keeping two employees on 

duty, or using alternative precautions (like bullet-resistant 

glass) to protect the employee.§ Aside from expense, 

such a measure’s effectiveness has been questioned in a 

number of studies. For instance, environmental changes 

may have influenced the studies with a positive finding.66 

Also debated is the concern that multiple clerks could 

put more staff in danger in the event of a robbery. 

Mandating additional staffing is controversial, and careful 

consideration by public policymakers, as well as business 

leaders, must be made to weigh its potential for robbery 

deterrence against its financial impact. 

§ A state industry association has 

appealed the regulations, maintaining 

that they may be too expensive for 

businesses (Neary 2004).

An unobstructed view of the entrance 

and interior of the store provides natural 

surveillance that increases the risk of 

apprehension for the offender. 

Nancy Leach
7. Controlling access. This element accounts for the 

number of entrances, the door type(s) and placement(s), 

and the internal environment’s design. A consistent finding 

of studies that interview convenience store robbers is that 

escape routes are a key factor to their target selection. 

Eliminating or at least limiting potential escape routes by 

using fencing or landscaping is highly recommended. 7-

Eleven, Inc. found that it could effectively use fences to 

block alleys that would lead to crowded neighborhoods, 

and bushes to limit other footpaths that might provide 

an easy getaway.67 Avoiding the use of concealed access 

or escape routes is also recommended. This measure 

increases the potential offenders’ effort.

8. Establishing territoriality. The store’s location within 

the community, area traffic flow, signs and advertisements, 

and design elements that empower the employee (such 

as bulletproof barriers) are components of this element. 

Although a retailer is not likely to change the store 

location, being aware of the neighborhood’s patterns and 

characteristics allows the store to tailor its controllable 

environment.§ For instance, stores in high-crime areas 

should discourage loitering by the lighting and design of 

the exterior and parking area.

9. Promoting legitimate activity. Activities designed 

to increase the presence of legitimate customers and 

encourage good customer behavior also increase the 

risk to offenders by essentially extending guardianship 

of the location. Offering free coffee, for instance, could 

be used to invite legitimate late-night traffic.68,§§ This 

is chiefly important for convenience stores that do not 

have the increased traffic and visibility of those with gas 

pumps. Conversely, discouraging stores from attracting 

disreputable customers—for example, by selling products 

commonly used in the illegal drug trade—can reduce the 

routine presence of potential offenders in the store.

26 Robbery of Convenience Stores

§ Offender interviews have found 

that their decisions on choosing a 

target are strongly influenced by 

the proximity of the store to major 

and minor roads, and the proximity 

to a police station, among others 

(Wellford, MacDonald, and Weiss 

1997).

§§ Some convenience stores offer 

free coffee or food to police officers 

to encourage them to stop in more 

often, but many police departments 

prohibit officers from accepting such 

offers.
10. Training employees. Small operations may benefit 

greatly from training and advice offered by the police. 

Management of larger stores should offer training 

programs for new employees.§ Training should include 

how to behave during a robbery and how to avoid 

violence. By encouraging simple practices in demeanor—

greeting customers and establishing eye contact—clerks 

can learn to “put robbers on stage.”69 One comprehensive 

study of convenience store robberies concludes that “the 

behavior of clerks may be the most significant factor in 

determining the extent of injury that results during these 

robberies.”70

11. Maintaining store appearance. The general 

appearance of a store indicates the employees’ vigilance. A 

clean and well-kept store usually means clerks spend time 

away from the cash registers; a store appearing dirty and 

disorganized is more likely to be robbed.71

12. Using cash-control procedures. Cashless 

transactions are becoming more common throughout 

society, including at convenience stores.72 Even limiting 

cash acceptance for certain purchases or at certain 

times of day might affect a target’s attractiveness. One 

10-year study of convenience store robbers found that 

“80 percent of potential robbers can be deterred if a 

convenience store limits the amount of money kept in its 

cash register.”73 There are a number of methods to limit 

the amount of cash in a store subject to robbery.§§ One 

is to limit the amount kept in a register and communicate 

this policy by posting signs. Keep in mind, however, that 

a potential offender looking for drug or fast money at the 

first opportunity may not be dissuaded by signs that state 

cash on hand is limited. 

Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 27

§ 7-Eleven’s training is offered to 

all employees in a two-day session 

incorporating presentations, a 

handbook, and role-playing exercises. 

Issues covered include robbery 

deterrence, violence avoidance, 

loitering, physical assault, gang 

activity, and general emergency 

procedures (Lins and Erickson 

1998). 

§§ As mentioned previously, some 

offenders are not dissuaded by the 

prospect of small amounts of cash. 

With the popularity of crack cocaine, 

a cheap drug of choice, offenders 

are willing to take risks for even 

small sums (Bellamy 1996).
In addition, the use of cash-control units (also known 

as drop safes) can allow secure management of the cash 

on hand. The units have a safe for clerks to deposit 

cash periodically, with access controlled by keys and/or 

personal identification numbers (PINS). The unit opens 

or dispenses cash on a delay, which is likely to deter an 

anxious robber.74 It is possible that the lack of availability 

of cash might result in robbers’ shifting their focus to 

the taking of merchandise, but if robbers are looking for 

quick cash such displacement would be unlikely.

13. Installing cameras and alarms. This response has 

received mixed reviews in studies of its effectiveness as a 

crime prevention technique.§ Examples of devices include 

CCTV or still cameras, and alarm systems with both fixed 

and remote activator devices. The presence of CCTV 

monitors, clearly visible near cash registers, as well as signs 

that state that surveillance equipment is in use, have been 

found to have some deterrent effect by increasing the 

robber’s risk of identification.75 Some stores have taken 

this a step further by using interactive surveillance with 

central monitoring. New developments in CCTV in the 

1990s have resulted in a second generation of systems 

that is not only superior in technology, but also eliminates 

deficiencies in surveillance’s human element. For example, 

digital systems can be programmed to recognize in finite 

detail any movements that can alert the worker to a 

potential robbery situation, without the need for human 

monitoring.76 Both fixed and remote alarm activators have 

been effective for this workplace environment. 7-Eleven’s 

alarm system uses telephone lines to transmit signals to a 

remote monitoring station. Store employees carry alarm 

activators on their belts or in pockets.77 Although the 

preventive effect of CCTV is questionable, there is no 

question that quality images are useful in the identification 

and apprehension of offenders. This measure can be 

of significant value, particularly if a gun is used, since 

28 Robbery of Convenience Stores

§ For a further assessment of the 

effectiveness of CCTV, see Response 

Guide No.4, Video Surveillance of 

Public Places. 
nervous clerks may not be able to provide an accurate 

offender description.§

Police Responses

14. Providing robbery prevention and awareness 

training. Police are in a prime position to guide 

businesses in crime prevention. They are typically the first 

point of contact after a robbery, and can be particularly 

helpful to small businesses that may have limited access 

to other programs and that rely more heavily on police 

to guide their response. Police can be particularly helpful 

in training employees to be smart observers and, if 

necessary, effective witnesses. Suggestions on protocol 

such as maintaining eye contact with customers (robbers 

do not want to be identified) and moving away from 

the sales counter when no one is waiting (robbers will 

perceive that it will take them longer to demand money 

from the register) are examples of training tips offered.§§

Tools such as a height strip can be distributed to mount 

to the door, giving the employee a means to estimate the 

height of a fleeing robber.§§§

Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 29

§ Reports from the Hillsborough 

County (Florida) Sheriff ’s Office 

indicated an almost 90 percent 

clearance rate for stores equipped 

with hidden 35 mm cameras 

(Bellamy 1996).

§§ A police department in 

Edmonton, Alberta developed a 

Robbery Awareness Education Kit 

to introduce training to retailers 

(Alberta Minister’s Committee to 

Promote Health and Safety 2000).

§§§ The San Bernardino, California 

police offer a four-hour training class 

to businesses on crime prevention. 

In addition to distributing tools 

like the height strip, the class also 

identifies other information retailers 

should collect during a crime (Berry 

2004).

The presence of video monitors has 

been found to have some deterrent 

affect by increasing the robber’s risk of 

identification. 

