Practices to Protect Bus Operators from Passenger Assault (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 The survey inquired about methods to address operator assaults, including technologies, policing, policy and legislation, fare and rules enforcement policies, definition of “assault” used by the agency, assault characteristics, contributing factors, training, employee assistance, data collection and reporting practices, bus operator selection methods, impact of violence against operators, and respondent characteristics. Results were differ- entiated based on bus fleet size, with large agencies corre- sponding to those with >1,000 peak buses, medium agencies to 250 to 1,000 peak buses, and small agencies to <250 peak buses. Sixty-six responses, a 75% response rate, were obtained. The 88 survey recipients included the 50 largest U.S. transit agencies, multimodal or bus-only, as well as randomly selected agencies representing medium and small agencies. Several Canadian agencies and a Chinese BRT system were also included in the survey distribution list. See Appendix E to better understand the responses. CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS Survey respondents were geographically diverse; they repre- sented every region of the United States, along with three Cana- dian provinces. Based on bus fleet size, about half of the 66 respondents, or 47%, were small agencies (<250 peak buses), and the other half were either midsize or large agencies (see Fig- ure 1). Forty-one percent of the 66 respondents reported having annual bus ridership of at least 50 million, as shown in Figure 2. SECURITY PROVIDER The type of security being provided for bus operations can affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the security response. Agencies were requested to indicate their primary security provider(s). Multiple responses were allowed. Forty-four percent of the 66 respondents to this question indicated that their primary security provider for the respondents was local, county, or state or provincial police, and 35% used a combi- nation of providers as shown in Figure 3. Respondents that indicated having transit police departments were generally large or midsize agencies operating in metropolitan areas. The smallest agencies indicated that they used local law enforce- ment. These results were expected because smaller agencies typically have fewer resources as well as fewer incidents than larger agencies have, and therefore cannot afford or do not require their own police or security personnel. Many agencies use a combination of methods. The details of the “combination” category, which received 23 responses, are shown in Figure 4. Although none of the agencies used supervisors or bus operators as their sole primary security provider, four agencies indicated that they use a combination of employees, including operators and supervisors, and local, county, state or provincial law enforcement as their primary security providers. FARE AND RULES ENFORCEMENT Because fare and rules disputes between operators and pas- sengers contribute to passenger assaults of bus operators, enforcement policies are relevant to this study. Both ques- tions allowed multiple responses. In developing these ques- tions, the fact that there may be a disparity between actual practice and agency policy was noted by the contractor team. However, because actual practice would be difficult to deter- mine in the context of this study, the team focused on agency policy and instruction provided to the bus operator. Fare Payment Enforcement Agencies reported a variety of fare payment enforcement policies, ranging from conflict avoidance to zero tolerance. Zero tolerance emanates from the “Broken Windows” theory of policing. The theory states that minor quality-of-life vio- lations, if unchecked, can lead to serious crimes, owing to the image of an out-of-control transit environment presented to potential criminals. At the same time, no agency expects its bus operators to enforce fare payment by physically escort- ing passengers off the bus. Conflict avoidance is at the other end of the enforcement spectrum—although the operator may be expected to state the required fare, benefit of the doubt is amply provided to passengers who may underpay or do not pay. Figure 5 presents the survey results to this fare payment enforcement policy question. Eighty-six percent of the 64 respondents stated that bus operators are instructed to state the required fare. Systems with automated announce- ments reminding passengers about fare payment may not re- quire bus operators to state the required fare. Systems with off-board fare payment or other payment systems that use the honor system would not require operators to state the required fare either. Fifty-three percent indicated that they instruct their bus operators to use their judgment. These agencies allow the operator to determine when and to what extent to CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS

20 FIGURE 1 Respondents by bus fleet size. 0-49,999,999 100,000,000-499,999,999 50,000,000-99,999,999 500,000,000 and Above 20% 12% 9% 59% FIGURE 2 Respondents by ridership. FIGURE 3 Primary security provider. FIGURE 4 Primary security provider—respondents who selected combination.

