By Price Nyland

This month, the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) published a ne report, BART Fare Enforcement: Balancing Goals, Community Concerns, and Human Costs, in partnership with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The team received additional support from Stout, a global advisory firm specializing in corporate finance, accounting and transaction advisory, valuation, financial disputes, claims, and investigations. The report is a comprehensive assessment of BART’s approach to enforcing its fares, and CPE hopes to see the recommendations contained in this report adopted for implementation.

CPE’s Research Team Contextualized Community Harm During Analysis Phase

Aiming to uplift the voices of those most impacted by BART’s practices, CPE’s qualitative research team conducted 14 focus groups composed of 95 Bay Area residents living in the five counties BART serves. The focus groups explored BART riders’ perceptions of safety, fare affordability, contact with BART police and fare enforcement, and factors influencing their decisions to ride BART. Community participants also offered input on ways to improve BART’s public safety responses.

In addition to this qualitative effort, CPE conducted a quantitative analysis of fare enforcement practices and outcomes using financial, ridership, and BART Police Department (BPD) data, including information on arrests, calls for service, proof of payment, and citations. CPE also used publicly available data collected as part of California’s Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA)¹.

CPE Recommendations to Improve BART Operations

This project was a timely collaboration for both CPE and BART, as BART works to address revenue and public safety challenges while seeking a deeper understanding of community impacts and goals. CPE anticipates that the community input, financial, qualitative, and quantitative analyses and recommendations detailed in the report will improve outcomes for BART riders and the wider community BART serves, as well as the agency’s financial solvency.

CPE’s findings indicate that BART’s current fare enforcement strategy—which disproportionately affects marginalized groups, including Black and Brown riders, low-income individuals, people experiencing mental health crises, and individuals who are unhoused— has not resulted in significant revenue recovery or improved public safety. Instead, punitive measures have contributed to community mistrust. In addition to these human costs, CPE found that BART’s frequently cited $25 million annual revenue loss due to fare evasion is inflated and misrepresents the actual financial impact of fare evasion. Stout estimated that BART’s annual revenue loss as a result of fare evasion is $5.7 million – $9.5 million per year, far below the BART estimate.

Based on these analyses and findings, CPE developed recommendations for the BART Board of Directors to improve BART’s fare enforcement practices, policies, and impacts:

Expand BART’s Transit Ambassador and Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) personnel as non-police responses to public disorder and community concerns regarding unhoused individuals and people with mental health conditions. Clarify BPD’s warrant policy to eliminate discretion regarding arrests for misdemeanor warrants. The policy should mandate that officers arrest only for an outstanding misdemeanor warrant if required by California Penal Code § 827.1 or a specific BART policy and that officers must issue a citation in all other instances. Revise BPD policy to explicitly require warnings for individuals stopped for fare evasion for the first time. Additionally, update policies to mandate the use of civil proof-of-payment citations instead of criminal citations under California Penal Code § 640, except in specific circumstances. Improve access to discounted fares for low-income riders, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities by automating eligibility for and access to BART discounted cards for individuals with Medi-Cal Benefits Identification Card (BIC), Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards, Supplemental Security Income (SSI)/Social Security Disability (SSD) eligibility, and student or senior IDs. Discounted card availability should be expanded at BART stations, and more community partners should be formally engaged to assist with discounted card applications online. End the enforcement of fare evasion under California Penal Code § 640(c)(1) as a misdemeanor to reduce the human and fiscal harm incurred by BART riders, as well as the impact on social service and criminal legal systems.
As recommended in 2020, CPE also notes the need for improved data collection processes and implementation of data auditing measures to ensure all aspects of a BART Police Department interaction are
documented. All findings and recommendations can be found in the report and the executive summary.This project signals an opportunity for BART to dig deeper into its own practices and policies to ensure alignment, both within the agency and in partnership with the community it serves, on the quality of service being provided. CPE believes the voices of those most impacted by current fare enforcement practices must play a central role in shaping system reforms. The report offers BART a powerful opportunity to innovate and build on existing efforts to ensure the system is both safe and equitable.

This project signals an opportunity for BART to dig deeper into its own practices and policies to ensure alignment, both within the agency and in partnership with the community it serves, on the quality of service being provided. CPE believes the voices of those most impacted by current fare enforcement practices must play a central role in shaping system reforms. The report offers BART a powerful opportunity to innovate and build on existing efforts to ensure the system is both safe and equitable.

By Aaron Bielejewski

This Open-Access-book questions the relationship between institutionalized images and understandings of policing – the monolithic ideas common to most, if not all, Western law enforcement agencies – and contextual, situate, and local interactions where the human representatives of policing – street-level officers – come into contact with residents. The political and theoretical association of specific forms of “Western” policing with democratic society can be illustrated in the case of German integration: narratives of reform and essentially forging new democratic police agencies in the “new German states” stand at odds with much of the experience and statements of officers who continued to serve following (Re)Unification. Officers who present their works primarily in terms of their local responsibilities, expectations and more specifically to their unique and individual relationship and connection to their communities downplay the relevance of high-level policing policy. Based on a two-year ethnographic study of policing in a rural county in the German state of Brandenburg, this book explores the local nature of policing both in terms of how police officers imagine their communities to be and with reference to broader societal expectations and assumptions of what police, essentially, are, can effectively do, and should effectively do.

By Geoff Pearson and Mike Rowe

This open access book analyses the utilisation, regulation and legitimacy of police powers. Drawing upon six-years of ethnographic research in two police forces in England, this book uncovers the importance of time and place, supervision and monitoring, local policies and law. Covering a period when the police were under intense scrutiny and subject to austerity measures, the authors contend that the concept of police culture does not help us understand police discretion. They argue that change is a dominant feature of policing
and identify fragmented responses to law and policy reform, varying between police stations, across different policing roles, and between senior and frontline ranks.