Nancy Leach
15. Inspecting convenience stores for compliance 

with robbery prevention measures. Obviously, robbery 

prevention recommendations are effective only if properly 

implemented. Police might assume responsibility for 

regularly inspecting convenience stores to determine 

whether they have adopted either mandatory or voluntary 

robbery prevention measures. In response to an increased 

trend in robberies, the San Bernardino Police Department 

implemented the Crime-Free Business Program in 2004. 

Police community service officers perform periodic 

inspections of convenience stores and other businesses 

and evaluate the businesses for their use of crime 

prevention measures in 28 categories.§ Although this 

particular program and compliance with the inspections 

are voluntary, the city has seen a reduction in commercial 

robberies.78

16. Enforcing prohibitions on loitering outside 

convenience stores. Where local law enables police to 

do so, enforcing prohibitions against loitering outside 

convenience stores reduces opportunities for potential 

robbers to plan a robbery by watching the routines of 

store clerks and customers. Police might enforce loitering 

or trespassing statutes or ordinances. Laws that prohibit 

loitering (and panhandling) near ATMs, for instance, give 

police authority to keep opportunistic offenders away 

from potential victims.79

30 Robbery of Convenience Stores

§ Scored categories include 

such items as visibility into the 

store, adequate entrance lighting, 

prominent “No Loitering” signs, and 

low shelf height.

Enforcing prohibitions against loitering 

outside convenience stores reduces 

opportunities for potential robbers to 

watch the routines of store clerks and 

customers. 

Nancy Leach
Responses With Limited Effectiveness

17. Conducting robbery stakeouts. Robbery stakeouts 

have police lie in wait to trap an offender, hiding in 

a convenience store’s back room or closet. Police 

departments would need to have considerable resources 

to be able to sustain the number of officers needed to 

await possible robberies in various locations over a long 

time. Moreover, the resultant armed confrontations would 

heighten risks for police officers and store employees.

18. Increasing police patrols. Because it takes a 

relatively short time to complete a convenience store 

robbery, the chances of thwarting one by increased patrols 

is not likely. In fact, a number of studies have concluded 

that increased police patrols are not particularly effective 

at preventing crime.80 The same is true for apprehending 

an offender once a robbery is reported; the quick nature 

of the crime makes immediate response and apprehension 

unlikely.81

19. Maintaining a consistent police presence.

Although a reliable police presence likely deters any 

potential crime, it is difficult for most police agencies to 

ensure a consistent police presence around any particular 

store, given competing police responsibilities. If a police 

agency is willing and able to provide a consistent presence 

in and around convenience stores, there is research 

evidence that doing so can be effective. Offenders 

interviewed in one study consistently ranked “people 

are present” factors, particularly referring to police, 

higher than certain environmental factors in their target 

selection.§ Crow and Bull’s study of 7-Eleven stores in 

1975 encouraged “visits from police” as one prevention 

strategy to significantly reduce robberies.82 A multistate 

study of such robberies concluded that improving police 

Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores 31

§ “People are present” factors 

include perceived police presence 

in the area and the proximity (of 

the store location) to a police 

station. These ranked as moderately 

important by the offenders, while 

window locations, time, lighting, 

and cashier locations ranked at the 

bottom of the scale (Petrosino and 

Brensilber 2003).
presence and response is more critical than the store’s 

environmental factors.83 In addition, offender interviews 

have revealed that police presence is the most influential 

factor in their decision to pick a target.84

20. Establishing satellite facilities. This takes 

police presence a step further by making police a more 

permanent fixture inside convenience stores. This 

response is more resource-sensitive than most and may 

not be financially feasible for some police agencies or 

otherwise justifiable given competing demands for police 

presence elsewhere in communities. 

7-Eleven, Inc. has established a particular program for 

its stores called the Police Community Network Centers 

(PCNCs). They work with local police departments to 

install either a workstation inside the stores or an office or 

trailer adjacent to it. It is clearly identified, and includes a 

dedicated telephone, workspace and storage, and display 

areas for crime prevention literature.85,§ 

32 Robbery of Convenience Stores

§ 7-Eleven, Inc. reports that it has 

received “rave reviews from police 

organizations and city governments 

that have participated in the 

program.” There are currently more 

than 200 PCNCs in 100 cities in 18 

states (7-Eleven, Inc. n.d.).
Appendix: Summary of Responses to 

Robbery of Convenience Stores

The table below summarizes the responses to robbery of 

convenience stores, the mechanisms by which they are 

intended to work, the conditions under which they ought 

to work best, and some factors that should be considered 

before a particular response is implemented. It is critical 

that you tailor responses to local circumstances and that 

you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. 

