U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics

n

Robbery Victims

by Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph. D. April 1987 or more incidents of a similar nature BJS Sta tistician about which the victim cannot provide Robbery ranks among the most separate details. (See Methodology for From 1973 through 1984 approximately serious 8.nd feared criminal further details.) 14,681,100 robbery victimizations oc­ offenses because it involves both curred in the United states-an average threatened or actual violence and In a robbery one or mor,e offenders of about 1,223,400 per year-according loss of property to the victim. It threa ten or Use force to take a person's to the National Crime Survey (NCS). also occurs much more frequently property. Whether called a stickup, Two-thirds of the victims of these rob­ than either rape or homicide. holdup, mugging, or robbery, this crime beries had property stolen, and. a third Although many robberies do not is feared for both its actual and pos­ were injured; nearly a fourth suffered result in physical harm to the sible violence. Among commonly meas­ both injury and property loss. victim or extensive loss, fully 1 in ured crime$., only hOfIjlcide and rape Other maj01' findings include: 3 involve actual injury, ranging exceed it in severity. Unlike many from bruises and black eyes to other violent crimes, however, robbery ta About 1 in 12 robbery victims experi­ life-threatening gunshot or knife also shares the characteristics of a enced serious injuries such as rape, wounds, and 1 in 8 involve thefts property crime since it involves an knife or gunshot wounds, broken bones, of $250 or more. attempted or completed theft of per- or being knocked unconscious, This special report presents a so nal prope rty • III About half of all completed robberies detailed analysis of twelve years of National Crime Survey data on Robbery often occurs in conjunction involved losses of $82 or less; 10% in­ with other crimes. From 1976 through volved losses of $800 or more. Most robbery. Along with our other BJS 1984, for example, between 9.3% and theft losses .were never recovered. reports from this extemely rich da ta series, this study expands our 10.8% of all homicides were perpetra­ • Offenders displayed weal?Ons in knowledge of the extent and ted wit~ robbery as the circumstance or almost half of all robberies; they had character of crime in the United motive. Three pet'cent of robbery vic­ guns in about 1 in 5. Offenders with states and its impact on victims. tims between 1973 and 1984 were also weapons were more likely to threaten steven R. Schlesinger raped; 8% suffered a burglary; and 4%, than a ttack their victims. Director a motor vehicle theft. e In almost 9 out of 10 robbery victim­ izations, robbers were male; in about Major incident characteristics half, they were black or worked in • Robbery ra tes declined by 15% from On average, 1,223,400 persons were groups of 2 or more. 1973 to 1984, largely because of a de­ cline in attempted robberies. robbed annually between 1973 and e Blacks experienced robberies at 2 1/2 1984-a rate of almost 7 robberies for times the rate for whites; the rate for • Robbery victims were more likely every 1,000 persons 12 years of age and male victims Was twice the rate foi' fe­ than rape or assault victims to encoun­ older in the United sta tes (table 1). male victims. ter multiple offenders, strangers, or • Over half of all rObbery victims were offenders with weapons. Thirty-three percent of victims a ttacked. Female robbery victims were suffered injuries: 8% experienced such Robbery: violent crime and property serious injuries as rape, attempted more likely to be attacked than were crime male victims; victims 65 and older were rape, knife or gunshot wounds, broken more likely to be attacked than-victims bones, being knocked unconscious, or under 65. Data for this report cover all per­ other injuries requiring at least 2 days S9nal robberies reported to the NOS IThe Severity of Crime, BJS Bulletin, NCJ-92326, e Victims who were attacked were from 1973 through 1984. Included are January 1984. more likely to be injuI'ed if they were robberies committed during completed 2FBl, Crime in the United States, contains annual female, if the incident occurred at Ol' attempted ~pes, personal robberies statistics on homicides known to police. The FSl ni!:rht, if there was more than one of­ occurring during commercial robberies, started publishing its table on murder circumstances fender, or jf a weapon was present. and series victimizations, that is, three and motives in 1976. hosl?italization; 25% incurred minor Table 1. Type of robbery victimizations, 1973-84 :l1juries such as bru ises, black ('j'es, or cuts. Robberl victimizations Average Average Just under two-thirds of robberies annual annual were completed; that is, offenders suc­ Type of robbery number rate" Percent ceeded in taking cash, property, or both Total 1,223,400 6.9 100% from their victims. The average theft loss was $447. About half of all thefts, Completed 775,200 4.4 63% however, involved losses of about $82 With injury 282,700 1.6 23 or less, and 44% were for less than Serious 77,600 .4 6 Minor 205,100 1.2 17 $50. The highest 10% of thefts were Without injury 492,500 2.8 40 for $800 or more. Attempted 448,300 2.5 37% With injury 124,900 .7 10 Serious 23,900 .1 2 Value Percent of Minor 101,100 .6 8 of completed Without injury 323,300 1.8 26 stolen robberies, property Note: Percentages may not add to total because of rounding. 1973-84 "Number of robbery victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 and older. Total 100% r--- Less than $10 18 Table 2. Value of theft losses, damages, Table 3. Characteristics of robbery $10-49 26 and recoveries in robbery victimizations, offenders, 1973-84 1973-84 $50-249 32 Percent of $250-999 13 Value Perceived offender robbery vic- $1000 and Actual loss characteristics timizations above 6 Constant at time 100% 1984 dollars Sex Don't know/not of robbery Male 89 ascertained 5 Female 5 $4,426,627,000 Losses $3,201,259,600 Both 4 Thefts The total value of stolen and Race 100% Cash 933,244,200 659,158,100 damaged cash and property over the 12- Property 3,221,268,300 2,349,311,200 White 36 year period a moun ted to $4.4 billion in Black 51 Damages 272,114,500 192,790,30U Other 4 constant. 