TEXTG 4 HELP:
AN EVALUATION OF METRO VANCOUVER TRANSIT POLICE’S
SMS TEXTING PROGRAM

By

Sherri St.Cyr
Bachelor of Arts, Major in Criminology
June 2015
Kwantlen Polytechnic University

GRADUATE THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

In the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

© Sherri St.Cyr
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
Fall 2017

All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

Approval
Name:
Degree:
Title:

Sherri St.Cyr
Master of Arts (Criminal Justice) Degree
Textg 4 Help: An Evaluation of Metro Vancouver Transit
Police’s SMS Texting Program

Examining Committee
Dr. Amy Prevost
Examining Committee Chair
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Dr. Irwin Cohen
Senior Supervisor
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Dr. Amanda McCormick
Secondary Supervisor
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Dr. Neil Dubord
External Examiner
Chief
Delta Police Department

Date Defended/Approved:

ii

Abstract
In 2013, the Metro Vancouver Transit Police implemented a SMS texting program named
Chatterbox that allows the public to report concerns about social disorder and criminal offences
on or near the transit system. Using individual interviews with dispatchers, focus groups with
police officers, an online survey with Chatterbox users, and an analysis of Transit statistics, the
purpose, process, and use of the program was reviewed. Overall, Chatterbox has provided transit
users with an alternative and discrete method of contacting the police to investigate a variety of
criminal offences ranging from minor delinquent incidents to major criminal acts. The
conversion of Chatterbox conversations to police files was 72% and reporting of criminal
offences through Chatterbox accounted for 10% of the agency’s police files. Recommendations
for future considerations include the ability to send multi-media files, such as photos and video,
implementation of a dedicated dispatcher and police officer to answer and review Chatterbox
conversations, and the deployment of a public feedback mechanism.

iii

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Inspector Doug Semple and Sergeant Bruce Hamilton for being a supporter of my
continuing education while working at Transit Police. A special thanks to Lance Talbot and
Nadine Applejohn for providing me with their invaluable insight on Chatterbox. I would like to
also thank all the people who took the time to participate in my interviews, focus groups, and
online survey. My thesis could not have been completed without their willingness to share their
knowledge and experiences. I am especially grateful for all the assistance and guidance from Dr.
Irwin Cohen and Dr. Amanda McCormick in completing this thesis.

iv

Dedication
To Mom and the “boys”.

And for Dad…for all the things you missed.

v

Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iiv
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................vii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Transit Police ................................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 5
2.1 Crime on Transit Systems ............................................................................................. 5
2.2 Victim Reporting .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Uses of SMS Texting .................................................................................................. 10
2.4 Routine Activity Theory and the Bystander Effect..................................................... 14
Chapter 3: Sample and Methods ....................................................................................... 19
3.1 Chatterbox ................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Research Ethics and Informed Consent ...................................................................... 22
3.3 Research Method: Survey with Users of Chatterbox .................................................. 23
3.4 Research Method: Data Analysis of Chatterbox Calls ............................................... 24
3.5 Research Method: Interviews with Dispatchers ......................................................... 26
3.6 Research Method: Focus Groups with Transit Police Officers .................................. 29
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 33
4.1 What the Public Says about Chatterbox...................................................................... 33
4.2 Data Analysis of Chatterbox Calls.............................................................................. 47
4.3 What Dispatchers Say ................................................................................................. 63
4.4 What Police Officers Say ............................................................................................ 70
4.5 Summary of Research Findings .................................................................................. 76
Chapter 5: Recommendations ........................................................................................... 81
5.1 Education and Training ............................................................................................... 81
5.2 Advertising and Marketing ......................................................................................... 82
5.3 Revised Canned Comments ........................................................................................ 83
5.4 Multimedia Submissions ............................................................................................. 84
5.5 Dedicated Dispatcher and Police Officer .................................................................... 85
5.6 Additional Public Feedback ........................................................................................ 86
Chapter 6: Conclusion....................................................................................................... 88
6.1 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 88
6.2 Future Research Directions ......................................................................................... 90
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 95
References ....................................................................................................................... 117

vi

List of Tables
Table 1. Number of Journeys and Boardings for 2000-2015.............................................. 4
Table 2. Total Number of Chatterbox Conversations: May 2014 to December 2014 ...... 49
Table 3. Chatterbox Police Files Versus Boardings: 2015 ............................................... 54
Table 4. Top 10% Calls Reported Via Chatterbox: January 2014 to December 2016 ..... 61
Table 5. Reporting of Sexual Assaults.............................................................................. 62

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Times Chatterbox was Used in the Past 12 Months (n = 138)........ 35
Figure 2. Percentage of Incidents Reported (n = 149) ...................................................... 36
Figure 3. Percentage of Alternative Methods of Reporting Incident (n = 270) ................ 37
Figure 4. Percentage of Reasons for Using Chatterbox (n = 149) .................................... 38
Figure 5. Method of Learning about Chatterbox (n = 148) .............................................. 44
Figure 6. Reasons for Using Chatterbox in the Future (n = 173) ..................................... 45
Figure 7. Conversion of Conversations to Police Files: May 2014 to November 2015 ... 48
Figure 8. Police Files by Month: January to December 2014 .......................................... 50
Figure 9. Police Files by Month: January to December 2015 .......................................... 50
Figure 10. Police Files by Month: January to December 2016......................................... 51
Figure 11. Police Files by Month by Line: January to December 2014 ........................... 52
Figure 12. Police Files by Month by Line: January to December 2015 ........................... 53
Figure 13. Police Files by Month: January to December 2016......................................... 54
Figure 14. Percentage Breakdown by Line: January 2014 to December 2016 ................. 55
Figure 15. Call by Day of Week: January 2014 to December 2016 ................................. 56
Figure 16. Police Files by 24 Hour Period: January 2014 to December 2016.................. 57
Figure 17. Police Files by 24 Hour Period by Line: January 2014 to December 2016 .... 58
Figure 18. Police Files by Call Type: January 2014 to December 2016 .......................... 59
Figure 19. Top 10 Call Type by Line: January 2014 to December 2016 ......................... 60
Figure 20. File Breakdown by City: January 2014 to December 2016 ............................ 62

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction
It was a few minutes past midnight on a Wednesday morning in April 2015 when
the Operations Communication Centre (OCC) at the Metro Vancouver Transit Police
(“Transit Police”) received a Short Messaging Service (SMS) text – “Going commercial
between Renfrew and commervial(sp) guy holding knife drunk. Plz send someone”. A male
in the early throes of a drug induced psychosis was on the SkyTrain (Vancouver’s light rail
system) and was threatening passengers with a knife. Transit Police officers intercepted the
SkyTrain at VCC-Clark Station in Vancouver, and it took three members to subdue the
person. The male was then transported to Vancouver General Hospital and sedated by
medical personnel.
This type of crime reporting was made possible by Transit Police’s SMS texting
program called Chatterbox. In 2013, Transit Police implemented a SMS texting program
that allowed passengers to send text messages to Transit Police to report social disorder
and criminal offences on the Metro Vancouver transit system. The focus of the following
thesis is to evaluate the effectiveness of Chatterbox as a reporting alternative to dialing 91-1 or calling police on the non-emergency line. The data that formed the basis of this
evaluation were one-on-one interviews with dispatchers, focus groups with Transit Police
officers, posting an online survey for users of Chatterbox to complete, and statistics related
to Chatterbox calls for service and police attendance.

1

1.1 Transit Police
In 1985, 15 members of the British Columbia Transit were appointed as Special
Provincial Constables to patrol the newly operational SkyTrain. These members did not
carry firearms, but had the ability to arrest offenders on transit property, and were able to
write and serve violation tickets. During the 1990’s, the Special Provincial Constables
were given access to law enforcement databases, yet were still unable to respond to
criminal offences that occurred beyond designated transit property. Due to the increased
ridership on the transit system, the governing organization of transit systems in Vancouver
and its surrounding areas, TransLink, applied to have the group of Special Constables
transition to a fully functional police agency. In 2005, the Greater Vancouver
Transportation Authority Police Service was born (Transit Police, 2016).
Today, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service has been
redefined as the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, and is now known as the Transit Police.
The Transit Police is the only Canadian police force designated to investigate criminal
activity on the transit system and its surrounding area. The law enforcement agency polices
134 kilometers of light rail systems, 57 stations, 200 bus routes, and one passenger ferry
route. This includes four light rail systems (the Canada Line, the Expo Line, the
Millennium Line, and the Evergreen Line), the Westcoast Express (a commuter train that
runs from Mission to Vancouver), the SeaBus (a ferry that transports passengers from
Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver to Waterfront Station in Vancouver), and bus routes
from Langley to North Vancouver (Transit Police, 2016).

2

The Transit Police employs 167 sworn police officers and 67 civilians. There are
several specialty units that work within the department. The police service has four bomb
detection dog teams that actively patrol the transit system. In 2016, Transit Police
developed the community officer position program with individual police officers working
in high volume areas to promote a focus on community interaction (Transit Police, 2016).
Metro Vancouver has experienced rapid growth in terms of the number of residents
re-locating to the area. In 2011, it was estimated that 2,373,037 individuals lived in the
Metro Vancouver area. This increased to 2,542,469 in 2016, and it is projected that the
area will be home to 2,690,062 residents by 2020 (B.C. Stats, 2016). City planners have
calculated the region will grow to 3.5 million people by 2045 (B.C. Stats, 2016).
TransLink, the Transit Police’s employer, has also experienced growth, in terms of the
number of passengers using transit to move around in the Metro Vancouver area. As seen
in Table 1, travel on transit between 2000 and 2015 increased by 84% for single transit
trips (journeys) and 58% for passengers boarding various modes of transit (boardings)
(TransLink, 2016).

3

Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Crime on Transit Systems
Crime on transit systems and surrounding areas is not a new phenomenon. There is
a body of research supporting the view that the introduction of transit systems to a
jurisdiction can have a negative effect on the rates of certain criminal offences such as
property crimes related to vehicles and robberies (Block & Davis, 1996; Gallison, 2012;
Gallison & Andresen, 2017; Phillips & Sandler, 2015; Yu, 2011). This chapter examines
the research on crime on transit, not only from a Lower Mainland perspective, but
nationally and internationally.
Jordana Gallison (2012) studied whether the concerns of local community leaders
about the level of crime rates increasing with the opening of the Canada Line in Richmond,
British Columbia, was valid. Using statistics from the Richmond Royal Canadian Mounted
Police (R.C.M.P.) and from the Transit Police, Gallison analysed criminal offence statistics
from January 2006 to August 2011. Police Records Information Management Environment
(PRIME) data were gathered from all seven Canada Line stations located in the city of
Richmond (Aberdeen, Bridgeport, Lansdowne, Richmond-Brighouse, Sea Island,
Templeton, and YVR-Airport) and a 250-meter buffer surrounding each station (Gallison,
2012).
The study categorized offences into three separate types of crime - violent crime,
property crime, and other criminal code offences. This resulted in 851 incidents of violent
crime, 6,538 cases of property crime, and 1,997 files of other criminal code offences. A
time series analysis was conducted to evaluate all three offence types. Overall, violent

5

crimes increased at all stations, while property crimes increased at several stations,
including the Aberdeen and Bridgeport Stations. One of the explanations for the increased
property crimes at Bridgeport was that the station was adjoined to a popular casino. It was
believed that with hundreds of individuals parking their vehicles near the casino, this
would provide criminals with a target-rich environment (Gallison, 2012).
In the province of Ontario, a study was conducted on Ottawa’s O-Train system to
examine the effects of a light-rail system on crime rates in surrounding neighborhoods.
Using 2006 crime statistics on theft of vehicles, robbery, and commercial burglary offences
provided by the Ottawa Police Service, geo-spatial techniques were used to analyse the
effect of the transportation system. This study concluded that the placement of O-Train
stations had an effect on increased incidents of theft of vehicles, but not on commercial
burglary and robbery (Gallison & Andresen, 2017).
In Washington, DC, the closure of rail stations due to maintenance allowed
researchers to probe the impact of public transit on crime rates. The researchers concluded
that there was significant evidence that the closing of one station had the effect of reducing
crime by 5% on the transit line and by 2% on the overall transit system. It was concluded
that the reduction in crime was driven by changes in offender and victim behavior. More
specifically, most of the decrease in crime was attributed to offences related to theft from
automobiles, which was the result of fewer passengers using the “park and ride” centers
that provided offenders with many opportunities for crime (Phillips & Sandler, 2015).
In 1996, Block and Davis published a study on the relationship between transit and
street robberies in four districts of Chicago, Illinois. In two of the districts, 39% of street

6

robberies occurred within 1,000 feet of a transit station. The researchers believed that the
“number of street robberies peaked a short distance away from the station, where enough
potential targets would still have been on the street, but guardianship would have declined”
(1996: 251). It was concluded that robberies were less likely to occur during peak travel
times due to the number of prospective witnesses and police officers patrolling in the area
(Block & Davis, 1996).
Researchers also found that there was a strong correlation between bus routes and
violent crimes. In the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, one study concluded that the number of
robberies decreased as the distance from bus stops increased due to the concentration of
commercial buildings and residences along transit routes (Qin & Liu, 2015). In fact, 95%
of robberies occurred within 400 meters of a bus stop (Qin & Liu, 2015). It was established
that the sparser an area, the less likely there would be bus stops and, thus fewer
opportunities for robberies to occur. Part of the problem attributed to crime near bus routes
was the bus stops were typically located in areas that “house business establishments that
attract offenders and non-offenders alike” (Yu, 2011, p. 4).
2.2 Victim Reporting
Crime not only affects the immediate victim, but their families, communities, and
society at large. To study crime reporting, Statistics Canada collects statistics from police
organizations across Canada and conducts the General Social Survey (GSS) every five
years, which includes information about victimization. The survey asks Canadian adults to
self-report victimization on eight different crime types, including sexual assault, robbery,
and physical assault. Based on the results of the 2014 survey, approximately 5.6 million

7

Canadians had been the victim of crime in the past 12 months (Perreault, 2015). While a
total of 6.4 million criminal incidents were recorded by the survey at rate of 1,801
incidents per 10,000 individuals, the number of police reported incidents for 2014 was only
1.8 million or 506 incidents per 10,000 individuals (Perreault, 2015; Boyce, 2015). Survey
participants reported violent crimes, such as sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault,
2.2 million times, for a rate of 619 incidents per 10,000 individuals (Perreault, 2015). This
was significantly more compared to the police having documented 369,359 incidents of
violent crime or 103 incidents per 10,000 individuals (Boyce, 2015). Sexual assaults
reported by Canadians in the victimization survey occurred at a rate of 178 incidents per
10,000 individuals, while the number of sexual assaults reported to police was only seven
incidents per 10,000 individuals (Perreault, 2015; Boyce, 2015).
One of the areas that Statistics Canada evaluates is the reporting of crime to the
police and what percentage of incidents are never reported to the police. According to the
information collected in the 2014 survey, less than one-third of all criminal offences (31
per cent) were reported to the police. Only 21% of crimes were reported by the victim
themselves, while another 10% were reported to the police by a third party. Analysts
concluded that, in general, the more serious a criminal offence, the more likely the incident
is to be reported to the police. The only exception to this assumption was sexual assault.
Even though sexual assaults were the most serious offence in the survey, only 5% of all
sexual assaults were reported to the police. The most significant reason attributed to this
low statistic of reporting was because most victims felt that the incident was a private or
personal matter (Perreault, 2015).

