e'this microfich was produced from documents received for inclusion in the ncjrs data...
TRANSCRIPT
This microfich was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data b~se. SiRce NCJRS cannot exercise
control over the physical conditi~n of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on
this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality.
1.0 , :~ 11111
2.8
11111
2.5
'~1~113.2 2 '" . • z;o IIIII~ I" :¥ ~W~ 2.0
I I J.,:.;. ~ • r"u",
111111.25 111111.4. 111111.6
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART ' NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963.A
','
Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards ,set forth in 41CFR 101·11.504
Points of view or ofl\nions stated in this document are those of the authort sl and do not represent the official positit'n or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE . '
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20531
'[~ j
it: '[:'" ;k1
'C·.'! , " ,-,
E' i· : _,t
i ['0"' I .
I ..
;'[~ I , -, . 'Io.J
: I ; , ; \
JUN 1 r-o 1975
0\~ i Q }\l_~_ ~INAL REPORT '\ T t",t:,v'~'¥" ,:::':7-,PUBLIC TRANSIT CRHlE .j
J REDUCTION PROGRAM _ PHILADELPHIA-POLICE DEPARTMENT-\ " ' 73- D F - 0 -:. '- OQ ;;;, 1.-/
., If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
r~~ A>~"l1t\ ! , " ,A!' t;4",,,, 17JG: , -) tL/,' J '; 1:
~"'''I''''<~ f \/-.kJ} POLICE & SECURITY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS L A Division of CAREERCO, Inc.
L [
r -,
I l ....
f~
L
[ f ...... I I L ...
r'"
L
[
c
ALLAN APPLE, BOARD CHAmMAN MICHAEL V. REAGEN, PH. D., PRESrDENT DONALD M. S'T'OIlGIITON, VICE PRESIDENT FOWARD KING, VIer PRESIDENT
January 9, 1975
Dr. Kenneth J. Reichstein Governor's Justice Commission Evaluation Management Unit 214 Stephen Girard Building 21 South 12th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dear Dr. Reichstein:
Submitted herewith is the Final Report of Police and Se~urity Management Consultants evaluation regarding Philadelphia's Public Transit Crime Reduction Program. This Final Report contains the results of a Pre and Post-Test public opinion survey.
After you have reviewed this report, I would be pleased to discuss it with you.
-J[Z; p~tted, Michael V. Reagen~ President
1vfVR :mm
Enclosure
[~' CAREERCO SCHOOL FOR PARA·PROFESSIONAlS. ACCREDITED MEMBERS OF NATIONAL HOME STUDY COUNCIL AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE. TECH. SCHOOLS
CAREERCO BUilDING, 847 JAMES STREET, SYRACUSE, NeW YORK 13203 TEL: 1315J 472.7501
[' ...
I.
, . .. ' ,
r~ l~j
[
C"· ,
[
C
c 0' ',.~'" 3
, .'
POLICE AND SECURITY MANAGEMENT CONSULTAl'JTS
SURVEY STAFF
Michael V. Reagen, Ph.D. Project Director
Donald M. Stoughton Assistant Director
Debbie Cooper James Cooper Marianne McCarthy
Doris Pickard Jean Quinn Charles Tighe
,-n. L
[ ..
[
["'"
• .!
[
[
r L",
[
[
['1 ...
PREPARED FOR
Governor's Justice Commission Evaluation Management Unit 214 Stephen Girard Building 21 South 12th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Attention: Dr. Kenneth J. Reichstein)
and
Mayor's Criminal Justice Improvement Team P. S. F. S. Building, Room 1112 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Attention: Chief Inspector John A. Craig)
RE: PUBLIC TRANSIT CRIME REDUCTION PROGRAM
. CONTRACT NO: 73-DF-03-0024
PSM-74C-4-S-103
Police and Security Management Consultants A Division of CareerCo, Inc.
847 James Street Syracuse, N. Y. 13203
[
r.··.~~ Li
, ['1 . ,)
1 ~1 L
n L·
c
c [ .. ~
'41
L
-TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SU1vrMARY .... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""
I" INTRODUCTION" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " III " " " " " " " " "
I I" TI1'E PROBLEM""""",,"""""""""""""""""""""""" ~ " " " , " " "
I I I. :rvIETI-rODOLOGY ...................................... .
A. The Transit Unit's Responsiveness to Crime.
B. Survey of Citizen's Opinions .. ............ . Pre-Test" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 9 " " " " "
Post-Test" " , " , " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
IV _ RESUJ-, TS " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " . " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
A. The Transit Unit's Responsiveness ......... .
B. The Survey of Citizen's Opinions ... ....... . Pl'e - Sltl"vey " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Post-Survey" " " " " " " " " "" " " " . " " " " "" " " " "" " " " . Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test .... . Random Comment s ......................... .
V. CONCIJUSIONS ......................................... .
A. CJ;..ime Statistics and the Transit Unit ......
B. Citizents Survey ..................... ······
VI. RECO~!l}.lENDAJ.. IONS ........................................................ .
i
1
3
8
8
10 10 13
14
14
20 20 36 51 69
74
75
77
c
t C f""
L
c [
EXHIBITS
Table I Time Schedul e ...... " ............. " . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 7
Table II Crime on Entire Transit System as Reported to Philadelphia Police Department for 1971 and 1972 wi tll Percent of Chan.ge .. "" ..... ""." ... " ... " .. """ ....... ,, 17
Table III -----Crime on the Transit System as Reported to SEPTA
from January 1, 1971 tluough April 30, 1973, by Surface and High Speed yehicles ......................... 18
Table IV Subway Crimes RepQrted to the Philadelphia Police Department ................................................ 19
Table V Pre-Test, Total Responses ............................... 22
Table VI Pre-Test, Question A ..........•...........•............. 30
Table VII Pre-Test, Question B ..................................... 31
Table- VIII Pre - rest, Question c. " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " .,. " " " " " " " " " " 32
Table IX Pre-'Test, Question D .................................... 33
Table X PTe-Test., Question E."""",,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 34
Table XI Pre-1'est, Question F."."",,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 3S
Table XII Post-Test, Total Responses .........................•.... 37
Table XIII ])ost 1'est, Qllestion A................................... 45
Table XIV post-rrest; Question B...................................... 46
[" : ,,j'
[
r'~ ".04
r u
[
EXHIBITS (Continued)
Table XV Post-Test, Question C ............. It •••••••••••••••• •• 47
Table XVI Post-Test, Qllestion D ............................ _ .. 48
Tc:..ble XVII Post-Test, Qllestion E ........................ II •••••• 49
Table XVIII Post-Test, Question F .•.......••... ~e ••• : ••••••••••• 50
Table XIX Total Responses, Pre and Post-Test.................. 54
Table XX Comparison of Pre and Post-Test, Question A ......... 57
Table XXI CompaTison of Pre and Post-Test, Question B •••.••••• 59
Table XXII Compi:lTi son of Pre and Post-Test, Question C. " •••.••• 61
Table XXIII Comparison of Pre and Post-Test, Question D ... _ ..... 63
Table XXIV Comparison of Pre and Post-Test, Question E ••••••••. 65
Table XXV F. _ .-...... Comparison of Pre and Post-Test, Question 67
Exhibit 1 Sample Qllestionnair·e .... _ ..... II ••••••••• -............ 79
r: c .
o [}
L;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Philadelphia was granted one million dollars by the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration in June, 1973 to
expand its police departments (PPD) Transit Unit by an
additional sixty personnel to: (1) reduce the incidence of
Part I and Part II crimes on the public transit system;
(2) increase the clearan~e rates of crimes that do occur; and
(3) reduce citizen's fear of being involved in a criminal
incident when using the sytem. In February, 1974, the Gover
nor's Justice Commission (GJC) of Pennsylvania contracted
with Police and Security Management Consul~ants (PSMC) of
Syracuse, New York to evaluate the project.
PSMC's efforts were directed towards the collection
of c-riminal statistics generated by the Transit Unit and the
gathering and analyzini of data on Philadelphia citizen's fear
of crime in the transit system. This final report presents
a face value accourrting of Part I and Part II crimes. Both
Part I's ;nd II's increased substantially following the im-
plementation of the Transit Unit's additional personnel.
Overall, Part I crimes in~reased 1.5 percent and Part II's
increased 154 percent during comparable periods in 1973 and
1974. This final report also includes the "Pre" and "Post"
project survey data and a comparison of citizen opinions about
transit system crime.
i
{:. \ ,
['\ , )
C u
P l"
o
A "Pre" test survey was conducted ln March, 1974. A
structured instrument was administered to 5,771 respondents.
Respondents were selected on a judgement random basis from
persons; (1) riding subways, (2) standing at station p1at-
forms, (3) using public streets in the Center City area,
to (4) telephoning citizens who lived wlthin six blocks of
the subway system.
The results of the "Pre" test survey indicated
Philadelphia's citizens believed crime was increasing on the
subway, they feel unsafe while using the subway system, and
they seldom see the police. However, very ,few respondents
stated they had been the victim of a crime and less than 25
pel'cent knew of anyone who had been.
A "Post" test survey of 5,904 respondents was conducted
in November, 1974 in exactly the same manner as the "PTe"
test. When the "Post" test was conducted the ad·E1itional per-
sonnel in the Transit Unit had been in the field eight months . ..
The results of the Post-test reflected that more people felt
that crime in the subway had increased, and more people felt
unsafe while Llsing the system than they did in the "Pre" test.
Virtually the same percent of respondents were victims of crimes
or'~new ef someone who had been in both surveys. There was a
very small increase in the percent of peo~le who said they saw
the police while using the system.
ii
[':
)
c , {'" I j
[
',!-
.J
C
[
['"
'".",,1
("~
. I
c c o
·-
PSMC staff conclude that respondents feel unsafe while
using the transit system and do not recognize the presence of
police. Further, that the statistical base presently available
is not sufficient to yield appropriate data for sound analysis
and decision making in the allocation and the deployment of
personnel.
PSMC recommends the continuance of ·the Transit Unit
and establishing a better- system of reporting and recording
criminal incidents. PSMC suggests an attempt be made to
learn why l'espondents feel unsafe and what could be don~ to
give them a sense of security and well being.
iii
f' , -
'l.
C' L
["
I • .,
r [
1-·~
".,
I. INTRODUCTION ".
On June 12, 1973, the Mayor's Criminal Justice
Improvement Team (MCJIT) on behalf of the Philadelphia Police
Department (PPD) proposed to the U. S. Department of Justice,
La\'J Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to receive
one million dollars ($1,000,000) to expand the PPD's Transit
Un,it tOi
1. reduce the incidence of Part I and Part II
crimes on the public transit system;
2. increase the clearance rate of crimes that do
OCCUI'; and
3. reduce citizens' fear of being involved in a
criminal incident when using the transit system.
The federal funds sought for the project were to be
u~ed to add sixty (60) policemen and four (4) sergeants to the
Transit Unit. Thirty (30) men were to be K-9 units and thirty (30)
were to be ~nder cover units or regular patrol units, depending
on the problems which existed in the system as they are identified.
At the time the proposal was submitted, the PPD indicated
it did not have enough manpower to properly patrol the system,
stating specifically on page 18 of the grant proposal, only 20%
of the fifty-nine (59) subway-elevated stations had any routinely
-1-
["
,1
[' . .,
[
r" '.J r.
'· ,~
c
["
~."'
U"~
" i
! i
assigned transit securtty and there was none on the subway
surface or surface lines. The additional manpower which the
requested LEAA funds would allow was intended to enable the
PPD Transit, Unit to deploy personnel in several ways. It
would give the Transit Unit the strength and flexibility to
cover subway areas where incidents regularly occur, permit under
covor activities and snot checks of the surface transit system.
On June 28, 1973, the PPD was informed by the LEAA
that the project was funded. On February 1, 1974 the Governor's
Justice Commission of Pennsylvania (GJC) contract<$d with Police
and Security Management Consultants, Inc. (PSMC), a division of I
CareerCo, Inc. with home offices in Syracuse, New York, to
~valuate the project.
"
-2-
C· r .,.