1984 dollars, or $3.2 billion in Mixed races 4 actual loss to the victim (table 2). Recoveries $1,133,92S,';uu $782,000,700 Age 100% About a fourth of this loss, $1.1 billion, Cash 42,410,900 29,458,100 20 and YOl!nger 41 was recovered by the victims. When Property 1,091,517,500 752,542,600 21 and older 44 cash was stolen, relatively little was Mixed ages 9 recovel'ed (5%). On the other hand, Net loss $3,292,698,600 $2,419,258,800 Number of offenders 100% 34% of the value of other property was Note: Amounts may not add to total because Single 47 recovered, excluding anything received of rounding. Multiple 51 from insurance. This high rate was due Relationship to victim 100% to recovering motor vehicles. Stranger 75 Major offender and victim Acquaintance 7 Damages, only 6% of the total loss, ).·e­ characteristics Relative 13 sulted from forcible entry into homes and assaults on victims. Note: Percentages may not add to total In almost 9 out of 10 victimizations, because of rounding and omission of the robbers were male; in about half "don't know" and "not ascertained" categories Offenders displayed weapons in from table display. almost half of all robberies; guns, they were black; and a higher propor­ generally considered the most frighten­ tion were 21 years old and over than were under 21 (table 3). In the majority non-Hispanics, although most victims ing weapon, were displayed in a fi fth of of victimizations two or more offenders all robberies. were non-Hispanic. worked together. Typically, they were not known by their victims. Almost half of robbery victims were under 25 years of age. Victims in the Weapon use in robbery victimizations Robbery victims were primarily three youngest age groups, 12-15, 16- male and white-65% were male, and Total 100% 19, and 20-24, had essentially the same 75% wel'€ white (table 4). They robbery rate, which was substantially No weapon 39% included a disproportionate share of higher than ra tes for persons in older Any weapon 49% persons who had never married, those age groups. As people aged they were Gun 20 with low incomes, and residents of less likely to be victimized. Knife 17 central cities. Other 13 Persons separated or divorced and, Don't know/not Robbery ra tes for males were twice to a lesser extent, those who had never ascertained 12% as high as those for females (9.3 vs. 4.6 married were disproportionately vic­ per 1,000). Although ~hree-quarters of timized. Married persons had the all victims were white~ robbery victimi­ lowest robbery ra tes. zation rates were almost 2 1/2 times higher for blacks as for whites (14.2 vs. Robbery ra tes decreased as family 5.9 per 1,000). As, with blacks, robbery income increased. Those with incomes rates were higher for Hispanics than for under $7,500 experienced both the high- 2 est rates and the greatest percentage Table 4. Chamcteristics of robbery victims, 1973-84 of robberies. Those with incomes of $25,000 and above had the lowest rates Robberr victimizations and the lowest percentage. Average Average annual annual Residents of central cities had the Victim characteristics number rate· Fercent highest robbery ra tes; those living in Sex 100% non metropolitan areas, the lowest. Male 794,200 9.3 65 Female 429,200 4.6 35 Black males were robbed at twice Race ).00% the rate of black females and 2 1/2 White 921,800 5.9 'l5 times that of white males (table 5). Black . 279,300 14.2 23 Robbery rates were lowest for white Other 22,400 7.2 2 women. Ethnicity 100% Hispanic 98,200 10.4 8 Non-H ispanic 1,125,200 6.7 92 Rates for males and females of each Age 100% race were related to their residential 12-15 years old 175,000 11.3" 14 area as well as to their sex and race. 16-19 180,800 11.3 15 Each group's rates were highest for 20-24 230,300 11.7 19 those living in central cities, lower for 25-34 249,900 7.2 20 35-49 181,900 5.0 15 those residing in the suburbs, and low­ 50-64 127,700 4.0 10 est for those in non metropolitan 65 and older 77,70\) 3.3 6 areas. Within each type of residential Marital sta tus 100% area, black males had the highest rates, Married 338,700 3.4 28 followed by white males. White fe­ Widowed 56,300 4.6 5 males experienced the lowest rates Divorced or separa ted 202,300 16.0 17 622,200 51 within each area, although white fe­ Never married 11.9 males were only somewhat less likely Family income 100% Less than $7,500 419,8nO 10.8 J4 than black females residing in non­ $'i,500-14,999 317,300 6.7 26 metropolitan areas to be robbed. $15,000-24,999 211,100 5.1 17 $25,000 and above 154,500 4.7 13 Robbery and other violent crimes Residence 100% Centxal city 661,:.100 12.9 54 Robbery differs significantly from Suburb 398,400 5.7 33 other violent crimes in several ways. Nonmetropolitan area 163,800 2.9 13 Robbet·y victims were much more likely Note: Percentages may not add to total because of rounding and omission of than rape or assault victims to face two "don't 'know" and "not ascertained" categories from table display. or more offenders (table 6). Robbery "Number of robbery victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 and older. victims generally did not know their assailants or knew them only by sight, While victims of other violent crimes Table 5. Avemge annual robbery victimization rates by sex, race, were victimized by strangers only about and place of residence of victims, 1973-84 half the time. Avemge annual ra te for those residing in:" Nonmetro- Robbery offenders used weapons Victim Central poIitan proportiona tely morE: often than those race and sex Total cities Suburbs areas who committed rapes and assaults. White Robbery victims took measures to pro­ Male e.o 14.6 7.3 3.9 tect themselves less frequently than Female 4.0 7.7 3.7 1.7 rape and assault victims, and theyex­ Black perienced some type of economic loss Male 21.0 29.2 13.7 5.6 more frequently. Compared with as­ Female 9.0 12.7 5.8 2.5 sault, robbery and rape were relatively .Number of robbery victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 and older. rare events, but they were reported to the police more often when they happened. Table 6. Comparison of robbery with other violent crimes, 1984