8

When considering all crime types, the most common reason for not reporting a
criminal offence was that the victim did not feel that the incident was serious enough to
notify the police (Perreault, 2015). This was particularly true of less violent crimes, such as
thefts and vandalism. For more serious offences, the most common reason for not
contacting the police was that victims did not want to deal with the police. Other reasons
included the belief among victims that the offender would not receive adequate punishment
(38 per cent), the police would be ineffective (34 per cent), the victim feared the court
process or did not want to deal with the judicial system (25 per cent), and the victim had
received unsatisfactory service from the police in the past (17 per cent) (Perreault, 2015).
There is conflicting data on whether trends for victim reporting have increased or
decreased in recent years. In the Statistics Canada victimization survey, overall rates of
reporting crime to the police decreased 6% from 37% of households reporting a crime in
1999 to 31% of individuals reporting a crime to the police in 2014 (Perreault, 2015).
However, in a longevity study regarding the trends of crime reporting between 1973 and
2005 in the United States, researchers found that reporting percentages of certain crimes,
such as sexual assaults, had increased over time (Baumer & Lauritsen, 2010).
In addition to sex offences, victims of property crimes, such as burglary and motor
vehicle thefts, were more likely to report crimes, despite decreased crime rates. Some of
the reasons attributed to increased police notification were “increasing adoption of
community policing, legislation and social movements concerning the rights of victims, the
accelerating decline in interpersonal trust, growing ethnic diversity and rising inequality,
the improvements in how the public view the police, and the proliferation of 911 systems

9

and cell phones might have been instrumental for stimulating an increase in police
notification for these incidents” (Baumer & Lauritsen, 2010, p. 174).
There are very few studies that focus on the victimization of transit users. In a
comprehensive study conducted on 1,088 households in Los Angeles, California,
researchers from the University of California examined the rates of unreported crime
associated to use of the Los Angeles bus system. Based on the survey results, it was
calculated that there were approximately 23,000 bus and bus-related crimes in 1983.
Compared to the crime statistics for the entire transit system, the number of criminal
offences linked to transit use was an estimated 30 times more than the reported statistic.
The researchers believed that not only were victims not reporting crime, but that the
responding police agencies were improperly categorizing the offence as a non-transit event
or failed to respond to the crime even when reported (Levine & Wachs, 1986).
2.3 Uses of SMS Texting
On December 3, 1992, the first SMS text message was sent by a British
communications engineer wishing his friend a “Merry Christmas”. Phone manufacturers
quickly began developing cell phones that allowed for texting capabilities. The texting
phenomenon resonated with college and university aged students, and, by 2002, more than
250 billion text messages were sent worldwide. The use of text messages increased at a
steady pace, by-passing the number of phone calls made. In 2011, 7.4 trillion text
messages were sent worldwide (Gayomali, 2012).
The concept of text messaging involves the user sending a message with a
maximum of 160 characters. While the actual limit is 960 characters, if the text is longer

10

than 160 characters, it is broken up into a series of messages of 160 characters. When a
text message is sent by a cell phone to another user, the text message travels on a pathway
or control channel to a local cell tower. From there, the text message travels to its
destination along the network. The receiving cell phone must be turned on to accept the
text message. Texting is viewed by many as being more convenient than sending email and
more discreet than a phone conversation. The deaf and hearing-impaired community
increasingly uses this method to communicate with each other and others (Hord, 2005).
One field that has embraced the use of SMS texting is the medical and healthcare
sector. A medical school in the United Kingdom introduced a trial program to help second
year students adjust to their practicums. The program allowed students to maintain contact
with faculty members through text messages in attempts to decrease feelings of isolation
(Young et al., 2009). Even doctors on call have capitalized on the ability to send text
messages and pictures of their patients to senior medical personnel to request assistance on
diagnoses (Matharu, Hale, Ammar, & Brennan, 2016). During one study, over 50% of
doctors admitted to routinely sending text messages to “to update colleagues on patients’
progress and give information about times of ward rounds and meetings” (Matharu, Hale,
Ammar, & Brennan, 2016, p. 863).
Texting has also become more popular among dispatch centres coordinating
emergency response. The emergency dispatch centre for Metro Vancouver, E-Comm,
provides the first line of defense when the public dials 9-1-1. The operator will ask several
questions of the caller to figure out the type of services needed (fire, police, or ambulance)
and the municipality the complainant is calling from. The operator will then connect the

11

caller to the proper agency and stay on the line with the caller until the call is transferred to
the next agency, which is still on a separate dispatch system. Of note, for 35 police and fire
agencies, E-Comm provides in-house dispatching services that connect directly with
emergency personnel (E-Comm, 2017).
E-Comm offers a texting service for the deaf/deaf-blind, hard of hearing, and
speech impaired community. However, the user needs to pre-register his or her cell phone
with their cell phone provider and ensure that the cell phone can make voice calls and
send/receive text messages. The individual is still required to dial 9-1-1 to establish a voice
connection and wait for the dispatcher to send a text message before responding. This can
take up to 60 seconds before the user receives a text message from the operator (E-Comm,
2017).
One challenge of this specific program is that the service is not available in all
regions of British Columbia. Another concern is that the user needs to wait for the operator
to send a text message to activate the conversation. It is recommended that if the user does
not receive a text message after a few minutes, the individual should end the call and try
again or seek help from someone else (E-Comm, n.d.). The number of calls received using
this program was extremely small as only 32 calls were received between January and
April 2017 (E-Comm, 2017).
It appears that the use of SMS texting for personal safety and crime reporting is
starting to be slowly implemented in various areas. In 2015, the British Transport Police
commissioned a report that consulted the public on the level of safety felt by passengers.
One of the areas that respondents were asked to provide feedback was on the British

12

Transport Police’s texting program for reporting non-emergency incidents. Out of the
5,646 responses, 66.3% (n = 3,741) individuals were not aware of the texting program.
Some of the feedback from the participants included support for the texting service and
increased promotion of the program by the police agency. The study concluded that the
“[k]nowledge of the 61016 text service can also help increase the public’s feelings of
safety on the railway by making them feel more able to report undesirable behaviours and
lower level disorderly behavior” (British Transport Police, 2015, p. 37).
Other organizations have capitalized on the texting habits of the public to report
disorder. One of the largest public venues in Vancouver, Rogers Arena, provides its guests
with the ability to report inappropriate behaviour. Using the number 6-9-0-5-0, ticket
holders can connect directly with arena employees and text their concerns without fear of
retaliation from other fans. The facility requests that texters give their seating location
followed by the individual’s question or comment (Rogers Arena, 2017).
In recent years, as result of a number of active shooters and violent encounters in
the United States, the safety of students on post-secondary campuses has become a primary
concern to school officials. Yabe (2016) studied the willingness to pay for emergency
texting to 9-1-1 for three separate groups that included students, faculty, and staff
employees. It was calculated that the sum of all three groups’ willingness to pay was
$7,736 US per year, which was larger than the actual cost to implement such a program
(Yabe, 2016).
To date, SMS text messages have demonstrated that a mere 160 characters can
provide security and safety to users (Costello, 2017; Yabe, 2016; E-Comm, 2017; Rogers

13

Arena, 2017). Previous research has shown that the general public has placed such a high
value on the ability to text for help in the face of danger that they are willing to pay for
comparable services (Yabe, 2016). The British Transport Police confirmed that even
knowing that such programs are available increased the public’s sense of security (British
Transport Police, 2015).
Yet presently, there is little research conducted on the feasibility of reporting crime
using a SMS texting mechanism. Given this, the following thesis evaluates the use of a
SMS texting program as a method for the public to report criminal activity and social
disorder to the police while on or near transit. It is important to demonstrate that an
alternative method to calling 9-1-1 should encourage reluctant complaints to more readily
contact the police to report criminal incidents on the transit system.
2.4 Routine Activity Theory and the Bystander Effect
Routine activity theory argues that three separate elements must come together to
create an opportunity for a crime to occur - a motivated individual, an available victim, and
the absence of a suitable guardian to prevent the crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Cohen and
Felson stated that the “lack of any of these elements is sufficient to prevent the successful
completion of a direct-contact predatory crime, and the convergence in time and space of
suitable targets and the absence of capable guardians may even lead to large increases in
crime rates without necessarily requiring any increase in the structural conditions that
motivate individuals to engage in crime” (1979, p. 589).
As it applies to crime on transit, passengers may place themselves in a position to
become unintended victims of crime as they converge at transit stations and bus stops.

14

While waiting for a bus or train, individuals are reduced to stationary targets for offenders.
Many passengers will also leave their vehicles unattended for long periods of time while
using transit to travel to work, which also increases the opportunity for crime. Although
there are often a lot of other people either at or on transit who could serve as capable
guardians, it is also common for transit users to not pay too much attention to the other
people around them or to not want to get involved in incidents on or near transit (Qin &
Liu, 2015). One of the functions of the Transit Police is to patrol a group of stations and
therefore, moving between stations and transit cars reduces their capacity to serve as
guardians (Transit Police, 2017).
An example of the lack of willingness of bystanders to get involved when a
criminal offence is being committed was the well-known Genovese murder in New York.
In March 1964, 28-year-old Catherine “Kitty” Genovese was walking home in the early
morning hours when Winston Moseley began stalking her. For over 30 minutes, Genovese
screamed for help in her middle-income neighbourhood in Queens, while Moseley stabbed
her multiple times before Genovese died on the steps of her building. During the murder
investigation, it was determined that 38 citizens witnessed the homicide, but did little to
intervene (Gansberg, 1964). This quickly became coined as the “bystander apathy”, or
better known as the “bystander effect” (Darley & Latane, 1968).
In studies generated after the Genovese murder, researchers found that, when faced
with an emergency, bystanders experience an internal turmoil about whether to intervene
(Darley & Latane, 1968). Researchers Darley and Latane (1968) described this conflict as
“avoidance-avoidance”, where “[o]n the one hand, subjects worried about the guilt and

15

shame they would feel if they did not help the person in distress. On the other hand, they
were concerned not to make fools of themselves by overreacting” (para. 39).
There were several factors that effected the reporting of an emergency during the
study. The researchers noted that the larger the crowd of individuals near the incident, the
less likely a bystander was to report the emergency and the greater amount of time that
would elapse before the emergency was reported. But the element that seemed to have the
greatest effect on reporting an emergency was the introduction of an emergency service
person, such as a police officer or a medical official, in the immediate area. Of note, when
a paramedic participant appeared at the scene, all subject bystanders reported the
emergency and the delay in reporting was the shortest of all the samples (Darley & Latane,
1968).
Latane and Darley (1968) conducted a second research project that documented the
reactions of various bystanders when introduced to a smoke-filled room. Individuals acting
alone were significantly quicker to report the incident compared to the larger groups. When
the participants were placed alone with passive actors, only 10% reported the smoke in the
room. Latane and Darley anticipated that:
When faced with such an event, we suggest, the individual bystander is likely to
look at the reactions of people around him and be powerfully influenced by them. It
was predicted that the sight of other, nonresponsive bystanders would lead the
individual to interpret the emergency as not serious, and consequently lead him not
to act. Further, it was predicted that the dynamics of the interaction process would
lead each of a group of naive onlookers to be misled by the apparent inaction of the
others into adopting a nonemergency interpretation of the event and a passive role
(1968, p. 220).

16

Latane and Darley concluded that the experiment was consistent with their
predictions. Yet, they provided several alternative explanations as to why participants
reacted how they did during the study including the idea of safety in numbers and that a
large group of people present during the event allowed participants to defuse their fear.
Another proposed theory was that the individuals had attempted to demonstrate a sense of
bravery in the face of danger. The concept of portraying macho stoicism while others are
nearby was considered a socially acceptable norm by the researchers, especially for adult
males (Latane & Darley, 1968). It was assumed that “[i]t was possible that subjects in the
group condition saw themselves as engaged in a game of "Chicken," and thus did not
react” (Latane & Darley, 1968, p. 220).
Based on the initial 1968 study conducted by Darley and Latane, it would make
sense to have emergency personnel, including police officers, stationed at all depots along
the transit system in the Metro Vancouver area. This would ensure that all emergencies,
such as criminal offences and social disorder, would be reported in a timely manner.
However, this would not be economically feasible based on the extensive coverage that
includes patrolling 21 different communities (Transit Police, 2017). Presently, patrol duties
by officers are facilitated by travelling between various stations within a designated zone
(Transit Police, 2017).
Given that police officers cannot realistically be at every bus stop or transit station,
congregations of passengers waiting for transit provides the perfect target-rich environment
for offenders to commit crimes, such as theft, robbery, and sexual assaults. Based on the
studies conducted by Latane and Darley, it could be concluded that even if there was a

17

medical emergency or a crime in progress witnessed by transit passengers, there may not
be anyone who contacts the authorities for fear of “losing face” or appearing panicked in
front of others. The concept of using SMS texting to report crime and social disorder
provides bystanders with a viable alternative as a discrete method of contacting the Transit
Police without outwardly reacting in front of others and, therefore, maintaining a noncommittal and brave exterior.