21 perform fare enforcement actions based on the situational context of each event. Fifty-three percent indicated that bus operators are instructed to summon supervision, police, or secu- rity. Seventeen percent instruct operators to ask fare evaders to de-board the bus. Five agencies instruct their operators to stop the bus until the fare is paid. A greater percentage of the larger agencies instruct their operators to indicate the required fare, and about three-quarters of the larger agencies instruct their bus operators to use their judgment. Comments indicated that, in general, agencies expect the bus operator to give the patron the benefit of the doubt if it is a first or infrequent offense. However, if the fare evasion be- comes chronic or rampant, the operator is expected to take action. “Bus operators are instructed to remind customers of how much the fare is but not to argue with someone who refuses to pay. After the person takes their seat and it is safe to do so, call dispatch.” “Operators are instructed to ask for the fare only once and then allow passenger to board without further challenge. They are told they may summon transit police for chronic repeat offenders.” Other agencies provide specific instructions on what operators might do in specific circumstances and minimize the amount of judgment that operators can make, and make more use of supervision than others. One respondent noted that making exceptions angers other passengers and can provoke aggression against that operator. One agency instructs bus operators to contact super- vision for assistance if there is a fare dispute, and asks oper- ators not to attempt to resolve it on their own. Another agency requires the bus operator to contact supervision for permis- sion to continue in service if there is a fare evader. One respon- dent stated that underpayment of the fare is considered to be accidental. One agency provides fare adjustment envelopes (containing an IOU or refund slip) to bus operators to give to passengers if there is underpayment, no payment, or over- payment; another also allows the operator to make arrange- ments for future payment of the fare. Several respondents noted that their bus operators are required to state the fare but are not to become involved in fare disputes. Other-Rules Enforcement Transit agencies establish a code of conduct for passengers, a set of rules that are to be followed in their system. Many states and localities have liquor and narcotics laws, vagrancy laws, and the like, which are incorporated into the code of conduct. When these laws are violated, bus operators would be expected to enforce them and summon the police or super- vision if the passenger does not comply. However, there are other agency rules the violation of which may not be illegal; these would be more difficult for the operator to enforce. According to the survey results presented in Figure 6, 81% of the 63 respondents instruct their bus operators to state the rule being violated. Sixty-seven percent instruct their operators to summon supervision, police, or security. That the percentage is higher for other-rules enforcement may imply that there are other rules that are more important than fare enforcement or that agencies do not have an automated recording reminding passengers to follow agency rules. Forty- four percent instruct their operators to use their judgment. Less than a third (30%) instruct the operator to ask the pas- senger to exit the bus. Almost 20% of respondents instruct the operator to stop the bus until the violation has ceased. Note that there are many transit agency rules the violation of which is not considered criminal and, therefore, the offender cannot be arrested unless and until the agency has had the local or state ordinance changed. For the rules violations that are already illegal, bus operators are typically required to stop operating the bus, ask the passenger to exit, summon super- vision or the police, or a combination of these measures. One respondent stated that the operator is encouraged to call tran- sit police in the event of “disorderly passengers or groups of passengers violating rules.” Agencies noted that the action taken by the bus operator depends on the rule being violated. A profile participant, Metro Transit of Madison, Wisconsin, noted that inappropriate con- duct is grouped into three categories or levels of severity, and FIGURE 5 Fare payment enforcement; bus operators are instructed to . . .

the actions that the bus operator may take are based on the corresponding level of the conduct. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Practically all responding agencies, 92% of 64 respondents, reported having standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place for responding to bus operator assaults. SOPs provide bus operators and responders—including agency police and security, supervision, human resources and support staff— with information on what to do should an assault occur. This finding is a significant improvement from the lower per- centage of 53% reported by Larry Thomas in TCRP Legal Research Digest 20 in 2005 on the transit agencies with pro- cedures for responding to incidents (23). SOPs that are care- fully crafted, when accompanied by appropriate training and sufficient resources, increase the effectiveness of the response and decrease response time. Transit agencies may have mul- tiple SOPs—for example, transit police may have an SOP for responding to an assault, bus operations may have an SOP focusing on dispatcher responsibilities, and human resources may have a separate SOP for the provision of counseling and support. The typical SOP addresses various types of accidents and other incidents, not just operator assaults. SOPs generally instruct the operator to secure the bus to protect the passen- gers, the operator, and the bus, and to summon emergency assistance using the appropriate communications device. Normal channels would be used if the operator believes it is safe to do so. If not, an emergency channel allowing dispatch, police, or both to listen to all audio around the operator’s compartment would be used. Witness cards may be used to collect contact information from passengers who have wit- nessed the incident. Reports, including all pertinent details of the incident, are typically requested from the operator on the 22 same day. If emergency assistance is needed, the dispatch center would notify transit police or local law enforcement and emergency medical personnel. SOPs for operators may be included in agency-issued handbooks or manuals. The Greater Cleveland Regional Trans- portation Authority (GCRTA), for example, has a section on emergencies in its Bus Operators’ Handbook, and in the sub- category “violent and disruptive passengers,” GCRTA oper- ators are provided with instructions on how to handle emer- gencies. (See Appendix A for a copy of these instructions.) DEFINITION OF “ASSAULT” The definition of operator assault is important. If an agency does not consider an incident to be an assault, the operator may not receive certain benefits and support, and the incident may be considered by supervisors and others as insignificant. The survey question on the definition of “assault” allowed multiple responses. As shown in Table 2, all 61 responding agencies consider simple assaults such as kicking and punch- ing and aggravated assaults involving weapons to be assaults. Sexual assaults were considered an assault by 95% of the respondents. Five percent, or 3 agencies, indicated that sex- % Aggravated assaults involving weapons 100 Simple assaults (e.g,, kicking, punching) Definition 100 Sexual assault 95 Spitting 84 Ve rbal threats/intimidation/harassment involving weapons 74 Projectiles thrown inside the bus (including liquids) 72 Ve rbal threats/intimidation/harassment without weapons 62 Projectiles thrown at the bus 48 To tal Responses 61 TABLE 2 DEFINITION OF ASSAULT FIGURE 6 Other rules enforcement; bus operators are instructed to . . .