Remember, in most cases an effective strategy will involve 

implementing several different responses because law 

enforcement alone is seldom effective in reducing or 

solving the problem.

1.

2.

22

22

Understanding 

the ownership, 

management 

structure, and 

operations of 

local convenience 

stores

Collaborating 

with private 

security

Tailors the 

responses to the 

stores’ particular 

needs and 

resources

Enhances 

likelihood 

that effective 

responses will be 

implemented

...the 

management 

structure is 

clearly defined 

and information 

is available to 

police

...police and 

private security 

recognize their 

respective 

legitimate 

interests

Independent 

stores, not tied to 

rigid commercial 

guidelines, may 

not have the 

financial backing 

to implement 

security changes; 

industry associations 

may oppose 

recommendations 

Well suited for 

municipalities with 

large number of 

retailers

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Robbery of Convenience Stores 33
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

23

23

24

25

26

Targeting repeat 

victims

Reevaluating 

responses 

consistently

Maximizing 

natural 

surveillance

Having multiple 

employees on 

duty during 

high-risk periods

Controlling 

access

Focuses 

attention on 

highest-risk 

locations, 

increasing 

likelihood of 

improving 

protection of 

those stores

Refines 

understanding of 

past responses 

and improves 

future responses

Increases 

robbers’ risk 

of detection 

by optimizing 

visibility of key 

areas

Deters potential 

offenders 

because they 

would have 

more difficulty 

controlling more 

than one victim

Limits offenders’ 

opportunity to 

escape quickly, 

which may 

deter offenders 

altogether

Media reports 

may contribute 

to repeat 

victimization 

by spotlighting 

a store’s 

vulnerability

Stakeholders will 

advocate a variety 

of changes based 

on their respective 

interests

Placement of 

safes and cash 

register can 

enhance ability for 

observation

Increases costs to 

stores; likely to 

require legislation 

due to industry 

opposition; 

effectiveness 

debated

Difficult for 

stores to balance 

easy access for 

customers with 

obstructed access 

for potential 

robbers

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

...analysis 

of repeat 

victimization 

is timely and 

accurate

...decisionmakers 

are constantly 

researching new 

strategies and 

are willing to 

reconsider past 

responses

...views into and 

within the store 

are unobstructed 

by signs, displays, 

etc. 

...local robbery 

patterns clearly 

identify high-risk 

periods

...number of 

entrances/exits 

are limited, 

and exterior 

environment 

provides some 

obstacles to a 

quick escape

34 Robbery of Convenience Stores

Retailer Responses

Specific Responses to Reduce Convenience Store Robbery
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

26

26

27

27

27

Establishing 

territoriality

Promoting 

legitimate 

activity

Training 

employees

Maintaining 

store 

appearance

Using cashcontrol 

procedures

Controlling 

certain store 

characteristics 

empowers the 

employees 

over wouldbe robbers 

by providing 

a logistical 

advantage

Increases risk 

of detection 

by encouraging 

steady activity 

among patrons 

and others

A well-trained 

staff reduces 

the vulnerability 

of a business 

by emphasizing 

methods 

of robbery 

deterrence 

and violence 

avoidance

Deters potential 

offenders by 

suggesting that 

employees are 

vigilant against 

robbery

Limiting cash 

available to 

clerks can 

dissuade 

offenders as 

well as minimize 

losses

Not all territorial 

elements are readily 

altered

Free coffee or other 

promotions can 

invite late-night 

traffic; refusing to 

sell illicit products 

can reduce presence 

of potential 

offenders

Costly in time and 

possibly dollars; 

attracting workers 

to convenience 

stores for any 

length of time is 

challenging in itself

Convenience store 

robbers may not 

make this rational 

inference

Some offenders 

either don’t trust 

the posted signs or 

don’t care if the 

take is limited

...stores are not 

located near 

major roads 

or high- crime 

areas; stores are 

near a police 

station

...stores operate 

gas pumps that 

attract traffic at 

all hours

...it is 

required for all 

employees, with 

refresher training 

as needed

...employees 

spend time away 

from registers 

to maintain 

appearance, 

thereby 

hindering a quick 

robbery

...cash policy is 

clearly posted

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Robbery of Convenience Stores 35
13. 