Percent of victimizations Crime charac teristics Robbery Rape Assault

Multiple offenders . 50% 15% 23% Victimizations by strangers 75 5~ 51 Offender used weapon 49 23 34 Victim took selhlrctective measures 66 86 80 Victim suffered economic loss 71 19 16 Incident was reported to police 55 56 44 Victimization rate" 5.8 .9 24.3

"Number of victimizations pel' 1,000 persons age 12 and older, Source: Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1984, BJS National Crime Survey Report, NCJ-I00435, May 1986.

3 -

Trends Robbery trends, 1973-84

Robbery rates declined by 15% from Robbery Completed robbery Attempted robbery 1973 to 1984 (figure 1). The downward Victimizations per 1.000 Victimizations per 1.000 Victimizations per 1.000 trend was due to a 29% decrease in the persons age 12 and older persons aye 12 and older persons age 12 and older t'ate for attempted robberies. The 8 8 8 rates for attempted robberies both with and without injured victims declined 6 6 during this period. 6~ Completed /'\. The ra tes for completed robberies 4~' \....- 4 4 at the beginning and end of the period Attempted . ~ Without Inju,y remained the same. Despite this, they 2~ 2~ 2~ rose 23% between 1980 and 1981 and _ ...,lith InjUlY . fell 22% between 1982 and 1983, 0-1975---T9s0 --- causing overall robbery rates to fluc­ o -1975---T980 --- tuate as well. Agure 1

Time and place of occurrence Table 7_ Time and place of occurrence for robbery, 1982-84 A common view of robbery-that it occur.s after dark and on the street--is Percent of robber:! victimizations Comeleted Attemeted supported by NCS data (table 7). Just Incident With Without With Without over half of robberies occurred at charac te ristics Total Total injury injury Total injury injury night. If robberies perpetrated during twilight hours are added to those occur­ Time of oc('urrence 100% 1QO% 100% 100% 100% 190% 100% ring at night, 55% took place in full or Light 44 45 38 48 44 35 47 Dark 51 51 58 47 51 58 48 partial d

Victims were less likely to have something stolen if the robbery hap­ pened on the street, in a parking lot or garage, or in school or on school prop­ erty. They were more likely to lose property when the incident occurred at home.

4 Detailed offender characteristics Table 8. Perceived characteristics fOl' single and multiple robbery offenders, 1973-84 In robbery, as in other violent crimes, offenders confront their vic­ Percen t of robbery tims. Who are the persons victims victimizations with: Perceived offender Siilgle Multiple faced? Offenders both alone and h. charac teristics offender offenders groups were overwhelmingly male (table 8). Single offenders were more Sex 100% 100% likely than multiple offenders to be Male 93 88 Female 6 4 white; 'almost 60% of single offenders Both 8 were 21 years of age or older. Offend­ Race 100% 100% ers who worked in groups were gener­ White 45 29 ally black or under 21. Black 48 56 Other 5 4 Single offenders under 21 and groups Mixed races 8 of offenders of either age group were Age 100% 100% black in over half of the robberies 20 and younger 36 46 21 and older 59 31 (table 9). Only in robberies committed Mixed ages 18 by older single 0 ffenders did whites outnumber blacks. Note: Percentages may not add to total because of rounding and om ission of "don't know" and "not ascertained" categories from table Male offenders, whether alone or in display. groups, were more likely to be black than white with the exception of single male offenders 21 and older. There was Table 9. Perceived sex and race of single no difference in the number of black and multiple robbery offenders by ege group, 1973-84 and white males among this category of offenders. Percent of robber,Y; victimizations with: Perceived offender Single offender Multi)2le offenders characteristics Total Male Female Total Male Female Both Robbery victims faced combined male/female groups in 1 of every 10 Age 20 and younger victimizations with multiple offenders Total 100% 92% 8% 100% 90% 4% 5% age 21 and older and in 1 of every 20 White 42 37 4 28 23 2 2 robberies with multiple offenders under Black 52 49 3 61 57 2 2 Other 4 4 - 4 3 - - 21. Mixed races 7 6 * 1 Age 21. aml older In the typical robbery the victim is confronted by a stranger (table 10). Total 100% 94% 6% 100% 86% 3% 10% White 49 45 4 33 26 1 5 Victims knew only by sight or had nevel' Black 45 43 2 52 47 2 4 seen their assailants in 8 in 10 robberies Other 5 4 * 4 4 0 1 perpetra ted by multiple offenders and Mixed races 9 8 - 1 in 7 in 10, by lone offenders. Note: Percentages may not add to total because of rounding and omission of "don't know" and "not ascertained" ca tegories from table display. Conversely, less than 1 in 10 victims - Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data. "'Less than 0.5%. of multiplr:> offenders knew well or were 1...-. related to at least one of the offend­ ers. One in five victims of a single offender faced relatives or other well Table 10. Victim/offender relationship for single and multiple robbery offenders, 1973-84 known persons. Number of Victim/o ffender rela tionshi2 offenders and Casual Well known Spouse/ Other Those robbed by lone strangers were type of robbery Total Stranger acquain tance not relative ex-spouse relative less likely to be injured and lose prop­ erty than those robbed by groups 0 f Single offender strangers. On the other hand, victims Total. 100% 69% 9% 12% 4% 2% robbed by lone offenders who were re1- Completed 100 67 9 13 5 3 With injury 100 58 8 18 10 3 a!ives or were otherwise well known Without injury 100 71 9 11 3 3 were more likely to be injured and lose Attempted 100 73 9 10 4 2 property than those robbed by multiple With injury 100 64 6 15 7 4 offenders they knew. In 62% of robber­ Without injury 100 77 10 9 2 2 ies perpetrated by a spouse or ex­ Multiple offenders spouse acting alone, the victim was in­ Total 100% 82% 7% 8% * 1% jured; in 66%, the victim lost property. Completed 100 82 7 8 - 1 With injury tOO 80 7 8 - 1 Without injury 100 83 7 7 - 1 Attempted 100 83 6 8 - 1 With injury 100 81 6 10 - - Without injury 100 84 5 8 - 1 Note: Percentages may not add to total because of rOUnding and omission of "don't know" and "not ascertained" ca tegories from table display. --'foo few cases to obtain statistically reliable data, .Less than 0.5%.