23 ual assault was not considered an assault. These agencies noted that sexual assault is considered to be a separate crime category and therefore not included with other assaults. One agency noted that sexual assaults are handled by a special unit that specifically focuses on sexual incidents. Eighty-four percent of respondents considered being spat upon an assault. About three-quarters of the respondents also categorize ver- bal threats, intimidation, or harassment involving a weapon such as a knife or firearm as assaults. Seventy-two percent state that throwing projectiles inside the bus is considered to be assault, and 62% state that verbal attacks without weapons are considered assaults. Almost half of the respondents indi- cate that throwing projectiles at the bus is an assault. It is interesting to note that large agencies are more likely to con- sider each definition an assault. ASSAULT CHARACTERISTICS Assault characteristics, such as frequently occurring assault types, time period of occurrence, assault frequency, and causes of assaults (or contributing factors) are addressed in this section. Understanding these characteristics can help agencies address and mitigate assaults. Assault Types When asked which operator assault type(s) is or has recently been problematic for the responding agency, the assault type considered to be most problematic for agencies was verbal threats, intimidation, or harassment, as indicated in Table 3. This result mirrors those of workplace violence studies that indicate that verbal attacks are the most common form of work- place violence. The next most problematic assault type was spitting. Although seemingly minor, being spat upon can be temporarily traumatic to the victim. Also, because aggravated assaults that result in physical injuries can be preceded by minor assaults, even minor incidents need to be reported and closely monitored. Note that 100% of large agencies reported that they consider spitting to be problematic, whereas 70% of midsize and 26% of smaller agencies reported it as problematic. A lower percentage of respondents (38%) reported that assaults involving projectiles thrown at the bus was prob- lematic, and 26% reported that assaults involving projectiles thrown inside the bus was a problem. One respondent men- tioned indecent exposure as a problematic assault type. Another noted a “general lack of civility.” The total number of respondents was 58, and multiple responses were allowed. Contributing Factors Although some assaults occur without reason, many assaults do have one or more contributing factors. Primary factors mentioned by respondents are displayed in Table 4. They are fare enforcement and intoxicated passengers or drug users, followed by rule enforcement other than fare enforcement, school- and youth-related violence, and individuals with mental illness. Larger and midsize respondents were more likely to indicate that fare enforcement and intoxicated per- sons or drug users were contributing factors to operator as- saults. Also, most of the respondents who indicated that routes in high-crime areas and service problems were con- tributing factors were larger and midsize agencies. This is expected because these agencies operate in metropolitan areas where crime is generally more prevalent than in subur- ban or rural areas. Only two (3%) respondents indicated cash transactions were a contributing factor. Because most U.S. transit bus sys- tems have exact-fare policies and automated fare collection systems, the operator does not need to provide cash change. Other answers included Halloween pranks (objects thrown at the bus), overly aggressive operators, operators who make exceptions, verbal altercations, and attempting to aid a pas- senger. Multiple responses were allowed. Assault Frequency Survey participants were asked to state the number of bus operator assaults that occurred in the previous year. There were 59 responses, ranging from zero to over 500. As ex- pected, the results correlated with agency size based on the number of peak buses and bus ridership. Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate that, as expected, the average number of as- saults is related to fleet size (peak buses) and to annual bus ridership. % Verbal threats/intimidation/harassment 81 Assaults involving spitting Problematic Assault Type 60 Assaults involving projectiles thrown at the bus 38 Assaults involving projectiles thrown inside the bus (including liquids) 26 Assaults while vehicle is in motion 9 Assaults due to operator race/gender/size 5 Simple assault 3 Assaults involving weapons 2 Total Responses 58 TABLE 3 PROBLEMATIC ASSAULT TYPES % Fare enforcement 67 Intoxicated passengers or drug users Contributing Factors 66 Other rule enforcem ent 53 School/youth-related violence 48 Individuals with mental illness 40 Routes operating in high-crime areas 26 Service problem s (delays, service reductions, etc.) 24 Gang-related violence 12 Cash transactions 3 To tal Responses 58 TABLE 4 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

Annual Bus Ridership 178 72 29 9 FIGURE 8 Average annual number of assaults by ridership. Time Period of Assaults As shown in Table 5, most assaults, not surprisingly, oc- curred in the evening–late night–early morning period. Work- ing in isolation has been cited as a factor contributing to workplace violence. Because school- and youth-related vio- lence was noted as a contributing factor by almost half of the respondents, the next two periods with the highest number of responses—the afternoon peak period and school dismissal times—were not surprising. Thirty-three percent indicated “no discernible pattern,” with smaller agencies more likely to indicate “no discernible pattern.” TRAINING Training of bus operators was cited by survey respondents as a very effective security measure to prevent assault. Transit agencies provide a variety of training to new and veteran bus operators. Training that specifically addresses customer rela- tions, conflict management and de-escalation techniques, and diversity training bolsters the ability of the bus operator to 24 deal with stressful situations that may arise and understand the perspectives of individuals with different backgrounds and experiences. • Customer relations training—All 61 respondents to this question indicated that they provide customer rela- tions training. Essential in increasing customer satisfac- tion and mitigating and preventing disputes is profes- sionalism, courtesy, and confidence when interacting with passengers and the public. Most agencies stated they provide customer relations training to their new hires at time of employment and either periodically thereafter or when scheduled by supervision. • Conflict mitigation training—Knowing how to respond, what to do and say and what not to do and say when a dispute arises is important in preventing its escalation. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that conflict mitigation training is provided to their bus operators. Almost half provide the training at time of employment and periodically thereafter. • Diversity training—This training is important because public transportation ridership represents the entire spec- trum of economic and social backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures. Certain phrases or gestures may be construed as offensive to individuals from a specific culture. Commu- nication problems may arise when an operator does not speak the same language as the passenger. These issues are addressed in diversity training classes. As testament to the importance of understanding individuals from dif- ferent walks of life and backgrounds and the diversity of the transit ridership, almost all agency respondents noted that they provide diversity training to their new hires at time of employment and periodically thereafter or when scheduled by supervision. • Self-defense training—About a third of respondents reported that they provide self-defense training to their bus operators. One agency makes it available to opera- tors upon request. Although physical self-defense train- ing was the intended training category, some agencies providing verbal self-defense or verbal judo-type train- ing may have responded that they provide self-defense training. About 70% of agencies that provide self-defense training to their operators are located in states with more permissive (“shall-issue”) concealed firearms carry laws. There was no clear association between open carry laws and the states in which these agencies operate. % Evening/late night/early morning 48 PM peak period Time Periods 38 School dismissal times 28 During school runs 12 AM peak period 8 Midday 7 No discernible pattern 33 To tal Responses 61 TABLE 5 TIME PERIODS OF ASSAULTS Fleet Size, Peak Buses FIGURE 7 Average annual number of assaults by fleet size.

