Managing evasion

The level of evasion is influenced by the management approach adopted. The development of a corporate policy concerning fraud enables the operator, its staff and the traveling public to understand that fraud is a criminal offence, that perpetrators will be prosecuted and that strategies to prevent fraud are planned and implemented. However revenue protection is only truly effective when management properly recognizes its importance, and is utterly determined to ensure the security of its fare collection system.

The policy statement would also describe the practices available to inspectors when they are investigating potential fare evasion, and when ascertaining the identity of perpetrators. It would also identify the steps taken to issue penalty fares or to prosecute offenders, and any additional sanctions against repeat offenders. Wide publication of the policies and practices helps to deter evasion and fraud.

The management of evasion includes the ways in which inspectors are deployed to identify evaders. This can include inspectors working in isolation, in small groups, or concentrated for intensive inspection within a discrete geographic area and for a defined time period. The most appropriate method in any particular instance will depend on the type and scale of the fare evasion being experienced.

Ticket inspectors may be uniformed, although that gives warning to fare evaders if they are seen waiting at a stop. More effective is plain-clothes inspectors, though these would carry identification cards or badges to confirm their authority to the passengers when undertaking their activities. Inspectors may work within vehicles during the course of a trip or they can wait at stops and check alighting passengers as they pass through the exit doors.
Examples are also known of revenue control being sub-contracted to authorized external agents. This practice works when on-the-spot penalty fares can be imposed on fare evaders through the issue of a ticket. These tickets are then sold by the authority to the agents at less than their face value, and the agent’s reward comes from identifying offenders to whom they charge the full penalty.

An internal audit of official inspection productivity is also good practice. This is achieved through an independent inspection survey, without charging penalty fares, in order to determine the levels of evasion prevailing and the effectiveness of counter-measures.