How Proactive Loss Prevention Monitoring Identified Five Employees Costing a QSR Location Over 15% of Sales 

This was a front-counter-only location, the kind of setup that usually limits opportunity for theft because every transaction happens in full view of the customer. That visibility did not stop it. Here is what our analysts found in the first weeks of monitoring, and what changed once it was addressed.

---

---

Why This Location Needed Monitoring From Day One

A single-location, front-counter-only QSR with no drive-thru is, on paper, a relatively simple operation to oversee. Fewer staff, fewer shifts, fewer places for something to go unnoticed. That setup is exactly why what Pembroke’s analysts found here was so significant.

In the early weeks of onboarding, before Pembroke’s analysts had even built up a full picture of how this location normally operated, the data and footage available told a very different story. Five separate employees were engaged in regular theft.

What Proactive Loss Prevention Monitoring Found

Pembroke’s analysts cross-referenced POS transaction data against video footage covering the period available, approximately 25 days (the maximum the client’s existing system retained before older footage was automatically overwritten). Even within that limited window, the pattern was unmistakable.

Two employees accounted for the largest share of the theft identified, together responsible for approximately $1,700 a week in suppressed sales. This was the most severe and most consistent behavior identified at the location. A further three employees were also engaging in theft or under-ringing behavior, adding to the total on top of what the two primary offenders were taking.

Altogether, the theft identified across all five employees was suppressing weekly sales by 10%, at a location generating approximately $20,000 to $21,000 a week.

---

The Evidence: A Pattern Confirmed Within Weeks, Not Months

What makes this case notable is the speed at which the pattern became clear. This was a new client, and the behavior was identified within the first days of monitoring, using a video review window that was shorter than ideal due to the client’s existing storage limitations.

Even with a limited footage window, the pattern across five employees and multiple weeks of transaction data was clear enough to act on with confidence. Pembroke’s analysts documented the specific behavior tied to each employee, giving the client a defensible basis for the decisions that followed.

---

The Result: A 15% Sales Increase the Following Week

Once the offending employees were removed, sales at this location increased by 15% in the very next week.

The majority of that increase came from the theft recovery itself. Stopping the behavior across all five employees recovered the 10% of weekly sales that had been suppressed.

The remaining 5% came from a bonus finding our analysts identified along the way. One of the primary offenders was also a notably slow register operator, working at a fraction of the speed of the rest of the team. Every shift that employee worked meant fewer transactions processed and fewer sales rung in, independent of the theft itself. Removing that employee solved both problems in a single action. It stopped the theft, and it meant the register was being run by faster staff who could process more transactions during the same shift hours. That second win is what increased the total increase beyond the theft recovery figure alone, from 10%, up to 15%.

---

What This Means for New Clients in Their First Weeks of Monitoring

This case is a useful example of how much can be identified even within a short monitoring window. Pembroke did not need months of footage to find a clear, actionable pattern. Within the first weeks of working with this client, offending employees were identified, the scale of the loss was quantified, and a defensible case was built for each one.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a small, single-location business still have a significant employee theft problem?

Yes. In this case, a single front-counter-only location with no drive-thru, and a relatively small team, had employees engaged in theft, identified through proactive monitoring during the first weeks of onboarding. A smaller, simpler operation does not mean lower risk.

How quickly can proactive loss prevention monitoring identify a theft pattern?

It depends on the volume of footage and transaction data available, but meaningful patterns can emerge quickly. In this case, a clear and actionable pattern of behavior across employees was identified within the first few weeks of monitoring, using a review window of approximately 25 days.

How much can employee theft actually suppress weekly sales?

It varies by location, but the impact can be substantial. In this case, employee theft was suppressing weekly sales by 10% at a single location.

Why did sales increase by more than the percentage of theft identified?

Because theft was not the only factor affecting sales. In this case, the employee responsible for the largest share of the theft was also operating the register at a much slower pace than the rest of the team, meaning fewer transactions were processed during each shift. Removing that employee addressed both issues, the theft and the lost transaction volume, producing a sales increase larger than the theft recovery alone would have produced.

What happens to employees once a theft pattern is confirmed?

That decision belongs to the operator. In this case, primary offenders were removed or formally written up. Pembroke provides the documented evidence needed to support whichever action the operator decides to take.

---

Read More Case Studies from Pembroke