25 • Self-defense training using a self-defense tool—This training is not provided by most of the responding agen- cies. One agency, Metro Transit in Minneapolis, indi- cated that pepper spray training is available upon request. One hundred of its 1,400 operators have requested and undergone the training. Another agency, Houston METRO, which did not participate in the survey but is included in the profiles in chapter five, issues pepper gel and provides associated training to its operators. Both Texas and Minnesota have permissive “shall-issue” fire- arms laws for concealed carry. Several agencies that do not provide self-defense training, with or without tools, noted that they believe that this type of training goes beyond the responsibilities of the bus operator. A TWU representative supported this notion by noting that the task of the bus operator is already complex, that any type of self-defense training would add to the complexity of the task, and that they should not be expected to perform law enforcement-type activities. • Frequency of training—Respondents typically pro- vided training on conflict mitigation, diversity, and self- defense without weapons at time of employment and periodically thereafter. For customer relations, respon- dents also noted that it was provided at time of employ- ment, periodically thereafter, and when scheduled by supervision. Some agencies provide individual operators with refresher training when the situation warrants, as determined by supervision. One agency noted that its training program is tailored to meet the needs of the oper- ator. Another stated that operators involved in frequent incidents (three or more in a 2-year period) are referred for further training. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE In the aftermath of an assault, the provision of appropriate and comprehensive employee support can make a positive differ- ence in the victim’s overall recovery and ability to return to work, and lessen the impact of the assault on other employees. Transit agencies use different methods to support their bus operators who have been assaulted. Larger agencies tend to have more comprehensive programs and more support staff to assist assault victims. However, all agencies realize the impor- tance of providing employee assistance in bolstering overall employee morale after an incident and providing a caring workplace for their employees. As shown in Table 6, most of the 62 respondents to this question, 92%, reported that they actively encourage operators to report assaults, and most respondents, 82%, provide counseling. About half provide trained supervisors to assist operators who have been vic- tims of assaults. Forty-two percent provide legal support, with larger and midsize agency respondents more likely to provide such support. Legal support is important in the pros- ecution of the offender. It is important that the assault victim be informed of the legal process, including the timeline of the hearings and how to prepare for court appearances, and be kept apprised of relevant developments and the results of the process. Twenty-seven percent of responding agencies offer work resumption plans. A work resumption plan tailors the work schedule and conditions to the needs of the victim. For example, a physical injury may prevent the operator from driving but he or she may be allowed to do other work at the agency until he or she has healed completely. Additional forms of assistance provided by the respon- dents included provision of medical or worker’s compensa- tion assistance (which includes medical help and counsel- ing), prosecution of offenders, employee assistance programs, critical incident support team of peers, pay for court time, and stress management. One agency mentioned that it has a district attorney embedded in the agency. The district attor- ney works with the victims and provides 24-h access. Others stated that the victims receive case progress updates and results when they become available. One respondent indi- cated that it provides plainclothes security and marked police escorts when necessary for operators who return to work. Several respondents also cited the proactive measures their agencies take to prevent assaults. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING Reporting to law enforcement and the National Transit Data- base is required for Part I and Part II assaults, including sim- ple assaults, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, and homi- cides. For Part II assaults, incidents that result in an arrest are reportable. Survey respondents described a variety of ways in which assault data are collected and reported. Several agen- cies noted that operator assaults are not tracked separately and are combined with assaults on passengers. Concerns about underreporting of nonphysical assaults were raised by some of the respondents. According to the respondents, the following data elements were being collected by the agencies: • Date and time of the incident; • Description or type of incident; • Operator name; • Run/line; • Seniority of the operator; • Whether other incidents involving the operator had occurred; • Assailant information; • Police involvement (officer name, badge no.); % Encourage operators to report assaults 92 Provision of counseling Assistance 82 Tr ained supervisors assist operators 48 Provision of legal support 42 Im plem entation of work resum ption plans 27 To tal Responses 62 TABLE 6 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE

• Weapon(s) used, if any; • Cause or situational factors; • Whether the customer was removed and/or arrested; • Injury description; and • Treatment received. When video or audio surveillance recordings are avail- able, they are typically tagged and saved as evidence. In regard to the uses of the data, respondents indicated that the data along with video or audio recordings were being used for law enforcement purposes—identifying and prosecuting assailants and to enforce suspension-of-service policies that bar offenders from accessing their services. Another use of the data included crime management and monitoring efforts, which include determination of incident location (routes) and frequency (crime rate), identifying trends, reporting trends on specific routes to the police and transit management, and police and security resource deployment. National Transit Database reporting, identification of training needs, program and policy development, request for additional police or security funding, and employee injury-tracking were other uses of the information. One agency forwards the informa- tion to elected officials; another, to the media. When asked to which entities they report operator assault, agencies responded that operator assaults are reported to the local police or transit police, the National Transit Database, Canadian Urban Transit Association, Uniform Crime Reports, and the National Incident Based Reporting System. Other responses identified internal security personnel, state depart- ment of transportation, municipal officials, public disclosure requests, and prosecutors as report recipients. Larger and midsize agencies were, as expected, more likely to report to transit police than small agencies that do not have their own police departments. METHODS TO ADDRESS OPERATOR ASSAULTS Methods to address operator assaults covered in this section include onboard police and personnel, onboard technologies, and nonpolicing methods, including agency policies and initiatives. Onboard Police and Personnel Use of onboard police and personnel is an effective crime- fighting measure: uniformed officers deter all types of crim- inal behavior, including assaults. The visible presence of other personnel can also help prevent assaults; one respon- dent commented that high visibility by supervisors is a good security measure. Plainclothes officers can stop offenders who commit various types of crime by arresting them and getting them out of the system. The responses elicited by the question regarding onboard policing methods are shown in Table 7. There were 61 respondents to this question. Agen- cies typically allocate security personnel to locations (routes) 26 with high crime rates. Forty-four percent had police patrols, 39% used plainclothes officers, 21% used security personnel, and 15% stated that they had fare enforcement officers or personnel on board. Note that this does not mean that these respondents have specified personnel on every bus at all times. Resources need to be deployed strategically because police and security personnel are limited and cannot be present on every bus all the time. Two respondents (3%) indicated use of supervisors for onboard security, and another agency reported the use of volunteers. A significant percentage of large agencies, about half of midsize agencies, and a fifth of small agencies use police patrols. Large agencies were also more likely to use plainclothes officers and security person- nel. Those agencies responding that they use none of these security methods were more likely to be midsize and small agencies. As noted earlier, smaller agencies tend to have fewer incidences of violence and tend to have more restricted bud- gets and thus rely more on local law enforcement for their security needs. Onboard Technologies Onboard technologies support the bus operator during emer- gencies by facilitating communication with supervisors and responders, and fast response to incidents. Surveillance sys- tems can deter attacks and, should one occur, can assist police in identifying and prosecuting the assailant. Emergency communications technologies can help oper- ators communicate with dispatch or police during emergency situations. Vehicle location and monitoring technologies can help dispatchers alert police if a bus is in distress or goes off- route without reason. Video and audio surveillance systems can assist police in identifying and prosecuting assailants, assist supervision in determining what was actually said and done during an incident, and can deter assaults. Survey respon- dents indicated that video surveillance is one of the most effective and proven assault-prevention measures they have implemented, as is shown in Table 8. CPTED techniques such as enhanced lighting and use of improved bus design to eliminate hiding places and increase visibility within the bus are also used by agencies to address crime. Barriers separat- ing the bus operator from passengers have been implemented by several agencies and are undergoing testing in others. Two-way radio or phone communications available on most % Police patrols 44 Plainclothes of Personnel ficers 39 Security personnel 21 Fare enforcement of ficers or personnel 15 Supervisors 3 Vo lunteers (e.g., Guardian Angels) 2 None of the above 31 To tal Responses 61 TABLE 7 ONBOARD POLICE AND PERSONNEL

27 bus fleets may be used for emergency communication. Also, covert and overt panic buttons open up an immediate and direct line of communication with a dispatcher or control cen- ter. Covert panic buttons provide covert one-way communi- cation with the dispatcher or police; they can hear what is occurring inside the bus but cannot communicate with the operator, ensuring that the assailant does not know about the operator’s request for assistance. Covert panic buttons may also activate an electronic headsign stating “call police” or “call 911” to alert the public to summon assistance. Agencies have reported that these headsigns have been effective in summoning rapid, emergency response. AVL systems can work in conjunction with these com- munications systems to supply dispatchers and emergency responders with the exact location of a bus in distress. For example, if the panic button is connected with the AVL sys- tem, then an alarm may be activated at the dispatch center and the dispatch display can highlight the bus that is in dis- tress. Even if it is a standalone system, AVL technology can provide valuable information about the location of the bus in cases where emergency response is necessary. Although most modern AVL systems use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, some agencies still use the older signpost tech- nology, which limits the ability of the system to provide accurate vehicle location, especially if the bus goes off-route. Agencies with video surveillance systems find that they may be used for multiple purposes: video recording is often used as legal evidence to identify and prosecute criminals. Video can be used to resolve disputes between the operator and pas- senger, serve as a training aid, prevent and identify false lia- bility claims, and assist in accident investigations. Although video systems are expensive, grants provided by DHS and other agencies have helped agencies install and upgrade their systems. Video surveillance systems typically consist of sev- eral CCTV cameras within the bus and may also have a few external cameras. Unions