L n 1.J
f; .1
n ."J
U j
r"-: \ , \,.,;
F !j
('1
\ t.
r .,j
f' .r,J
r: ."",
r . ..J
r '".,J
~' ... L r~ u
C ,[J
[ .,
I
II. THE PROBLEM
Mass transportation is a Philadelphia priority. The
City recognizes the essential need of having an adequate system
where users feel safe. It is fundamental to the lifo of a
thriving city. Yet Philadelphians are not utilizing the potential
of the system. Ridership of the public transportation system in
Philadelphia, according to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans
portation Authority (SEPTAj has been declining, and a maJor reason
for this decline is public fear of crime when ~sing the system.
The PPD added sixty pOlicemen to the Transit Unit in
~Iarch, 1~74 in an attempt to restore citizen confidenco in SEPTA
;lnd to provide a safe elwironment for users of the system by
combating crime in and around the transit system.
The Transit Unit established originally in 1957 with 30
m~n had grown to 165 men and 20 K-9 Units in 1973. The Unit's
responsibilities included patrolling the Center City Concourse~
Suburban Station Concourse, subway stations and platforms, and
efeya ted 5tations and pIa tforms, as well as senlri ty of City
Hall, the City Ha;l Annex, and the Municipal Services Building.
In pddition to regular foot patrol, the Unit gives
special coverage to "school trains" during dismissal tilllC. Rou-
tinely, a policeman and, where possible, a K-9 Unit ride the
trains. The Transit Unit assigns a policeman and a dog to ride
every 11ight train on the subway and elevated systems from 1:00 a.m.
-3-
L" r~: ~, ;
r-' U
c' r' ~ [ r .. 'd
r _ J
r f~' ."
r ,~
f '. ~>
U D r~
.~~
f'~
(:i
[ n {j
n
I
to 6:00 a.m. in order to reduc0 crime and make riders feel
more secure.
Before the Unit expanded, only 20 percent of the 59
subway elevated stations were covered regularly and none of the l
subway-surface or surface lines.
The additional men were to increase the Transit police
~oveTage and thereby reduce the fear o~ crime in addition to
deploying the men to routinely patrol the high crime areas in
the same ma~ner as the unexpanded force. Police in plain c16thes
are assigned to the bus routes having the greatest criminal
problems.
A battery operated patrol car enables the police to secure
the Center City Concourse with fewer men, so that they may be -
deployed in other areas.
T~e Transit Unit is made up of vete~an police officers.
They are deployed to areas based on the information and statistics
developed b.y the PPD and SEPTA's 18 man Secu.rity Unit. The
policemen regularly assigned to a platform or station are expected
to get to know the regular riders, recognize loiterers and $chool
truants.
Tlle PPD's Transit Unit appeared to be an effective unit
when and wher~ it is deployed. Statistics gathered in period$
-4-
C'
[ "
!I [
r",
L
\ .~ '\j I
{.' i ' ..!.._J
, . r~
I . C ....
, [-'') : _ ~~l
before March 1974 reflect relatively low reported criminal
activity. Public fear, however, is a real issue. Even though
they are not adequately reflected in the statistics, the various
daily unreported indignities experienced by the public has lead
to an aura of fear and anxiety.
The rider's fear of crime is generally based on occurrences
~ of incidents reported on the system. Therefore, the second major
thrust of the p~ogram is to reduce crime and to apprehend the
pervet~ators~of any crimes that occur.
The purpose of PSMC's efforts has been to evaluate the
success and resul ts of the expanded Transi t ,Uni t made possible
by the LEAA grant. The Grant Proposal lists S1.X goals of the
Transit Unit:
1. A-S percent decrease in the number of Part I
crimes in the transit system.
2. A 5 percent increase in the clearance-rate for
Part I crimes in the transit system.
3. A greater sense of security for the citizenry of
Philadelphia through reducing the fear of crime
in the transit syst~m.
, .4.
S.
A 2 percent increase in ridership in peak hours
and a 5 percent increase in off peak hours.
A 10 percent decrease in the number of Part I
crimes in the transit system.
- 5-
[" .~j
0 .. 1 '!
[ I' ..... ", ,J
[j
1'1
. .1
6. A 10 percent increase in the clearance rate for
Part II crimes in the transit system.
Since the first thirty (30) officers of the expanded
unit were scheduled to assume their d~ties on March 23, 1974, and
a second group of thirty (30) officers planned to begin their
work on June 20, 1974, PSMC's staff prepared an evaluation focusing
on two principal tasks:
A. The first was to compare the unexpanded Transit
Unit's responsiveness to crime with the Unit;s
activities after introduct~on of the 60 additional
police officers. Specifically, the PSMC wou14
analyze the change in the PFD's crime statistics
before and after the expansion of the Unit.
B. PSMC's evaluation design also required surveying
the citizen's opinions of the transit system
crime 'before flnd after the Unit's expansion. This
,.two part survey was to determine if the expanded
Transit Unit instilled a "greater sense of security
qnd a reduction of fear of crime in the transit
system."
TABLE I indicates the time schedule and phases of the
evaluation.
-6-
[ TABLE I
1'1
j
--------------------------------~--------------------------_r------------~----~
r~ February-April 1974 April-September 1974 November 1974
(~.------------~--------------~------------------------~--------------------
[~ .J
[
[
[:
r.~' L
[ , , [ "
Pre-test
1. Collection of existing crime stat~stics and analysis of reporting system
2'. Pre-test of Citizens Opinions
Observation of Expanded Transit Unit and Collection of Crime Statistics
Post-test ,
1. Analysis of Crime Statistics and reporting system
2. Post-test of Citizen's Opinions
PSMC agreed to prepare an Interim Report in April 1974 and
a Final Report on the total project in December, 1974.
..<.' " .
.'
-7-
L
(,"" I •
It.,:
C" \ '
L .'
C" I {~
(' I , ' ......
["
.;'
III. METHODOLOGY
During the first week of March, 1974, PSMC represen
tativ'es met with staff of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans
portation Authority (SEPTA), the PPD's Transit Unit, MCJIT,
and the GJC to (1) secure information and preliminary data,
(2) discuss design and s~rveying techniques', and (3) 'arrange
logistics. On March 13, 1974~ Mr. Robert King, Director of
Security for SEPTA, and Captain Martin J. Burns, Jr., of the
PPD received--via hand delivery--the specifics of the survey
Illethodology and approved it.
A. The Transit Unit's Responsiveness to Crime
PSMC collected informatio~ regarding the operation of the
Transit Unit zs well as the criminal statistiGs gathered before
and after the Unit's expansion.
PSMC requested a full and complete briefing on:
--The organizational structure of the Philadelphi~ Police Department
--a statistical walk through "the reporting and records system"
--the daily activities of Unit personnel
--the manpower di~tribution system of Unit personnel
--supervision of Unit personnel
:-Communications system
--monthly tabulations that show reported crime and clearance rates for all Part I and II offenses for the previous three years in the transit system.
-8-
:S I,
j r c r' [ -
C [
e C' 0'
r' , .. i
n { .}
r r~ ··f .. '
['
f~ ,\.:0.,)
L r~
, I
f~"
l. -""1 \' l;
r ; . ,J
P L
Also, PSMC requested and received the following
material, reports and documents:
--Uniform Crime Reports for the past five (5) years
--department Rules and Regulations
--department Table of Organization
--department Duty Manual
--a copy of all report forms with explanation
--position classifications with descriptions' of duties and responsibilities
--Measures of Effectiveness used, i.e., crime rate, clearance rate, spot maps, etc.
--syllabus of training for Unit personnel
--selection criteria for Unit personnel
--wha~ are the major strengths of the Unit
--what are the major weaknesses of the Unit
--copy of all Standard Operating Procedures for the Department
--Policy and Procedure regarding the operational relationship between District and Unit personnel
--Monthly summary statistics comparing previous mQnth and year for crimes reported and arrests made
--a copy of any statistical studies made on the Unit
--any computer print outs and how they are being used, how information is being disseminated, time f~ctor, etc.
- 9 - .
1 ,
1...1
{ , i !
\ ; r . . '
r'
[1 r" 11 l 1 .' I
E1
PSMC's approach was to compare the Part I and Part II
crimes reported to the PPD both before the expansion and after
the Unit increased its manpower.
B. Survey of Citizen's Opinions
Nine members of PSMC's staff conducted a two-part survey
of citizens in Philadelphia. The first part, a pre-test, was
administered during the we~k of March 18-22, 1974; and the
second part, a post-test, was conducted during the week of
November 18-22, 1974.
The survey focused on the citizen's response to six
questions. Exhibit 1 presents the instrument used by PSMC staff.
PRE-TEST
The instrument was administered via personal interview
and phone interview to a total of 5,771 respondents. PSMC con
tracted with the North American Marketing Corporation of Fort -
Wa$hington, Pennsylvania, a firm specializing in phone surveys, to
do phone int ... erviews with 2,997 Philadelphia residents who lived
within six blocks on either side of the SEPTA main lines. PSMC
~taff interviewed 297 subway riders while on the subway, 2,177
~itizens on the street outside of the subway stations, and 303
citizens on subway platforms inside subway stations.
-10-
[' '. ( .
r" \
t I
(
! l.:
r
i L .
"'l'
, .. \ .
r-" I :
U
G [
( .
Equipped with identification from SEPTA and the PPD,
and ~orking in teams, PSMC staff interviewed Philadelphia
citizens at the following locations during the week:
Subway Riders
Broad Street Line Market Street Line Frankford Elevated
Station Platforms
Columbia Station 69th Street Station
Lehigh Sta·tion Walnut and Locust Station
Street Interviews
Center City, an area between 8th Street on the east and 16th Street on the west) Walnut Street on the south, and Pine Street on the north;
Olney Station 69th Street
Somerset Huntingdon
York-Dauphin Erie
A11egheney North Philadelphia
Bridge Street Erie-Torrenda1e
Snyder Spring Garden
Fairmount
-11-
["".J , "
[
c c
C' t,!
While the instrument was a strict interview schedule
(i.e., the same questions asked in the same way in the same
sequence) a color code was established to differentiate the
TeSponse~ of citizens from different locations. InstTuments
for the phone survey were pTinted on white papeT; platfoTms
instruments weTe pTinted on green papeT; street instTuments weTe
pripted on blue papeT. Also, notations were' made to specify
exact locations for platfo~m interviews and additional random
comments from interviewees were noted.
PSMC team membeTs weTe at the above locations by 6 a.m.
in pTder to inteTview peak-houT travelleTs. After a brief mid
day break, they would interview mid-afternoon and late rush
hour travellers. It was felt that these methods would insure the
intervi~wing of a broad cross-section of the City's populace.
Potential respondents were selected on a judgment-random
basis. Each PSMC, staff member introduced himself/.her~elf (four
of the interviewers were women) as "doing a survey for the City
of Philadclp'11ia." The interviewers were supervised during their
field work by PSMC's Vice-President, Donald M. Stoughton, who
periodically c,llected the instruments from the staff. SuperT
visors ,from the North American Marketing Corporation called back
ever~ fifth phone instrument to verify that the call had been
made and the responses recorded propeTly and accuTately.
-12-
[
[
'[ , ..
",,:
[
r'"
L
[
[
C ["I
L
rl
L
Q
[
[
POST TEST
DUTing the week of NovembeT 18-22, 1974, the post-survey
was administeTed in the same manneT as the pre-survey. The
instTument fOTm, inteTview questioning techniques, locations
and time of day Temained constant. A variation in the survey
administration might have caused a variation in Tesponses between
the two surveys due to the administration rather than a change
in opinions.
TheTe were 5,904 citizens questioned in the post-survey.
PSMC conducted 2,073 personal interviews on the street, 300 on
the subway platforms, and 394 on the subway. The North American
Marketing Corporation made 3,137 inquiries by phone.
The instruments ~or the pre- and post-surveys were hand
tallied by four PSMC staff membeTs. The data-tally sheets were
verified by a supervisoT and subjected to appTopriate statistical
pTocedures.
-13-
[.'.';)
...
[
[
[""' ,.,i
[
[
[
[ PI
L
[
[
IV. RESULTS
A. The Transit Unit's Responsiveness
PPD and SEPTA personnel provided complete access to infor
mation and a high degree of cooperation for PSMC. Crime statistics
of the PPQ since 1971 were obtained. Data for earlier years was
not available. Information was gathered on the unexpanded Transit
Unit as well as the Unit after the 60 additional officers assumed
their clutie s.