5 Theft Table 11. Use of force and theft in robberies, 1973-84

Factors associated with victims and Percent of all robber:t victimizations with: offenders were related to an increased Theft Victim Weapon used likelihood of completing the theft. Of­ Characteristills completed attacked No Yes fenders were more successful in obtain­ Victim characteristics ing property from female victims and Sex blacks (table 11). Older victims were Male 61% 50% 35% 54% also more likely to lose property. Female 68 58 47 40 Those between the ages of 25 and 34 Pace lost possessions more often than those White 61% 53% 42% 47% under 25 years of age; those 35 and Black 72 51 29 58 older, more often than those who were Other 61 45 37 43 younger. Age 12-15 years old 59% 53% 63% 30% 16-19 57 53 43 50 Robberies were also more likely to 20-24 59 51 38 55 be comple ted if more than one offender 25-34 64 52 36 54 committed the crime. Although 35-49 68 52 30 55 male/femak offender groups were rela­ 50-64 71 53 28 51 65 and older 71 59 35 40 tively rare (9%), these groups were suc­ cessful more often than males or fe­ Perceived offender males separately. Black offenders and characteristics racially mixed groups also completed Sex thefts more often than white offenders, Male 62% 52% 38% 50% Female 6.1 59 65 30 as did older offenders and groups with Both 72 54 39 48 older offenders in them. Race White 59% 55% 51% 42% Use of force Black 65 50 34 53 Other 59 50 35 57 When robbers confront their victims Mixed races 67 55 33 55 they either threa ten them or use force, Age and they often brandish a weapon to 20 and younger 58% 54% 49% 40% 21 and older 65 50 35 55 convince victims to surrender their pos­ Mixed ages 69 54 27 60 sessions. Threats can take the form of Number of offenders surrounding or verbally threa tening the Single 58% 51% 45% 45% victim or displaying a weapon; attacks Multiple 67 54 35 53 can involve shooting, using a knife, hit­ ting, grabbing, or knocking down the Note: Percentages in "weapon used" category do not total to 100% because of victim, even if an injury is not omission of "don't know" and "not ascertained" categories from table display. sustained.

Threats and attacks whether offenders attacked except that persons 65 years of age and older were Offenders were more likely to somewhat more likely to be attacked attack than threaten. When they than victims in other age groups. attacked their prey they were more likely to obtain the sought-after cash Victims were more likely to be and other property (67%) than when attacked by female offenders, byof­ they only threa tened their victims fenders who were either white or in (59%). racially mixed groups, and by offenders 20 years of age or younger or groups in­ Percent of robbery victimizations cluding these younger offenders. In ad­ dition, they were more likely to be Total 100% attacked if they faced multiple Victim threa tened 47% offenders. Completed theft 28 Attempted t.heft 19 Victim attacked 53% Completed theft 35 Attempted theft 17

Although offenders attacked a higher percentage of victims than they threatened, male victims were as likely to be threatened as attacked; females, however, were more likely to be attacked. Blacks and whites were equally likely to be attacked. The victim's age also had no effect upon

6 =

Weapons Table 12. Usc of weapons b robbery threats and attacks, 1973-84 Male victims were mor::: likely to face a weapon than fema1es. Weapons Percent of robbery Weapon vic timizations were also used more frequently against use Total Threats Attacks black victims. Victims under the age of 16 and those 65 years of age and over Total 100% 100% 100% were less likely to be robbed by offend­ No weapon 39% 28% 49% ers with weapons than victims with Any weapon 49% 62% 38% . ages falling between these two Gun 21l 31 10 extremes. Knife 17 21 13 Other 13 10 15 Victim·s were more likely to see Don't know/not weapons if robbed by male offeooers, ascertained 12% 10% 13% ei~her singly or in groups. Offenders Note: Percentages may not add to total using weapons were generally nor.-white because of rounding. For crimes in which or in racially mixed groups. In addition, offenders possessed more ~han one type of they were older, 21 and over, or inclu­ weapon, the victimization is classified by the most serious weapon present. "Other" ded older offenders in the group. When includes crimes in which the victim did not victims faced a group of offenders, know which kind oC weapon was present. there was a greater likelihood of an of­ fender having a weapon.

When offenders threatened, they Table 13. Robbery threats and attackl! by type of weapon, 1973-84 were more likely to have weapons, Percent of robbery victimizations involving: particularly guns or knives, than when Don't know! they attacked (table 12). Conversely, No Any not ascer- when offenders had weapons, they were Type of robbery weapon weapon Gun Knife Other tained more likely to threaten their victims To 1'•• 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% than attack them (table 13). Offenders Threats 34% 60% 74% 60% 37% 39% without weapons were more likely t,o Completed theft 16 40 59 34 17 18 attack their victims. Attempted theft 18 20 15 26 20 21 Attacks 66% 40% 26% 40% 63% 61% Offenders used guns and knives most Completed theft 42 28 21 27 42 43 often to threa ten and other weapons Attempted theft 24 12 5 14 21 18 Such as blunt objects to attack. When Note: Percentages may not add to total most serious weapon present. "Other" they had guns they threatened 74% of because of rounding. For crimes in which includes crimes in wnich the victim did not their victims; when they used knives, offenders possessed more than one type of know which kind of weapon was present. they threa tened 60% of their victims. weapon, the victimization is classified by the

Offenders using guns were success­ ful in obtaining their victims' posses­ sions in 4 out of 5 robberies, whether or Table 14. Injuries and medical cure in robbery Victimizations, 1973-84 not they attacked their victims. The Percent of Percent of each type of secorJd most successful strategy was all robbery robber:t: that was: attacking victims, either with 8. knife Type of robbery victimizations Completed Attempted or other weapon or without a weapon­ \Vas victim attacked? two-thirds were completed. Threaten­ NO 47% 59% 40% ing without a weapon was the least Yes 53 67 33 successful-half were completed. If attacked, was victim injured? No 19 63 37 Inju.ry Yes 33 69 31 If injured, did vic tim Victims were injured in 33% of all receive medical care? robberies: 15% of the victims received No 18 66 34 medical care; 10% of robbery victims Yes 15 73 27 required emergency room or other hos­ If medical care was received, pital treatment; and 2% were hospital­ was it provided in either an emergency room or hospital? ized at least overnight (table 14). No 5 71 29 Yes 10 75 25 As the violent aspects of a robbery If emergency room or hospital escalated, the likelihood that the theft care was received, did it would be completed also increased. involve an overnight stay? When offenders threatened their vic­ No 8 75 25 Yes 2 73 27 tims and when they attacked but did not injure their victims, roughly the same proportion, 6 in 1Q, resulted ih property loss. Sixty-six percent of rob­ in some place otlJer than a hospital, and property being taken. If the victim was beries were completed when injured 75% when they I'.eeded hospital or injured and as the Seriousness of the victims did not require medical care, emergency room treat.ment. injury increased, so did the likelihood of 71% when they received medical care 7 Males who were attacked were less percentage had serious injuries; victims serious injuries, although white of- > likely to be injured than females (table in other age groups had about the same fenders inflicted minor injuries more 15). Victims of both sexes experienced likelihood of being injured seriously. often than blacks. Those attacked by the same proportion of serious injuries, older offenders or groups including but females suffered a higher propor­ Victims were more likely to be in­ older offenders wet'S more likely to tion of minor injuries than did males. jured when attacket's were white or incur serious injuries than those over 21, when multiple offenders attacked by younger offenders. Blacks and whites who were attacked, or when offenders used attacked by robbers were about equally weapons. Victims were more likely to be likely to be injured; blacks, however, seriously injured when offenders were more likely to receive serious Male offenders were more likely to attacked with weapons. When offend­ injuries than were whites. Higher per­ inflict serious injuries than were female ers used objects other than guns or centages of persons under the age of 16 offenders. Black and white offenders knives as weapons, victims were more escaped with no injuries, and a lower were about equally likely to inflict likely to sustain minor injuries.