have requested that cameras be pointed away from the operator owing to concerns that the video recordings may be used for disciplinary purposes. The movement from analog to digital video systems and wireless uploads of video recordings has been taking place. Because of bandwidth issues, many agencies have not yet implemented real-time video transmission functionality, which would allow emergency responders to view onboard video in real-time. Audio surveillance is typically deployed along with CCTV cameras, and can assist law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting offenders and in quickly resolving disputes be- tween operators and passengers. Legal issues regarding whether an agency is able to conduct audio surveillance differ by state and jurisdiction. Therefore, an agency’s legal division is usually consulted before a decision to provide the measure is made. The question concerning onboard technologies asked about technologies being used to protect bus operators on board their buses. Multiple responses were allowed. Eighty-nine per- cent of the 61 respondents stated that they use radio or phone communications on board their buses; 85% use video sur- veillance and recordings; 82% offer their operators a silent alarm and panic button for emergencies; 64% have an AVL/ GPS system; and 61% use audio surveillance and recordings. More than half of the respondents have electronic distress signs that are activated with a panic button. Twenty-eight percent practice CPTED techniques. Six agencies, or 10%, indicated that they use barriers or partial enclosures on their bus fleets; no respondent stated that they use compartments or full enclosures. Two agencies reported having real-time video streaming, with two more planning to install it. Larger agencies were more likely to use each of these measures: all of the larger agencies reported having silent alarms or panic buttons in their bus fleet, and 91% reported using video surveillance. Other Methods to Address Operator Assaults Transit agencies undertake numerous initiatives to prevent and mitigate operator assaults. The majority of agencies indi- cated that they cooperate with law enforcement. These efforts include familiarizing local responders with an agency’s buses, including its emergency equipment, dispatch system, and the agency’s incident response procedures. Other initiatives in- clude periodic meetings about problematic routes, incidents, and trend analysis. Some agencies engage in public and pas- senger awareness initiatives. These initiatives include inform- ing the public and passengers about the problem of operator assaults and what they can do to help assist the agency and police in preventing assaults. An example of such an initiative is WMATA’s High Intensity Target Enforcement Program: officers in uniform board buses and distribute information about safety and security to passengers. Agencies may also undertake media campaigns to announce security initiatives or policies addressing crime and transit operator assault. Since many incidents are caused by youths and schoolchildren, school outreach efforts are important. School outreach efforts teach children how to ride a bus, how to be respectful to bus operators, and other information useful to students. Commu- nity outreach activities have also been performed by the respondents and include participation in community events and presentations on bus safety and security. Some respon- dents engage in high visibility prosecution of offenders and % Radio/phone communications 89 Vi Technologies deo surveillance/video record in g 85 Silent alarm /panic button 82 Autom atic vehicle location (A VL)/GPS system s 64 Audio surveillance/audio recording 61 Electronic distress sign visible to other operators 52 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) 28 Real-tim e audio stream ing 18 Assault prevention screens/partial enclosures 10 To tal Responses 61 TABLE 8 ONBOARD TECHNOLOGIES

have been lobbying for more stringent penalties. Other re- sponses included the following: • Use of CompStat—CompStat is a crime management tool that uses crime-mapping technology and analysis to identify areas of potential incidents and hotspots, and assesses the effectiveness of various policing measures. • Suspension-of-service policy—CDTA bans offenders from CDTA services. If the offense is serious enough, the offender may be banned permanently. The suspension- of-service policy and other agency policies are discussed in chapter six. • Bus operator committee—The Chicago Transport Au- thority (CTA) has a bus operator assault committee com- posed of bus operators, union officials, management, and police. They discuss assault statistics, locations of the assaults, the number of individuals in custody, and measures being taken to reduce the number of assaults. Transit agencies and the ATU believe that tougher penalties for operator assaults deter assaults, although the TWU does not. When asked about enhanced local or state statutes for operator assaults, 52% of the respondents stated that their local laws provided more severe punishments for assaults against bus operators. As of the date of this report, 23 states and no provinces currently have enhanced penalties for operator as- saults, and about a fifth of the respondents had indicated on a different question that they are currently lobbying for more stringent penalties. There were a total of 62 respondents to this question. Self-Defense Tools Oleoresin capsicum or OC, commonly known as pepper spray or pepper gel, has been used by law enforcement since the late 1980s. Because exposure to OC irritates the skin, eyes, and the upper respiratory tract, it is considered to be gener- ally useful and effective in subduing violent individuals and stopping assailants. It is also regarded by the law enforce- ment community to be safer than other forms of less-than- lethal options. Concentrations and use are limited on a state- by-state basis, and OC is prohibited in Canada. Though rare, in-custody deaths of asthmatics have occurred as a result of the use of OC, and its effectiveness on mentally ill individu- als and individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol has been questioned. As of the date of this report, OC is the only self-defense tool that is being issued to bus operators or for which training is provided by transit agencies, to the best of the contractor team’s knowledge. Of 61 agencies that had responded to the question regard- ing