SEATTLE—After three security officers stood by and watched a 15-year-old girl get assaulted in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, transit authorities have raised questions about whether employing an “observe and report” approach to guarding might not only be ineffective, but dangerous.

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” said Daniel Hartwig, manager of security programs at Bay Area Rapid Transit District and commander of the patrol bureau for the BART Police Department. One of the most dangerous precedents of this approach is providing patrons with a false sense of security, he said. “The rational person moves about day-to-day in cities thinking people in uniform have authority and they take that for granted and it’s not necessarily true,” he said.

But changing these policies isn’t necessarily easy, either. “It’s really a risk management issue and determining where they’re willing to roll the dice and where they’re vulnerable,” he said. “I’ll tell you, in recession [security is] right at the top of the list about what they can cut and where can we save that money.” But, he said, transit agencies cannot compromise security by employing ineffective policies. “What it is, is a commitment to provide the level of security required and a commitment to provide the equipment and training necessary,” Hartwig said.

However, simply changing policy is often not enough. Transit agencies must often provide officers with better equipment and better training. But doing so costs money. This was the exact situation that Union Station in Kansas City faced. Prior to changing to an in-house, proprietary guard force in 2003, Union Station employed a contract guard force. The guard force was divided into two distinct classes, said Matthew Filipek, security manager at Union Station. “Class B officers were basically Wal-mart greeters in uniform,” he said. “They were there only to observe and report and couldn’t carry defensive equipment.”

The other officers were Class A officers and were given similar rights as the city’s peace officers, enabling them to engage with passengers without fear of retribution, said Filipek. In 2003, the agency decided to eliminate the Class B status in order to improve its security and safety and transitioned to an in-house force, all listed as Class A officers. “It was a bold step for the organization itself,” he said, “we became more identifiable, wearing badges and it was more of a police look.” 

Filipek said while a driving force was better protection of its passengers and customers, it was also an effort to further protect its officers. “Like most companies in security, we had a mixture of former military and peace officers and their instincts told them to get involved, so we decided to remove that one strip of liability to move forward,” he said. That liability was the observe-and-report protocol, which restricted officers from engaging in situations.

However, making this transition did come with financial consequences. There was an increase in equipment costs to properly equip officers with Maglights, handcuffs, and other equipment, but they are still not authorized to carry weapons such as Tasers or OC spray. In addition to equipment costs, the company had to invest in higher levels of training programs for officers. Better training has improved officers’ ability to respond while also increasing their confidence. “Officers felt more comfortable approaching people who were causing issues or trouble,” Filipek said.

Going forward, Filipek said the company would like to continue to increase its security presence. “I don’t think we’ll go to being fully armed with a sidearm, but we’re taking steps to head that route,” he said. But, he said, finding the funding has been the biggest hurtle. “We were hit hard last year and lost 50 percent of our staff and went from 22 to 11 officers on 24/7/365 basis,” he said. “Now with better officer training, they feel comfortable approaching people, as long as there’s a backing officer.” But it still comes down to money. “I think it’s almost imperative to continue the training if we have the funds and that’s the giant ‘if’ that no one in security wants to hear,” he said.