Document.At, on and Assessment of Transit Security Data Reporting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. UMTA-VA-06-O13 i -85-1 ~Document.at, on and Assessment of O Transit Security Data Reporting, U.S. Department of Transportation and Its Ut~zation ~T~ Urban Mass Transportation Administration March 1985 41. 0 8: NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse prod- ucts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to theobject of this report. x"I Te~knical Kepert DKv.~niat|cm Peg. I. Neport No. ~. ~ovownm0nt Acce|0;on NO. 3. Reclp;cmt's Cet ololI No. Title and ~boltle- ~ . S. Reeo,t Dote " Documentation and Assessment of Transit Securit Data Reporting and Its Utilization MarCh, i985 4. P,,fenn;n 00,o~ixeti4 e Code 7. Au'okor%) |- Perle,minE O,ga~isation Repoqt No. Eileen O. Hargadine and Gail Scott 9. Pe~:~,-,;n90,II~;|ation Name and Addres* 10. Wedl Unit No. (TRAIS) Mandex, Inc. Engineering Economics System Center I|. Contract er GreAt No. 2106B Gallows Road __DTT~- 60- 85- C- 71235 Vienna, Virginia 22180 13. TlrPo of Report end Period Covered r 13. ~|erlng Aee~yN~e ~d A~,eso Final Report :U.S. Department of Transportation October 1983 to Urban Mass Transportation Administration December 1984 Office of Technical Assistance 14. SpOnsoring A0enc~ Code Washington, D.C. 20590 T.TRT-6 L 16. Abe,,act The report documents and assesses transit security reporting systems in use by transit police and security departments in several cities. The report discusses the division of responsibility for security between local law enforcement agencies and transit police and security departments. The ~ata needs of the operational, support, management, and decision making functions of transit police and security departments are addressed. The report describes the data collection, processing and analysis techniques currently in use at twenty three transit agencies. Three alternative reporting systems were identified: one appropriate for a one or two person security department; one for a larger security department without sworn police officers; and one for a transit police department with sworn officers. The report discusses ways in which transit police and security departments can ~increase the usefulness of their information systems, using both manual and Computerized techniques. 17. Xe,,e,d, Mass Transit, Transit |0. Ollokl~tlcm Stetmmt Crime, Transit Security, Security DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC Information System, THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL ,INFORMATION SERVICE. SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22161 It"-~. S.cu~,~ Cl**,iI. (of ml, ;~-~) 30. Se~rl~ Cfeeulf. (el tOdD p~,;; 31. He. of Pqe* ]2. Price Unclassified Unclassified Few DQT P 1700.7 (0-~3) Rqlrodvctlon of comp|eted page c~be,l|~d PR EFA CE This report, prepared by Mandex, Inc. for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration' s (UMTA) Office of Technical Assistance, Safety and Security Staff, provides an assessment of transit security information systems. It documents a variety of transit security information systems currently in use in municipalities across the country and identifies three alternative systems. It also suggests ways in which transit police and security departments can increase the usefulness of the data they collect, process and analyze. The authors wish to acknowledge the UMTA Safety and Security Staff for the guidance and support provided by Lloyd G. Murphy and Gwendolyn R. Cooper and the general direction fOE the performance of the study by Roy Field. We wish to thank the twenty--three Chiefs of Transit Security and Police Departments and their staff for their cooperation during the data collection phase of the study. We also thank William T. Hathaway, Nancy A. Cooney, and Ronald A. Mauri, TSC Safety and Security Division; Dr. Yo shio Akiyama, the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program; a~d J~ck Schne11, American Publ ic Tr ansi t Association (APTA) ; who provided valuable information and comments. I I I pII • • ~ • I I ° II • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 ee INTRODUCTION oeooe, oooooeeoeo......eooooeeeoo.ooee. .I 1.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................... 3 1.2 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH TO ANALYSES..4 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT .................... ...6 Section 2: REPRESENTATIVE TRANSIT SECURITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS .................. ..................... 9 2.1 LITERATURE REVIER ................................ 9 2.1.1 Assessment Criteria ................. .......... I0 2.1.2 Special Issues in Crime Reporting Systems: Juveniles ................................... 12 2.1.3 FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting System ........... 13 2.1.4 Literature on Transit Security ................ ..15 2.2 SELECTION CRITERIA ............................... 16 2.3 TRANSIT AGENCIES SELECTED FOR VISITS ............. 