whether the agency issues self-defense tools to operators, 59 indicated that their agency does not issue self-defense tools to their operators and two noted that they were uncer- tain regarding the issue. With respect to whether the agency allows operators to carry any type of self-defense tool, two agencies out of 61 responded that they allow operators to 28 carry one. One agency reports that the tool must not be a firearm or a blade longer than 4 in. The other agency indi- cated that operators who undergo the agency’s pepper spray training are allowed to carry pepper spray as a self- defense tool. Many agencies are concerned about the liabil- ity that they might face if an operator were to use the tool, even if it is used appropriately. Additionally, the unions report that their members are not in favor of carrying self- defense tools, as they increase the complexity and responsi- bility of a job that is already rife with complex tasks and responsibilities. In the profile section on self-defense tools in chapter five, an agency that did not participate in the survey, Houston METRO, was identified as issuing a self-defense tool—pepper gel canisters—to their bus operators. BUS OPERATOR SELECTION METHODS Hiring individuals suited for all aspects of the bus operator position can lessen the incidence of passenger assault. The position requires not only a good driving record but also excellent people and problem-solving skills, and the ability to handle daily pressure and stress. Driving records are checked to ensure that the candidate has a clean driving record. Back- ground checks are performed by agencies to screen out can- didates who have criminal records, outstanding warrants, or other factors that could affect their job performance. Agen- cies also routinely conduct physicals and drug tests before candidates are hired, and random drug and alcohol tests are typically conducted after they have started their jobs to con- firm that the operators are still fit for duty. Note that U.S.DOT requires drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive trans- portation employees, including bus operators, under the Omni- bus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 40). FTA’s rule 49 CFR Part 655 conforms to the U.S.DOT regulations. Drug and alcohol testing is required in the following situations: rea- sonable suspicion and random, post-accident, and return-to- duty/follow-up (periodic). Drug testing is also required, but alcohol testing is optional for preemployment screening. FTA Office of Safety and Security provides guidance for transit agencies on the implementation of the testing program. Many agencies conduct interviews; some indicated that they conduct a job aptitude test, video-based screening, and/or a psychometric/personality test. Large agencies were more likely to conduct a psychometric/personality test than midsize or small agencies; because they have larger human resource budgets, larger agencies may be able to use additional screen- ing mechanisms to help them identify appropriate candidates. IMPACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST OPERATORS Operator assaults can have significant consequences for the victimized operators, for their coworkers and families, and for bus operations in the form of injury-related claims, absences, diminished productivity, and union grievances. Operators

FIGURE 9 Effective measures. 29 may experience increased levels of anxiety and stress, which can cause them to become distracted while on duty or less calm under pressure. When asked about issues experienced by bus operators or operations as a result of violence against bus operators, as shown in Table 9, 68% of the 50 respon- dents to this question reported that they have had injury- related claims, and more than half reported that their opera- tors showed increased anxiety and stress. Twenty-eight percent reported that their bus operations were affected by absenteeism and diminished productivity, and 20% reported union griev- ances. A few respondents noted that their bus operations have experienced none of these issues. Small agencies were less likely to report that their operators have been showing in- creased anxiety or stress. Larger agencies tended to report more injury-related claims and absenteeism or diminished pro- ductivity than midsize agencies, and midsize agencies were more likely to report absenteeism or diminished productivity than small agencies. Multiple responses were allowed. EFFECTIVE MEASURES Survey respondents were asked in an open-ended question to provide the five most effective security measures that can protect bus operators from passenger assault. Forty-seven respondents provided their opinions regarding the most effec- tive measures and listed up to five measures. A few respon- dents provided more than five because some of the measures were considered ties. The responses are summarized in Fig- ure 9. The percentages of effective measures with 1 and 2 rankings from each category of measures are indicated in parentheses in the chart. A total of 195 measures were mentioned by the respon- dents, of which 33% were technology measures, 24% policy- related measures, 25% were policing and personnel methods, and 18% training/HR, as shown in Figure 9. Of those men- tioned, 99 measures received a ranking of 1 or 2. Of the tech- nology measures, 48% received a 1 or 2 ranking; of the policy measures, 39% received a 1 or 2 ranking, as did 53% of the policing and personnel measures, and 69% of the training/HR measures. It can be noted that agencies typically do not rely on a single measure to prevent assaults and other crime against their operators. The importance of using a layered security strategy or combinations of measures was indicated by some of the respondents. For instance, one respondent noted that the combination of security cameras and increased uniformed police presence has minimized the potential for confrontation between passengers and operators. Technology Of the 65 responses provided in the technology category, 34 cited video surveillance and six mentioned audio surveillance. As seen in Figure 10, 20 or almost 60% of the 34 respondents ranked video surveillance first or second. Although seven cited silent alarm or panic button, none ranked it first or second. Of the five respondents who cited barriers, two ranked it first or second. There were two other respondents who noted that their agencies were considering or were planning to implement