TABLE II indicates the total number of crimes reported
to the PPD for 1971 and 1972. In 1972, overall major crime
(Part I Crime) on the Public Transit System increased 2.9%.
This is in direct contrast to the 4.5% decrease in major crime
for the City'as a whole in 1972.
Significant increases occurred in the number!? of robberies
and larcenies (over $50).
The Part II crimes, however, showed a 4ecrease of 25.3%
overall, how~ver, there were significant increases in weapons,
sex and narcotic offenses and vagrancy.
A compa_ison of the crimes reported to the PPD (TABLE II)
~nd the, crin1es reported to SEPTA's Security Force (TABLE III)
shows,a great disparity. SEPTA reports 1,400 more incidents of .
crime than the PPD for both 1971 and 1972. This supports the
contention that only a small percentage of the incidents occurring
on the Transit System are reported to the PPD.
-14-
r" L
n [
c c·
, .. ,1
'f}
i
U
[
[
[
This strongly supports the need for close collaboration
between the Transit Unit and SEPTA.
TABL~ IV provides a comparison of the incidents of Part I
and Part II crimes on the Transit System reported to the police
during two time periods.
The table shows statistics reported between April 1
and September 30, 1974, the months immediately following the
Unit's expansion, as well as the statistics gathered for the
same months in 1973.
In the months following the expansion, the statistics
available for Part I crimes indicate a 100 percent increase in
homicide, a 62.5 percent rise in burglary and a 22.9 percent
increase in larceny. There appears to have been an 18.8 percent
decrease III rOQbery, and a 25 percent decrease in aggravated
assault. The total number of reported Part I crimes increased
from 133 to 135, a plus 1.5 percent change.
A comparison of the reported Part II crimes shows major
increases in all crimes except fraud, which decreased by 100 per
cent. Disorderly conduct increased by 550 percent; vandalism
increased by 129 percent; simple assault, arson, stolen property
increased by 100 percent; weapons offenses increased by 44 percent,
sex o£fenses increased by 24 percent; and narcotics increased by
6 percent.
-15-
[ .. e>
r L
[
[
.[ I . ['1 I .,.,
["
,.
c c
The total number of reported Part II crimes increased
from 111 in 1973 to 282 in 1974, a plus 154 percent change.
The increase may be due in part to 'ehe greater number
of policemen on patrol to witness and report the criminal acts.
This is probably true in the cases of reported disorderly conduct
and vandalism, which according to the available data, increased
tremendously after the force expanded.
The disparity between SEPTA's crime figures and the
data compiled by the PPD, is an indication that there is no I
firm ~tatistical base to draw comparisons.
The fact that many surv~y respondents said they failed
to report crime to the police is another indication that re
ported crime figures" are much lower than actual crime.
-" Although SEPTA and the PPD agree all incidents should
be reported and accurately recorded, at present there are not
sufficient controls to insure this occurs.
Tran;it Unit crime statistics presented in this report
are not categorized by location, or time of occurrance, only
by type of inci~ence. It is PSMC's understanding that incident
time and location information is given to Transit Unit Commanders
on a monthly basis. This would limit and restrict the flexibility
of manpower distribution and deployment.
-16-
f"', I \ .
f'
r ~ .
c c
'" \
( . . l .~
r~ I . L.
r' t~..J
f~'
L
,C
TABLE II
ENTIRE TRANSIT SYSTEM AS REPORTED TO PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPT. CRIME ON FOR 1971 AND 1972 WITH PERCENT OF CHANGE
Part I 19'71 1972 % Change
2 2 . 0 Homicide
15 5 -66.7 Rape
169 191 +13.0 Robbery 41 -10.9 Aggravated Assault 46 -40.0 15 9 Burglary
29 36 +24.1 Larceny (Over $50)
TOTAL 276 284 +2.9%
Part II
114 113 -0.9 (Under $50) -24.2 Larceny
95 72 Other Assaults 298 170 -43.0
Vandalism 26 33 +26.9
Weapons Offenses 2; 7 44 +18.9
Sex Offenses 6 14 +133.3
Narcotic Offense-s 84 35 -58.3
Disorderly Conduct 0.0 1 1 Gambling 6 +50.0 4 -13.0 Vagrancy 69 60 ---Other
TOTAL 734 548 -25.3%
.'
-17-
r .' r'" ...
[
,L
, L.
{ i l.
Ll
o [ \
TABLE III
CRIME ON THE TRANSIT SYSTEM AS REPORTED TO SEPTA FROM JANUARY 1, 1971 THROUGH APRIL 30, 1973, BY SURFACE AND HIGH SPEED VEHICLES
Surface 1971
Vandalism 971
1972 %
849
Chan&e 1973 (Jan. thru Apri~i r~ L:
Graffitti 52 Robbery 1 162 Fare Evasion 58 Assault 2, 162 Tresspassing 19 Rowdyism' 227 .Misc. 127
TOTAL 1,778
Highspeed: Ridge, Frankford-Market, Broad ,
Vandalism 115 Graffitt~ 97 Robbery 1 146 Fare 13va;>ion 42 As:o;au1t 2 41 Tresspassing 48 Rowdyism 113 Misc. 78
,TOTAL pSO
Total for Entire System 2,458
43 ISO
48 170
12 169
96
1,537
Subway:
199 S6
165 49 36 29
133 46
713
2,250
-12.6 -17.3 - 7.4 -17.2 + 4.9 -36.8 -25.6 -24.4
-13.6
+73.0 -42.3 +13.0 +16.7 -12.2 -39.6 +17.7 -41.0
+ 4.9
8.5
192 1
34 7
51
26 15
326
45 7
120 16 24 14 56 23
305
1. Robbery: All thefts are included in this category; no attempt has been made to differentiate between robbery and larceny.
"
2. Assault: All assau1tsar~ included in this category; no attempt has been made to differentiate between aggravated assaults and other a~saults.
-18-
""1
U r'l , LJ
II tJ
( .'. L.
[
[ ~ .. '
o
TABLE IV
SUBWAY CRIMES REPORTED TO THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMEN'I,
Part I Crimes Reported
(Ap!1il ~ - Sept. 30 1973, 74)
Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated A & 13 Burglary Larceny
TOTAL
Part II Crimes Repol1ted
(April 1 - Sept. 30 1973, 74)
Simple Assall1t Arson Fraud Stolen Property Vandalism Weapons Sex ,Offenses Narcotic~ Disor~erly Conduct All Other Offenses
TOTAL
1973
0 0
69 8 8
48
133
16 o 1 o
21 16 21 18
2 16
111
-19-
1974
1 0
56 6
13 59
135
32 1 o I
48 23 26 55 13 83
282
g, n CHANGE
+100.0%
18.8% - 25.0% + 62.5% + 22.9%
+ 1. 5%
+100.0% +100.0% -100.0% +100.0% +129.0% + 44.0% + 24.0% + 6.0% +550.0% +419.0%
+154.0%
f~~
I t •
I" , ,""
f··· ...
r I
!r l..
f '. ! , '"
("' I I L J
! •
I '.
,--'" ;
l~
r" L ,,'
[
L~
L ['" ·.~i
[
.'
B. The Survey of Citizen's Opinions
PSMC Staff was impressed with the high percentage of
persons contacted through the two part survey who were willing and
cooperative respondents. The majority of respondents were pleasant,
courteous a~d appeared thoughtful about their responses. PSMC
Staff estimates 75 to 85 percent of those persons approached were
willing respondents. The data collected during the pre and post
~urvey periods are reflected in the following graphs and tables.
Pre-Survey
TABLE V reflects the opinions of the 5,771 citizens who
responded to the six questions of the pre-test.
Question A, "In the past year do you ,feel crime 1n the
subways or buses has increased or decreased?" Forty-two percent
(21427) of the respondents felt crime had increased; 27 percent
(1,55Q) said crime had decreased; and 31 percent (1,794) said
they had no opinion. Sixty-one percent of those who had an opin
ion said they felt crime had increased in the subways during the
past year, while 39 percent felt it had decreased.
.. Question B, 51 percent (2,963) said they felt safe when,
they were asked "How do you feel when you ride the subway or
bus?" Forty- ti.ree percent (2,523) said they felt unsafe. Six
percent (285) had no opinion to this question. Fifty-seven
percent of those who had an opinion said they felt safe while
riding the subway or bus, 43 percent felt unsafe.
-20-
I
U rl ~ : l J
1""1
I
11_.
, I
Ie If:
, " .
i L ..
, j'"l
L
["' .)
r .....
L~,; , , ,
In answering Questions C and D ln TABLE V, 6 percent
(309) of the respondents said they had been the victim of a
threat, mugging, beating or robbery and 23 percent (1,300)
said they knew of SOmeone who had. Ninety-two percent of those
who responded said they had not been a victim of a threat,
mugging, beating or robbery while riding the subway.
Questions E and F relate to police response time and
"sense of presence" or police visability. Eighty-eight per-
cent (5,094) of those persons who responded to Question E had
~o opinion regarding how fast or slow the police respond to an
incident. The majority of respondents (91 percent) had an opinion
on how often they saw the police while riding the subway or bus.
Sixty-four percent of those with an opinion, or 3,289 respondents
said they ~eldom saw the police; and 36 percent (1,928) said they
saw the police _often.
TABLE V presents the pre-test opinion of a large number
of respondents. It indicates the respondents believe crime in
the subway and buses has increased. Only half of those respon
dents felt saf~ while using the system. A very small percent
said they had been victims and approximately one in five said
they knew of some one who had been a victim. The majority of
people interviewed had no opinion regarding police respo.lse time.
Respondents did, however, feel almost 2 to 1 that they seldom
saw the police while riding the subway or bus.
-21-
r , ./ I , L~
n Ld
13
n.' L~
~
\]
[1
o f]
[} r"l I. t J
[]
U []
['"1 ..-.I
C ['1
U
[
TABLE Il. PRE-TEST
TOTAL RESPONSES
( N = 5,771 )
A. IN THE PAST YEAR DO YOU FEEL CRIME IN THE SU SWAYS OR ON BUSES HAS INCREASED OR DECREASED?
100 % C IJ.J Z (f) 0
75 @/o <t z l.&J 0:: U
5 o~{, z
25°/0
23
B. HOW 00 YOU FEEL WHEN YOU RIDE THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
I OOo;,~
75%
50o/~
" 25%
W LI.. <[ (f)
4
-22-
z o Z Q.. o o z
5 6
f f. I j
I ,
r'}
t
r-, .-'
[~; , ~d
C. IN THE PAST YEAR, HAS ANYONE MUGGED, ROBBED, BEATEN OR THREATENED YOU WHILE YOU WERE RIDI NG THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
500/0
25%
a z
z o z a. o o z
D. IN THE PAST YEAR o DO YOU t<NOW OF ANYONE WHO .. ,WAS MUG G ED, R 08 BED, 8 EAT EN 0 R T H REA TEN E D W H,I L E THEY WERE RIDING THE SU8\tVAV OR BUS?
75%,
25%
o z
10 II
-23-
C' [.
[
[
[
[
["" \,~J
['''' , ....
[
['~
, J
["" - \
,J
[
[--~ .. c. j
-- ---~ ---------------
E. WHERE YOU WERE THE VICTIM OF A ROBBERY, MUGGING, BEATING OR THREAT WHILE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR IN CASES THAT YOU KNOW OF, HOW FAST DIDTHE POLICE ARRIVE?
F.
13 14 15
HOW OFTEN DO YOU S~E POLICE WHILE RIDING THE SUSV1AY OR BUS?
100°/" ~ 0 z 0 0
75 % ..J Z
Z W UJ CJ)
Q.
50°/10 t- o L&.. 0 0 ~ z 0
25 % co .0
-24-
Lj
C~ L~
c r-L
[
[
[;
[
c
.- .
Tables VI through XI represent the aggregate responses
for the (1) street interviews, (2) platform interviews, (3)
rider interviews, and (4) telephone interviews. They are pre
sented in horizontal bar graphs, each consecutive table being
Question A through F of the interview instrument. A review
of these six tabl~s shows a close similarity in responses to
all questions, with the exception of TABLE VII.