14.

15.

16.

17.

28

29

30

30

31

Installing 

cameras and 

alarms

Providing 

robbery 

prevention 

and awareness 

training

Inspecting 

convenience 

stores for 

compliance 

with robbery 

prevention 

measures

Enforcing 

prohibitions on 

loitering outside 

convenience 

stores

Conducting 

robbery 

stakeouts

Surveillance 

and security 

equipment that 

are in plain sight 

to customers 

may provide 

deterrence and 

increase risk of 

detection

Improves 

stores’ capacity 

to prevent 

and respond 

appropriately to 

robberies

Increases 

likelihood that 

known effective 

measures will be 

implemented

Minimizes 

opportunities 

for potential 

offenders to plan 

a robbery

Increases 

likelihood of 

apprehension of 

offenders in the 

act

Costly; quality of 

images is key for 

best value; may 

aid identification 

process if 

eyewitnesses are 

panicked

Compliance 

ensures 

effectiveness; 

small- operation 

staff may not 

have time to 

attend; gives 

police familiarity 

with business and 

ownership

Standards might be 

either mandated by 

law or voluntarily 

agreed to by the 

convenience store 

industry

Valid laws must be 

in place

Resourceintensive due to 

unpredictability 

of robbery 

attempts; armed 

confrontations 

are risky to police 

officers and 

employees

...cameras 

actually record 

activity, and 

employees have 

fixed and remote 

activator devices 

to sound alarms

...training is 

based on reliable 

knowledge and 

made available 

to stores that 

otherwise have 

limited access to 

training

...there are 

meaningful 

consequences 

for failure to 

implement 

effective 

measures

...stores 

cooperate 

with police in 

enforcement and 

prosecution

...police have 

specific reliable 

information 

about a robbery 

attempt and 

safety of store 

employees can 

be assured

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

36 Robbery of Convenience Stores

Police Responses

Responses with Limited Effectiveness
18. 

19.

20.

31

31

32

Increasing 

police patrols

Maintaining 

a consistent 

police presence

Establishing 

satellite 

facilities

Quick nature 

of convenience 

store robberies 

makes the chance 

of apprehension 

unlikely

Difficult for 

police to ensure 

reliable presence, 

given competing 

responsibilities

Depends 

on resource 

availability; 

requires 

cooperation with 

store management

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Robbery of Convenience Stores 37

Periodic 

observation by 

police will either 

deter a robbery 

situation or result 

in apprehending 

an offender

Deters potential 

offenders from 

attempting a 

robbery

Deters potential 

offenders 

through 

enhanced 

likelihood of 

police presence

...police can 

target repeat 

victims or 

vulnerable days/

times

...presence is 

reliable and 

well-known 

to potential 

offenders

...location/ 

workspace is 

clearly identified 

as police space

Endnotes 1

 National Association of Convenience Stores (2006).

2

 Calvin (n.d.).

3

 Hunter (1999).

4

 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (2002).

5

 Catalano, Hill, and Long (2001).

6

 Hunter (1999).

7

 Gill and Pease (1998).

8

 Matthews (2002).

9

 Gill and Pease (1998).