bar- riers because these were expected to mitigate operator assault. Other technologies mentioned were radio/other communi- cations, AVL/location grids, fare collection changes, and integration of systems. Policy In terms of policy measures, no one policy measure domi- nated the responses (see Figure 11). Of the 46 responses in the policy category, eight mentioned cooperation with the police, and eight stated work rules or policies and proce- dures. Six indicated signage as an effective measure, includ- ing signage alerting passengers and the use of video or audio surveillance and information about the penalty for operator assault. Prosecution of offenders was cited five times, and management support and media campaign, along with out- reach to unions and zero tolerance/suspension-of-service policies, were each mentioned four times. Three responses were in the category of community and school outreach, var- ious committees. Two indicated legislation to increase penal- ties for assaults against operators, and various committees. With respect to their agency’s suspension-of-service policy, one respondent stated that the policy has been “extremely successful” and “not one of the patrons has resurfaced as a subsequent violator.” One respondent noted that the follow- ing change mitigated assaults: In the past, problems with cus- tomers were to be resolved at the scene (on the bus); this pol- icy was changed so that the passenger would be separated from the operator. A supervisor now arrives at the scene, % Injury-related claim s 68 Operators showing increased anxiety/stress Impacts of Violence 52 Absenteeism /d im inished productivity 28 Union grievances 20 None 6 To tal Responses 50 TABLE 9 IMPACT OF VIOLENCE ON BUS OPERATORS

escorts the passenger off the bus, and drives the passenger to his or her destination. Another respondent mentioned that restructuring school routes so that the same operator is used on specific school routes was an effective measure. Several policy-related insights were provided in the additional com- ments question of the survey, some of which are included in what follows. “The best prevention is good Customer Care and Service. Taking care of passengers by using techniques that indicate compassion, consistency, and fairness reduce the likelihood of assaults.” The respondent also recommends, regarding 30 fare payment and other agency rules, that operators “should avoid [making] exceptions, which confuse passengers” and may ultimately result in an assault. Another respondent be- lieved that the agency’s policy of “having operators only challenge a passenger that is violating a rule once” is the key to mitigating operator assaults, because continued “heated discussion” with passengers would increase the likelihood of an assault. “The vast majority of assaults occur over fare enforcement issues. In spite of training advising operators not to pursue the matter with irate customers, the fact remains that many get caught up in the moment, push the issue, and ultimately end up getting assaulted.” “Drivers are instructed FIGURE 10 Effective technology measures. FIGURE 11 Effective policy measures.

31 to never leave the driver’s seat to confront a passenger or to interdict in a criminal act upon others on the vehicle.” The respondent goes on to note that the operator may only leave the seat to flee an attacker or in the act of self-defense. The authors have a caveat regarding the policy to never assist pas- sengers—although the policy does protect the bus operator, if an incident does occur and a passenger is injured, negative publicity against the agency and the operator may arise. Another respondent stated that “partnership with law enforce- ment is key” and cited the importance of making local police aware of agency “schedules and routines” and “equipment and practices.” Policing and Personnel Forty-nine responses were received in the policing and per- sonnel category (see Figure 12). The presence and visibility of uniformed officers, which include patrols, bus checks, and officers at bus terminals, constituted 19 of these responses, with more than half ranking it first or second. Nine responses indicated plainclothes officers and seven cited supervision. Police–driver collaboration was mentioned six times. Other responses included supervision and crime analysis and man- agement techniques, such as CompStat, and posting and dis- tributing photos of offenders. One respondent provided the following comment: “[T]he CompStat methodology and partnering with local police jurisdictions that our operators service, has proven that it is effective in reducing crime as well as providing a safe riding environment for our employ- ees and patrons.” Training/Human Resources Thirty-five of the measures were in the training/human re- sources category (see Figure 13). The top response, bus oper- ator training, was mentioned 20 times. Fifteen or 75% of the FIGURE 12 Effective policing and personnel measures. FIGURE 13 Effective training/human resources measures.

20 ranked it first or second. The types of bus operator train- ing cited by respondents were customer service, conflict mit- igation, and diversity training or generic training with no spe- cific training area specified. Eight respondents mentioned self-defense or assault prevention training, and seven indi- cated “other,” which included operator discipline, perfor- mance monitoring, targeted training for operators involved in frequent incidents, and supervisor training. Training-related insights were offered by several respon- dents in the open-ended request for additional comments. Several noted the importance of operator behavior and atti- tude, provision of good customer service, the operator’s ver- 32 bal skills, and the importance of treating passengers fairly. A respondent stated that the bus operators “prevent assaults on a daily basis. Training is the only way to prepare an operator for this type of event [conflict situations]. The bus operator must know when to ‘let it go’ and report the situation to a supervisor or officer.” Another respondent notes that their agency has “utilized recurrent training in passenger relations for those operators with a disproportionate number of negative customer encounters.” “National curriculum for bus operators” is proposed by one respondent. A few noted the importance of supervisor involvement in resolving disputes. Video record- ings of incidents are used by some agencies as a training tool for operators.