18

Chapter 3: Sample and Methods
The research for this thesis evaluates Chatterbox as a reporting tool in assisting
Transit Police with engaging transit passengers and allowing them to report social disorder
and criminal offences on the transit system. The evaluation on Chatterbox was completed
by conducting several research methods including hosting an online survey for users of
Chatterbox, completing individual interviews with Transit Police dispatchers, carrying out
focus group interviews with Transit Police officers, and analysing statistics stored in
PRIME and Chatterbox.
3.1 Chatterbox
On May 1, 2013, a local municipal police department, the Abbotsford Police
Department, launched a SMS texting program named Chatterbox. The purpose for
implementing the program was “to leverage technology to communicate and engage [the]
community” (Slide 2, APD, 2013). Within the first six weeks of the program’s
introduction, the Abbotsford Police Department received 105 conversations (text dialogue
between a complainant and an Abbotsford Police Department employee). Just over onequarter of those conversations were converted to police files that were assigned to police
officers to investigate various offences including motor vehicle act incidents, break and
enter circumstances, and suspicious person calls (APD, 2013).
Transit Police became interested in introducing a similar application after several
employees saw the Abbotsford Police Department’s presentation on Chatterbox at a 2013
British Columbia Associations of Chiefs of Police conference. At the time, Transit Police

19

was concerned about promoting engagement with passengers and community involvement.
After consultation with senior management, the two agencies began working together to
develop the Chatterbox program for Transit Police. Abbotsford Police Department
provided technological support, software, and training to the employees of Transit Police.
In December 2013, Transit Police launched Chatterbox for use on the transit system with
little fanfare (L. Talbot, personal conversation, January 27, 2016).
Generally, when a text user sends a text message, the text message is forwarded to
an aggregator. An aggregator works as an intermediary with various wireless service
providers to allow the infrastructure to “talk” to each wireless carrier
(usshortcodedirectory, 2017). The aggregator program then sends the message to the end
user. Transit Police considered a number of companies to provide additional aggregator
services, including several American companies. However, due to concerns with privacy
implications due to the USA Patriot Act, a Canadian company, Impact Mobile
Incorporated, located in Toronto, Ontario were selected (L. Talbot, personal conversation,
January 27, 2016).
One of the issues with implementing the program was the choice of the phone
number as it needed to be easy for users to remember. Initially, a four-digit number was
asked for, but the Transit Police were informed that such numbers were exclusively
assigned to businesses. Several other numbers were put forward before 8-7-7-7-7-7 was
selected. The numbers were chosen based on the Transit Police’s “See Something, Say
Something” initiative, a program designed to combat the increase of occurrences involving

20

sexual harassment and sexual assaults on female passengers on the transit system (L.
Talbot, personal conversation, January 27, 2016).
In October 2013, two Simon Fraser University students launched an online website
to capture the comments and postings from females who had experienced unwanted sexual
attention and sexual touching from male passengers while riding on transit (Hui, 2013).
Within the first few weeks, many postings were added to the website, describing sexual
harassment and physical intimidation. One anonymous submission described an unknown
male who made verbal sexual threats to a female during a ride on the SeaBus (Nordgren,
2013, as cited in Hui, 2013). In the followings months, several sexual assault incidents
gained notoriety in the media, and there was increased pressure from both the media and
various advocacy groups on the Transit Police to provide more security to passengers. To
counteract the increased numbers of reported sexual assaults, Transit Police began to
promote several practices and strategies, including the use of Chatterbox to report
offensive behaviour (Brunoro, 2014).
The program was “soft-launched” on December 3, 2013. The idea of the “softlaunch” was to slowly roll out the program to test Chatterbox and iron out the wrinkles and
test the platform. As the program moved from its infancy stage, the Transit Police and
Translink began advertising the program over the early months of 2014. Transit Police
officers were notified of the program through the appearance of marketing paraphernalia
distributed throughout the Transit Police offices (L. Talbot, personal conversation, January
27, 2016).

21

The Chatterbox program falls under the responsibility of the Transit Police’s
Operations Communication Centre (OCC). The OCC provides analytical reports to senior
management, including a daily log of the conversations received by the OCC. Chatterbox
conversations that are converted into police files are differentiated from other types of
police calls in the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) program by the notation of *SMS* in
the remarks field (N. Applejohn, personal conversation, January 29, 2016).
3.2 Research Ethics and Informed Consent
Although the research on SMS texting as a reporting function to the police does not
involve significant sensitivity, some participants may feel negatively affected by having to
recall the nature of the call that resulted in their use of the Chatterbox program.
Additionally, to ensure that police officers and dispatchers felt comfortable providing
accurate information about how they felt about the program, ethics approval was obtained
from the University of Fraser Valley’s Human Research Ethics Board prior to collecting
any data for this study.
Given this, each participant in the focus groups and the interviews was provided
with a written consent letter (see Appendix A for consent letter) and information sheet that
they had to read and sign prior to their participation with this study. The consent letter
outlined the objectives of the research, the procedures of the research, and the potential
benefits of the study. All participants were advised that their comments would be
anonymized to prevent identification of individuals in the study. Dispatchers participating
in the interviews had the opportunity to withdraw at any time during the interview and up
to November 30, 2016. Police officers were notified that they could leave the focus group

22

at any time, but that their comments prior to their departure could not be retracted as the
information provided in the focus group did not identify by name who provided the
information. Moreover, all of the information was grouped under themes at the time of the
focus group session. Initial participation by dispatchers was minimal so to increase the
participation of dispatchers, individuals were issued a five-dollar gift card from Starbucks.
Police officers were provided with coffee and donuts during the focus groups.
3.3 Research Method: Survey with Users of Chatterbox
Since previous Chatterbox users could not be contacted and asked to participate in
a survey due to privacy concerns, an online survey (see Appendix B for list of questions)
was created to invite future users of Chatterbox to participate in the survey. A Canadian
online survey website, FluidSurveys, was used to develop the survey. The ULTRA service
plan was bought as the service plan covered all necessary survey requirements, such as
having the data stored in Canada and the ability to have unlimited questions on the survey
(FluidSurvey, 2016).
The survey questions, along with the consent letter, were submitted as a package to
the Human Research Ethics Board at the University of the Fraser Valley. Once ethics
approval was obtained, the survey went “live” and was made available on the internet at
http://fluidsurveys.com/s/tp/smstexting/. An email was sent to the OCC manager
requesting that there be a pre-programed script in the Chatterbox program that would allow
dispatchers to conclude all Chatterbox conversations with the following text - We are
looking for your feedback on texting to police. Please fill out our short survey at

23

http://fluidsurveys.com/s/tp/smstexting/. The survey was also advertised on the Transit
Police website and the Transit Police Twitter account.
The survey was available online from May 17, 2016 to August 31, 2016. Prior to
shutting down the survey, several emails were sent to the OCC manager and supervisors
advising them of the end date. When the survey was concluded, there was a total of 221
completed surveys out of 920 Chatterbox conversations during that same time period. In
other words, 24% of all chatterbox interactions resulted in participating in the survey.
From these surveys, 34 were removed because they were “incomplete”. While the survey
asked that it only be completed by those over the age of 19 years old, in total, eight
additional surveys were removed because they were completed by people under the age of
19 years old. This left 179 completed surveys. Once the survey was ‘closed’, the database
was exported into Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) for analysis. Prior to analysing the data, the database was cleaned to ensure that
missing data was identified and appropriately coded. As the survey was completed online
using pre-defined checkboxes, there were no coding errors in the database. Given the
exploratory nature of this study, once the database was ready for analysis, for the most
part, univariate statistics, namely frequencies and distributions, were used in the analysis of
the data; however, where appropriate, bivariate analyses, such as chi-square, were used to
compare responses on key dependent variables.
3.4 Research Method: Data Analysis of Chatterbox Calls
Requests for statistics from the Chatterbox database were initially provided to the
researcher in a PowerPoint presentation that had been assembled for Transit Police senior

24

management at an earlier date. Repeated requests to retrieve raw data from the Chatterbox
database that would be inclusive of 2016 statistics were unsuccessful. Due to the
unavailability of a larger data set, the data in the PowerPoint presentation was used to
provide a small sample of the total number of Chatterbox calls received by the Transit
Police.
The PowerPoint presentation provided the number of total conversations per month
for the period between May 2014 and November 2015. The presentation was also the
source of the total number of text messages sent between OCC operators and Chatterbox
users between May 2014 and December 2014. It was for this same period that the
PowerPoint presentation provided statistics for the average initial response time and the
average length of the call.
Data for police files generated from Chatterbox conversations between January 1,
2014 and December 31, 2016 were obtained from PRIME. Based on interviews with
dispatchers, such police files are differentiated from other police calls by a notation in the
remarks field with keywords “SMS” or “chatterbox”. Reports were created through queries
from PRIME and downloaded to Microsoft Excel. Once downloaded to the spreadsheet
program, the data was reviewed. Under the field, “Final Call Type”, there were files that
had been created in error or were duplication of another file. These files were removed
from the final dataset. The records were then analysed and sorted by city, day of the week,
time of the day, month and year, and transit line (Expo Line, Millennium Line, Canada
Line, and all other calls, including bus-related calls, were classified under “Other”).

25

A similar process was conducted for the data necessary to analyse the total number
of police files. Records for the number of police files generated annually for the period
between 2014 and 2016 were downloaded from PRIME into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet. Upon further analysis, there was a significant quantity of files that were
facsimiles of previously created files. As with the Chatterbox files created in error, these
data records were removed from the initial analysis. To compare the two datasets (police
files generated from Chatterbox conversations and the overall number of police files), the
records were analysed and sorted in a similar fashion as the Chatterbox police files. The
data was sorted by city, day of the week, time of the day, month and year, and line. It
should be noted that for both sets of data, the call type was classified using the most
serious criminal offence. It was possible that for any given police file, officers could be
investigating more than one criminal offence.
3.5 Research Method: Interviews with Dispatchers
Interviews with dispatchers were conducted over a two month period, starting with
interviews on May 22, 2016 and ending on July 14, 2016. Several emails were sent to the
shift supervisors for all four shifts requesting dispatchers to participate in the survey.
Supervisors discussed the purpose of this study with their individual squads, and
volunteers were scheduled when extra labour resources were made available. Three out of
the four shifts participated in the interview process. The fourth shift was invited to
participate, but no volunteers came forward, despite three email requests to the shift. The
duration of the interviews was approximately between 25 and 45 minutes for each
dispatcher.

26

The supervisors of the participating shifts emailed the researcher to advise of the
assigned date and the time that had been scheduled to allow for the interviews to occur.
The researcher met with each participant at the office of Transit Police Headquarters at the
appointed date and time. Each interview was conducted in a private meeting room on the
premises of Transit Police Headquarters located at the Sapperton Station in New
Westminster. At the beginning of each interview, the researcher explained the interview
process to the participant, including the consent letter, the ability to end the interview at
any point during the interview, and that all answers to the questions were anonymous.
Prior to commencing the interview, the participant was given a copy of the consent
letter to read and was required to sign the consent letter when finished reading the letter, if
they were still interested in participating in the study. The researcher also signed the
consent letter as the witness to the participant’s signature. Each signed consent letter was
then placed into an envelope and sealed in front of the participant. The researcher signed
along the envelope flap and dated the front of the interview with the interview date. A fivedollar gift card from Starbucks was then handed to the dispatcher before the start of the
interview.
Each participant was asked the same 27 questions (see Appendix C for list of
questions) that addressed a variety of topics related to Chatterbox, including training on the
program, how to process a Chatterbox conversation, and the dispatcher’s personal
experiences with the program (Bryman, Bell, & Teevan, 2012). No electronic devices were
used to record the interviews, but answers to the questions were entered into a spreadsheet
on a personal laptop by the researcher during the interview. Once the participant completed

27

his or her answer for each question, the researcher allowed approximately 10 to 30 seconds
of silence to provide the participant the opportunity to provide additional information if
required. This was to ensure that the interviews were not conducted in a hurried fashion.
In some instances, certain questions were not asked as they were not applicable to
the participant. For example, if the participant had answered the length of employment at
Transit Police had been only a few months, it was not necessary to ask a follow-up
question that focused on whether the participant was consulted during the implementation
phase of the Chatterbox program, as the participant was not employed by the organization
at that time. Such questions were indicated in the spreadsheet by an “NA”. After each
interview was completed, the spreadsheet containing the interview answers was saved to a
USB stick and backed up on the researcher’s personal laptop computer. The spreadsheet
was password protected to ensure the security of the dispatchers’ answers.
In total, interviews were conducted with 9 of the 34 part-time and full-time Transit
Police dispatchers. A number of attempts were made to solicit the participation of
additional volunteers with the offer of a five-dollar gift card to Starbucks. These attempts
were unsuccessful. Several months after the final interview, trial versions of the qualitative
analysis programs NVivo and ATLAS.ti were used to assist in analysing the interview data
and develop themes from the answers provided by the dispatchers. The results from this
process were simplistic with the themes being described in one or two words.
As a result, the researcher copied and pasted the answers from the spreadsheet into
a word document to easily view the answers to each question. The answers were then
printed out on poster-sized paper where the researcher took a number of coloured

28

highlighters and used the coloured highlighters to manually group similar themes. The
identification of specific themes was based on responses that were found repeatedly in the
participants’ replies. Based on the answers provided by the participants, the researcher was
able to identify six major themes in the areas of training, technology difficulties, and the
complexities of handling a Chatterbox call for service. Rather than being exclusively
representative, direct quotes were selected from the interviews that best described and
illustrated these themes.
3.6 Research Method: Focus Groups with Transit Police Officers
Focus groups were conducted with patrol members working from both the Transit
Police Headquarters and the Bridgeport office located at the Bridgeport Station in
Richmond. The supervisor for each squad was contacted directly through email and was
queried when it would be most appropriate for the researcher to conduct the focus groups.
Each supervisor provided useful information on the availability of each patrol squad. The
focus groups were carried out with two squads from the afternoon shifts (both squads from
the Bridgeport office), and three squads from the morning shifts (two squads from the
Transit Police Headquarters and one squad from the Bridgeport office). Due to time
constraints, the researcher was unable to meet with the other three remaining squads;
however, there is nothing unique or distinct about the squads that did not participate
compared to those that did.
Each focus group had between 6 and 12 members, and the sessions were conducted
over a one month period, starting on June 9, 2016 and ending on July 10, 2016. At the
beginning of each shift, all patrol members are required to attend a pre-shift meeting or

29

briefing. On the day of the scheduled date for the focus group, the researcher attended the
shift briefing. Once the briefing was concluded, the researcher was given permission by the
supervisor to begin the research session. Each focus group lasted 25 to 40 minutes in
length, and the sessions were held in the briefing room of each participating squad.
Prior to the commencement of each of the focus groups, the police officers were
asked if they were willing to participate in the study. Only the police officers that had
attended the shift briefing on the prescribed day were invited to participate in the focus
group. Those who decided to partake in the focus group were asked to read and sign a
consent letter. The potential participants were informed that their comments would be
anonymous, and that they could leave the session at any time and end their participation;
however, any comments they made while they were still in the focus group would be
included in the analysis as there was no way of distinguishing one comment from another
since all responses were grouped together and recorded without identifying who made the
comment. In the five sessions conducted for this thesis research, only one police officer
asked to opt out of the focus group and left the briefing room before the consent letter was
issued. All other police officers agreed to participate in the study and stayed for the entire
session.
Once the consent letters were signed and witnessed by either another police officer
or the researcher, the forms were placed in a single envelope and sealed by the researcher.
The police officers were then asked nine questions (see Appendix D for list of questions)
about the Chatterbox program. As with the dispatcher interviews, no electronic recording
devices were used. The responses were typed by the researcher into a personal laptop in a

30

Microsoft Word document. The comments from each focus group was saved in its own
Microsoft Word document file that included the session date in the name of the document.
Despite the initial instructions provided by the researcher to talk slowly and that
police officers were to talk one at a time to allow the researcher the opportunity to capture
all of the comments, there was a number of occasions where participants would quickly
blurt out answers or would interrupt their colleagues in an attempt to verbalize an opinion.
When this would occur, participants were asked to slow down or repeat their comments in
order for the researcher to type out the answers.
As with the dispatcher interviews, the answers from the focus groups were
examined by the two qualitative software programs. Similar to the results with the
dispatcher interviews, the software produced one word themes that provided little or no
value to the overall findings. The analysis was then conducted manually by using the same
coloured highlighter system to develop themes based on similar answers from the
participants.
By deploying this method, four major topics emerged as a result of the focus group
sessions. These themes included the observation that a significant number of Transit Police
officers had a lack of training or knowledge of Chatterbox, and that police officers felt the
slow flow of information hindered their ability to do their job. The two other themes were
a sense of frustration with being assigned what was felt to be insignificant calls for
services, and that the police officers recognized that the Chatterbox program was an
integral and important part of crime reporting. To describe these key points, many of the

31

police officers’ comments were included in the analysis below. This also meant the use of
curse words to best portray how the participants felt about the program.

