Fare Enforcement Options Rev. 03/14/2019 What we know: • With a low fare evasion rate, high customer satisfaction, and minimal documented complaints, our current fare enforcement program is seen as highly effective. Other agencies, including KCM, have been referred to Sound Transit as a model. • Sound Transit’s fare enforcement program is dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of our riding public, and to treating our customers respectfully and equally. • We want to ensure fairness for our paying customers and maintain our low fare evasion rate. • There is vocal community concern about the equity impacts of enforcement program, especially for riders who cannot afford to pay, and “criminalization” of what may be perceived as petty infractions, such as failing to pay fare. o There is also interest from some King County stakeholders in fare enforcement “harmony” between Sound Transit and King County Metro, which recently changed their fare enforcement policies. • Current consideration for policy options is constrained to those who are deemed to be cooperative (willingly provide requested information, follow direction to debark if required, etc.) with Fare Enforcement Officers and law enforcement should they be warned or cited for fare evasion. • The adoption of any of the options outlined here may require additional policy, financial, and legal analysis and/or approval from the Board. Timeline: 3/1/2019 3/4/2019 Week of 3/18 3/25/2019 Week of 3/25 4/4/2019 4/16/2019 TBD Cross-functional meeting to begin discussing agency perspectives on Follow up meeting to make progress toward identifying options for the CEO to review Follow up meetings as needed to narrow down options and identify and task additional analysis Deadline to submit written responses to King County Council Committee on Mobility and the Environment questions Submit written memo to CEO containing options and staff recommendations and meet to discuss Presentation to the ST Board REO Committee on current fare enforcement program and any tweaks or changes we may be implementing to address concerns Brief King County Council Committee on Mobility and the Environment alongside King County Metro on current fare enforcement program and any tweaks or changes we may be implementing to address concerns Determine need for continued meetings and implementation tracking Fare Enforcement Options Rev. 03/14/2019 Phase Option 1. Increase number of Process or warnings and/or civil approach citations before changes prior misdemeanor “theft of to the “fourth service” charge strike” 2. Shorten the 365-day rolling cycle (e.g. to a 180day cycle) for “strike” accumulation 3. Targeted education campaign for very lowincome riders Purpose Opportunities/Risks Add’l Questions Build in more “benefit of the doubt”, which will help especially those who may be disproportionately impacted by the current procedure Opportunities - Provide more opportunities for evaders to change behavior before getting a misdemeanor Potential impact on citation caseload? Risks - May increase administrative load for citations - Too many strikes allowed may be too permissive to incentivize behavior change Decrease likelihood of a citation, fine, or, ultimately a misdemeanor for all riders Build in more “benefit of Opportunities the doubt” - More offenses in a shorter amount of time *may* clarify Decrease likelihood of a intent to evade citation, fine, or, -Shorter cycle may expedite ultimately a overall processing time for misdemeanor for all evaders, and clear out those riders who truly forgot quicker Decrease likelihood of a citation/disproportionat e impact on very lowincome riders due to lack of awareness Risks - Too short a cycle may be too permissive to incentivize behavior change Opportunities - Increase awareness of LIFT program - Result in higher usage and lower evasion rates for those Impact on caseload? Potentially hand out resource/info cards to everyone cited Fare Enforcement Options Rev. 03/14/2019 4. General on-board education campaign on FE citation elevation process 5. Collect more comprehensive data internally and request data regularly from the court or other sources re: the impacts of ST FE citations and referrals Decrease likelihood of perceived disparate treatment Increase likelihood of awareness of consequences as potential disincentive ST takes fuller responsibility for impacts of our program Better prepared to address, and if necessary, mitigate, community concerns directly who can afford the discounted rate Opportunities - Increase awareness of why some people may be cited differently (warning for one vs. ticket for another) - Disincentivize fare evasion by making consequences/contact points clearer Opportunities - Better understand the impacts of our referrals - Be able to answer questions about our impacts directly (vs. referring those interested to the court) - We can’t fix or mitigate what we don’t know about Better information on which to consider policy changes 6. Petition district court to allow those cited for fare evasion to appeal at their local court (or expand venues beyond just Shoreline) Increase court access to those able to show up Opportunities - Allow easier access for those who can to appeal and possibly nullify their citation and fine Risks - We have no control over the court’s choice of venues to hear cases. Additional data could include: - resolution of all ST-referred cases - number of ST citations that are unpaid and move to collections - how many tickets in collections escalate further (e.g. wage garnishment, etc.) - income, sheltered/unsheltered, racial demographics of current riders - independent research into who doesn’t pay and why Fare Enforcement Options Rev. 03/14/2019 7. Review and potentially decrease fee for citations from $124 to be less punitive/ensure punishment fits the crime Increase likelihood of ability to pay fine (decrease likelihood of collections involvement) Ensure the punishment is equitable 8. Review/reinforce/verify training of ST FE Officers and contracted law enforcement for anti-bias, de-escalation, and customer service 9. Implement equity tool and analysis focused on fare enforcement implementation and impacts Decrease likelihood of unnecessary escalation and potential danger to riders and the officers 10. Examine technical limits that require ORCA load delay (can take 24 hours for funds to load on card) Decrease likelihood of citation for riders who can only load a small amount daily Decrease likelihood of inequitable policies and implementation practices - Having to go to court at will still be intimidating for some; others may not be able to appear due to other institutional barriers Opportunities - May be perceived as a more equitable punishment for evading a $2.50 fare - Cost of the difference between $124 and a proposed lower fine X number of first citations in a 365-day period Risks - ST would have to cover any resulting delta between the lowered fine and the current $124 fine that was set by the Board and covers administrative court fees. - A steep fine early on *may* be an effective deterrent Opportunities - Demonstrate ST commitment to customer focus and equity - Effective training would continually keep bias down Opportunities - Demonstrate ST commitment to equity - Effective use would surface currently unknown impacts/risks Who would develop the tool? Fare Enforcement Options Rev. 03/14/2019 11. Examine options for structural (access, digital, signage, wayfinding, etc.) changes to make paying even easier 1. Bring adjudication inDirect house (request and secure alternatives deputization of current into current house legal staff to adjudicate court referrals) “fourth strike” process 2. Secure a dedicated case development deputy prosecutor to focus on ST referrals Decrease likelihood of evasion due to inability to pay Need to understand what options have been considered before Opportunities - No longer automatically “criminalize” with referral to prosecutor for them to decide who to prosecute on our behalf - More control over a process that the public will hold the agency accountable for in any case Risks - Some cases will still be referred to the prosecutor - Adjudicating in-house may still be perceived as unfair or unequitable Opportunities - More efficient; assigned prosecutor would follow the case from beginning to end; follow through as an advocate for rider and ST - Keeps the adjudication process outside of ST Risks - Nominal change to current process - More costly to ST than current process Do we have the in-house resources to balance with current legal workload? How much would this cost? What would be the process? Fare Enforcement Options Rev. 03/14/2019 3. Refer qualified fare evaders to social services (hire an FTE to handle— this could potentially apply in earlier stages, like the first citation after the second warning) Opportunities - May be a successful intervention and help avoid court/fines altogether Risks - Potential perceived weakening of consequences for repeat offenders What would the workload be? How much would this cost? How would we determine who is qualified and when?