20 2.4 SITE VISITS ....................................... 27 2.5 GROUPINGS OF TRANSIT POLICE AND SECURITY DE PAR TMENTS ................................. 32 Section 3 : TRANSIT SECURITY OPERATIONS AND DATA. ............ 43 3.1 RELATIONSHIP BE~EEN SECURITY REPORTING SYSTEMS AND \ TRANSIT POLICE AND SECURITY DEPARTMENTS ..... 43 3.2 OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS .......................... ,. 46 3.2.1 Responding to Calls fo~ Service... 48 3.2.2 3.2.3 Directed Patrol ........ i, ........ 56 3.2.4 3.2. 5 Community Relations .... ~~sw~" '~'~j~Wj'~*~'(~'~ ..... 61 3.3 SUPPORT FUNCTIONS ........ .~,., ..................... 63 3.3. 1 Investigation • • • • • • • • • • ;:.I • • • • • • • • • • • • • o o o o . o o o 64 3.3. 2 Data Processing ................................ 68 3.4 MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS ............................. 7 0 3.4. 1 Policy Making/Budgeting ........................ 70 3.4. 2 Administration ................................. 72 3.5 NEEDS AND R~UIREMENTS FOR TRANSIT SECURITY DATA COLLECTED BY TRANSIT SECURITY REPORTING SYSTEMS ................................. .... 7 3 3.5.1 Transit Police and Security Departments' Data Needs ooeoooooooeooo ooooeooooooooo• •go•o•••• 7 3 3.5.2 Data Needs of Transit Agencies ................. 74 3.5.3 Data Needs of UMTA .............................' 75 Section 4 - SECURITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS ooeeooooooooo• oooeoe• 7 6 4.1 COLLECTIONS OF DATA .............................. 77 4.1.1 Dispatch Data go o see " o so o•.oo .0 ego oo ego ego. o• go •go 86 4.1.2 Data Collected by Officers on Patrol ..... ......88 4.1.3 Operator Reports ...................... • .... .... 93 4.1.4 Community Relations Data o o e . • o o o . o • • • • • • • • • • • • • 96 % 4.1.5 Externally Prov ided Data ........................ " 96 4.2 DATA PROCESSING .......... ' .................... .. 97 4•2.1 Manual Security Reporting Systems .............. 97 4.2.2 Automated Security Reporting Systems ..... • ..... 98 4.3 PRODUCTS OF DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS ....... 108 4.3.1 Summaries by Incident Classification.. ........ I08 4.3.2 Incident Frequencies ...... ................... 110 4.3.3 In-Depth Crime Pattern Analysis.... ..... .. .... 111 4.3.4 Suspect Specific Analysis ..................... 113 4.3.5 Analysis for Evaluation of Performance and Countermeasur es ................... ...... 114 Section 5: ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT CRIME REPORTING SYSTEMS ..... 121 5.1 TRANSIT SECURITY MONITORING SYSTEMS ...... ....... 122 5.2 TRANSIT SECURITY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM' •124 5.3 TRANSIT POLICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS .............. 126 5.4 ANALYSES AND DATA RE~UIRED BY SECURITY FUNCTIONS ..... ............ • ............... 131 5.5 CRITERIA POR ASSESSING TRANSIT SECURITY REPORTING SYSTEMS .... ........ •......... , . 141 q 5 • 5 • 1 Completeness • o o . • o o • o o o • • . o o • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 141 5.5.2 Quality .go•• ••o•o••o•ooo.o•.•••.•..•o•••.••••.• ' 142 5.5.3 Time1 iness ............ ........................ 143 5.5.4 F1 exibi i ity .................................... 143 5.5.5 Compa r abil ity . ..0o•.•oo•ooo•oo••••.•...'••••••- 144 5.5.6 Co st .......................................... 145 Section 6: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 145 6.1 ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SECURITY INFORMATION S¥S TEMS IoOOOOllolo. oqJoleooooooooooiooooooo oo 145 6.2 NEED FOR LIAISON WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS .................................... 148 6.3 INCIDENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS ................. 150 6 • 4 OPERATOR REPORTING PRACTICES • • • • I • • O o o o I e o i o o o o o 152 6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE URBAN MASS TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ................ 155 APPENDIX A- BIBLIOGRAPHY oooooooooelooooeoooooooooeo ioooooi ioo A-I APPENDIX B CONTACT PEOPLE AT TRANSIT AGENCY AND HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE IN USE ............................ B-I I p Jl i i LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES • Table 2.3,1 LIST OF BART TRANSIT PoLIcE REPORTING FORMS ........ 30 Table 2.4.1 " TYPES OF TRANSIT SECURITY ORGANIZATIONS, ........... 33 Table 2.4.2 TRAM S IT SYSTEM S ITE iV IS ITS • ......o...........oeoao.:..... 34 Figure 3.1 MODEL TRANSIT SECURITY INFORMATION SYSTEM .......... 45 Table 4.1 EXAMPLES OF FORMS USED BY HOUSTON METRO AND BART...7.8 Table 4.2.1 EXAMPLE OF SCRTD FILE CARD FROM WORD PROCESSING FILE • oooeo.ooooooooooe.oeeooooeoeeooooooeo.ooooooo- I00 Figure 4.2,2 MAPPING PROGRAM SAMPLE oeeoooeoooo...ooooo..oeoooo.: .... " 105 Table 4.3.5 24 HOUR DISTRIBUTION OF CALLS FOR SERVICE ........ 1118 Tabl e 5.1 MINIMAL DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED .................... 122 Table 5,2