..... TABLE VI, responses to Question A, "In the
past year do you feel crime in the subway or
on the buses has increased or decreased,"
43 percent (947) of the respondents to the
street interview said that crime had increased;
24 percent (SIS) said it decreased; and 33
percent (415) had no opinion.
The number of persons interviewed by phone was
2,994. Forty-two percent (1,257) believed crime
increased; 29 percent (872) said it decreased;
and 29 percent (865) had no opinion.
..... The survey was administered to 600 persons in
contact with the system. Three hundred and three
responded to questioning on the subway platform,
and the interview team surveyeJ 297 subway riders;
40 percent (120) of the rider~ thought crime had
increased; 25 percent (74) said crime had decreased;
and 35 percent (103) had no opinion. Thirty-four
-25-
I, ~
y l .
n 'L
c [
'"
,,'
[I
L L L
, C' L
[
"'1
,-,
['~
.4
o C'
o
"
percent (103) of the platform respondents said
crime had increased; 29 percent (89) said crime
had decreased; and 37 percent (111) had no
opinion.
..... In response to Question B, TABLE VII, "How do
you feel when you ride the subway or bus?",
66 percent (197) of the riders said they felt
safe; 30 percent (88) felt unsafe; and 4 'percent
(12) had no opinion.
Fifty-two percent (1,130) of the street respon
dents said they felt safe; 45 p~rcent (988) felt
unsafe; and 3 percent (59) had no opinion.
Fifty-eight percent (177) of the platform respon
dents said they felt safe; 39 percent (119) felt
unsafe; and 2 percent (7) expressed no opinion.
Forty-nine percent (1,459) of the persons inter
~ viewed on the phone said they felt safe; 44
percent (1,325) felt unsafe; and 7 percent (207)
had no opinion.
Approximately 50 percent of the total respondents
said they felt safe; 45 percent indicated they
felt unsafe.
-26-
r ..... , , I \}
['~ • J
[' ..
• 1
c· C C P r"\ L
..... Approximate1y 90 percent of the respondents replied
negatively to Question C, "In the past year has
anyone mugged, robbed, beaten or threatened you
while yoti were riding the subway or bus?" Eight,
percent (171) of the street respondents said they
had been a victim of crime on the transit system;
91 percent (1,983) had not; and 1 percent (23)
had no opinion. (TABLE VIII)
Three percent (88) of the phone respondents said
yes; 94 percent (2,808) ~esponded negatively; and , . 3 percent (98) expressed no opinion.
Twelve percent (28) of the individuals who answered
the questionnaire on the subway platforms respond~d
affirmatively; 86 percent (269) negatively; and
2-percent (6) expressed no opinion.
Seven percent (22) of the riders said they had been
victims; 92 percent (272) said they had not; and
• 1 percent (3) had no opinion.
... .. TABLE IX, regarding Question D shows 15 percent (455)
ot the phone respondents said they knew of someone
who had been mugged, robbed, beaten or threatened
while they were riding the subway or bus, and 85
percent (2,499) gave a "no" response.
-27-
f" • I, I. •
c
1."1 L
L~
[-' .J
Thirty-one percent (664) of the street respondents
said they knew of a victim; 69 percent (1,513)
did not.
Thirty-one percent (93) of the platform respondents
knew a victim; 69 percent (210) responded negatively.
Thirty percent (88) of the riders said they knew
of a victim; 70 percent (209) said they did not.
..... TABLE X, Question E, was asked only of those persons
who had been the victim of a robbery, mugging,
beating or threat while riding the subway or bus or
who knew of someone who had been a victim. Four
percent (122) of the phone respondents indicated
the police response was fast; 5 percent (146) felt
tIre response was slow; and 91 percent (2,726) had
no opinion.
-Seven percent (21) of the riders said the police
.arrived quickly; 6 percent (17) felt the response
was slow; and 87 percent (259) expressed no opiniqn.
Flve percent (14) of the platform respondents ~aid
the police arrived quickly; 7 percent (21) said
the police responded slowly; and 88 percent (268)
gave no opinion.
-28-
~l; ..~.
'1'" r· I I ,
r' ..
r: r' .. -
r l. ,
C"' L [., 't .. }
r , '
r ( . 1 t,~ ,.:f
'r t.~
( . L r~ L..-
[
C f' '-.w'
C C P L
Four percent (94) of the respondents interviewed
on the street said the police arrived quickly;
11 percent (242) said they arrived slowly; and
85 percent (1,841) gave no opinion.
.... . TABLE XI, Question F, "How often do you see the
police while riding the subway or bus?" was asked
of all the respondents. Thirty-three percent (717)
of the street respondents said they see the police
often; 64 percent (1,385) said seldom; and 3
percent (75) expressed no opinion.
Thirty-seven percent (Ill) of t~e platform re
spondents said they see the police often; 63 per-
cent (191) said they seldom see "t.he police.
',l'Wenty- seven percent (8 0) of the riders notice
the police often; 70 percent (207) saw the police
seldom; and 3 percent (10) gave no o~inion.
Phone survey elicited 34 percent (1,020) "often"
responses; 50 percent (1,506) negative responses;
and 16 percent (468) gave no opinion to this
question.
-29-
I
(A
o
1""J ~ ~~, ,,_.;,; t... ...
STREET JNTERVIEWS
(N=2,177)
PLATFORM INTERVI EWS
I (N~303)
RIDER INTERVI EWS
(N=297)
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
(N=2,994)
~ .. ~~ ~~ ; ~
i. ; r1~~~
I.. ;
I
(A
i--'
STREET INTERVIEWS ,
(N=2,1771,
PLATFORM INTERVIEWS
(N=303)
RIDER INTERVIEWS
(N=297,
TELEPHONE I NTERVI EWS
(N:II 2,994)
r-"': .:.., ~,,;
--- - -- -----------------~--------
~ ,.,.-,-., t...J L ;,
,.---. .. ~ r----t I ~
~-, . J ~ ( ..
TAB'LE 1ZI - PRE-T·EST
.~ ,....;:;.,-.,. lc J. ~ . " ~ ., 0 ....
A. IN THE PAST YEAR, 00 YOU FEEL CRIME IN THE SUBWAY OR ON BUSES HAS
P' > > \ " > > \ , \" \ \l ) '" "')J ! " \ \ \\ \\\ \)"" '.) '. \ \\ \ , INC REA SED J
P) \\ " \\ \ \ \\ \) \\ .) ,', ,'.~ \ \' \\ ) \ \ \ 'li J NCR E AS ED
P \ " " \ ) \ \ \\ " " " i " \ ;:;.-. \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \'i INC R EA SED i
f{{ILlIIllU{{lU,.-;, ':-'q/lU/lfUA NO OPI N ION
P \ , , , ) ) " " ) " ) P» H-. F" "1' > ) \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ H)II INC R EA SED
.~ ____ ~~,DECREASED
25% 50% 75% '.----'-:::::;-.:::::
r~l
100%
rIo
r--": t o'
-----t ~ .. - .. I/ t ; .t. ..
~ r---~ .r--~~ "...-_ .. -~ 1 .. ~ -." 1
.".-,.,,-~ .----~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,:t : ... • ,) t~ i V-""''' ..,.
~ f"""--'-~
TABLE 1ZII - PRE-T.EST
B. HOW DO YOU FEEL 'NHEN YOU RIDE THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
~ \ \ \\.,:;, '\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \\ \, '";") j"' \' \, \ \ \, \ \\ \ \ \, \ \ \ P \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \) SA F E
30Qi~UNSAFE
NO OPINION
f:" }'},\ \ \ \ ) \ \ , " \ \ \ \ '\ \ -, : ~y , > } \ } " \ \ } \ \ > \ " \ \ ) ,\I SA FE I
r-___________ ~~ __ ---__ -~IUNSAFE
NO OPINION I"'" "
I 25 % 50% 75% 100 %
.,-....,.., j
. ~'.":'
I~ iN
~ l ..; ~ ~- , M - ........ l... "
STREET INTERVIEWS
,
(N=2,177) ,
-
PLATFORM INTERVIEWS
(N=303)
. RIDER INTERVI EWS
\
(N= 297)
TELEPHONE I NTERVI EWS
(N= 2,994)
r4' ~ lJ M rJ
, VI VI
STREET INTERVI EWS
I
(N=2,177),
PLATFORM INTERVI EWS
(N = 303)
RI DER I NTERV I EWS
(N=297)
TELEPHONE INTERVI EWS
(N= 2,994)
1'""---. L._ .,,~ ~ '- -'"
, .-
r---'" 4 ~ --""' .... .,.;
....--....-, ; L} c--i ~ , ,
r.----~ j
TABLE VI" - PRE-TEST
~l :. ". ~ .~ ~ -'-r r---'l ~" ~
C. IN THE PAST YEAR, HAS ANYONE MUGGED, ROBBED, BEATEN OR THREATENED YOUWHiLE YOU WERE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
,
~Bo/~ YES
t 91 '%, JNO I
~ I %, NO OPt NION
~'12 0/&1 YES
86 % jNO
J ~ 2 % NO OPINION
'~oiJYES
92 % JNO
I -
~ I % NO OPINION
I
~3c/o YES
94 % JNO
I ~3% NO OPINION
I
------1
25 % 50% 75-% 100 %,
.....-.-.. [ j !""~ f-~l r'} :--~ r---, r~ r"} r--~
~ j ;--; \, .. l FJ "----r .--~ r .... -! ~
~ > ....... .:
TABLE IX - PRE-T-EST
D. IN THE PAST YEAR, 00 YOU KNO\V OF ANYONE WHO WAS MUGGED, -ROBBED, BEATEN OR THREATENED WHILE THEY YJERE RI 01 NG THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
1
VII 1/ 1111 ( II {{IUIIII!!,1 1111111111/1/1/1,,(,-, " - / /11/ /I II I 1/ {/ II/ I !III II I (( ( ( ({ , NO I J
25 % 50% 75% 1000/0
~ ~ ~ ~ l· .. ~~ E.......oJ ~ ....... ..,) l~ --. .1
STREET INTERVI EWS
I
( N = 2, 177)
I PLATFORM VI
t I NTERVI EWS
rj
(N=303)
RI DER INTERVI:EWS
(N=297)
TELEPHONE I NTERVI EWS
(N=2.994)
(r_,:) r'J ,...,--, L .. ,- '.!
TELEPHONE . I NTERVI EWS
(N= 2,994)
~ ~ :---J r--~ ~ ~~ r~- r-~ ;.---, ;~ I.. rJ L..,: .... # • .. t .. :,.;. .... ,.. ,; J ... -1 ~, .. J
~ ,-.-, ~ (;.. l •• .....-.; .. J
,~
TABLE X - PRE-TEST E. WHERE YOU \EVERt THE VICT-I M OF A ROBBERY, MUGGING, BEAT1NG OR
THREAT WHILE RIDING THE SU8'NAY OR IN CASES THAT YOU KNOW OFo HOW FAST 0 J D THE PO Lie EAR R I V E ?
__ ~. SLO\V
NO ,{((II II( II{(II (II {{{{II I{ I III (( IIII( 1111 I II it !It' {{! 111111 (II( IIII( II 11111 II( /I {{ (I (140PINION
I
...-..-, . ..;
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
r--:>. <c •• " ..J ~ r~ ~ .J ,-. ' .. ..,)
r~ . .,' ~~! t.~ ... ""~
~~. l, " j '-~
~.. _r r-:~'~ J.... ;.:J
r:-:-:n \. .,j-t)/
TABLE XI - PRE~TEST
:----) ~ .. .....J
~ ,--.-., t -J i It , ) . .J -....-, C'---~ t " ~_ J
F. HOW-QFTEN DO YOU SEE POLl CE WHILE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
-,"" 'v ,SELDOM
I({«(,('-,,',-ULONO OPINION
I 25 % 50 0
/0 750/0 100 %
'"
i .' ,,"
r~
[' _ ..
P L
Post-Survey:
..... TABLE XII presents the opinion of 5,904 respondents
surveyed eight months after the Transit Unit
expanded its police force.