Table 15. Injuries from robbery attacks, by victim SeIf-protec tion and offender characteristics, and weapon use, 1973-84 In protecting themselves, victims of Percent of robbery victimizations involving an attacked victim with: a ttempted robberies used a varir~ ty of No Minor Serious self-protective measures at higher a Characteristics Total injuries injul'iesa injul'ies ra tes than did victims of completed robberies (table 16). Thes':! measures Tolal 100% 37% 47% 16% included brandishing weapons, using Victim chllracteristics physical force, trying to get help, Sex threatening or arguing with the of­ Male 100% 38% 45% 17% fenders, or resisting without force. Female 100 35 51 14 Race Victims of attempted robberies with White 100% 37% 49% 15% Black 100 38 43 19 or without injury were most likely to Other 100 32 46 22 have taken self-protective measures; Age victims who lost property but were not 12-15 years old 100% 55% 41% 4% injured were least likely to have tried 16-19 100 39 46 15 to protect themselves. Between these 20-24 100 36 48 16 two extremes wet'e victims who both 25-34 100 31 51 18 35-49 100 32 48 20 lost property and were injured. 50-64 100 31 49 20 65 and older 100 35 48 17 Victims who escaped both injury and theft were more likely to have taken Perceived offender characteristics either the most violent responses Sex (brandishing or using a weapon) or non­ Male 100% 37% 47% 16% violent measures such as reasoning or Female 100 40 52 8 arguing with offenders or resisting Both 100 40 46 14 without force. Those who escaped Race theft but were injured often used forci­ White 100% 35% 50% 15% ble measures other than bringing wea­ Black 100 39 46 15 Other 100 45 42 12 pons into play. These included hitting, Mixed races 100 32 53 15 chasing, or throwing objects at the of­ Age fenders, trying to get help, attracting 20 and younger 100% 45% 46% 9% attention, or scaring the offenders 21 and older 100 32 48 19 away. Mixed ages 100 28 52 20 Number of offenders Victims who suffered both injury Single 100% 39% 46% 14% and property loss were more likely to Multiple 100 35 49 16 have tried to protect themselves, par­ Weapon useb ticularly by using physical force or No weapon 100% 45% 46% 8% trying to get help, than those who only Any weapon 100 25 49 26 lost property. Gun 100 31 43 26 Knife 100 32 41 27 Other 100 15 59 ?6 Don't know/not ascerta ined 100 38 47 14 Note: Percentages may not add to total injuries, loss of consciousness, and because of rounding and om ission of "don't unde termined injuries requiring 2 or more know" and "not ascertained" categories from ~ys hospitalization. table display. • or crimes in which offenders possessed aMinal' injury includes bruises, black eyes, more than one type of weapon, the cuts, scra tches, swelling, and undetermined vic tim lza tion is classi fled by the most serious Injuries requiring less than 2 days weapon present. "Other" inclUdes crimes in , hospitalization. Serious injury includes rape, which the victim did not know which kind of a ttempted rape Injuries, gunshot or knife weapon was present. woundS, broken bones, loss of teeth, intemal

8 ------. ------

Table 16. Self-protection measures taken by robbery victims, 1973-84 Table 17. Percent of robbery victimizations reported to police by victim injuries and Percent of robber:i victimizations weapon use, 1973-84 comweted Attemeted Self protection wJt Without WIfh Without Percen t of robberies measure Total Total injury injury Total injury injury reEorted to EoIice Com- At- Used a t least one Cha rae ter istics Total pie ted tempted measure 59% 45% 60% 37% 84% 84% 84% Total 54% 64% 37% Used or brandished a a weapon 2 1 1 1 4 2 5 Injuries Used or tried physical No injury 49% 60% 32% force 24 17 29 11 34 50 28 Minor injury 61 67 49 Tried to ge t help 17 16 25 11 18 27 15 Serious injury 76 79 65 Argued or reasoned Weapon useb with offender 13 10 12 9 18 11 20 No weapon 45% 54% 32% Resisted without Any weapon 62 70 45 force 19 14 17 11 28 22 30 Gun 73 76 59 Other 6 4 4 4 9 6 10 Knife 54 64 38 Other .6 66 41 Note: Types of self-protection add to more than total because Don't know/ victim may have used more than one measure. not ascer- tained 50 61 33 Repol"ting robbery to police The percentage of victimizations aMinor injury includes bruises, black eyes, cuts, sera tches, swelling, and undetermined reported to police was directly rela ted injuries requiring less than 2 days hospital- Several factors increased the likeli­ to the value of the stolen property. ization. Serious injury includes rape, hood that a robbery was reported to When the value of the loss was low, a ttempted rape injuries, gunshot or knife police: whether anything was stolen; 45% of victimizations were reported wounds, broken bones, loss of teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and the value of the stolen property; (table 18). As the value increased, the undetermined injuries requiring 2 or more whether the victim was injured; the proportion of reported crimes also in­ gays hospi taliza tion. degree of injury; and the presence of a creased. This relationship was evident For crimes in which offenders possessed weapon. for both thefts in whiCh victims were more than one type of weapon, the victimiz't- tion is classi fled by the most serious weapon injured and ones in which they were present. "Other" inclUdes crimes in which the Robberies in which property was not. Injury to the victim and increasing victim did not know which kind of weapon taken were more likely to be reported the value of the theft resulted in higher was present. to police than those in which no prop­ proportions reported to police for erty was stolen (teole 17). The exis­ thefts up to $1,000. When the value of tence and degree of injury also influ­ the loss reached $1,000 or more, the enced the probability tha t the police poliCe"Wel'e informed overwhelmingly, would be informed. Police were in­ irrespective of injury to the victim. formed more often when victims were injured than when they were not in­ Why were robberies reported to jured. Robberies in which victims were police? NCS respondents frequently seriously injured were more likely to be said that they reported the crime to reported than those in which only minor keep it from ha9pening again, either to injuries were sustained. When both themselves or to others, or to punish property loss and injury occurred, hIe offender (table 19). When property higher reporting rates resulted than Wl1S not stolen, victims also mentioned from the same extent of injury without reporting the crime to stop or prevent theft. the incident from happening. When property was stolen, the crime was A robbery was more likely to be most frequently reported to police to reported to police if a weal,)On was recover the property. present, especially a gun. The presence of a weapon in conjunction with prop­ ,.- erty theft increased the likelihood that Table 19. Reasons given by respondent Cor reporting robbery to polictl, 1982-84 the police would be told of the offense. Percent of robberies reported to eolice b:i resEondent Reason for reporting Total Complete(l Attempted