10 Petrosino and Brensilber (1997).

11 Gill and Pease (1998).

12 Faulkner, Landsittel, and Hendricks (2001).

13 Faulkner, Landsittel, and Hendricks (2001).

14 Welford, MacDonald, and Weiss (1997).

15 Petrosino and Brensilber (1997).

16 Faulkner, Landsittel, and Hendricks (2001).

17 Petrosino and Brensilber (1997).

18 Bellamy (1996).

19 National Center for Victims of Crime (2000).

20 Conti (2005).

21 Lins and Erickson (1998).

22 National Center for Victims of Crime (1997).

23 National Center for Victims of Crime (2000).

24 Eck (1998).

25 Taylor (2002).

26 U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (1998).

27 Lins and Erickson (1998).

28 Lins and Erickson (1998).

29 D’Allessio and Stolzenberg (1990).

30 Hunter (1999).

31 Taylor (2002).

32 Hendricks et al. (1999).

Endnotes 39
33 National Association of Convenience Stores (2005).

34 National Association of Convenience Stores (2006).

35 Hunter (1990).

36 Hendricks et al. (1999).

37 Lins and Erickson (1998).

38 Eck (1998).

39 Hunter and Jeffery (1997).

40 Hunter (1999).

41 Lins and Erickson (1998).

42 Faulkner, Landsittel, and Hendricks (2001).

43 Runyan et. al. (2005).

44 Wellford, MacDonald, and Weiss (1997).

45 Petrosino and Brensilber (1997).

46 WorkCover New South Wales (2002).

47 Correctional Service of Canada (1995).

48 Petrosino and Brensilber (2003).

49 Gill and Pease (1998).

50 Catalano, Hill, and Long (2001).

51 Bellamy (1996).

52 Gabor (1989).

53 Hunter (1999).

54 Lins and Erickson (1998).

55 D’Allessio and Stolzenberg (1990).

56 Catalano, Hill, and Long (2001).

57 Casteel et al. (2003).

58 Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000); Mayhew (2000).

59 Eck (1998).

60 Matthews (1996).

61 Hunter (1999).

62 Bellamy (1996).

63 Lins and Erickson (1998).

64 LaVigne (1994).

65 Hunter (1999).

66 Bellamy (1996).

67 Lins and Erickson (1998).

68 Hunter (1999)

69 Bellamy (1996).

40 Robbery of Convenience Stores
70 Wellford, MacDonald, and Weiss (1997).

71 Bellamy (1996).

72 Wright and Decker (1997).

73 Lins and Erickson (1998).

74 Lins and Erickson (1998).

75 U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (1998).

76 Surette (2005).

77 Lins and Erickson (1998).

78 Berry (2004).

79 Schreiber (1994).

80 Bellamy (1996).

81 Petrosino and Brensilber (1997).

82 Hunter (1999).

83 Wellford, MacDonald, and Weiss (1997).

84 Petrosino and Brensilber (2003).

85 Lins and Erickson (1998).

Endnotes 41

References

7-Eleven, Inc. (n.d.). Safety Programs. Retrieved April 

2, 2005, from www.7-eleven.com/newsroom/

crimedeterrence.asp.

Alberta Minister’s Committee to Promote Health and 

Safety—Working Alone Best Practices (2000). 

Working Alone Safely: A Guide for Employers and 

Employees. Edmonton: Alberta Human Resources and 

Employment.

Bellamy, L. (1996). “Situational Crime Prevention and 

Convenience Store Robbery.” Security Journal 7(1):41–

52.

Berry, J. (2004). “Program Aims to Rob Criminals of 

Opportunity: Selling Safety: San Bernardino Police 

Give Voluntary Inspections and Tips to Businesses.” 

The Press Enterprise, August 1, p. B1.

Calvin, J. (n.d.). Today’s Convenience Stores. Albany: New 

York Association of Convenience Stores. Retrieved 

April 2, 2005, from www.nyacs.org/industry/today.

htm. 

Casteel, C., T. Chronister, J. Grayson, and J. Kraus (2003). 

“Partnerships and Collaborations To Prevent RobberyRelated Workplace Violence.” Clinics in Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine 3(4):763–774.

Casteel, C., and C. Peek-Asa (2000). “Effectiveness of 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

(CPTED) in Reducing Robberies.” American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine 18(4S):99–115.

References 43
Catalano, P., B. Hill, and B. Long (2001). “Geographical 

Analysis and Serial Crime Investigation: A Case Study 

of Armed Robbery in Phoenix, Arizona.” Security 

Journal 14(3):27–41.