Question A, "In the past year do ~TOU feel crime
in the subways or on buses has increased or de-
creased?" 51 percent (3,094) said crime had in-
creased; 18 percent (1,104) said it had decreased;
and 31 percent (1,862) said they had no opinion.
Seventy-three percent of those who had an op.inion
said they thought crime had increased. Twenty-seven
percent said they thought it had decreased.
Question B, 43 per~ent (2,597) said they felt
safe while riding the bus or subway; 48 percent
(~,876) said they felt unsafe; 9 percent (547)
said they had no opinion. Of those who expressed
an opinion, 47 percent said they fe1~ safe; 53
percent felt unsafe.
Six percent (338) of the respondents said they had
been the victim of a threat, mugging, beating or
robbery in the past year; and 24 percent (1,353)
said they knew of someone who had.
-36-
\ r' I..
[
[
C C [
I
.<
[~ -. . , "J
TABLE XI[
POST-TEST
TOTAL RESPONSES
(N = 5,904)
A. IN THE PAST YEAR DO YOU FEEL CRIME IN THE ? SUBWAYS OR ON BUSES HAS INCREASED OR DECREASED.
0 IOO@/" llJ
CJ) Z <C 0 0 W w 75"/0 0::: z U CJ)
:2 q: O. I.&.l 0
50 Q/., ~ 0
U Z ....0 w 25"/0
0'" 0
~ lO 0
·111
B. HOW DOYOU FEEL WHEN YOU RIDE THE SUB_WAY 'OR BUS?
.-
75°/0 ~ I.!.J La... <C
~ (J) ~
~ fJ f- rt')
~.
-37-
LaJ L&.. <C CJ)
Z :l
r---
~ 0
CO V
z o z a. o o z tfl en o
r' . c'
[
f·.,
... '
[
r L
[
[~'
.'
r: L.
: [" ',J:
C. IN THE PAST YEAR, HAS ANYONE MUGGED, ROBBED, BEATEN OR THRE:ATENED YOU WHILE YOU WERE RI DING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
1000/or 0 z z
0 75% Z
",,0 a.. 50,}'o Cf)
0" 0 w 0 o· >- 0')
Z 25% ... ~
0
to
D. IN THE PAST YEAR, DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE WHO WAS MUGGED, ROBBED, 8EATEN OR THf~EATENED WHI LE THEY WERE RIDING THE SUB'IfJAV OR BUS? -
100% 0 z
75°10
50% en ;I-LU (I)
25% )- i"-
tr ... v C\I
-38-
C' , t
[
".[
. f' , l ~
C :[
f" ~ 0'; I • f\ !, ',;., ~
. ['" : ' r J
~ U! /- , iJ ~
! iC ~ ~1
" ' , "
~
E. WHERE YOU WERE THE VICTIM OFA ROBBERY MUGGING 8E~TING OR THREAT WHILE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR IN CAS'ES THJ-:.T YOU t(NOW OF, HOW FAST DID THE POLICE ARRIVE?
~ 50 u/o (I)
« l.!..
25% ~ 0 1.0
~ 0 -.J U)
~ 0
00
z o z
00: 20
~ en 00
F. HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEE POLICE WHILE RIDING T~E SUBVJAY OR BUS?
Z 100 %
~ 0
0 Z 75% 0 a. z -'
I.LJ LaJ 0
.... (J) 0 50% LA.. :z
0 ~ ~ 0 0
25% - ~ 0 to 0
LO 10 rt)
-39-
I;
\.
\" L.
fi , ~J
f' 'f .~
C [ ,
[
r ..
[
r' "
r .-
r' r' • 4
t. [ f: 4L
C " : ..
m ~: '/
~
-
Ninety percent of those who responded had never
been a victim; 76 percent did not know of anyone
who had been a victim in the past year.
Eighty-nine percent (5,272) had no opinion regarding
how fast the police responded to an incident.
Eight y-five, percent did have an opinion when asked
how often they saw the police while riding the
subway or bus. Forty-one percent (2,088)' saw them
often; 59 perc~nt (2,945) saw them seldom.
TABLE XII presents the post-test opinion of nearly
6,000 respondents. The majority of respondents said
they believe crime has increased. Less than half
fe~t safe while using the System. Very few were
victims of crime and less than one-quarter of the
respondents knew of anyone who had been in the past
year. More than half of the respondents said they
seldom saw the police ~hile riding the subway or
bus .
.... :TABLES XIII through XVIII represents the aggregate
re~ponses for the street, platform, rider, and
telephone interviews. The responses to most
questions were similar.
-40-
[I \ . (-.... I
i t.
, , f·....,
;U
r ''''l .. ' , i
U
.n · \ I · L;
L"'~
. j
· r ~ , ~ , L ..
r' L
[
U r' l . "'~
The majority of respondents said they thought
crime had increased. Thirty-three percent (1,690)
of the 3,137 phone respondents said crime had
increased; 17 percent (554) said it decreased; and
30 percent (986) had no opinion.
..... TABLE XIII, Question A, 52 percent (1,074) of
the 2,073 persons interviewed on the street said
crime had increased; 19 percent (412) said it
decreased; and 29 percent (60e) expressed no
opinion.
The 394 riders and the 300 platform respondents
responded similarly. Thirty-eight percent (152) I
of the riders said crime had increased; 24 percent
(93) said it decreased; and 38 percent (150) gave
no opinion.
Forty-four percent (133) of the platform respondents
said crime had increased; 16 percent (45) said it
decreased; and 40 percent (118) gave no opinion,
..... TABLE XIV, Question B, 64 percent (251) of the
riders felt safe; 35 percent (138) felt unsafe; and
1 percent (6) gave no opinion. Sixty-five percent
d felt safe', 34 per-{195) of the platform respon ents
cent (106) said they felt unsafe; and 1 percent (2)
gave no opinion.
-41-
r" I " L
r \" J
[
[
r ," ,
C '_M'/
r" L [''\ , L
r~ f ",
f L ..
'j
L r' c.
C' ,oJ
L [1
U [,
,,'
[ "
[
Forty-six percent (997) of the street respondents
felt safe; 47 percent, 1,001 felt unsafe; and
7 percent (176) gave no opinon.
Thirty-seven percent (1,154) of the phone respondents
said they felt safe; 52 percent (1,631) said they
felt unsafe; and 11 percent (363) gave no opinion.
Sixty-five percent of the persons in contact with
the transit system, the riders and platform
respondents, s~id they felt safe while riding the
transit system. Approximately 40 percent of
those who were interviewed on the street or ~y phone
said they felt safe.
..... TABLE XV, Question C, 9 percent (180) of the street
respondents replied affirmatively when asked if
they had been a victim of a robbery, mugging,
beating or threat on the subway or bus in the past
year; 90 percent (1,800) replied negatively; and
1 percent (20) gave no opinion.
Eight percent (25) of the platform respondents said
they had been a victim of crime; and 92 percent (277)
said they had not.
Eight percent (30) of the riders were victims; 92
percent (365) were not.
-42-
r-I' ", r
( L
f" r" t ,
r' L
["' ', .. J
Three percent (103) of the phone respondents said
they were victims; and 90 percent (2,840) were not.
Twenty-four percent (662) of the phone respondents
knew of someone who had been a victim; 76 percent
(2,377) did not.
. .... In TABLE XVI, 21 percent (82) of the riders knew
of someone who was a victim; 79 percent (309)
did not.
..... TABLE XVII, Question E, was asked of all persons
who had been victims or had knowledge of "t" a V:LC :LUl.
Four percent (13) of the platform respondents said
the police arrived quickly; 6 percent (19) said
slowly; and 90 percent (26~) gave no opinion.
Six percent (127) of the persons interviewed on
tEe street said police responded quickly; 9 percent
(206) said slowly; and 85 percent (1,7~0) gave no
opinion.
• Four percent (131) of the phone respondents said the
police answered quickly; 3 percent (97) said slowly;
and 93 percent (2,907) expressed no opinion.
Three percent (IS) of the riders said the police
response was fast; 5 percent (20) said it was slow;
and 92 percent (359) gave no opinion.
-43-
r' \ ,
r~
u r~
L
i C"' l >
I r" L.
r~
i L
['. ,r
[".~ )
..... In response to Question F, TABLE XVIII, "Do you see
the police seldom or often when you ride the subway
or bus," 45 percent (177) of the riders said they
sec the police often; S4 percent (211) seldom; and
1 percent (7) expressed no opinion.
Fifty-three percent (160) of the platform respondents
sec the police often; 46 percent (140) see them
seldom; and 1 percent (4) gave no opinion.
Fifty percent of the respondents in contact with
the system said they see the police often. Approx
imately 35 percent of the street and phone respondents
said they see the police oftenl
Specifically, 39 percent (811) of the street respon-
dents see them often; 55 percent (1,127) see them -seldom; and 6 percent (96) gave no opinion.
Twenty-nine percent (940) of the phone respondents
see the police often; 46 percent (1,426) see them
seldom; and 25 percent (809) gave no opinion.
-44-
'"
(' , I
\ ,
r"
\ l .
I ,
( ~
i
L
( . i L. t '
! ;
L t.r
[
('
L \'1 ti
fo.'
• ..J
1\,) (]I
~ (.)
-
z o o -0
Z -o z
II
U1 ------t" o ~ o
-
2 o o ""0
o :2
II
2 o ;0 I'll »
----(l) P1 o
-Sv--z II
()J
o o -
z o o -0
Z
o '"-II' e.;..
--0 Zr
~~ ::0" <0 -::0 f'Tl ==~ (J)
:z ()
-II
N .. o (.r.J I\) -
z o z
._-;0-1----
IT! ):> CJ)
rrI o
~ ---------------~~------------~----------(J1
~
o o ~ o
zV> -1~ fTlm :::OfTl <-I fTl
~ (/)
Z -l :t ",
CJ)
c CO ~ 1> -< o ::u
I
'"0 o <.f)
-I I
--I f'T1 <.f)
~
C1 CM] L __ J
STREET INTERVI EWS
(N = 2,032)
PLATFORM INTERVI EWS
I '
,~ (N a 300) I
RIDER I NTERVI EWS
(N = 395-)
TELEPHONE INTERVI EWS
(N = 3,045)
.r-': ~ r_.. _J l, ,i r~J r-J ~ t ' r~ t- - .. ~ , " ~:, :.
,-..--., , L , ~ L . .']
TABLE "XIV-POST TEST
r. "} [--:-;
B. HOW DO YOU FEELWHEN YOU RIDE THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
I SAFE
~I\~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~\~\~\~'~\~'~'~'~'~'~·~'~\r\~)··~}'~\~\~\~\~\~\~' .. \.\.).\~\~\~)~J I r-~ ________ -;,-________ ~IUNSAFE
1'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ',\ \\ \ \\ \ \\\\\;;;:0 \ ~-)\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\,.\\\\\\\\\\ \))1 SA F E I ~
34°10
35 0/0
NO OPINION
__ ._ ,UNSAFE • •
r'" ''''~''Q NO OPI N I ON I
r-J :--:-1 ,~~-......,
~ .. _ .. ~,. J
" ..
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
,,,,,,.~,~- 4~~ '-'r' ~ L J ' J - .... ~. .J r---1 " ,
~"'l r-.,..... ... f. lJ
r----.: .. 1. .I
t"""""'--~1
~ ,..-- ....... !" .. -"" '" .. '"' '-" ~-~ .,.......,..,.~ r-r~ """'---' t'--~ ,---..-.
.'
I
"'" ~
t , i J ~
TABlEJa[- POST TEST_
C. IN THE PAST YEAR, HAS ANYONE MUGGED, ROBBED. BEATEN OR THREATENED YOU WHILE YOU WERE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
. ~9LLO/~ YES STREET .
IN T E R V lEW S 90 % • J NO t
j J I (N = 2,032) ~ I % NO OPINION
,
t-.\Q·o/~\'f YES PLATFORM ...... f\\~~\~..-
INTERVIEWS l------~-----L---------t9V2~o~~----------~------lJNO
(N = 300) 0"10 NO OPINION ' _______ ---,
RI DER &8~YES
I NT E R V lEW S 92 % J NO
(Nz 395): 00/0 NO OPINION -
. ~5%YES I TELEPHONE ~
INTERVI EWS 90 % ~ NO
( N = 3,045
) ~ 5 "10 NO I I
,_ ... -
25 % 500/0 750/0 100 %
.....