To keep it from happening again Table 18. Percent oC robbery victimizations or to others 41% 38% 49% -,j reported to police by value of theft, To recover property 36 46 - 1973-84 To punish offender 36 37 31 -- To stop or prevent this incident Percent of completed rob- from happening 24 22 :n beries re!2orted to !2olice Respondentls duty 22 21 24 Value of With Without Needed help because of injury 7 8 6 theft Total injury injury There was evidence or proof 6 6 5 Because it was a crime 6 5 7 Less than $10 45% 54% 41% Tc collect insurance 4 5 - $10-49 58 66 54 Other 11 11 12 $50-24S 69 74 67 $250-999 7t'i 80 73 Note: Reasons for reporting total to more than 100% $1,000 and because more than one reason may have been given. above 87 87 87 -Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable daia.

0 9 When a robbery was not reported to Table 20. Reasons for not reporti~ robbery to police, 1982-84 police, respondents most frequently gave as their reason that there was a Percent of robberies not reeorted to eolice lack of proof or no way to find the of­ Reason for not reporting Total Completed Attempted fender, particularly if there was prop­ Lack of proof 21% 25% 16% erty loss (table 20). Victims of at­ Priva te or personal matter 18 15 21 tempted robberies generally said that Responden'! did not think it important enough 17 14 20 they did not report the incident because Object recovered or offender there was no need to call the police; for unsuccessful 13 4 24 example, either the object was re­ Police would be inefficient, covered, the offender was unsuccessful, ineffective, insensitive 10 10 9 or the victims considered the matte!' to Police wouldn't think it important enough 9 .l1 7 be unimportant or personal or took care Reported to someone else 9 10 8 of it themselves. A fraid of reprisal 5 7 3 Too inconvenient or Methodology time consuming 5 5 5 Lack 0 f serial or ID numbH for property 3 6 .. Data for this report include all Other 13 15 11 robbery victimizations reported to the Note: Reasons for not reporting total to more than 100% NCS from 1973 through 1984, except because more than one reason may have been given. for those tables in which variables were "Less than 0.5%. available only for robberies from 1982 through 1984. Robberies were weighted to represent victimizations. New releases from BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics Estima tes in this report are slightly special reports are written • Series crimes: report of a field test, hirrher than those in annual NCS publi­ principally by BJS staff under the BJS Technical Report, NCJ-104615, ca-tions because robberies occurring direction of Joseph M. Bessette, 4/87 during rapes and attempted rapes and deputy director of data analysis. • Automated fingerprint identification robberies tha t are reported as series This report was written by systems: Technology and policy issues, crimes are included. Caroline Wolf Harlow with NCJ-104342, 4/87 statistical assistance from • Justice expenditure and employment, Rape robberies are normally includ­ Gertrude Thomas. Richard W. 1985, BJS Bulletin, NCJ-104460, 3/87 ed under rape statistics in NCS publica­ Dodge provided statistical ..-Lifetime likelihood of victimization, tions; they account for about 2.5% of review. The report was edited by BJS Technical Report, NCJ-104274, the 14,681,100 robberies reported Frank D. Balog. Marianne Zawitz 3/87 here. Series victimizations are not provided assistance in da ta • Imprisonment in four countries, BJS normally included in annu~l NCS publi­ presentation. Report production Special Report, NCJ-103967, 2/87 cations. They have been counted as one was administered by Marilyn • Violent crime by strangers and non­ victim iza tion each in this report and Marbrook, publications unit chief, strangers, BJS Special Report, NCJ- account for about 3.6% of all robberies. assisted by Tina Dorsey, Jeanne 103702, 1/87 Harris, and Arlene F. James. • 1986 directory of automated criminal Commercial robberies, such as bank justice information systems, NCJ- holdups, are not reported in the NCS April 1987, NCJ-10463B 102260, 1,000 pp., 1/87 under robbery ra tes unless a sample re­ • Probation and parole, BJS Bulletin, sponden t is robbed or assaulted during NCJ-103683,1/87 the incident. For this report, only • Criminal justice "hot" files: Criminal commercial incidents in which a sample justice information policy series, 75 respondent either had something taken pp., NCJ-101850, 1/87 or an attempt to take something was • Population density in State prisons, made are included; these account for BJS Special Report, NCJ-103204, 12/86 about 3.8% of robberies reported here. • State and Federal prisoners 1925-85, BJS Bulletin, NCJ-102494, 12 j 86 All findings in this report at'e • BJS telephone contacts 187, BJS statistically significant at the 95% Bulletin, NCJ-102909, 12/86 con fidence level unless modi fied by "somewhat" to indicate a 90% confi­ dence level. For a description of signi­ ficance testing see Criminal Victimiza­ tion in the United States, 1984, Appendix III, pp. 117-122, NCJ-100435.

