Multistate Study of Convenience Store Robberies
[This summary of a five-state research project carried out by JRSA in 1996-97 was excerpted from the final report written by Charles Wellford and John MacDonald, University of Maryland, and Joan Weiss, Executive Director of JRSA. The project was funded by the National Institute of Justice.]
A variety of factors make convenience stores prone to robberies, which are frequently associated with injuries that can result in death. These stores are easily accessible and are located in metropolitan areas. They have available cash on hand, which make them attractive to robbers who need a quick source of funds. In addition, prior research has documented that certain convenience stores are more subject to robberies and subsequent worker injuries than others. This summary describes a research project conducted by Statistical Analysis Centers in five states to provide more detailed information on convenience store robberies and to identify ways in which these robberies might be reduced.
As a result of previous studies of convenience store robberies that examined the influence of environmental characteristics and environmental design, some store chains and municipalities have instituted specific robbery prevention tactics. Strategies include having two or more clerks on duty during certain hours, instituting good cash handling policies, limiting the amount of cash, posting signs, using drop safes, having sufficient light, removing signs from windows, installing security devices such as alarms and video cameras, and limiting concealed access or escape.
Our review of the literature indicated that:
These observations guided our five-state project.
MethodologyInterviews with convenience store robbery victims and offenders were used as the primary source of data to address the questions of injury and store characteristics that might influence the rate of robbery and injury. This required that procedures for identifying victims and offenders be similar across all five states. The primary source of information on offenders was currently incarcerated offenders. A total of 148 offenders were interviewed in sessions lasting 25 to 40 minutes.
It was anticipated that stores identified in an earlier nine-state study would be the location for victim interviews. In most cases, however, the turnover in store personnel or the refusal to allow access for interviews resulted in the need to explore other techniques for identifying victims. The primary strategy used in each state was to select convenience stores in potentially high convenience store robbery areas, and ask stores for permission to conduct interviews with the workers who had been victims of convenience store robberies in which injury may or may not have occurred. Victims were interviewed either in person or by phone, depending on the distance to the store. There appear to be no differences in responses between phone and in-person interviews. A total of 80 victims were interviewed in sessions of 20 to 25 minutes.
The primary focus of the offender and victim interviews was on the nature of the convenience store robberies in which they participated (injury, use of weapon, time of day, and how they behaved) and the factors they think prompted the robbery. Offenders were asked how they planned the crime, what factors influenced the store selection, and what factors could have prevented them from robbing the store. The selection of these factors was based on the elements the literature suggests could influence offenders' decisions. In addition, offenders were asked about their history of robbing convenience stores to distinguish between repeat and first-time offenders.
Highlights of FindingsThe majority of victims had worked in convenience stores for two years or less. Approximately 50 percent had been victims in two or more robberies, with 14 percent of the respondents reporting they had been robbed five or more times. In the robberies in which the victims had been involved, there had been injury in 28 percent of the cases; of those injured, 37.5 percent described their injury as moderate or extensive. Of the 22 victims who described their injuries, trauma to the head was the most frequently reported (68.2%). These data reflect the fact that victims of convenience store robberies experience robberies frequently, and that injury occurs in about one-quarter of such cases.
About half of the respondents (47.2%) indicated that they used self protection during the robbery, including activating the alarm (68%) and firing a weapon (24%). When individuals were asked what could be done to prevent the robbery, they indicated changes in the store characteristics including better alarm systems and increasing police and security. The respondents had a particularly fatalistic approach to what could be done to prevent injury; 65% of those who had been injured indicated that nothing could have been done to prevent it. The majority of respondents said that they had not had training prior to the incident.
The offenders reported that the crimes that they had committed were usually committed with others; the majority of time one person accompanied them. A weapon was used 87% of the time, most frequently a gun. Fourteen percent of the offenders reported that injury occurred to one or more of the employees or customers in the store.
Forty percent of the offenders indicated that they had previously robbed convenience stores. In 83% of the cases, offenders reported that at the time of committing the convenience store robbery they were either drinking, using drugs, or both. They said that the single most important motivation for robbing the store was money or money for drugs. Sixty-four percent planned the robbery within six hours or less of committing the crime. Factors that appeared to be important in the selection of the stores--such as the proximity of the store to major and minor roads--were characteristics that are not easily manipulated by the staff or store owners.
In describing the robbery, the overwhelming majority of offenders reported that they did not initially use force. They only used force when, in their judgment, the response of the clerk or customer necessitated force. The majority thought they had very little chance of being caught. When asked what they thought could have been done to prevent the robbery, offenders emphasized characteristics such as presence of guards (85%), the proximity of police stations (76%), the presence of police in the area (83%), and the number of individuals inside and outside of the store (72%).
What was learned about preventing robberies and injuries to workers? When there was only one clerk working during the robbery, there was injury in 23.5 percent of the cases; with more than one clerk, injury occurred in 29.5 percent of the cases. From the victims' reports it would appear that the presence of additional clerks did not reduce the probability of injury. Rather, it is the dynamics of the situation and most notably the response of the clerks, at least from the offender's perspective, that seems to influence whether injury will occur.
To assess whether the individuals approach convenience store robberies differently due to previous experience with these robberies, the sample of offenders was divided into those who report no prior robberies (novice) and those who report one or more prior robberies (repeat). Responses were similar; however, recidivists were more likely to plan one day or more in advance.
Finally, the ways in which victims and offenders diverged in their assessment of what could be done to prevent robberies and what the factors were that were most important in selecting a store for a robbery were investigated. Responses were very similar: victims and offenders indicated that store characteristics related to police or increased security might have prevented the robbery.
ConclusionsSTRONGThis multisite study of convenience store robberies reaffirms the value of multisite research. The small number of convenience store robbers in custody, or otherwise available, means that any single-site study would necessarily involve very small numbers of subjects. These data also suggest that the number of clerks on duty is not a significant factor in explaining whether convenience robberies are likely to result in injuries to those clerks. Far more important seems to be the interaction between victim and offender. Offenders report that the behavior of the clerk or clerks is far more important than the number of clerks in determining whether they use force in the robbery. Clerks appear to believe there is little they can do to prevent the occurrence of robberies and whether they are injured during the robbery.
While some factors appeared to influence offenders in the selection of stores for robbery, traditional environmental design elements were not identified by offenders or victims as factors that influenced the occurrence of robbery. The differences between repeat and novice convenience store robbers were marginal and similarities were much more prevalent than were differences. Finally, results showed that planning for these offenses was minimal, the offenders were motivated by the need for money and drugs, and offenders' behavior after the crime commission was poorly planned.
The data suggest that the behavior of clerks may be the most significant factor in determining the extent of injury that results during these robberies. In our interviews, 57.1% of clerks had received no training or had only had the training after the crime occurred. Training must be more frequent and delivered in a manner that allows the clerks to actually receive it. The heavy emphasis offenders place on police and security as effective deterrents may cause us to reconsider our reliance on environmental factors alone. Improving police presence and response may be more important than further enhancements of the store's environment. These findings offer some suggestions for crime prevention efforts and for theories of robbery.