."...--.. -""': __ J ~ r---<:"I L...~ ... J ~
"--......,, r---> L ___ .,J t .. ..,; Ld [~_J ~ ~
... _--, "-' c--: r----1 r -7 ;-.---
STREET INTERV'IEWS
, (N=2,032)
PLATFORM INTERVIEWS
~. .j -1 ".~. ---" ~--:~_J "-....
TABLE XVI-POST-TEST
D. IN THE PAST YEAR. DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE WHO WAS MUGGED, ROBBED, BEATEN OR THREATENED WHILE THEY WERE RIDI NG THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
I (N:D300) ... co I
RIDER INTERVI EWS
(N = 395)
TELEPHONE INTERVI EWS
(N = 3,045)
III (ll (I 1(( II (" (( (" (/ / ({II II II lilt", .( (;-;I/II/IUIIUUUI/UIUI/I(IIIUIIIJ NO r •
50 % 75 %
..------> "'-'---'''';
1000/0
r--"! ~ , ~ ... " , .
~ .~ .. ,J LJ l':"""~~
t j "'''''''''''''''''''''.:'lo: , , .. 4
r---1 ...:. -!
r"'--j t_ ;;
r~ ~<o"1''''''~~~''\ t~' "C', IJ".,. ..... '? ._'-,.,., , ...... ,~.o-~ ..--~"*'~ l"'J ""'---' J
-. .~
,-_ . .,.." .. ...,
I ... \0
I
STREET INTERVIEWS
(N=2,032)
PLATFORM INTERVIEWS
(N=300)
RIDER INTERVI EWS
(N = 39'5)
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
(N=3.045)
TABLE :XvII - POST-TEST E. WHERE YOU WERE THE VICTIM OF A ROBBERY, MUGGING.BEATING OR
THREAT WHILE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR IN CASES THAT YOU KNOW OF, H OW FA ST 0 I D THE PO LI C EAR R I V E ?
~:::::~
N
fW0W$;1$gj'j1fl'ftfll$/ffiY0t!jif,~!&$$/ijff"!W1J1!1~~INloN 25% 50% 75 % 100 %
r" L.1
[ r~ , L.J
(''''
I L ••
r" L,
( .,
r ' i L.
[
.... CJ)
lJJ .... I
1-' CJ)
0 0..
~ W ..J CO « I-
(\..
en ::)
Ol a: 0 >-<[ 3: CD ::) C/)
LU ::t: ~ C!).
z :E 0 0
ex: 0 ..J
W W .... (J)
-:J: ~ W Z U LtJ .... t-O LI.. a.. 0
w w (J)
::)
0 ~ e >- ,t)
0 1.0 C Z w .... La.. 0 3; 0 :c LL
(I)
3: LU .... -
UJ> UJa: a: UJ I-~ (/)~
z LU f-LA.. 0
-(fl
Z: tt) z 0 v a z Z -a.
0 0 Z
?/.
U)
- :I~ N~ a:LLJ tt') -0- 0 ~O '-'.> .. ... ct: 0 (\J
ctLLJ It)
II ........ It
Z Z - o..~ --50"
:i 0 Cl ..J W :E en 0
0 ..J lJJ (I)
z 0
z
Z 0 :it:! 0.. 0 0 z ~ 0
U)
3t LlJU)
L&J zit .-OW l!) - -Cl:> LO X- ~
m 0..> 0 LLJffi rt) w OC Ifi' 0 ... It ..JLLI
LIJ'" I.
-Z z ... ! z 0:_ - -
?fl-0 0
~ It)
"-
~ 0
0 1.0
~' o. It) N
r' ~! I :
n L 1'1 j ; L":
[''''' i
t~ ,.iJ
o
(l .J
Comparison of Pre-rest and post-Test
The following is a comparison of information gathered
in the pre and post-tests to highlight the variations and
trends in the responses. Generally, there was little significant
change in the citizen's responses before and after the Unit's
expansion. (TABLE XIX) This may indicate a certain degree
, of reliability in the test design.
, ,
As illustrated in TABLE XXI, a breakdown of figures
shows 6S percent of the persons in contact with the transit
system during the pre and post-tests (riders and platform.
. respondents) felt safe, and approximately 40 percent of the
individuals on the street or by phone said they felt safe. This
may indicate that actual riders realize there is less crime.
Perhaps the opinions of phone and street respondents who may . not use the sy~tem regularly, stem from second-hand information
and media reports rather than direct experience.
In TABLE XX, 42 percent of the respondents to the pre
test said they felt crime had increas~d. Fifty-one percent of
the persons surveyed after the expansion of the force said that
crime had increased. The 9 percent increase is not significant
except in the consideration that the expanded Transit Unit's
purpose was to decrease the amount of crime.
-51-
\ "
t~
r' • 1
[J
0' C' [
[' . )
,J
[ !''' L
[" ..
r' .~
c .'
"~
r~ ) .' . , ,J
["1 ~ •. Ij
[ \
;1 [ i 1 . \
1 4
j
1 C ""1 [j
A review of the data also shows that 43 percent of the
pre-test respondents said they felt unsafe. Forty-eight per
cent of the post-test r~spondents felt unsafe. This indicates
that nearly 50 percent of the persons feel unsafe when they
use the Transit System.
Thirty-one percent of the respondents answered no
opinion to Question A. Only 6 percent of the pre-test respon~
dents and 9 percent of the post-test respondents exp~essed QO
opinion to Question B. It appears that citizen's do have an
opinion about whether they feel safe or not, but are not sure
if crime has increased or decreased.
The pre-test and the post-test results indicate a great
dispaiity between the number of persons who said they fpIt
ul1s afe and the number of persons who had been. robbed, mugged,
beaten or threatened. (TABLE XXII)
Forty':-three percent of the pre-test respondents and
48 percent of the post-test respondents felt unsafe while
riding, yet only 6 percent of the persons in either study have
been victims in the past year.
Only 23 percent of the pre-test respondents and only
24 pe~cent of the post-test respondents said they knew of anyone
who had been victimized in the past-year. (TABLE XXIII)
- 52 ~
r I ' ~ .
\ ! r . ! l.
r:
f
....
,.;
['
[
[ r" L
[ ... . '/
[
[i .~
[
People feel unsafe even though they have not personally
known an incident of crime in the past year .
A comparison of the two surveys indicates no change in
the percentage of the persons who were victims of crime (6
percent of ~he respondents). The number of respondents with
knowledge of a victim increased by 1 percent in the post~test.
The greatest number of negative responses to 'the question,
"Has anyone ever mugged, robbed, beaten or threatened you in the
past year?" came from the pre-test phone inquiries (94 percent).
This may indicate a lack or ridership in this group. There was
no significant change from pre to post-test in this group.
, Only those persons who had been victims of crime, Or
kne~ of anyorie who had, were asked how quickly the police
responded. The number of persons who thought the police responded
,quickly decre~sed by 1 percent (TABLE XXIV).
Many persons interviewed stated they never bothered to'
call the police to report crime, or that ~EPTA would not call the
polic~ if aD incident occurred. It is impossible to tell from
th? study how much of an impact these unreported incidents would
make on the over all criminal statistics count.
Fifty-eight percent of the respondents to the pre-test
said'they saw police seldom. The post-test data indicates an -
8 percent decrease in this opinion, however, half the people
interviewed said they seldom saw the police (TABLE XXV).
-53-
[ (~ r. , L~~
.,.""~ [ .
L
r· ... .,." ",
c c e c, [
TABLE XlK
TOTAL RESPONSES
'PRE-TEST (N=5,771) ~ POST-TEST (N = 5,904) I ]
A. IN THE PAST YEAR DO YOU FEEL CRI ME IN THE SUBWAYS OR ON BUSES HAS INCREASED OR DECREASED?
0 0 100 1% w IJJ (f) en Z <! <t 0 w
75'% fl:: w Z U Q:
:z u w 50% \0
25%
8. HOVV DO YOU FEEL WHEN YOU RIDE THE SUBW,4Y OR BUS?
100%
~~
75% LLJ 0 LA..
Z <l en a.
50% 0 0 2:
250/0 ..
-54-
r . j
I i ,
r' , !
1
r " L
C' I ~ I ' , . r- I
i ; • 1 '
" -
j ,
L -, , . L! (., t' I [ ,:
i . L.:
. «., I
t,:
I .
t. f"
, l .
:L
, ro, ;, '
~ . '1'-
C, IN THE PAST YEAR, HAS ANYONE MUGGED, ROBBED, 8EATEN OR THREATENED YOU WHILE YOU WERE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
100% 0 Z Z
0
75% ;z
0..
50% U') 0 w 0 )- 2:
250/0 0 ~O' 0
C\lv ",r==J
O. IN TH E PAST YEAR, DO YOU ~<NOW OF ANYONE WHO WAS MUGGED,R088ED, BEATEN OR THf~EArENED WHILE THEY WERE RIDING THE SUBWAY OH BUS?
I -
-55-
o z
r:::1
, V1 0\
"--"'" t. J
I ~ ~
-~.""" to ~ r--' r-c~ ~.""-..
r.-1 C:ll
"
1
[_::-1 f .. j ~ ~
l
(JI ...J a ~
r.....-, L .. J
o o ~ o
rtuw,., rru;,- "'fLU S E L DO M
9°10 150/0' NO OPINION
r''''''''''--~40 ~
~. ..
:'T1
-4:1: zO Ji1:.£ (1)0
IC """ co-i :E fil :t:>Z ...(0
0 0 ;0-<
0 Wc C(J) (J)rn .~f11
"'0 0 r--(") f'1
~ :x r P1
~
0
Z G')
.-:, ~~ :'"
..--.~ ~ \ J ~ ..; ~ ~~,"":;l E..,..
;:- .. ~j
N (J'l
0'1 0 ~ °
~ 0
FAST
SLOW
r-l f:' - ',...,J "-w~,.. ..--"' 1.- .... ,-, ~ .
tTl . -4(D~ ::tfTI::t l>~rrt -4_:::0 -<ZJT1 0(;')-< Coo "::Uc
...J 0 z .... :e o:t
os 0 ~~m ~ ~ OfT1~ ° 0
I .."l> . -t-t :l:~~ O<:fT1 ~~< ."r-l>rrl(") {I):rJ::! -I-s: ~20 oZ-" -t(;)l>
NO z -t::v
OPINION ~ ~~ o c.nW r Cf11 -OJ:;;O ("):E -< 1'1'1 1>. l> -< s: :::ooc ::cAlC) __ C)
<z-z f11 (") C) a'\) 1>.
(/)
fT1 (I)
~ ~.-;.:,- C-l ~~ ~., ~ C::l ~-::::::IO G:;'i r--,. r---'li ~"' ~ ~' ~_-'-"'~! ~ ~".' '4,,1 @~".J Eo;j f':L' 'j rL j ~"!Jj r':~~
TABLE XX COMPARISON'OF PRE AND POST TEST
STREET INTERVIEWS
PRE-TEST (N = 2,. 77) POST-TEST (Nz 2,032)
PLATFORM INTERVIEWS
PRE-TE'ST (N= 303) POST-TEST (N= 300)
A. IN THE PAST YEAR. DO YOU FEEL CRIME IN THE SUBWAY OR ON BUSES HAS
V' ( {ttl ( { ( (' 1'1 I It, ; ;-; { .. ,-; , ( ( , , { I l { { ( { I { (" • INC.R E A SED
P {( (I( {{TId ,'"" If I I {{'I 0 ECR EAS E 0'
J'UI{{U«({(",,;,O,-UI((((lU'4 t INCREASED
~L Itll"" H,',ll" (", (". DEC R EASED
r"""'llillil. ({ f'III"'I(IIIIQ I NO OPlt~ION
I 25% 50% 75 %
EPRE-TEST
o POST-TEST
--'" t: ~ r -':';;" J
100 %
t,:_~"'J
V1 00
- ;---.. r------ir 1.,.".._ --'" 1..-, "~ ""#.-4~ .~, ./
'.