10 ~------

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports Corrections Privacy and security (revIsed Apo11987) BJS bulletins and special reporls: Computer crime: Call toll-free 800-732-3277 (local Imprisonment in four countries, NCJ-103967, BJS speCial reports: 251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be added 2/87 Electronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ-96666,3/85 to one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speak Probation and parole, NCJ-l03683, 1/87 Electronic fund transfer and crime, to a reference specialist in statistics at the Population density in State prisons, NCJ-l03204, NCJ-92650, 2/84 Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, National 12/86 Electronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ-l00461, Criminal Justice Reference Service, Capital punishment,198S, NCJ-102742, 11/86 4/86 State and Federal prisoners, 1925-85, Computer security techniques, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Single NCJ-l02494,11/86 copies of reports are free; use NCJ number NCJ-84049,9/82 Prisoners in 1985, NCJ-l01384, 6/86 Electronic fund transfer systems and crime, to order Postage and handling are charged Prison admission and releases, 1983, NCJ-83736, 9/82 for bulk orders of single reports. For single NCJ-l00582,3/86 Expert witness manual, NCJ-77927,9/81 copies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles are Capital punishment 1984, NCJ-98399, 8/85 Criminal justice resource manual, NCJ-61550, free; 11-40 titles $10; more than 40, $20; Examining recidivism, NCJ-96501. 2/85 12/79 libraries call for special rates. Returning to prison, NCJ-95700. 11/84 Time served in prison, NCJ-93924, 6/84 Privacy and security of criminal history Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and information: other criminal justice data are available Historical corrections statistics in the U.S., 1850- Compendium of State legislation, 1984 from the Crimil ial Justice Archive and 1984, NCJ-l02529, 4/87 overview, NCJ-98077, 9/85 Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions on Information Network, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Dec. 31, 1984, NCJ-103768, 3/87 Criminal Justice information policy: Arbo. MI <''3106 (313-763-5010). Capital punishment 1984 (final). NCJ-99562, 5/86 Automated fingerprint identification systems: Capital punishment 1983 (final). NCJ-99561. 4/86 Technol09Y and policy issues, NCJ-104342, National Crime Survey 4/87 1979 sUNeyol inmates 01 Sfale correctional facilities Criminal Justice "hot" tiles, NCJ-101850. 12{86 Criminal vi::tlmlzation in the U.S.: and 1979 census of Sfale correctional facilities: 1984 (Ilnal report). NCJ-l00435. 5/86 Data quality policies and procedures: 1983 (final report), NCJ-96459, 10/85 BJS special reports: Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference, 1982 (final report), NCJ.92820. 11/84 The prevalence of imprisonment, NCJ-93657 NCJ-l01849,12/86 1973-82 trends. NCJ-90541. 9/83 7/85 Crime control and criminal records (8JS special 1980 (Imal report). NCJ-84015. 4/83 Career patterns in crime, NCJ-88672, 6/83 report). NCJ-99176, 10/85 1979 (final report). NCJ-7671O, 12/81 BJS bulletins: State criminal records repositories (BJS technical report). NCJ-99017. 10/85 BJS special reports: Prisoners and drugs, NCJ-87575. 3/83 Prisoners and alcohol, NCJ-86223. 1/83 Data quality of criminal history records, NCJ- Violent crime by strangers and nonstrangers. 98079, 10/85 NCJ-l03702. 1/87 Prisons and prisoners, NCJ-80697. 2/82 Veterans in prison, NCJ-79232. 11/81 Intelligence and investigative records, Preventln9 domestic violence against Women. NCJ-95787, 4/85 NCJ-l02037.8/86 Census ol,ai,s and survey 01 Jail inmafes: Victimlwitness legislation: An overview, Crime prevention measures, NCJ-100438,3/86 Jail inmates, 1984, NCJ-l0l094. 5/86 NCJ-94365. 12/84 The U3e of weapons in committing crimes, Jail inmates, 1983 (BJS bulletin). NCJ-99175. Information polley and crime control strategies NCJ-99643, 1/86 11/85 (SEARCH/BJS conference), NCJ-93926. Reporting crimes to the police. NCJ-99432. The '1983 jail census (BJS bulletin). NCJ-95536. 10/84 12/85 11/84 Research access to criminal justice data, Locating city, suburban, and rural crime, NCJ- Census 01 jails, 1978: Data for individual Jails. NCJ-84154,2/83 99535. 12/85 vols. !-IV. Northeast. North Central. South. West. Privacy and jUvenile justice records, The risk 01 violent crime, NCJ-97119. 5/85 NCJ-72279-72282. 12/81 NCJ-84152, 1/83 The economic cost 01 crim~ to victims, NCJ- Profile of jail inmates, 1978, NCJ-65412. 2/81 Survey of State laws (BJS bulletin). 93450.4/84 NCJ·80836. 6/82 Family violence, NCJ-93449. 41B4 Parole and probation Privacy and the private employer, BJS bulletins: BJS bulletins; NCJ-79651.11/81 Households touched by crime, 1985. Probation and parole 1984, NCJ-l00181. NCJ-l01685.6/86 2/86 Federal offenses and offenders Criminalvictimlzation,1984, NCJ-98904. 10/85 Setting prison terms, NCJ-76218. 8/83 BJS special reports: The crime of rape, NCJ-96777.3/85 Parole in the U.S., 1980 and 1981, NCJ'87387, Pretrial release and misconduct. NCJ-96132, Household bUrglary, NCJ-96021, 1/85 3/86 1/85 Criminal victimization, 1983, NCJ-93869. 6/84 Characteristics of persolls entering parole Violent crime bi strangers, NCJ-80829, 4/82 8JS bulletins: during 1978 and 1979, NCJ-87243. 5/83 Crime and the elderly, NCJ-79614. 1/82 Bank robbery, NC.I-94463,8/84 Measuring crime, NCJ-75710, 2/81 . Characteristics of the parole population. 1918. Federal dru9 law violBlors, NCJ-92692, 2/84 NCJ-66479.4/81 Federal justice statistics, NCJ-80814. 3/82 T.;enage victims. NCJ-l03138. 12/86 Parole in the U.S., 1979, NCJ·69562. 3/81 Lifellme likelihood of victimization, IBJS tech­ General mcal report). NCJ-l04274. 3/87 Children in custody; Response to screening questlons In the National BJS bul/etins and special reporls: Public juvenile facilities, 1985 (bullet.n). BJS telephone contacts '87, NCJ-l 02909, 12/86 Crime Survey (BJS technical report), NCJ- NCJ-102457. 10/86 97624.7185 Tracking offenders: White-collar crime, 1982-83 census ot juvenile detention and NCJ-l02867,11/86 Victimization and fear of crime: World correctional facilities, NCJ-l01686. 9/86 perspectives. NCJ-93872. 1/85 Police employment and expenditure, The National Crime Survey: Working papers. NCJ-l00117,2/86 vor I: Current and h.stoncal perspectives. Courts Tracking offenders: The child victim, NCJ- NCJ-75374.8/82 BJS bulletins: 95785, 12/84 vol II: Melhologlcal studies. NCJ-90307. 12/84 The growth of appeals: 1973-83 trends, The severity of crime, NCJ-92326, 1/84 Issues In Ihe measurement of Victimization, NCJ-96381. 2/85 The American response to crime: An overview NCJ-74682.10/81 Case filings in State courts 1983, NCJ-95111, of criminal justice systems, NCJ-91936, 12/83 The cost of negligence; Losses Irom preventable 10/84 Tracking offenders, NCJ-91572, 11/83 household burglaries, NCJ-53527. 12179 BJS special reports; Victim and witness assistance: New State Rape vlctlmb:ation In 26 American cities, Felony case-processing time, NCJ-l 01985. 8/86 laws and the system's response, NCJ-87934, NCJ-55878. 8/79 Felony sentencing in 18 local 5/83 Crimlnall/ictimiza\ion in urban schools, jurisdictions, NCJ-97881, 6/85 1986 directory of automated criminal justice NCJ-56.196. 8/79 The prevalence of 9uilty pleas, NCJ-96018. information systems, NCJ-l02260. 1/87,520 An Introduction to the National Crime Survey, 12/84 domestic NCJ-43732. 4/78 Sentencing practices in 13 States, NCJ-95399. Crime and justice facts, 1985, NCJ-1 00757,5/86 Local victim surveys; A reView 01 Ihe issues, 10/84 National survey of crime sevority, NCJ-96017, NCJ-39973. 8/77 Criminal defense systems: ' A national 10/85 survey, NCJ-94630, 8/84 Criminal victimization of District of Columbia Expenditure and employment Habeas corpus, NCJ-92948, 3/84 residents and Capitol Hill employees, 1982-83, BJS Bulletins: State court case load statislfcs, 1977 and NCJ-97982;Summary, NCJ-98567; 9/85 Justice expenditure and employment; 1981, NCJ-87587. 2/83 The DC crime victimization study implementation, 1983, NCJ-101776, 7/86 National Criminal Defense Systems StUdy, NCJ- NCJ·98595, 9/85, $7.80 domestic/$9.20 Canadi­ 1982, NCJ-98321', 8185 94702, 10/86 an/$12.80 foreign Justice expenditure and employment In the U.S.: The prosecution of felony arrests; The DC household victimization survey data base: 1980 and 1981 extra(:ts, NCJ·96007. 6/85 1981, NCJ-l01380, 9/86, $7,60 domestic/$9,20 Dopumentation, NCJ-98596, $6.401$8.40/$11 1971-79, NCJ-92596, 11/84 Canadian/$12.20 (oreign User manual, NCJ-98597. $8.20/$9.801$12.80 1980, NCJ-g7884, 10/85 How to 9aln access to BJS data (brochure), 1979, NCJ-86482,5/84 BC-000022, 9/84 State court model statistical dictionary, Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on law and Supplement, NCJ-98326, 9/85 Justice statistics, 1984, NCJ-93310, 8/84 See order fonn 1 st edition, NCJ-62320, 9/80 Report to the nation on crime and Justice: State court organization 1980, NCJ-16711. 7/82 The data, NCJ-87068, 10/83 on last page A cross-city comparison ollelony case Dictionary of crlmlnllijustlce data terminol09Y: processing, NCJ-55171, 7179 2nd ed., NCJ-76939, 2/82 Technical standards for machine-readable data supplied to BJS, NCJ-75318, 6/81 ------