Clarke, R., and J. Eck (2005). Crime Analysis for ProblemSolvers: In 60 Small Steps. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services. Accessible at www.

popcenter.org/learning/60steps. 

Conti, K. (2005). “Risky Business: Low Pay and Danger 

for Night Workers at Convenience Stores.” The Boston 

Globe, February 24, p. 1.

Correctional Service of Canada (1995). A Profile of Robbery 

Offenders in Canada. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from 

www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/briefs/b10/b10e_

e.shtml.

D’Addario, F. (2001). “Zen and the Art of Security 

Maintenance.” Security Management 45(5):70, 72, 74–76.

D’Allessio, S., and L. Stolzenberg (1990). “A Crime of 

Convenience: The Environment and Convenience 

Store Robbery.” Environment and Behavior 22(2):255–

271.

Eck, J. (1998). “Preventing Crime at Places.” In L. 

Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. 

Reuter, and S. Bushway (eds.), Preventing Crime: What 

Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice.

44 Robbery of Convenience Stores
Faulkner, K., D. Landsittel, and S. Hendricks (2001). 

“Robbery Characteristics and Employee Injuries in 

Convenience Stores.” American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine 40(6):703–709.

Gabor, T. (1989). “Preventing Armed Robbery Through 

Opportunity Reduction: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of 

Security Administration 12(1):3–19.

Gill, M., and K. Pease (1998). “Repeat Robbers: Are They 

Different?” In M. Gill (ed.), Crime at Work: Increasing the 

Risk for Offenders, Vol. 2. Leicester (United Kingdom): 

Perpetuity Press.

Hendricks, S., D. Landsittel, H. Amandus, J. Malcan, and 

J. Bell (1999). “A Matched Case-Control Study of 

Convenience Store Robbery Risk Factors.” Journal of 

Occupational and Environmental Medicine 41(11):995–1004.

Hunter, R. (1999). “Convenience Story Robbery Revisited: 

A Review of Prevention Results.” Journal of Security 

Administration 22(1&2):1–13.

——— (1990). “Convenience Store Robbery in 

Tallahassee: A Reassessment.” Journal of Security 

Administration 13(1, 2):3–18.

Hunter, R., and C. Jeffery (1997). “Preventing Convenience 

Store Robbery Through Environmental Design.” In R. 

Clarke (ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, 2nd ed. Guilderland (New York): Harrow & 

Heston Publishers.

References 45
Inkster Group (2004). Ontario Convenience Stores Association: 

Tobacco-Related Crime. Toronto: Ontario Convenience 

Stores Association.

LaVigne, N. (1994). “Gasoline Drive-Offs: Designing a 

Less Convenient Environment.” In R. Clarke (ed.), 

Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey (New York): 

Criminal Justice Press.

Lins, S., and R. Erickson (1998). “Stores Learn To 

Inconvenience Robbers.” Security Management

42(11):49–53.

Loomis, D., S. Marshall, and M. Ta (2005). “Employer 

Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide 

in the Workplace.” American Journal of Public Health

95(5):830–832.

Matthews, R. (2002). Armed Robbery. Cullompton 

(England); Portland (Oregon): Willan.

——— (1996). Armed Robbery: Two Police Responses. Crime 

Detention and Prevention Series, Paper 78. London: 

Home Office Police Research Group.

Mayhew, C. (2000). Violence in the Workplace: Preventing 

Armed Robbery: A Practical Handbook. Canberra: 

Australian Institute of Criminology.

National Association of Convenience Stores (2006). 

What Is a Convenience Store? Retrieved August 20, 

2006, from www.nacsonline.com/NACS/Resource/

IndustryResearch/what_is_a_cstore.htm.

46 Robbery of Convenience Stores
——— (2005). Latest U.S. Convenience Store Count Increases 

to 138,205 Stores. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from www.

nacsonline. com/NACS/ News/ Press_Releases 

/2005/pr022205.htm.

National Center for Victims of Crime (2000). Workplace 

Violence: Employee Information. Washington, D.C.: 

National Center for Victims of Crime. Retrieved 

February 20, 2005, from www.ncvc.org /ncvc/ main.

aspx? dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32

374.