RIDER, INTERVIEWS
r---; to:r-'.~
PRE-TEST (N. 297) POST-TEST (N=395)
,..........--. r--;. r---- ~--. ,--"- ..----. -:. .-------. i ___ .. : ~_ .;J
-' """ t ,J
f'«({«{«"(({('· ',,·.'({{{{((IIIIII"'INCREASED
r {{'" II r; " '!:' -; Itll Il I ~ 4 0 E C REA SED
TELEPHONE I NTERVI EWS
f' « (' l4LlJIl «l {I~ fC, '-"_'{ {'! «( (1111 {I{lA I NCREAS E 0
,....,..,.-.. L..
PR E-TEST (N = 2,994) F"IIII!!ti~~·":,/,·tl!//lII(IfO DECREASED POST-TEST (N =3,045)
I'll'" ({ ({ -'-V-UUI {{ 'U., NO OPI N ION
r.~ r---;. 1:. ... " •• ,
I
~PRE-TEST
DpOST-TEST
-'-"-. r-; ,r .1 L ..... "..... ._..;.../ o ,--.., 'C. _-1
r--"--; ,.
25°/0
,--.-. , ! ~ __ .... r ____
r-'-'" t •• ___ i "----' ~....;.!...-~
" <
50°/0
r:---1 ~;1 ~ .. , • IS. .-;J r-----1 . ..
:-i -------.. !
75 %
c::1 ~
L_, .:
TABLE xxI COM PAR I SON OF PRE AN 0 POST TEST
If
---,...."
~---,
. ~;
B. HOW DO YOU FEEL WH EN YOU R I DE THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
STREET J ( ({ { .' L U { , { It U (( , II (( '., T • • : T {I/ ( ( I If ( l I II ( ( 4 ( ( (f-U SA F E
IN T E R V I E ,W 5
:~;~ ~ ::STT ~ : : ~:~~ ~ ~ r £" {If!( U£ Ufl' "c, ' •• '~ ~ l((" W W "'".
I
V1 1.0
PLATFORM lNTERVI EWS
PRE-TEST (N= 303) . POST-TEST (N = 300)
fU / UUU (U {{ {{ / /I ,', :-1,'-; {/I{IIUi {lfll/llld --, SAF E
Vi' I {ILU7,-, Lj-U I (( If. NO OPI N JON
I 25°/0 50°/0
~PRE-TEST 75 °/0
~. ,-----.... f!
1000/0
--."
100°/0
~ ,.........., I. ,; L j r--; r---"
..... .,._"", 1;. r---; lj
.,.--. ~ . .---"
"""'--• l t, I
r--. , r--~
,.--~
t. j r--o ,~
:----. ,.>
r----'">
J r---'\ -!
.----., !
RIDER. INTERVIEWS
III liZ 1111 I //1////1//11111111,':', ...... , " .... If 1111 fUIIIII/UIIIIIII{O SA F E
, 0\ o
PRE-TEST (N=297) POST-TEST (N = 395)
TELEPHONE INTERVI EWS
~~;~~i:;T ~~: ;:~!!~ r'lIllllflllf/lI~"(5~/&k{(11/11l1/1A : I
r~,,' c.::: C-J
(tife'eTa ,NOOPINION
Wlll1 PRE-TEST
I I POST-TEST
C"n r .. "} C:S "
.r---"l ....... .::'
I 25 %
r~ ............. r--.... I
.50 %
C-' .... ---. ,; ~ t.,'_ ... .1
r~ c;...... J ~ f.. _) r--;. . "/
75 %
r--:, r ...... _ • "
..--...-.. ,:
=:-:J
TABLE xxII COMPARISO-N OF PRE. A'NO POST TEST
I
,-----' . ,)
,..--......,. ~- ,;..
,..,--,-.-,. ................ " ~
1000/0
!~ r
. '-'h'-~iJri!.
r----' . ,
c. INTHE PAST YEAR, HAS ANYONE MUGGED, ROBBED, BEATEN OR THREATENED YOU WHILE YOU WERE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
, 0\ .....
STREET INTERVI EWS
. :~~~~i:s~ ~~: ~:6~~; rfll
£rW
(lW£<lluU:ll£""ft1 "u9'()~}o':'({{'IIIWllWWII~lIlIwwwr NO
PLATFORM INTERVI EWS
I,
I c/o NO 0 PIN I 0 ~ 10/0
PR E-TE5T (N = 303) POST-TEST(N = ~,OO)
f I , l ((' {( I { { { ( { ( It f II ( {( { { { ( ( (( II t{" ,-<1";-If ({ (( /I 1/ ( II 1/ If U f 1/ f f U /I I {{ I {/I NO -.. .
2 % I
00/0 NO OP INION
I ~PRE-TEST
L--.J POST - TEST
25 % 50 % 75 % 1000/0
I
'" N
rJ r.-::-J ("";
RIDER INTERVI EWS
~ t J ~ . ' ... ~ ..
PR E-TEST t N = 297) POST-TEST (N = 395)
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
r--. 1;. ... ~_~
r.--. , " .. ....,.. ,~.I»
r---i 6~ ,"', ....... -....
I 0/0 00/0 NO OPINION
r-r-"1 ~ ~ ~~ • ',." • .r ~ _ ....
,.-----... ,,~
t :;-~----:j ~ .;,1
r----) j".. ~~ • - ~J
PR E - TEST (N = 2.994) rill {{ (11111//11/ 1/11 (lillI/lUlU I ~;:,<::~. IUUt/lI//IUUU/UII IUt IIIUUU"UIJ NO
I
'" VI
POST-TEST (N = 3,045)
3 % NO OPt N ION 5% I
~ ;;.. ~
WlLJPRE-TEST
I I POST-TEST
t~J ~ C-:J r--:--'; L.. J 8
25 %
c:-J C .. J ;"--..., , -. .;
50 % 75 0/0
~--. "..---.-... r---) C1') s-:.l ~ , 1.:"_ ~ .J " . < .; ~.
TABLE XXIJI COMPARISON OF PRE .AND POST TEST
~. ~
D. IN TH E PAST YEAR, DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE WHO WAS MUGGED ROBBED, BEATEN OR THREATENED WHI LE THEY WERE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
STREET INTERVIEWS
PRE-TEST (N:= 2 177) t7 POST-TEST{N a 2:032) ~m~n~~~n~m~n~m~n~m~~~m~~~~~~%~~~~~~~~k~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLATFORM INTERVIEWS'
PRE-TEST (N = 303) POST-TEST (N = 300) r ( {( ( ( { {{ II l( ( l( l ( ( {{ ( ( { { { ,- .. U .-{ /I ( It 1/ { III 1/ ( { { ( /I { (I I II , NO
WJZ)PRE-TEST
I ) POST-TEST
25'% 50 % 75 %
1000/0
,.......---,. r'
100 %
,..- ....... , i
"c<-.>H".s4<
.---.-..,
I
0-~
I
0\
-.-., It. ' r.--::J :Cir ,_J
RIDER
~ t. .. .1
INTERVIEWS
r;-~ r-J
PRE-TEST (N = 297) POST-TESTe N = 395)
TELEPHONE INTERVI EWS
~ ~ ,J r.~ r::-:-:J ~ ~ t '\ ',., ..•. J t; }
~'-. ~j ,.---.-., ~ l .. "J ~ c-::J ... .' ~
.......... --.;oi
~ .. ~--; ..... ,.
:~::~~:::~~ I J -pc. 0.1
flZZJJ PR E-TEST
o POST-TEST
25% 50% 75 %
.....•. _-.-.--.
,.-- .----,
100 %
~ r----, ~ -.-. r---" ,......~---:--- r-'~ (-.......... '''' ,-..--~ "'--'''.--" ..----- ~1 "--'--'f r-'~ .~ ----. -------, .-..----, ---l;,.. .. ,.j "''<~ J t,·- .... J L ___ .1 l .. ,,: t - l ._) '_, '=." ;,. . .J t ..; .~ .• ,_J \.. .. ---j' .-~
TABLE XXiv COMPARISON OF PRE AND POST TEST
E. VJHERE YOU WERE THE VICTIM OF A ROBBERY, MUGGING, BEATING OR THREAT WHitE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR IN CASES THAT YOU KNOW OF, HOW FAST DID THE POLICE ARRIVE?
STREET INTERVI EWS
PRE-TEST (N=2 177) rll., .. -fL Q
POST-TEST ( N = 2:032) 9 % I
PLATFORM INTERVI EWS
PRE-TEST ,(N = 303) POST-TEST (N = 300)
5 %
4 % FAST
[' 'U, UU'"I,' llUlllUU tI, 'U'1790;.y~'" u U U Illlll"" ':" ,I" '"'' I~~INION i I . I
rzzzlt PRE-TEST
I I POST-TEST
25°10 50% 75% 100%
~ '-. 1- -~ -;. <-#.~..,. r:J C.J C_..J
RIDER INTE RV I E'WS
PR E-TEST (N = 297) POST-TEST (N = 395)
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
PRE-TEST (N = 2,994) POST-TEST (N = 3,045)
.,--..-.. ~ '"', .::1
4%
FAST 4 %
..--. . , ,. ~~' •• 4>
50/0 SLOW 3 c/o
---..-, : .".' a .. , .. .;I
~ i., J
,...--,...-~
i. .~ ~'\ - ,
~ -.~
.~ ......----; \., "' .... ~~~ ......... ~...)
,.-.--, ;.. ,...0 ~
i -, ,
; , I •• , • ») , , " I I J j j, jj j J JJ 11 J}}}j j } J jJ Jj "_'.'>":'! ,L7JjJjJJJJJJ 77J77JJIJJh77777777777JA VLllllllllfllflllflUIUUfUlfll/f i 1/';",.' /,"" 1///1/1/1///11// II ({ III II UlIlt I I II I (. NO I
Q'\ Q'\ -- _. 'OPINION
I
--. ..
25 % 50 % 75°/0 100°/0
f7llJaPRE-TEST
I I POST-TEST
• """",·-~:;;,::::=:;:-;::.;;...=:c~-;"'-~":'::"·._.':::::'::A'o;":;·';::;::;"~7':"7~-:::':::::'f;!::,::;;;:::;:,"';~· ~:,:~:::::::.-";:.':;:::::::;:':7':.:;::'::~:~ ':"7l''::'"~:::;'''''-''''' ;."!-.~ '-~",,-,....
r4 r=::t t ..• ,' __ _ ~f""'. t , ..... ) f'~.1-;J to. ~ ~. , '. ,-----. t. 5
.,--, ,.-...........-, '"
'-'--1 i'; L "'" i(,.. .... .,
..- . "," .... -----,. t ),.J (~--:
L. 1
. TABLE Xxv COMPARISON OF PREAND POST TEST
-----; , r--o
F. HOW OFTEN DDY.DU SEE POLICE WHILE RIDING THE SUBWAY OR BUS?
• Q'\ "'.J
STREET INTERVIEWS
:~~~:';E~~ ~ ~: ~:6~~; lllullfu.lIl1 fllllll~5f~;:.",,:, '*UIIIIIIIIIIUlllfll
/
IIII/.1 SELDOM
•
PLATFORM INTERVIEWS
PR E-TEST: (N == 303) POST-·TEST (N = 300)
JI I I I , I I I I I I I { l , ( { I! :....' ~ ~ { {z:;. tc (- - I { ( (I l I { , ( I { II { ( I , I { I , ( , • S E L DO I'd
I °/'; NO OPI MION 1010 r"
~PRE-TEST
I (POST=TEST
25°/c 50 % 75°/0 100 0/ 0
7~,'j("~
[
[
f' L
[
[
C
[
C
~ o
--~------~---------o -
~ o ~
~ ----4------------- III ...,...---- L&J '"
z w
CJ)
- ..... --,..~ LI-o
en -it: lLI ->
CCo:: lLIlLJ 01--Z 0::_
~ o V Z to-o-...... "
--_ f'oo.. III mO) Nit) n " Zz ---... 1-CI)(/) wLLJ ... '7' .... Wen CCO 0.0-
-Z Q. o o z
Wen Z~ OlLl :c-Q.> wO:: .JlLI LLJI-
Z ... -,-68 -
,~ 0
0 10
Z 0
Z ...... a.. 0 0 ~ 0 z '0 -C\J
--~U') mq-mo .. • N'"
" " zz --... t;, Cl)lLI I.&J .... t-. ..... "'en 0::0 Q..Q..