To be added to any BJS mailing list, :,opy or cut out this page, fill it in and mail it to: National Criminal Justice Reference Service User Services Dept. 2 Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20850

o If the name and address on the mailing label attached are correct, check here and don't fill them in again. If your address does not show your organizational affiliation (or criminal justice interest) please add it below. If your name and address are different from the label, please fill them in: Name: Title: Organiza tion: Street or box: City, State, Zip: Telephone: Interest in cri m inal justice:

Please add me to the following list(s): o Justice expenditure and employment reports Courts reports Annual spending and staffing by Federal, o State court case load surveys, model annual State, and local governments and by function State reports, State court organization surveys (police, courts, corrections, etc.) o Corrections reports Computer crime reports Results of sample surveys and censuses of jails, o Electronic fund transfer system crimes prisons, parole, probation, and other data o Privacy and security of criminal history o National Crime Survey reports information and information policy The only regular national survey of crime New legislation; maintaining and releasing victims intelligence and investigative records o Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics o Federal statistics Annual data from 153 sources in an easy-to­ Data describing Federal case processing, use, comprehensive format (400+ tables, from investigation through prosecution, sources; index) adjudication, and corrections o Send me a registration form fo!, NIJ Reports BJS Bulletins and Special Reports (issued 6 times a year),. which abstracts both o Timely reports of the most current justice private and government documents published in data criminal justice.

You will be asked each year if you wish to stay on the mailing list. If you do not reply, we are required by law to remove your name.

U.S. Department of Justice Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Bureau of Justice Statistics BULK RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID DOJ/BJS Permit No. G-91

Washington, D.C. 20531