32

Chapter 4: Findings
4.1 What the Public Says about Chatterbox
In an earlier study comparing different methods of getting around Metro
Vancouver, it was concluded that almost an equal proportion of men (48 per cent) and
women (52 per cent) used transit (TransLink, 2013). These findings were similar to the
ratio of participants that responded in the current research study, as 51% of participants
were female while 47% of the participants were male. The average age of the respondents
at 35 years old was significantly different than the TransLink survey which determined the
18 to 24 age group was most likely to use transit as opposed other modes of transportation
(TransLink, 2013).
When asked how often respondents used transit, 79% reported that they used transit
daily. This finding is important as it suggests that this sample is a frequent user of transit
and, therefore, should have the knowledge and experience to answer questions about safety
on transit and the Chatterbox program. In terms of the frequency of transit use by the rest
of the sample, 13% reported being weekly users of transit, 3% were monthly users, and 5%
self-identified as rare users of transit. The two most common modes of transportation used
within the Metro Vancouver transit system were the SkyTrain (which included Expo and
Millennium lines at 35 per cent) and the bus (33 per cent). Moreover, 21% of the sample
reported using the Canada Line, 10% used the Sea Bus, and 2% used the West Coast
Express.
In terms of the contribution that Chatterbox plays in the personal safety of those on
the transit system, 43% of respondents stated that the availability of Chatterbox made them

33

feel “very safe” on the transit system. Of note, this did not vary by gender. The mean score
for the entire sample on this question, which was based on a five-point Likert scale
anchored by 1 being very unsafe and 5 being very safe, was 4.1. When calculated by
gender, the mean score for males was 4.12, and the mean score for females was 4.04.
Statistical analysis between the two genders determined that there was no statistically
significant difference between how males and females experienced in terms of safety, t
(168) = 0.259, p = 0.397.
When asked whether respondents had ever used Chatterbox to report something to
Transit Police, 83% indicated that they had used the SMS texting program before. Those
who had used Chatterbox at least once in the past year reported using the program, on
average, 2.13 times. The range was from once to 15 times in the past 12 months. Over half
of the participants had used the program once (see Figure 1).

34

Figure 1. Number of Times Chatterbox was Used in the Past 12 Months (n = 138)

Of those who used Chatterbox, 54% said they had used it to report an intoxicated or
obnoxious person (see Figure 2). Surprisingly, no participant had used the program to
inquire about scheduling concerns. Moreover, nearly one-quarter of the sample (23 per
cent) was classified as ‘Other’. Examples of things that made up the ‘Other’ category
included things like an “obnoxious person at station entrance”, “passenger losing
consciousness”, “fare evader”, “bikes during rush hour”, and “drug dealing on the trains”.

35

Figure 2. Percentage of Incidents Reported (n = 149)
0%

10%

20%

30%

50%

60%
54%

To report an intoxicated or obnoxious passenger
23%

Other
14%

To report a crime against a person (i.e. assault)
6%

To report a property crime (i.e. graffiti)

3%

To report a mess or spill
To inquire about scheduling (i.e. delayed trains)

40%

0%

Respondents were asked if the Transit Police's SMS texting program was not available,
what other means of reporting they would have used to report their concern. In total, 25%
of respondents indicated that, if Chatterbox was not an option, they would not have
reported the incident (see Figure 3). Another 30% stated that, in the absence of Chatterbox,
they would have approached a transit employee. This was followed by hitting the silent
alarm on the SkyTrain or the Canada Line (12 per cent). The 6% of respondents who
selected ‘Other’ indicated that they would have used Twitter, the non-emergency police
line of another police agency, or the Transit Police’s non-emergency phone number.

36

Figure 3. Percentage of Alternative Methods of Reporting Incident (n = 270)

Using a Likert five-point scale anchored by very unlikely = 1 and very likely = 5,
When asked whether respondents were more or less likely to report something using the
Transit Police's SMS texting program (Chatterbox), slightly more than three-quarters (78
per cent) indicated that they were very likely to use the program to report something on the
transit system. The mean score on the scale was 4.66. Of course, it is important to keep in
mind that this was a sample of people who had used the Chatterbox system in the past 12
months.
When asked why they had used the Chatterbox system, respondents most
commonly indicated that they thought it would be easier than other reporting methods (26
per cent), they did not want other transit passengers to know they were reporting
something (24 per cent), and they thought it would be faster (22 per cent) (see Figure 4).
Importantly, 13% believed that it would be safer for them to use Chatterbox than to phone

37

the police, and 10% believed that they would be anonymous using Chatterbox. When
selecting “other”, almost half the responses were in relation to convenience. For example,
one participant wrote, “It is fast easy and inconspicuous allowing me to continue to
provide details and carry on my journey without interruption or having to engage with a
dangerous or unpleasant situation.” Another person stated, “I was next to the aggressive
person and felt if I confronted personally I would be involved In (sp) a physical
altercation.”

Figure 4. Percentage of Reasons for Using Chatterbox (n = 149)
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

I thought it would be easier than other reporting
methods.

26%

I did not want other transit passengers to know I
was reporting something.

24%
22%

I thought it would be faster.
I thought it was safer for me than calling the
police.

13%
10%

I thought it was anonymous.
Other

7%

Another reason was that the participants did not feel that the call required an
emergency response. Several individuals commented that they were “[n]ot sure if it was
serious enough” and “I did not think it was an emergency, but did think it was a criminal
activity that only the police are equipped to deal with”. The other main topic for using
Chatterbox was related to the offender. Respondents replied they used the program because
“I did not want the person I was reporting, specifically, to know I was reporting him, as I

38

30%

was sitting quite near him”, “I was next to the aggressive person and felt if I confronted
personally I would be involved in a physical altercation”, and “It's good when u r directly
in front of the suspect and they don't know u r reporting them”. One individual replied
Chatterbox was used because they were hearing impaired and could “type better then (sp)
hearing on a phone”.
When asked how easy it was to use Chatterbox using a five-point Likert scale
anchored with 1 being very difficult and 5 being very easy, the mean score was 4.70. This
meant slightly more than three-quarters (77 per cent) of participants found the SMS texting
program very easy to use. Similarly, when asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the
timeliness of the response they received to their text conversation using a five-point Likert
scale with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied, the mean score was 4.63,
with slightly more than three-quarters of the sample (76 per cent) indicating that they were
very satisfied. The main issue for those who responded either with a 1 (very dissatisfied) or
a 2 (somewhat dissatisfied) commented that they felt the service was too slow. One
individual commented “[t]oo slow, conversations seem to take too many steps to get basic
information I provide upfront and by then the person has gotten off the bus and gone away.
Another participant believed the system was an “emergency service and should be really
fast.”
Those who indicated they were satisfied with the timeliness remarked that the
service was very good. One participant wrote, “I felt like my concerns were taken seriously
and acted on promptly”. Other comments included, “[r]esponse was immediate, and we
were able to coordinate help for the passenger within 2 stops” and “[t]he person who texted

39

back was very professional and helpful in addressing my concerns”. Another statement
from a respondent was the “TP SMS person was considerate. The first time I did not see
the matter to be taken care of. The second time I saw that the matter was being addressed
and I felt that it was effective.” Several participants remarked on the response of Transit
Police and wrote, “Transit police responded immediately and after investigating, replied to
inform me of the outcome” and “[t]he officers were very quick to respond and provide a
solution to the problem I reported.”
When asked about their level of satisfaction with how their text conversation was
handled, using the same five-point Likert scale as the previous question, the mean score
was 4.61. In fact, slightly more than three-quarters of the sample (77 per cent) indicated
that they were very satisfied with how their text conversation was handled. When asked to
comment on their level of satisfaction, several themes emerged. Those who said that they
were either somewhat or completely dissatisfaction with the program largely attributed this
to the request of the dispatchers for personal information, including the complainant’s
name, birthdate, and home address. Many felt that the program should give the public a
level of anonymity when reporting criminal offences and social disorder. One person
commented that they “[t]hought it was anonymous, felt pressured into giving my
information like I was the criminal”. Others stated that the level of importance of his or her
complaint did not necessitate the recording of personal information.
Participants that indicated they were either somewhat or completely satisfied with
the response they received indicated that this rating was based on things, such as “[t]he
responding dispatchers are courteous and efficient and the police response is appropriate to

40

the severity of reported incidents. Furthermore, the dispatcher responded later to advise me
the situation was handled which made me more confident in the effectiveness of using the
service in the future” and “[q]uick response that was "human", i.e. not 'electronic' feeling,
and much like a phone report might have been responded to yet I could more comfortably
text without feeling someone might react negatively to what I was reporting.”
In total, 14 participants referred specifically to the level of professionalism of the
dispatcher. One person submitted the following comment – “[t]he dispatchers were very
professional and most times responded quickly.” Another participant wrote, “[t]hey were
communicating and updating me on the situation at all times, and also gave me advice on
how to avoid escalating the situation.” Other remarks included, “they comprehended what i
was saying and asked the right questions to get to the issue” and “[v]ery professional and
to the point, fast response, great overall!”
Of the 179 surveys, 148 participants provided a response to the question on the
estimated total amount of time spent during the text conversation. To eliminate any
outliers, the top 95% of data was retained for analysis. This resulted in data ranging from
less than one minute to 24 minutes. The mean amount of time was 8.6 minutes with a
standard deviation of 4.89 minutes. The median was eight minutes.
For those who provided a response, only 3% of respondents reported that they
would not use Chatterbox again. One participant stated, “I wanted to report anonymously
and did not like being asked for my name and contact information. If it is possible to be
anonymous, I would use it again.” Another individual indicated dissatisfaction with the
outcome and wrote, “I was very distraught (being assualted (sp)) and it seemed no one

41

cared. It felt [like] everyone was just doing their due diligence.” Another person reported,
“They sent bus driver supervisors to a fare evader complaint. Bus driver supervisors cannot
do anything!”.
Most respondents indicated that they would use the program again, and made
reference to the fact that the program was “fast and effective” and “discreet”. One person
wrote, “[i]t was fast, convenient, and they handled it seriously. Honestly, with the recent
assault on the skytrain (sp) in the news, I've been a bit anxious riding the sky trains (sp) at
night and weekends when there's lots of intoxicated passengers. But, knowing the quick
response I received today, I am feeling a lot safer.” Other respondents stated, “[a]n
effective way to report issues on Skytrain (sp) where one wants to be discreet and not
necessarily safe for a Skytrain (sp) attendant (yellow strip)” and “[i]'s a fast and efficient
way to report possible criminal behavior on buses without drawing attention to myself.”
In total, virtually the entire sample (96 per cent) stated that they would recommend
Transit Police’s SMS texting program to others. A small percentage (4 per cent) reported
that they would not recommend the program. Those who responded that they would not
use the program had concerns with providing personal information over text message, and
believed that the program did not work to their satisfaction. The most common reason for
stating that they would recommend the program to others was based on the convenience of
the program. One user commented, “[e]fficient way to communicate quietly during an
incident or when there is a health concern for another passenger”. Other reasons included,
“[l]ess stressful, people tend to get anxious when dialing 911 and speaking to the operator”
and “it’s a simple way to have something addressed that you are uncomfortable with”. One

42

reason that was also consistently stated was the ability to contact police in an
inconspicuous manner. Several individuals wrote that the program “is very discreet if
someone was reporting a security issue” and “[i]t is a very effective way to report incidents
without becoming involved in a risky situation”. Another theme focused on the speed of
the response to the user. A user remarked, “[f]ar faster than I expected” while another one
stated, “[t]he immediate response made me feel safer”.
It was interesting to learn that almost half of the sample (47 per cent) reported
finding out about Chatterbox from the various advertisements on the transit system,
including on SkyTrain and buses (see Figure 5). Approximately 19% indicated that they
learned about Chatterbox through social media outlets, including Transit Police’s Twitter
and Facebook accounts, while 12% selected ‘Other’, which included being informed about
Chatterbox by Transit Police officers.

43

Figure 5. Method of Learning about Chatterbox (n = 148)
0%

10%

20%

40%

50%
47%

Advertisement on the transit system
Social media (i.e. Twitter, Facebook)

14%

Other

12%

Transit Police app

11%

Transit Police website

8%

Friend or family member

7%

This survey

30%

0%

When asked what else they would use Chatterbox for in the future, the most
common responses were to report an intoxicated or obnoxious passenger (32 per cent), to
report a crime against a person (29 per cent), and to report a property crime (23 per cent).
These three responses made up more than four-fifths of the reasons provided by
respondents (see Figure 6). ‘Other’ reasons included personal safety concerns, nonemergency issues, suspicious persons, transit-related questions, police matters, and medical
emergencies. Of note, nearly one-third (32 per cent) of “Other” responses were in
reference to the personal safety of the participant or others while on the transit system.

44

Figure 6. Reasons for Using Chatterbox in the Future (n = 173)
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%
32%

To report an intoxicated or obnoxious passenger.

29%

To report a crime against a person (i.e. assault).
23%

To report a property crime (i.e. graffiti).
8%

To report a mess or spill.
4%

Other
To inquire about scheduling (i.e. delayed trains).

2%

I would not use it.

1%

In terms of improvements to the Chatterbox system, one of the most common
themes was the ability to send photos. In total, 13 participants indicated this issue stating
“[e]xpand to include images”, “be able to send photos to dispatch”, and “I tried to send a
pic of her. unable to do it. if the system could accept pics and videos it can provide a lot of
extra help and evidence for police to work with.” Three individuals asked for GPS
coordinates from their cell phone to be used to provide dispatchers with a location of the
complainant.
Another area of concern for participants was the need for more advertisement of the
program. One respondent wrote, “[m]ore advertisements, maybe letting people know what
type of incidents you can contact this number for”. Other participants stated, “[p]ost the
number and acceptable reasons to use it in every skytrain (sp) and bus”, “[h]ave the
number added under the emergency button on trains so I don’t have to google to find it”,
and “[p]ublicize it more on transit and at stations and stops”. Other considerations included

45

how to find the bus or SkyTrain number and not wanting to provide personal information,
such as one’s name and birthdate. This was reiterated in the following comments –
“[m]ake it clear in signage that the coach number of a bus your (sp) on will be asked for,
and where that number is located/what it looks like” and “[d]on't require name & address
for reports”.
At the end of the survey, respondents were provided with an opportunity to write
anything that they wanted about the survey, their experiences with transit, or about the
Chatterbox program. Several participants wrote compliments about the program. One such
comment was “I think this program is a great option in addition to the yellow silent
alarms”. Another person wrote, “I think you are making great progress in customer
satisfaction.” Other remarks comprised of “[t]hanks for your help, and your hard work!”,
“[i]t's a good initiative, I like it.”, and “[g]reatest idea, I think this is so useful and helpful.”
However, the program’s response time provided a mixture of negative and positive
statements. One respondent stated, “[i]t was a fast response, faster than I expected which
made me feel more comfortable and secure using this program”, while other participants
remarked, “[m]aybe my expectations were too high as I expected a quicker respone (sp)
time” and “my only concern is how quickly can they respond to threats. So far my 3 texts,
2 were very quickly dealt with.”
Another subject that respondents wrote about was the response their complaint
received. Comments included, “[h]ave police or Transit Security respond to problem
passengers, not customer service staff or bus driver supervisors!”, “[p]olice or transit
workers were not available to address issue”, and “[i]f the police cannot respond, at least

46

send Transit Security. At least they can do something. Don't send bus driver supervisors!
They can't do anything!”. This included criticism about Transit Police – “I was followed up
afterwards by police, but it would have been better if they could have sent them during the
event, and not after.” and “[o]nly works if the police are around. I would use it many more
times but they are not usually around.”
The other major area that respondents commented on focused on the program’s
signage and advertisement. Several users felt that the program needed better advertisement
– “I think you should advertise the availability of the texting program again, people may
not be aware of it. Perhaps stickers or signs on the train cars themselves” and “I've never
heard of this program before. Advertising this and the number would make many women
feel safer”. Additional observations included, “[w]ould be great to have theverything (sp)
pH # to text clearly displayed on the bus since I had to Google the number” and “I wish I
had the car number inside and not only labeled outside. If we could see the train number
and the car number inside the Skytrain (sp) that would be a faster way to identify and get
into the right car by police transit.”
4.2 Data Analysis of Chatterbox Calls
Not all Chatterbox conversations are calls for police assistance. As noted, users of
Chatterbox have used the program for a variety of reasons, including questions about
liquid spills on SkyTrain and reports of rude passengers. As a result, there was a difference
between the number of police files resulting from Chatterbox conversations and the total
number of Chatterbox calls. Between May 2014 and November 2015, the average
percentage of Chatterbox conversations converted into police files was 72% (see Figure 7).