Seventy percent of the riders surveyed in the pre-test
seldom saw the pOlice. Fifty-four percent of the riders inter
viewed in the post-test said they seldom saw the police while
riding.
A study of the platform interviews shows 36 percent respon
ded to the pre-test that they see the police often; 53 percent
responded in this manner to the post-test. This could indicate
that the platform interviews were conducted in areas that are
highly patrolled by police, perhaps more so since the Unit's
expansion.
Random Comments
The PSMC team members reported that most of the individuals
interviewed duying the pre-test and post-test were courteous and
responsive, and appeared anxious to state their opinions. Often
the interviewer was interrupted by those persons observing an
interview requesting that they be allowed to respond to the
questionnaiFe. Citizens appeared concerned that action be taken
to increase safety on the transit, system.
In many cases, the questionnaire prompted responses
beyond the scope of the specific questions. PSNC staff felt
tha~these spontaneous comments reflect areas of concern to those
per~ons interyiewed, during both surveys, apd for that reason
warrant inclusion in addition to the systematic data gathered
-69-
r . ( ,
f'
r . I. '
r' i 1,._" s \;;
I: r. b
f, : l, ..
'f; :~
~c
fJ rl
L
from the questionnaire. Unlike the questionnaire data, the
random comments are included here in categories relating to
subject matter addressed.
Hours of Travel
.•••• A large number of people would ride subways only during peak rush hours in the morning and afternoon. A majority of the people feared riding the subways after 6 p.m. and 3 p.m. when school let out for the day.
... .. Weekends were considered unsafe for riding the transit system.
..... Would not ride the subway during off hours (10 a.m. - 3 p.m., 9 p.m. - 5 a.m.), school break hours (3-4 p.m.) because of harrassment by juveniles, or on weekends.
..... Felt safe only during the rush hours.
Bus vs. Subway Travel
..... There were many comments that while bu~es were ~afe, subways were not.
..... "Bus drivers are reckless drivf}rs"
..... "Subway trains careen from side to side in an uncomfortable manner."
..... Subjects responding to questionnaire needed to. - qualify the safety on each form of transportatlon
(bus and subway) individually.
..... Because the rid~ is jolting and disturbing, they would rather drive their own cars if they could afford it.
..... Some said they would not think of riding the subway and only rode the bus.
..... Some felt safer on subways not in the Center _City area.
-70-
{ % 1
!
,
[~ ~
.11
fj ~; f it ' .
[' t t' ....
r [
.. '
0 n p I .. l
U r-'
L r-L;
r.. U
['
p ......
[
c P L
.
Awareness of the Police
..... Felt more police with dogs were needed 'in the outlying stations.
. .... Said police with dogs were only seen around City Hall.
..... People not generally aware of the presence of police except at Center City.
••••• A large number of people stated that they saw police primarily during the day, seldom in the evening .
..... There was an "overconcentration" of police at City Hall.
..... Police were seldom seen on the elevated trains.
• •••• A few people felt that the K-9 corps caused tension, but most felt that more were needed, especially in outlying stations.
..... "We only see the police around City Hall or . heading into City Hall."
..... Riding at night they do see the police with Clogs.
..... Older people seemed to feel the dogs raised the tension in the subways.
..... Never see police on the platforms--u~ually upstairs or downtown.
... ~ .Some commented on the speed with which police responded to calls.
..... Many exprGssed concern that there was no way to quickly summon police.
. .... Several said that they "did not bother" to call police, even though an incident had occurred .
-71-
r> r: ['1
r: 0 [1
.. I
• [
r j
[" I J
r < :
'" ~,
[~ ,I
r .. ,;
L C .-
f
U [ i ,<
0 . I
U ['
.j
. ~
Knowledge of Crime on the Tran?it System
..... Several people were armed with guns, knives and chains and stated they would or have used them.
..... "Do not sit near the doors because people reach in and grab you."
"I ., ( . ). d ..... guess lt s crlme lncrease. That's what the TV and newspapers tell me."
..... Several responded that while they had not been threatened within the past year, they had been within the last two or three years.
..... A few complained that SEPTA would not call police in the event of an incident.
..... In cases where acquaintances or friends had. been threatened, many did not know if police had been called.
General
..... SEPTA does try and keep the cars clean.
..... Compliments about the SEPTA employees' '':'politeness'', "they will hold the train if you are running for it."
..... younger (college age) people think the dogs are a great innovation.
..... University students travel in threes and fours.
... ~.Trains are clean ... stations are dirty.
..... Pay booths should be at the top entrances because people are afraid to come down on the platforms and meet non-paying individuals.
..... Main problem is on the platforms.
..••. Stations are dark ... lighting is poor in most stations.
..... Some indicated they would not_ride a particular -line. (Broad Street line, for an exampl e) .
-72-
" \~~ "" I': " ~;
\ ! v· r' , I " I h j
, I
,
! ,
i I'
f i
r~
L
f""' I l . . ,
[
[ '.1
C C f~ I ~\.oj)'
r l~,~t
r ,~I
n L
r" L.J
p L
t"'" , . t ' I-
e [ f"'l L:
r ' . ~
r L
fi
~~-----------------~'------------------------. . ..
..... Won't wait on platform unless there are several people.
. .... Liked the radio contact that the operators had with the police station.
..... Some felt safer on subways than on subway platforms.
..... Indicated a change of en~loyment to avoid riding the Broad Street line .
..... "No Smoking" rule is not strictly enforced.
"S b nOlo sy a11(1 platform areas dirty." .' . . . . u ways are
-73-
r". . i
~.'~,
if t, ,
r' 1....
I f": ,,/
p ,.
r '\ ;, J
P ('
L
['~
.. ["'
L L l' .-['
"
[
[
[
[
e
......
V, CONCLUSIONS
A. Crime Statistics and the Transit Unit
An analysis of the criminal statistics provided by the
Philadelphia Police Department has led to several conclusions.
The incidence of reported crime rose as the Transit
Unit expanded its force because there was more manpo~er on
hand when crimes occured. In this respect, the T'~nsit Unit
became more effective.
The existing crime statistical reporting system is not \
sufficient to yield meaningful data. Various sources within
the PPD itself presented differing figures.
'The system does not adequately control proper reporting
and recording of criminal incidents. :~herefore, the data is ..
unreliable and relatively useless in assisting Unit Commander's
in manpower deployment.
Without a strong statistical ba~e it is very difficult
to use any change in reported crime as a measure of the Transit
Unit's effectiveness.
If the statistics gathered before the Unit's expansion do
not reflect more ~ccurately crime for the period, then it is -
difficult to make valid comparisons w!th crime statistics from
-74-
[
r" l.~
[
[
C fl l) ..
C C r~ t • _.,
C '..J
t' L r" , .
L
r .... .• J
tr'":}
L r"
U
[ ~
C C [
• ,-
other time periods. One cannot conclude from the data available
that the Transit Unit has not been effective in combating crime.
The rise in reported incidents may indicate that the expanded
Unit's efforts have been effective.
B. Citizen's Survey
PSMC Staff analyzed the data from the two-part survey
and has concluded the following:
--The instrument design and methodology afforded
PSMC Staff a sound basis for quality data collection. Similar
response patterns for the pre-test and post-test indicate·a
.reliable test design.
- -There w.as no significant variation between the
responses from the two surveys. At first glance, it would
seem that the Transit Unit was ineffective in its efforts to
reduce fear of crime.
--The fear and insecurity that individuals feel when
they ride the syst0~ is not because they have been exposed to
crime themse1ves. Very, few of the individuals said they had
been victims or kne'l,v of anyone who had.
--The sense of fear is also not based on the number of
repcrted crimes, for the .. s.e have been very low, both befc·re and
after the Unit' 5 e_xpansion.
-75-
[~ .
e .\ [ '.1
[
fJ 0 [.
P J
n 0 c J
I fJ ,
f'" ~,
[
c [
fJ
C C
.-
........ ~- -.... -"'-
--The fear of the transit ~ystem may be due to other
factors than crime. Perhaps the dark, cave like atmosphere
of the platforms and the defaced walls of stations and cars
has caused the increases.
--The media may have over-emphasized ~he number of
reported incidents and left an impression that there is much
more crime than there actually is.
--Most individuals reported seldom seeing the police.
Ninety percent of the respondents had not been victims of crime.
Perhaps they do not notice the police unless they have a need
for them.
--An objective set forth in the Grant Proposal called
for a reduction in reported Part I and Part II crimes. This - .
was nearly impossible to achieve, for an increase in the police
manpower usually causes an increase in reported crimes, and may
explain the increase found in the comparison of fIgures for
1973 and 1974.
, --The Grant Proposal also stated that a greater sense
of security would be reached through reducing the fear of crime
in the transit system. Crime may playa part in causing the fear
index to rise, however, it appears from the survey that other
factors have contributed to the insecurit~ and uneasiness exper
ienced by rid-ers of the transit system.
-76-
r-' L
C L
[
C [
C [:
r ....1
[ r~ • <
F....",
r:"" r l_
[ -, r~;
L
C r .;
L . ' [
C [
• - .....
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
PSMC recommends that ACT IV continue, and the efforts
of the PPD and SEPTA focus on the following:
1. The PPD establish a better system for reporting
and r~cording incidents of crime in the transit
system. Once established, such a system should
be subject to audit and control to insure that the
statistics will be more reliable.
2. Measures should be taken to pinpoint exactly
where criminal acts occur as well as the time of
day. This data should be disseminated to Unit
Commanders to assist in deployment of Transit
personnel.
3. PSMC suggests that SEPTA and the PPD attempt to
determine why people feel unsafe, what factors
must he varied to promote a' sense of security
-on the transit system.
4. A public relations program is necessary to counter
the publics opinion. Most of the citizens inter-
viewed believed th~t the subways were dangerous,
and unsafe evan though they have n~t experienced
crime personally.
-77-
"-,--------
-_ .. -
r' L
, - .-[
r' L r~
, .'
[J
n ["; "J
/"1 .J
! n t ; .~
n U
C r Lj
[
[
r 'w,<!
[
C [ "
5. The PPD and SEPTA officials should continue working
together in their efforts toward a secure transit
system.
6. The PPD shDuld shift its emphasis to service rather
than apprehension. Very few riders expressed dis
like for the K-9 units, however, the dogs and the
style of the uniform worn by the police officers
may signal to the public t~at the area under patrol
[
[
[.:'\.' , , ..)
must be extremely dangerous if such patrol is necessary. ,~'
7. PSMC recommends a survey of transit users as well
as non-users to determine why people use or refrain
U
from using the system. Such a survey should attempt [
to determine what citizens mean when they say they
feel unsafe while using the system. Further, what
are user expectations and recommendations.
..
-78-
r'\ L It"'·~
I. t ' .. ""
c
. .."
EXHIBITS
F
t'
·-r~~·" ( . Li
r " i .
I
fl )
L
, . \ r Ll
f : L,
r -;:. b~HIBIT 1
*
Refused to Answer No Answer
Name
Address
Phone No.
OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE
Hello, My name is We are doing a ~tudy for the City of Philadelph~a to get people's opinion about safety on the subway and bus(~s. May I ask you a few questions?
A.
B.
In the past year, do you feel crime in the subway or on buses has
1.
2.
3.
increased
decreased
no opinion (do not read)
How do you feel when you ride the subway or buses?
4. safe
5. unsafe
6. no opinion (do not read)
C. In the past year, has anyone mugged, robbed, beaten or th=eatened you while you were riding the subway or bus?
7.
8.
9.
yes
no
no opinion (do not read)
O. In the past year, do you know of anyone who was mugged, robbed, beaten or threatened while they were riding the subway or bus?
10. yes
11. no
If C & D were answered no--OO NOT ask E
E. Where you were the victim of a robbery, mugging, beating or threat while riding the subway or in cases that you know of, how fast did the police arrive?
013. fast
14. slow
15. no opinion (do not read)
}' . How often do you see pOlice while riding the subway or bus?
16. often ----17. seldom
18. no opinion (do not read) .
Thank you very much.; Have a good day. -79-
.......
L ...
I .~
-~ .. -------~--------.-~-~-~~---------...... -------