——— (1997). Robbery. Get Help Series. Washington, 

D.C.: National Center for Victims of Crime. Retrieved 

February 20, 2005, from www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.asp

x?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32367.

Neary, B. (2004). “State To Reconsider Convenience Store 

Security Rules.” Santa Fe New Mexican, September 7, p. 

A1.

Petrosino, A., and D. Brensilber (2003). “The Motives, 

Methods, and Decision-Making of Convenience Store 

Robberies: Interview With 28 Incarcerated Offenders 

in Massachusetts.” In M. Smith and D. Cornish (eds.), 

Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention, Crime 

Prevention Studies, Vol. 16. Monsey (New York): 

Criminal Justice Press

——— (1997). ‘Convenient Victims’: Results From Interview 

With 20 Boston Convenience Store Employees Who Were 

Robbed. Boston: Massachusetts Committee on Criminal 

Justice.

References 47
Runyan, C., J. Bowling, M. Schulman, and S. Gallagher 

(2005). “Potential for Violence Against Teenage Retail 

Workers in the United States.” Journal of Adolescent 

Health 36(3):267el-267.e5.

Schreiber, F. (1994). “The Future of ATM Security.” 

Security Management 38 (March Suppl.):18A–20A.

Surette, R. (2005). “The Thinking Eye: Pros and Cons 

of Second Generation CCTV Surveillance Systems.” 

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & 

Management 28(1):152–173.

Taylor, N. (2002). “Robbery Against Service Stations and 

Pharmacies: Recent Trends.” Trends & Issues in Crime 

and Criminal Justice, No. 223. Canberra: Australian 

Institute of Criminology.

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

(2002). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online: 

Percent Distribution of Robberies Known to Police. Retrieved 

March 28, 2005, from www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

pdf/t3145.pdf.

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety, and 

Health Administration (1998). Recommendations for 

Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in Late-Night Retail 

Establishments. OSHA 3153. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Labor.

Wellford, C., J. MacDonald, and J. Weiss (1997). Multistate 

Study of Convenience Store Robberies. Washington, D.C.: 

Justice Research and Statistics Association.

48 Robbery of Convenience Stores
WorkCover New South Wales (2002). “Robbery and 

Violence in the Retail Industry.” Sydney: WorkCover 

New South Wales.

Wright, R., and S. Decker (1997). Armed Robbers in Action: 

Stickups and Street Culture. Boston: Northeastern 

University Press

References 49

About the Authors

Alicia Altizio

Alicia completed her M.A. degree in the Criminal Justice Program 

at the State University of New York at Albany in August 2005. She 

earned her B.S. degree in Criminal Justice with a minor in Psychology 

at Russell Sage College, Troy, New York. She has previously interned 

on research projects providing curriculum for practitioners dealing 

with persons with co-occurring disorders (substance abuse and mental 

illness) who are justice-involved. She is currently employed as a 

caseworker in the Child Protective Services (CPS) unit of Washington 

County in upstate New York, and is responsible for investigating 

reports of child abuse and neglect as received through the State 

Central Registry (SCR). 

Diana York

Diana is a graduate of the Criminal Justice Program at the State 

University of New York at Albany, earning an M.A. degree in 

December, 2006. She earned her B.S. degree at the University in 

1984, as a Business Administration major with a minor in Criminal 

Justice. During that time she interned at the Albany County Probation 

Department. She was most recently a Director at MBIA Insurance 

Corporation in Armonk, NY, with 18 years of service through May 

2003 in the Business Analysis and Finance divisions. 

About the Authors 51

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.

Recommended Readings 53
• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A 

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices.

54 Robbery of Convenience Stores
• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency.

Recommended Readings 55
• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving.

56 Robbery of Convenience Stores
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

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. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

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

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57
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. Glensor 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. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

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

58 Robbery of Convenience Stores
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

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 59
Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke 

and John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Abandoned Vehicles

Bicycle Theft

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Child Abuse

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Transient Encampments

•

60 Robbery of Convenience Stores
Problem-Solving Tools

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Displacement

Implementing Responses to Problems

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem Solving

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Sting Operations

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 61


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 programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e0407972 April 2007

ISBN: 1-932582-79-7 

www.cops.usdoj.gov