47

Figure 15. Call by Day of Week: January 2014 to December 2016

1400
1163

1200
1000
800

845

902

967

948

939

659

600
400
200
0
Sunday

Monday

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Calls for service were analysed by the time the offence was deemed to have occurred and
then grouped into 60 minute intervals. Over half of the calls for service (53.1%) occurred
between the hours of 15:00 and 22:00 (see Figure 16). This closely correlates to overall
police calls for service that tend to spike upwards during peak afternoon hours and after
evening sporting and social events. Often such events allow for the purchase of liquor
where individuals may become intoxicated and unruly due to the consumption of alcohol
and result in calls for service for acting inappropriately while riding on the transit system.

56

Figure 18. Police Files by Call Type: January 2014 to December 2016
0

200

400

600

800

DISTURBANCE

1000

1200

1400
1227

SIPP / DIPP

798

CHECK WELLBEING

675

LIQUOR ACT/LICENSED PREMISES CHECK

445

PANHANDLER

429

SUSPICIOUS PERSON

378

SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

370

TRANSIT INCIDENT

246

ASSIST GENERAL PUBLIC

226

DRUGS

207

OTHER

191

ANNOYING CIRCUMSTANCES

178

THREATS

136

UNWANTED PERSON

115

ASSAULT REPORT

111

FIGHT

110

WEAPON

69

HARASSMENT

62

MISCHIEF

62

INDECENT ACT

61

PROPERTY

51

ASSAULT SEXUAL

47

OTHER CRIMINAL CODE

39

DOMESTIC IN PROGRESS

39

TRAFFIC INCIDENT

38

THEFT

35

BYLAW

31

MISCHIEF IN PROGRESS

25

ASSAULT IN PROGRESS

22

The top 10 call categories were analysed by line type to determine which transit lines
received the most number of calls. As expected, the Expo Line received the majority of the
calls for each of the top 10 call types (x2 (27) = 263.24, p < .05) (see Figure 19). In effect,
there was a relationship between the transit lines and the types of calls. Chatterbox calls

59

In summary, since its introduction in December 2013, statistics have demostrated
that Chatterbox has had an effect on reporting of crime. During a 19-month period (May
2014 to November 2015), 72% of all Chatterbox calls were converted to police
investigations. According to the data collected from PRIME, 10% of all police files were
generated as a result of reporting through Chatterbox. Peak reporting times appear to be at
the beginning of the afternoon rush and trailing off into the late evening hours. Over threequarters (77.9 per cent) of the police calls reported using Chatterbox were attributed to the
behaviour and actions of other passengers, and over half (54.2 per cent) of police files took
place on the Expo Line.
4.3 What Dispatchers Say
Dispatchers were asked about their years of service as a dispatcher and how many
of those years were as an employee of Transit Police. The average number of service was
9.3 years with the most experienced dispatcher having 18 years and most junior dispatcher
having 1½ years of service. The range of years of service at Transit Police ranged from just
a few months to two dispatchers having 10 years of experience. Participants averaged just
under four years as Transit Police employees.
When asked how the nature of the complaints had changed since the
implementation of the program, the five senior dispatchers who had been with the police
agency since the implementation of the program had mixed answers. One dispatcher felt
that the calls were “getting more in-depth complaints instead of your typical complaints
about a man with a bike during in rush hours [bicycles are prohibited on the Expo and
Millennium lines during peak periods, TransLink, 2016]”. The dispatcher continued to

63

comment that the calls for service were more serious in nature, such as sexual assaults and
uttering threats offences. Another dispatcher felt that there was an increase of “inprogress” incidents that including witnesses to unwanted groping of female passengers and
drinking on the buses. One dispatcher remarked that there were more complaints due to the
ease of using Chatterbox, “whether they are valid or not”.
Only one of the nine dispatchers were involved in the implementation of
Chatterbox. A senior dispatcher was selected to become part of the implementation team
that travelled to the Abbotsford Police Department to gather information on the Abbotsford
Police Department’s version of Chatterbox. One other dispatcher was asked to provide
input on the types of scripts for the pre-programmed comments.
When it came to training, the dispatchers received little or no training at all on
Chatterbox. Those whom indicated they had have received training mentioned the
instruction was incorporated as part of their overall training as a new employee. The
training that was received was largely technical in nature. The dispatchers were shown how
the program worked, when a new message was incoming, and how to respond to the
complainant. One issue with the training was a lack of information on how to communicate
with users through text. One dispatcher was concerned that the Chatterbox text messages
between the person on transit and the dispatcher could be uploaded to an online forum for
public display for others to comment and criticize.
When it came to training, most dispatchers had some concerns about the length of
the training, which was between five and ten minutes in length. The program itself was “a
pretty straight forward application to use”, yet, some of the dispatchers warned that there

64

may be a need for more guidance on “how to respond to people with certain situations”.
One dispatcher pointed out that there should be “more training to cautions as to texting to
the public what we are allowed and not allowed to say.” It was interesting to note that
dispatchers were concerned with the ability to search PRIME for the entity associated with
the phone number from Chatterbox, specifically whether this was an acceptable method of
conducting a reverse look-up of phone numbers.
The dispatchers all described the process of handling a Chatterbox call in a similar
fashion. During their shifts, all dispatchers in the OCC have the program running in the
background on their work computers. When a text message comes in, the orange
Chatterbox text bar begins to flash indicating a new conversation. The dispatchers will
decide among themselves who will take the conversation. Typically, the dispatchers that
are operating the information radio channels (these channels conduct querying functions
for police officers) will be the first assigned to the Chatterbox conversations.
Once a dispatcher is assigned to the conversation, the operator begins to assess the
call to determine whether it requires the attention of TransLink employees or the Transit
Police. If the conversation is considered to be a police file, the dispatcher will start to ask
the user a series of questions to obtain information. The texter will be asked to provide the
train number of a SkyTrain or the coach number of a bus, description of the suspect, and if
the suspect is still in the area. Once the dispatcher obtains all the necessary information,
the operator will request the name, address, and birthdate of the complaint. To conclude
the conversation, the dispatcher will thank the texter for using the program and contacting
the Transit Police.

65

If more than one conversation comes through Chatterbox at the same time or while
the dispatcher is engaged in another Chatterbox text, the dispatcher may choose to operate
both conversations. The choice to deal with multiple conversations simultaneously depends
on the complexity of the issue. However, most participants stated that the dispatchers often
shared the responsibility of distributing the Chatterbox conversations. The principle issue
associated with having several conversations at once was that the program tended to slow
down. Several dispatchers mentioned that the ability to receive and send text messages
decelerated as the number of conversations increased.
The decision to create an accompanying police file for a Chatterbox conversation
depends on the nature of the call. As described by one dispatcher, “no call too small”. The
majority of the calls were assigned to Transit Police officers, unless the conversations were
about technical transit issues, scheduling concerns, or liquid spills such as overturned
coffee cups or pop drinks. When a dispatcher was uncertain whether the police should be
dispatched to a call, the dispatcher would contact the patrol watch commander to review
the information and decide whether police should be assigned to investigate.
When it came to asking for the complainant’s contact information, most dispatchers
agreed that the majority of Chatterbox users were willing to provide it. Some individuals
do ask why the police would request such information. Once the dispatchers explained that
the information was not shared publicly, and that it was needed that so the police could
conduct a follow-up investigation if necessary, this placated many complainants. Several
dispatchers noted that a small percentage of individuals become scared when they are

66

asked to provide their information and stop answering the dispatcher’s text messages
altogether.
One of the options of the program is to allow dispatchers access to a list of preprogrammed comments. These statements are some of the more commonly used text
messages, and are used to assist the dispatchers in replying to complainants. One
participant mentioned that the comments were useful for keeping the emotion out of the
conversation, particularly when the end user is becoming belligerent or argumentative.
However, almost all of the participants felt that some of the comments were too “canned”
or “impersonal”. Several dispatchers mentioned they had their own writing style and
preferred to type out their own messages.
Dispatchers remarked on the variety of different calls that were received through
Chatterbox. The issues that were reported ranged from minor issues, such as a suspicious
package left on a SkyTrain, to high priority calls that included physical fights between
passengers. A major theme was that many Chatterbox calls were about the anti-social
behaviour of transit riders, included passengers drinking open alcohol while riding transit,
individuals panhandling for spare change at transit stations, and persons exhibiting mental
health issues.
Participants were asked to comment on the amount of information retrieved from
Chatterbox conversations compared to traditional calls. Overall, the dispatchers felt they
obtained the same information regardless of the method. Yet, two of the highlighted
drawbacks with Chatterbox were that it took longer for the dispatchers to ask the same
questions that are quickly verbalized over the phone, and that the emotion and urgency

67

heard in a complainant’s voice during a phone call was lost when the same reporting was
conducted over text message.
The majority of the dispatchers felt that the complainants were more likely to report
an incident as it was unfolding as a result of Chatterbox. It was surmised that the program
provided a degree of secrecy and convenience that dialing a phone number and contacting
police agencies did not. It was for these reasons that the participants also believed that
people were more likely to report criminal offences and anti-social behaviour. At least
three participants mentioned that the anonymity of Chatterbox probably had a positive
effect on crime reporting.
Dispatchers either loved or hated the program. Those who liked Chatterbox stated
that they understood that the public appreciated the ability to contact the police without
drawing attention to themselves. The program was useful as it gave people different
options for reporting crime and was “effective in catching people”. Participants that
opposed the program did so because the length of the text conversation was much more
extensive compared to a phone call, the lack of control dispatchers had during the
conversation, and the slowness of the program itself.
At the end of the interview, participants were asked to describe both the positives
and negatives of the program. One of the advantages that dispatchers mentioned was that
Chatterbox contributed to the Transit Police receiving more calls during the period when
the incident was still in progress and when the suspect was still on scene. Of note, it was
not possible to determine whether this increased the chances of duplicate files being
created for the same incident. Several individuals referred to the fact that transit passengers

68

can report issues more discretely, and thus reducing the risk that they themselves would
become a target of the offender. Dispatchers also appreciated that using the program
allowed them to multi-task between various activities.
The main drawback about the program was that it was comparatively slower than
speaking with someone over the phone when trying to collect the necessary information.
This was because of the belief that it was difficult to get information from complainants
through text messages and that the technology was sluggish. Depending on the strength of
the user’s cell phone carrier, dispatchers have noted some text messages received from
complainants have error messages threaded throughout the message or there was a delay in
when the message was sent.
Of note, even with these real limitations and concerns, overall, dispatchers stated
that they would recommend the Chatterbox system to others and wanted to continue to use
it. Several dispatchers alluded to the fact that the Transit Police maintained its own OCC
and could handle the number of calls that Chatterbox generated. This was important
because it was believed that if the same program was available through E-Comm, the
dispatchers and various emergency services would be overwhelmed.
Generally, the dispatchers appreciated the safety aspects that Chatterbox provided
to transit passengers, despite the additional hardship of processing a Chatterbox
conversation. It was noted that the dispatchers felt a sense of frustration with the overall
length of the conversation compared to a phone call, delays in technology and missing text
messages, and impersonal canned text messages. However, a number of dispatchers have
adapted to the program, including modifying the canned comments to make it more

69

personalized, filtering between customer-service related conversations and calls for police
service, and multi-tasking between conversations and other job-related activities.
4.4 What Police Officers Say
When asked what they knew about Chatterbox, there was a wide range of answers
provided in the police officer focus groups. Some officers admitted that they did not know
very much about the service, if anything at all. One police officer commented, “[w]hat’s
Chatterbox?” while another one said, “I don’t know much about it.” Others gave
thoughtful answers, with one replying, “[it is] where the citizens riding the train can report
the complaints anything that is troubling… when they don’t want to talk on the phone” and
“it’s a way for people to make an anonymous complaint”. Many officers agreed that there
were some important challenges with Chatterbox, such as missing or delayed information,
difficulty in following up with complainants, and the lack of contact information.
Police officers were asked to comment on how they were notified about
Chatterbox. The police officers took this question to mean one of two things; how each
police officer learned about Chatterbox for the first time or how each police officer was
notified that the dispatched call was generated through Chatterbox. As a result, a wide
range of explanations were provided. Many police officers explained that they were not
informed of the introduction of Chatterbox until they learned about it for the first time
when the dispatchers had assigned them to a call for service. It was only when the officer
“heard it on the radio” from the dispatcher was when the police officer had become aware
of the program.

70

One member remarked that his “very first Chatterbox call was a woman who used
the text line to complain about the discourtesy of a passenger who needed to remove her
shopping bags from the seat”. Other police officers identified marketing as the method to
their introduction to Chatterbox. One police officer stated that they first learned about it
“from the fancy little card that they [marketing] made up”. Additional marketing
techniques included signage on the transit system, such as posters “inside the trains”.
Another member learned about the program through media coverage. Other police officers
indicated that they had been educated about the program through “in-house training” and
internal documents.
Training on Chatterbox for police officers appeared to be inadequate. As one
member pointed out, they “never receive[d] any direction about how it operates or how it
works”. One police officer stated, “I thought there was a physical box.” Another member
commented, “I don’t actually know about it…70% SMS text turn into files…I think I read
it somewhere.”
Police officers was asked to offer their opinions on the differences between a
Chatterbox call and when the complainant had used other reporting methods, such as
phoning Transit Police or approaching a transit employee. A major difference outlined by
the police officers was that they felt the Chatterbox calls were more customer service
complaints. A police officer referred to it as the “customer service complaint line”.
Another member mentioned “most of the time they [the calls for service] are not police
related.” As an aside, it is important to note that, during the focus groups, members were
frustrated that they were directed to respond to offences listed under the South Coast

71

British Columbia Transportation Authority Act rather than exclusively criminal offences.
However, as the Transit Police, members are required to enforce the South Coast British
Columbia Transportation Authority Act (Transit Police, 2017).
Another theme that was shared by the police officers was that the information
regarding the call for service was slow in forthcoming. “Details are very slow in coming
in”, “time delay is different”, “lack of information”, and “delay of the information” were
some of the common complaints. One police officer commented, “[it is] tough to know if
the person is communicating with you.” Other members noted that there is a loss of sense
of urgency that a dispatcher would get with speaking with a complainant. While on the
phone, the dispatcher can monitor the complainant’s tone to determine the seriousness of
the call. With Chatterbox, there is no determination of how serious the complaint was.
When asked if Chatterbox has changed the type of calls for service received and the
reasons for this, the major theme was surrounding the increase of low priority calls. As one
police officer described it, “every little shit thing”. Other comments included, “more trivial
stuff…guy drinking on the bus going out to UBC”, “responding to calls that we might not
have responded to previously”, and “a lot of trivial calls that people wouldn’t have called
up before”. Several police officers believed that the dispatchers were “creating files that
normally wouldn’t be a call”, while others stated “dispatchers are doing a good job of
filtering it [non-police calls] out”.
Many police officers recognized the importance of having Chatterbox as a method
available for passengers to report things in real-time. Numerous police officers believed
that the types of calls for service had changed to reporting a crime as it was happening.

72

One member remarked, “we are getting more calls through Chatterbox where it might not
have reported it at all”. Another one stated, “[there is] more calls where people would be
afraid to call before.” However, it was not possible to determine the degree to which this
had a direct or indirect effect on solve rate.
Police officers had different opinions on how Chatterbox affected their ability to
conduct investigations. Some police officers were frustrated with the general lack of
information more commonly associated with Chatterbox calls for service. One member
stated, “it’s frustrating for the lack of details…asking the dispatchers for more
questions…chasing the texter around”, while another one described Chatterbox calls as
“fragmented information”. Other complaints included “pushing the dispatcher to get the
information”, “sometimes the information comes in too slow or never shows up, and
“there’s less information…you have to gather more.”
Other police officers believed that Chatterbox provided members with more
information. One member remarked that it gave the police officers a phone number to
contact the complainant to ask more questions. Sometimes, when a complainant
approached a SkyTrain Attendant to report something, they would not provide their contact
information. Another police officer indicated that they were using Chatterbox calls to
provide evidence for forwarding charges – “if you are putting charges forwarded, you can
pull the text…immediate documentation…like what was going through person’s mind at
the time”.
The experience of police officers with Chatterbox was largely mixed. Some
participants felt that their experience had been positive and they appreciated that the

73

program allowed transit users the discrete ability to contact the police, especially if the
individuals did not feel comfortable dialing 9-1-1. However, those who had negative
encounters believed that many of the calls were frivolous in nature resulting in officers
being interrupted during more urgent police duties.
When it came to the “real-time” aspect of crime reporting, participants believed
that the general public was quicker to contact the Transit Police through Chatterbox than
other reporting methods. It was also believed that users were more likely to report a
criminal offence using Chatterbox as the criminal offence was unfolding. Moreover, the
initial text message conveying distress appeared to be quicker. However, the downside of
the program was related to the on-going reporting of the offence, as some participants felt
that the flow of information slowed down because it relied on the texting abilities of the
complainant and/or the dispatcher.
Still, police officers agreed that they would recommend Chatterbox with certain
caveats. As one participant commented, “I would recommend it for reporting for
disconcerting incidents as long as it’s properly vetted”. Another police officer believed in
the program because it “gets people to talk to us more”. One main focus for several
members was that the program should be promoted to the public, not as a replacement to 91-1, but as an alternative method that gives the general public a discrete method for
contacting the police without placing them in danger.
When asked how to improve Chatterbox, there were several recommendations. One
suggestion was to introduce the program into the local school systems. One member
recalled a file where children on a transit bus had been filmed by an unknown male, and it

74

was suggested that the program be introduced to school-aged children while riding on
transit. Several police officers put forward the idea of receiving pictures and videos from
complainants as it would enhance their ability to conduct investigations. Advertising and
marketing was another area that police officers wanted to see improvements. Participants
wanted better marketing to create greater awareness among users about the types of
information that are important to the police, such as location of the incident, a description
of the suspect, and how the user can locate the bus or SkyTrain identification number.
While this could be considered a training issue for dispatch, members appeared to want the
users to provide the necessary information to the police in the first instance, rather than
having the dispatchers spend time asking questions for basic but important information,
which they believed could be achieved by better educating the public and transit users on
the type of standard information observers should provide to the police. Several officers
proposed the use of a template format be advertised for the general public to follow when
contacting the Transit Police with the use of Chatterbox.
Two other suggestions included the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) and
having a police officer assist dispatchers and filter the types of calls. Police officers wanted
to have the ability to use GPS to find complainants in the similar manner to the Find My
Phone app, which is a tool that provides owners with the location of a stolen/lost cell
phone using global positioning software technology (Microsoft, 2016). The other
suggestion was having a police officer review the calls before the police are dispatched to
an incident. This would assist dispatchers on how to determine the best course of action in
regard to dispatching officers to a call.

75

4.5 Summary of Research Findings
The research findings highlighted several key themes. The most important finding
of the research was that Chatterbox has become a useful and integral part of the service
that the Metro Vancouver Transit Police offers to transit passengers. Despite the many
calls for service for the “bad behaviour” of passengers, both police officers and dispatchers
recognized that the SMS texting program provided a useful tool for reporting criminal
offences and social disorder. As one police officer stated, “one good file wipes out the 100
shitty files”. The users of the program appreciated the discreteness that Chatterbox offers
through the ability of contacting police without becoming directly involved.
This premise becomes clear through the analysis of the statistics associated to
Chatterbox. The average number of Chatterbox conversations per month was 268
conversations with 72% of those conversations converted to police files. The reporting of
criminal offences through Chatterbox accounts for, on average, 10% of all Transit Police
files. Just over half (54 per cent) of police files generated from Chatterbox occurred on the
Expo and Millennium Lines, despite these two transit lines only accounting for 21% of the
overall ridership in 2015. Vancouver experienced the greatest number of crime files, and it
was believed that a combination of the city and the location of the Expo and Millennium
stations effected the crime rates on these lines. The top three criminal offences reported
using Chatterbox was related to the behaviour of passengers as a result of intoxication and
mental health concerns.
According to the public online survey, the composite profile of the average
Chatterbox user was 35 years old, female, primarily utilized SkyTrain, uses transit on a

76

daily basis, had used the Chatterbox program a minimum of once in the previous 12
months, had done so to report an intoxicated or obnoxious passenger, believed that
Chatterbox would be easier to use than other reporting methods, would recommend the
program to others, and had learned about the program from advertisement on the transit
system.
The most unexpected outcome from the research was the increase in reporting
levels of one of the most under-reported crimes, sexual offences. Between 2013 and 2014,
the number of sexual assaults that were reported and investigated by Transit Police had
doubled. In the three years after the program was initiated, 47 sexual assaults had been
reported to Transit Police using Chatterbox. The increase in reporting of serious crimes
such as sexual assaults has not gone unnoticed as several dispatchers had remarked during
the individual interviews that they had observed a rise in the reporting of sexual offences
through the use of Chatterbox.
The concept of anonymity was a common theme throughout the research. During
the focus groups with police officers, several participants alluded to the fact that
Chatterbox allowed individuals to contact the police and make a complaint without
drawing attention to them. This fact was reiterated by the online public survey. One-third
(34 per cent) of participants had used Chatterbox in the past because they believed the
program was anonymous or they did not want to other transit passengers to know that the
police had been contacted.
It may be for these reasons that Chatterbox users were more reluctant to provide
personal information, such as their name, birthdate, and home address. Most of the

77

dispatchers referred to the fact that users eventually supplied the contact information after
asking the dispatchers for the reasons they were being asked to provide their personal
information. Of note, a small percentage actually stopped answering the dispatcher’s text
messages when they were asked for their personal information. This concern was reenforced by the comments provided by participants in the online survey. As one
respondent wrote, “I wish we didn't need to provide name, address and birthdate. Feels like
our concerns are not valid unless it is legitimized with ID. I have nothing to hide but it may
deter future people from reporting if they can't be anonymous.”
Education and training of Transit Police employees appeared to be an important
and integral function for understanding how Chatterbox operates. Although the training for
dispatchers does not have to be particularly lengthy, it is necessary for dispatchers to have
some form of instruction to ensure continuous support and success of the program.
Providing education for police officers should be conducted to garner an appreciation for
the program and to understand the purpose it serves for the general public to report crime.
Many police officers were under the impression that dispatchers were not working fast
enough to obtain vital information and that the dispatchers were purposely dispatching
police officers to trivial incidents. Through education, these beliefs could be mitigated or
corrected.
Similarly, marketing and advertising of the program is needed to better education
the public about Chatterbox. Both police officers and dispatchers stated that users needed
to understand that Chatterbox should not be utilized to replace calling 9-1-1 in the event of
an emergency, nor should it be used for criminal offences that occur away from the transit

78

system. Dispatchers were frustrated that they had to continuous direct complainants on
how to locate the coach number of the bus or car number of the train during a conversation.
Chatterbox users indicated that they often had difficulties locating the text number of 8-77-7-7-7 on various conduits on the transit system.
Another topic that emerged from all three groups was the ability to send and
receive multi-media files, such as cell phone videos and photographs. The public is eager
to assist the police with the recording of events as they unfold, and capturing the
description of an offender is as simple as snapping a photo with a cell phone and sending
the image to the police. Obtaining a detailed description of a suspect through text message
can take a lot of time to extract information from a complainant. Dispatchers would like to
have the capability of forwarding images and videos to police officers as they respond to a
call. During focus groups, police officers said that having the ability of the public to
provide real-time videos and photos would improve their capacity to do their job.
Lastly, there seems to be discrepancy among the groups as to how quickly the
program worked. For example, the majority of Chatterbox users remarked how quickly
dispatchers were to respond to their text message. This notion is substantiated by the
statistics gathered on the program indicating that, on average, dispatchers responded to the
initial text message in 1:05 minutes. The frustration began when more information was
needed for police officers when they responded to a criminal incident. The time delay was
dependent on how quickly the complainant could text the information to the dispatcher. As
relayed by one dispatcher, “I can ask in 3 seconds over the phone, but with text, it’s

79

another text and another text”. As a result of this complication, the average time of a
conversation was over 29 minutes.

80

Chapter 5: Recommendations
5.1 Education and Training
One of the predominant themes that emerged from conducting focus groups with
police officers was the lack of training and education of the program. There were a few
police officers that had little or no knowledge of the program. Many police officers did not
know how the program worked. It was interesting to note that police officers that were new
to the organization had some working comprehension of the program. This suggests that
there may be some training conducted during the pre-employment period.
The importance of training and educating police officers on the program is
paramount. Most police officers understood that one of the major concepts of the program
was to provide the public with a discrete method of contacting law enforcement when
public disorder or a criminal offence was observed. Yet, police officers felt that dispatchers
often assigned them to “nuisance” or “frivolous” calls. It was not until they were explained
the procedures used by dispatchers to evaluate the police worthiness of the complaint that
the police officers appreciated the decision-making process.
It is this mentality of “throwing the work over the fence” that needs to be
discussed. It is recommended that each patrol squad have a training session of 10 to 20
minutes. The training session would include a PowerPoint presentation illustrating the
origins of Chatterbox, how a text conversation is handled by the dispatchers, and statistics
of police calls generated from Chatterbox conversations should be discussed. A suggested
presenter would be a senior dispatcher as he or she would be in the best position to explain
the various issues faced by dispatchers, including the length of time spent addressing a text

81

conversation versus a phone conversation, interpreting various text comments, and
obtaining contact information from the user.
5.2 Advertising and Marketing
One area that all three groups commented on was the need for increased advertising
and marketing for the public to understand that Chatterbox was not a “catch-all” for all
types of criminal offences and social disorder. Many of the participants felt that the
marketing of the program needed to include educating transit users as to the various
situations that Chatterbox is most useful in addressing. In effect, the scope of the program
needs to be clearly defined in terms of what Chatterbox is to both the Transit Police and
the public. Part of the concern was that passengers were using the program as a substitute
for dialing 9-1-1 in an emergency situation. The length of time needed to text information
versus the amount of time it took to talk to a 9-1-1 call-taker only increased the risks for
those involved. Better marketing can inform the public as to when to contact 9-1-1 directly
and when to utilize Chatterbox.
It is recommended that marketing include additional education for users as to what
kind of information they might be asked to provide by dispatchers or the police. Moreover,
the marketing should incorporate instructions on how to provide dispatchers with the
location of the incident and diagrams on how to locate the coach number of the bus or the
car number inside the train for SkyTrain and Canada Lines. Additionally, advertising
campaigns need to inform Chatterbox users that may be asked to provide their personal
information. Many of the participants felt that the discreteness of the program also equated

82

to being anonymous and did not understand the need to give their name and address during
conversations with dispatchers.
5.3 Revised Canned Comments
During a conversation with a Chatterbox user, dispatchers have the choice of using
pre-programmed comments for some of the most commonly asked questions. When asked
about the canned comments, some dispatchers felt that the pre-programmed comments
were particularly useful when they were handling several calls at the same time, and it
allowed them to quickly respond using standard comments. However, other dispatchers felt
the canned responses were impersonal, stale, and needed to be updated.
Several of the participants suggested that the comment on descriptors of the suspect
needed to be briefer and include more information. One example was, “Can I have the
descriptors of the person, please, race, age, height, weight, clothing.” Another issue was
regarding the confusion of obtaining the train number or coach (bus) number that the
Chatterbox user was calling about. One participant stated that she used the following
comment to direct the user to the number- “The id of the train number, it should be three
numbers at the back and the front of the car.”
It is recommended that a working group of select OCC dispatchers and supervisors
be created to evaluate the current standard list of canned comments and develop, accept
suggestions from other dispatchers, and create an updated list of standard comments that
would appeal to a wider range of dispatchers. Some of the existing text messages could be
modified to the suggested comments identified during the dispatcher interviews, such as:

83

•
•
•

“What does the person look like – gender, nationality, age, height, weight,
clothing.” (84 characters)
“What bus/train number are you on? The number is at the back and the
front printed in black.” (91 characters)
“Thank you for using Chatterbox. We appreciate you bringing this issue to
our attention.” (87 characters)

5.4 Multimedia Submissions
One of the emerging themes from conducting research with the dispatchers, police
officers, and the public was the ability to send and receive multimedia files, such as cell
phone video and photographs. Participants from the dispatcher interviews conveyed a
sense of frustration as to the length of time that was required to obtain suspect descriptors
over text messages. Police officers felt that receiving pictures would greatly assist in
locating and identifying the offender in police investigations. Several participants from the
public survey commented they wished Chatterbox allowed them to forward pictures and
video to aid the police.
There is some concern with whether the current program used for Chatterbox could
be modified to accept such files. Several dispatchers mentioned that when there was more
than one text conversation occurring at once, the program almost halts, and the time
between receiving and sending text messages increases. The speed of the program would
be negatively impacted if photos or videos were attached to the text message. Another
issue was that, at times, some text missing would appear during a Chatterbox conversation.
It is unknown what causes this issue, but it is possible that there is some technical glitch
with the program. Determining whether the program is technologically capable of

84

receiving electronic files is outside the scope of this thesis but further evaluation of the
program is recommended.
A search on the Internet found that there are police departments that deploy SMS
texting programs with the option to send videos and photographs. For example, the
Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC, allows residents to text the police at
5-0-4-1-1 with tips of criminal activity. The application allows users to send information
along with cell phone pictures and videos (Metropolitan Police Department, n.d.). It is
recommended that the Transit Police evaluate the ability of the current Chatterbox system
capabilities to determine whether the program is able to receive multi-media photographs
and video files. If possible, the program should be modified to allow for the acceptance
and storage of photos and video. If the existing program is not capable of being adjusted to
allow for attachments then an evaluation should be considered to include a program that
would allow the Transit Police dispatchers to accept video and photo attachments during
the text conversations.
5.5 Dedicated Dispatcher and Police Officer
As determined from the individual interviews with the dispatchers, all of them have
the Chatterbox program running live on each of their work computers. When a user
initiates a text conversation, the program begins flashing on the task bar at each dispatcher
work station. The dispatchers will then discuss among themselves who is available to
accept the conversation, and the selected dispatcher will then answer the complainant and
contact any necessary services to address the complainant’s concern.

85

As discussed above, the average conversation was 29 minutes. This means that a
dispatcher had his or her attention focused on the conversation and responding to the user
for that amount of time. Several dispatchers expressed frustration with having to respond
to Chatterbox conversations while attempting to perform their other regular duties. Given
this, it is recommended that a dedicated dispatcher be assigned to address conversations as
they come in through the Chatterbox program. The main advantage of having a dedicated
dispatcher is the employee would be responsible for all functions of Chatterbox, including
assembling reports for senior management. If there is more than one conversation
occurring at the same time, the additional conversations would be handled by the dedicated
dispatcher or by another designated dispatcher.
Similarly, it would be beneficial to have a police officer assigned to assist in the
OCC with a particular focus on filtering Chatterbox conversations. Several police officers
commented on how often they felt the police files generated from Chatterbox
conversations were not police focused calls, such as a passenger’s bag taking up an
additional seat during peak travel hours. Many participants from the focus groups believed
that the police were assigned to intervene on customer service related calls, rather than
genuine police matters. Even dispatchers admitted that, at times, the Transit Police patrol
watch commander was consulted to determine whether a police file should be generated
and assigned to patrol officers based on the information from the Chatterbox conversation.
5.6 Additional Public Feedback
Acquiring continuous feedback from the public is an important function of any
organization. As a result of the online survey, the public were able to provide invaluable

86

comments and opinions on the program. However, the online survey was a one-time
method of obtaining data on the users of Chatterbox for research purposes. Given this, it is
recommended that Transit develop a method to allow the public to provide ongoing
comments and opinions about their experiences, challenges, success, and recommendations
for Chatterbox to assess the success of the program from the perspective of its users.
Many participants expressed an interest as to how the public felt about the program.
A number of dispatchers and police officers asked about the online public survey and what
was the overall response from the ridership. Acknowledging the hard work of dispatchers
and police officers for responding to calls resulting from Chatterbox is imperative to
employee satisfaction. Both Transit Police dispatchers and officers have a vested interest in
ensuring the program is successful and feedback is a significant part of ensuring this. It is
recommended that the Transit Police implement an ongoing feedback mechanism that
allows users of the program to provide comments and criticism. The concept would
include a process that would be similar to the online student research survey. At the
conclusion of a conversation, the dispatcher would send a final text message that would
direct the user to complete an online survey and/or feedback form. It would be part of the
reporting responsibilities of the OCC to maintain and review the public feedback
statements and report the comments to senior management of the Transit Police.

87

Chapter 6: Conclusion
The research from this study demonstrated that there is a real need for police
departments to develop SMS texting programs to report non-emergency incidents. Yet,
there were limitations with conducting this research, as well as numerous future
considerations that need to be addressed.
6.1 Limitations
There were several limitations associated to this study. One of the drawbacks of the
research was that the online survey depended largely on the public becoming aware of the
survey in one of three ways - having used Chatterbox between May 17, 2016 and August
31, 2016, observed notification of the survey on the Transit Police website or received
twitter feed about the link to the survey from the Transit Police Twitter account. Due to
privacy concerns, users of Chatterbox prior to May 17, 2016 could not be contacted to
obtain their permission to participate in the survey. Contacting early adopters of the
program would have been useful as to obtain their perspective of the program.
Throughout the study, a number of limitations with the Chatterbox program itself
were discussed by participants. Several individuals noted that text messages did not have a
language translator option that would allow dispatchers to receive Chatterbox calls from
non-English speaking passengers. This lack of capability meant that the program was not
always accessible for all passengers using the transit system. Another issue experienced by
the dispatchers was Chatterbox’s processing time slowed down considerably when the
dispatchers received two or more text conversations at once. The lack of a tracking
program for determining how often this occurred also made it difficult to identify the

88

number of occurrences where the dispatchers had more than one complainant reporting the
same incident.
The deficiency of knowledge and training by some police officers made it difficult
to record their opinion of the program. Several police officers did not feel comfortable
responding to some of the questions due to the lack of familiarity with how the program
worked. Although the program had been implemented since 2013, many veteran police
officers did not have a thorough knowledge of the program. In some discussions, newly
employed members knew more about the program than their longer employed colleagues,
possibly due to the result of pre-employment training.
Another area that was a detriment to the study was the lack of existing research. To
date, there is little or no research available on the use of texting to report criminal
behaviour as it is occurring. An increasing number of law enforcement agencies and
emergency departments are using the technology, but there has been little research on the
usefulness and functionality of texting. Additional research needs to be conducted to
evaluate a variety of different areas, including if the discrete ability of texting a complaint
about social disorder or criminal activity encourages individuals to contact the police, and
whether it increases the amount of reporting for traditionally low-reporting offences, such
as sexual assaults.
One limitation was associated to the classification of the Chatterbox calls according
to location type, such as whether the call occurred on the train, on the bus, or on the street.
Only when the Chatterbox call is converted to a police file and documented in PRIME is
the call assigned a location type. The overall number of Chatterbox calls are not currently

89

reported into separate location designations, making it difficult to determine if the use of
Chatterbox differs between transit types and being able to calculate the differences into
meaningful statistics for analysis.
Due to privacy regulations, the researcher did not have access to the complainant
information recorded from Chatterbox conversations. As a result, the composite
characteristics of the average Chatterbox user were based on data provided by participants
of the online survey. It is possible that the average user of the SMS texting program was
vastly different than the average participant of the survey. It was the belief of many Transit
Police officers and dispatchers that the technology would more likely to resonate with the
younger generation.
6.2 Future Research Directions
The future of SMS texting as a reporting response to emergency services is
emerging. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) in the United States has
defined this new future as Next Generation 9-1-1 (known as NG 9-1-1) and “an Internet
Protocol (IP) based system comprised of managed Emergency Services IP networks
(ESInets), functional elements (applications), and databases that replicate traditional E9-11 features and functions and provides additional capabilities. NG9-1-1 is designed to
provide access to emergency services from all connected communications sources, and
provide multimedia data capabilities for Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and
other emergency service organizations” (NENA, 2016, p.129).
As seen in the research presented above, there is a real desire for the public to
provide not only information about criminal offences, but to supply digital images and

90

video of the offending behavior. Imagine the possibilities of having a member of the public
capture a picture of a criminal offender, send it to police dispatchers, who can forward it to
police officers as they rush to the scene of the crime. Invaluable information, such as cell
phone video and photographs, could then be used to identify the offender while at the
scene and allow officers to assess what happened.
In the aftermath of Stanley Cup Riots in Vancouver on June 15, 2011, the public
was quick to provide the police with cell phone video and photographs that were taken that
night. One month after the incident, the Integrated Riot Investigation Team amassed a
staggering 1,500 hours of video, 15,000 images, and 3,000 individual video data files. The
team of investigators received 4,300 emails regarding information in relation to various
offences that had occurred that night (VPD, 2011). Although this was an event that had
touched the residents of Vancouver and motivated citizens to assist the police through cell
phone video and photographs, this demonstrates that the public is willing to provide
multimedia evidence. If Chatterbox had the ability to accept such files, it would greatly
improve the ability of Transit Police officers to investigate criminal offences.
As more police departments adopt this type of crime reporting, officials are
recognizing that with the incoming of video and photo capabilities comes significant
issues. These concerns include the collecting and processing of evidence, installing
electronic infrastructure to capture and store multi-media files, and ongoing exposure to
traumatic pictures and videos. With the compilation of video and pictures, police
administration will need to develop policies and strategies. It is important for police
investigations that the videos and pictures be handled in a matter that will satisfy exhibits

91

procedures for criminal court purposes. In addition to exhibit handling procedures, police
agencies need to ensure that multi-media files are maintained and stored safely.
One area of unease is viewing multimedia files sent to dispatchers and the longterm effects of exposure of traumatic pictures and videos. In January 2017, advocates of
Next-Gen 911 services advised the Canadian government that police agencies needed to be
mindful of the impact that an influx of disturbing videos and pictures sent by witnesses and
victims could have on dispatchers or those responsible for viewing this content. The
private interest group, Canadian Interoperability Technology Interest Group (CITIG), have
stated apprehensions about the lack of policies currently in place to handle the onset of
such activity. The CITIG has stated that additional training will be required to handle the
negative impact of dispatchers viewing such multimedia (Pedwell, 2017).
Senior management need to be mindful of consequences that employees may face
with long-term exposure of such content. During a British study, 189 participants were
subjected to several violent news videos and then gauged for Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Researchers determined that 22% of the participants were
adversely affected by the violent nature of the videos. These individuals scored high on the
PTSD clinical scale, despite not having prior PTSD symptoms and had only experienced
the events by watching them online. Researchers stated that individuals, such as health care
professionals, are more likely to develop PTSD symptoms as a result of indirect exposure
to human suffering. This consideration is disconcerting because there is the potential for
dispatchers to develop symptoms of PTSD due to constant viewing of multimedia images
sent by the public (Nauert, 2015).

92

Another area that needs further examination is the legal implication of processing
and storing multimedia files for evidentiary purposes. Once video or photographs are
received by police, the images can be used to identify an offender and used as evidence for
criminal charges. The handling of evidence must be conducted carefully as it can be
challenged in court. There must be policies and procedures implemented to carefully
handle the multimedia files so it meets the threshold of evidentiary value to support
criminal cases. This may mean existing policies for handling video evidence will have to
be modified to include video downloaded from SMS texting programs.
Not only do the handling of videos and photographs needs to be evaluated, so does
the requirement of properly storing such items. Police officials need to account for
electronic storage requirements necessary for warehousing videos and photographs. Other
questions include which employees will have access to the files and how they will be
transferred to the police officers for further investigation. Will the files be stored on DVDs
or housed electronically on a central database? What about the need for back-ups in the
case of an electronic failure? These are questions that need to be addressed in the event that
SMS texting programs, such as Chatterbox, allow users to send photographs and video
files.
The use of technology for reporting crime and social disorder is a newly emerging
approach for police agencies to engage with their local communities. The SMS program,
Chatterbox, has allowed the residents of Vancouver and local municipalities to
communicate with the Metro Vancouver Transit Police in a unique, but discrete manner.

93

Yet, this thesis has outlined a number of issues and concerns that need to be addressed,
including the ability to receive photographs and video, additional training for employees,
and better marketing and advertising. Additional improvements to the program will only
enhance the ability of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police to respond to crime on the
transit system.

94

Appendices

95

Appendix A: Consent Letter

96

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of the Fraser Valley
33844 King Road
Abbotsford BC V2S 7M8
604-504-7441

Textg 4 Help: An Evaluation of Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s SMS Texting Program
Letter of Informed Consent
Purpose/Objectives of the Study
I am a student in the University of Fraser Valley’s Master of Arts in Criminal Justice program and I am
conducting a study for my thesis on Chatterbox, Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s SMS texting program.
I am evaluating the program with the goal of determining whether it has improved the reporting of
criminal activity and other social disorder on the transit system.
Procedures involved in the Research
The interviews/focus groups will take approximately 20 to 30 minutes of your time and will take place at
your location of work in a private room. I will be typing out your answers using my personal computer
and these documents will be stored using an USB stick (with password protection) and on the Metro
Vancouver Transit Police network. The files stored on the network will be password protected and only I
and my thesis advisors will have access to these files. The files will be held until December 31, 2017. You
will be asked questions about Chatterbox, such as your experience with Chatterbox and how it has
affected your work. Once I have collected the individual responses, I will be analyzing the data using a
qualitative analysis program.
Compensation
Metro Vancouver Transit Police has authorized me to conduct the interviews and focus groups during
your regularly scheduled shift while respecting shifting procedures.
Potential Risks
There are no anticipated physical risks to you as a consequence of participating in this study.
Potential Benefits
By participating in this study, you are assisting me in conducting ground-breaking research. SMS texting
used for emergency calls and reporting of social disorder is a relatively new function of the technology
and there is little or no research available. With this research, I hope to show how this technology is
affecting victim or witness reporting of criminal activity or other physical and social disorder.

97

Confidentiality
All the data will be kept confidential and all responses will be anonymized as no individuals will be
identifiable in the final thesis. The data will be stored electronically on a password protected USB stick
and in a password protected Metro Vancouver Transit Police network location that only I and my thesis
supervisors will have access to. The data will be held until December 31, 2017. I will not identify you
individually in this study. If you are involved in a focus group, please keep anything that you hear from
others confidential. Please remember if you participate in a focus group, we cannot guarantee that
others here will keep your information you share completely confidential.
Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time during this
interview/focus group. If you decide to withdraw, please understand that information previously shared
will have already been noted and cannot be retracted as we are keeping a non-identifying ongoing list of
comments and the other participants will have heard your words. If you have completed the interview
and would like to withdraw your consent, you may do so until November 30, 2016. In the cases of
withdrawal, any interview data you have provided will be destroyed.
Further Information
If you have questions about the findings of this study or if you would like a copy of the final research
report, please contact Sherri St.Cyr at
or at
, or the senior
supervisor for this thesis, Dr. Irwin Cohen at irwin.cohen@ufv.ca or at 604-504-7441.
Study Results
You may contact me if you wish a copy of the study. Data from the research may be used for future
presentations and publications.
Consent Approval from the Department
The study has been approved by Inspectors of Operations (both East and West) with the Inspector of
West Operations overseeing the study.
Questions or Expression of Concerns
For questions about the study, you may contact Sherri St.Cyr of the School of Criminology and Criminal
Justice at
or at
. If you have concerns about the ethics of this
study, you may contact Dr. Adrienne Chan, Associate Vice President, Research, Engagement, and
Graduate Studies at adrienne.chan@ufv.ca or at 604-557-4074. The ethics of this study has been
reviewed and approved by the UFV Human Research Ethics Board.

98

By signing below, I agree to participate in this study, titled Textg 4 Help: An Evaluation of Metro
Vancouver Transit Police’s SMS Texting Program.
I have read the information presented in the letter of informed consent being conducted by Sherri St.Cyr
of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of the Fraser Valley. I have had the
opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this study and to receive any additional details.
I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the study during the interview/focus group and until
November 30, 2016 and that confidentiality and/or anonymity of all results will be preserved. For
questions about the study, I may contact Sherri St.Cyr of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
at
or at
. If I have concerns about the ethics of this study, I
may contact Dr. Adrienne Chan, AVP of Research, Engagement, and Graduate Studies at
adrienne.chan@ufv.ca or at 604-557-4074.

Name (please print)

Signature

Date

Name of Witness (please print)

Witness Signature

99

Appendix B: Online Survey

100

Metro Vancouver Transit Police's SMS Texting Program
The following survey is on the Metro Vancouver Transit Police's SMS texting program
(87-77-77).
The aim of this survey is to better understand the use of the texting program and the
reporting of incidents on the transit system. In addition, users will be asked about his or her
satisfaction with their experience and recommendations for improvement of Transit
Police's SMS texting program. This survey is being conducted as a part of a requirement
for a Master of Arts program in Criminal Justice at the University of the Fraser Valley
(UFV).
The benefit of this research is to provide a better understanding of reporting social disorder
while using technology. If completing this survey has caused you to recall a traumatic
incident, please call Victim Link BC at 1-800-563-0808 or victimlinkbc.ca. The ethics of
this study has been reviewed and approved by the UFV Human Research Ethics Board.
For any questions about the study or would like a copy of the final thesis, you may contact
Sherri St.Cyr of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at
or at
or the senior supervisor for this thesis, Dr.
Irwin Cohen at irwin.cohen@ufv.ca or at 604-504-7441. If you have concerns about the
ethics of this study, you may contact Dr. Adrienne Chan, Associate Vice President,
Research, Engagement, and Graduate Studies at adrienne.chan@ufv.ca or at 604-5574074. This study has been approved by Inspectors of Operations with Inspector of West
Operations overseeing the project.
All the data will be kept confidential and all responses will be anonymized as no
individuals will be identifiable in the final thesis. The data will be stored electronically in
an anonymous database on a password protected computer that only the student and the
thesis supervisors will have access to. The data will be held until December 31, 2017. You
will not be identified individually in this study.
Participation in this survey is completely voluntary and anonymous. You may choose to
discontinue this survey at any time. If you choose to discontinue the survey, it will be
assumed that you have not consented to the survey and your survey will be removed from
the study. Once you have selected the submit button at the end of the survey, you will have
consented to the survey. Consent to the survey cannot be removed after this point. You
must be 19 years old or older to complete this survey. The survey will take approximately
5 to 10 minutes to complete.
1. Have you ever used Transit Police's SMS texting program to report something?
Yes
No

101

2. In the past year, how many times have you used Transit Police's SMS texting program?

3. What have you used Transit Police's SMS texting program for?
(Please check all that apply.)
To report a crime against a person (i.e. assault)
To report a property crime (i.e. graffiti)
To report an intoxicated or obnoxious passenger
To report a mess or spill
To inquire about scheduling (i.e. delayed trains)
Other ______________________
4. If the Transit Police's SMS texting program was not available, what other means of
reporting would have you used to report your concern in Question 3?
(Please check all that apply.)
Called 9-1-1
Approached a transit employee (Transit Police, SkyTrain Attendant, bus driver, etc.)
Hit the silent alarm strip on SkyTrain or Canada Line
Used the intercom service on SkyTrain or Canada Line
Used the customer service phone in the stations
Called TransLink customer service
Other ______________________
I would not have reported it.
5. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very unlikely and 5 being very likely), are you more or
less likely to report something using the Transit Police's SMS texting program?

6. Why did you use Transit Police's SMS texting program?
(Please check all that apply.)
I did not want other transit passengers to know I was reporting something.
I thought it was anonymous.
I thought it was safer for me than calling the police.
I thought it would be faster.
I thought it would be easier than other reporting methods.
Other ______________________
7. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very difficult and 5 being very easy), how did you find
Transit Police's SMS texting program to use?

102

8 a. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied), how
would you describe your level of satisfaction with the timeliness of the response to your
text conversation?

8 b. Please explain your level of satisfaction.

9 a. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied), how
would you describe your level of satisfaction about how your text conversation was
handled?

9 b. Please explain your level of satisfaction.

10. What was the estimated length of your text conversation?
(Please indicate estimated length of conversation in number of minutes.)

11 a. Would you use Transit Police's SMS texting program again?
Yes
No
11 b. Why or why not?

12 a. Would you recommend Transit Police's SMS texting program to others?
Yes
No
12 b. Why or why not?

103

13. How did you learn about Transit Police's SMS texting program?
(Please check all that apply.)
Transit Police app
Transit Police website
Advertisement on the transit system
Friend or family member
Social media (i.e. Twitter, Facebook)
This survey
Other ______________________
14. In the future, what would you use Transit Police's SMS texting program for?
(Please check all that apply.)
To report a crime against a person (i.e. assault).
To report a property crime (i.e. graffiti).
To report an intoxicated or obnoxious passenger.
To report a mess or spill.
To inquire about scheduling (i.e. delayed trains).
Other ______________________
I would not use it.
15. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very unsafe and 5 being very safe), how does the
availability of Transit Police's SMS texting program make you feel on the transit system?

16. How frequently do you use transit?
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Rarely
Never
17. What types of transit do you use?
(Please check all that apply.)
Bus (Including HandyDart and Community Shuttle.)
SkyTrain
Canada Line
Seabus
West Coast Express
18. What gender do you identify as?
Male
Female
Transgender
Prefer not to say
104

19. What is your age?
(Please respond in number of years.)

20. How would you improve Metro Vancouver Transit Police's SMS texting program?

21. Comments/Concerns
Please feel free to provide more detailed information about your experience of using Metro
Vancouver Transit Police's SMS texting program.

Thank you for your participation in this survey. If completing this survey has caused you
to recall a traumatic incident, please call Victim Link BC at 1-800-563-0808 or
victimlinkbc.ca.

105

Appendix C: Questions for Dispatchers

106

Interview Questions for Dispatchers
Training and Implementation
1. How long have you worked as a dispatcher? How long as a Transit Police
dispatcher?
2. How has the nature of the complaints changed since the implementation of the
program?
3. How were you consulted on the implementation?
4. What kind of training did you receive?
5. How long was the training for Chatterbox?
6. Do you feel the training was adequate? Why or why?
Process
7. What is the process of taking text message from the start of the conversation to
action ie police attendance, etc.?
8. How do you monitor it or notified of an incoming Chatterbox conversation?
9. How do you decide a conversation becomes a police file?
10. What happens when you get more than one conversation at once?
11. Which of the dispatchers is using it?
12. How do you decide who works Chatterbox?
Text Conversation
13. How easy or difficult to is getting the complainant’s contact information?
14. Do you think it is necessary to get this information? Why or why not?
15. Do you use the pre-programmed comments? Why or why not? What other preprogrammed comments would you like to see?
16. On average, how many text messages per conversation?
17. What types of calls come through texting program?
18. How much information do you get through Chatterbox compared to a traditional
call?
19. How has this changed from before Chatterbox?
20. Do you feel that people are more like to text in a complaint as it is happening in
real time as opposed to reporting it later on?
21. Do you feel that people are more likely to report criminal and related activity now
that this program is available (i.e. do they feel it has had an effect on crime
reporting?).
Personal Experience
22. How do you feel about Chatterbox?
23. What are the positives of the program?
24. What are the negatives of the program?
25. What issues have you had with Chatterbox?
26. Would you recommend Chatterbox to others? Why or Why not?
27. Additional comments.

107

Appendix D: Questions for Police Officers

108

Focus Group Questions for Police
1. What do you know about Chatterbox?
2. How do you know about Chatterbox?
3. What differences between a Chatterbox call and other types of transit related calls
(e.g. the complainant has called in, the complainant has approached a SkyTrain
Attendant, etc. ) have you noticed?
4. Has Chatterbox changed the type of calls you have received? Why or Why not?
5. How does Chatterbox as a source of calls for service affect your investigation?
6. What’s your experience with Chatterbox?
7. How do you feel about Chatterbox, in particular, the “real-time” nature of
Chatterbox (e.g. does it live up to this description, has it improved your ability to
respond/solve the issue?)
8. Would you recommend Chatterbox to others? Why or why not?
9. What might you do to improve Chatterbox?

109

Appendix E: Prime Data for Chatterbox Analysis

110

Total Police File Types Versus Total Police Files Generated From Chatterbox
Conversations and Percentages

114

References
Abbotsford Police Department. (2013). Non emergency texting [PowerPoint Presentation].
Received from W. Plamondon via email communication.
Baumer, E.P. & Lauritsen, J.L. (2010). Reporting crime to the police, 1973-2005: A
multivariate analysis of long-term trends in the national crime survey (NCS) and
national crime victimization survey (NCVS). American Society of Criminology,
48(1), 131-185. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00182.x
Block, R. & Davis, S. (1996). "The environs of rapid transit stations: A focus for street
crime or just another risky place?" In R.V. Clarke (ed.), Preventing Mass Transit
Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 237-257. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal
Justice Press. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/problems/street_robbery/
PDFs/BlockDavis1996.pdf
B.C. Stats. (2016). British Columbia-Level Population Projections (July 2016). Retrieved
from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography
/PopulationProjections.aspx
Boyce, J. (2015). Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2014. Statistical Canada.
[Catalogue number 85-002-X]. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85002-x/2015001/article/14211-eng.htm
British Transport Police. (2015). 2015 Public Consultation Survey. Retrieved from
https://www.btp.police.uk/PDF/Public%20Consultation%202015v4.pdf
Brunoro, M. (2014). Spike in sexual harassment on transit prompts warning. CTV BC.
Retrieved from http://bc.ctvnews.ca/spike-in-sexual-harassment-on-transitprompts-warning-1.1637597
Bryman, A., Bell, E., & Teevan, T. (2012). Social Research Methods, 3rd. Canadian Ed.
Oxford University Press, Don Mills, Ontario.
Cohen, L.E. & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44(1), 588-608. Retrieved from http://cjresources.com/CJ Crim Theory pdfs/social%20change%20and%20crime%20rate
%20trends%20a%20routine%20activity%20approach%20%20Cohen%20et%20al%201979.pdf
Costello, S. (2017). Everything you need to know about SMS & MMS. Retrieved from
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-sms-mms-iphone-2000247

117

Darley, J.M. & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.
Retrieved from http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/
student_resources/0155060678_rathus/ps/ps19.html
E-Comm. (2017). How 9-1-1 works. Retrieved from https://www.ecomm911.ca/contacting
-911/how-911-works.php
E-Comm. (2017). Text with 9-1-1. Retrieved from https://ecomm911.ca/contacting911/T911system.php#textwith911
E-Comm. (n.d.). Text with 9-1-1: For the deaf, deaf-blind, hard-of-hearing and speech
impaired [PowerPoint Presentation]. Retrieved from https://ecomm911.ca/
contacting-911/documents/T911Presentation-revised_27May15.pdf
FluidSurvey. (2016). Pricing. Retrieved from http://fluidsurveys.com/pricing/
Gallison, J.K. (2012). The Skytrain as an exporter of crime? Exploring the spatial
distribution of crime on the Canada Line. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from
http://summit.sfu.ca/item/12286
Gallison, J.K. & Andresen, M.A. (2017). Crime and public transportation: A case study of
Ottawa’s O-Train system. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
59(1), 94-122. DOI: 10.3138/cjccj.2016.E35
Gansberg, M. (1964, March 27). 37 who saw murder didn’t call the police. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/27/37-who-saw-murderdidnt-call-the-police.html
Gayomali, C. (2012). The text message turns 20: A brief history of SMS. The Week.
Retrieved from http://theweek.com/articles/469869/text-message-turns-20-briefhistory-sms
Government of British Columbia. (n.d.) Income assistance payment dates. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/incomeassistance/payment-dates
Hard, J. (2015). How SMS works. Howstuffworks. Retrieved from
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/e-mail-messaging/sms1.htm
Hui, S. (2013). Harassment on TransLink project seeks safer transit for women. The
Georgia Straight. Retrieved from http://www.straight.com/news/516381/
harassment-translink-project-seeks-safer-transit-women

118

Latane, B. & Darley, J.M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in
emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221.
Retrieved from http://www.morilab.net/gakushuin/Latane_&_Darley_1968.pdf
Levine, N. & Wachs, M. (1986). Bus crime in Los Angeles: I – Measuring the incidence.
Transportation Research Part A: General, 20(4), 273-284. doi:10.1016/01912607(86)90086-5
Matharu, J., Hale, B., Ammar, M., & Brennan, P.A. (2016). Short message service (SMS)
texting as a method of communication during on call: prevalence and experience of
medical staff in a large acute NHS Trust in the UK. British Journal of Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery, 54(8), 863-867. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.05.034
Metropolitan Police Department. (n.d.). Text the police: 50411. Retrieved from
https://mpdc.dc.gov/service/text-police-50411
Microsoft. (2016). Find a lost phone. Retrieved from https://support.microsoft.com/enus/help/11585/windows-phone-find-a-lost-phone
National Emergency Number Association. (2016). NENA Master Glossary of 9-1-1
Terminology. Retrieved from https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/
resmgr/ standards/NENA-ADM-000.19-2016_FINAL_2.pdf
Nauert, R. (2015). Seeing Violence on Social Media Can Lead to PTSD-Like Symptoms.
Psych Central. Retrieved from https://psychcentral.com/news/2015/05/07/
observing-violence-on-social-media-can-lead-to-ptsd/84361.html
Pedwell, T. (2017). Next-generation 911: CRTC braces for emergency video and texting.
The Canadian Press. Retrieved from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/next-generation-911-crtc-bracesfor-emergency-video-and-texting/article33631341/
Perreault, S. (2015). Criminal victimization in Canada, 2014. Statistical Canada.
[Catalogue number 85-002-X]. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85002-x/2015001/article/14241-eng.htm
Phillips, D.C. & Sandler, D. (2015). Does public transit spread crime? Evidence from
temporary rail station closures. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 52(1), 1326. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2015.02.001
Qin, X., & Liu, L. (2016). Evaluating the relationships of bus transit with street and offstreet robberies. Professional Geographer, 68(2), 227-237. doi:
10.1080/00330124.2015.1059400

119

Rogers Arena. (2017). Fan texting service. Retrieved from https://rogersarena.com/fanservices/fan-texting-service/
Slattery, J. (2017). April’s “Welfare Wednesday” single worse day for recorded
overdose calls in B.C. history. Global News. Retrieved from
http://globalnews.ca/news/3411045/aprils-welfare-wednesday-single-worst-dayfor-recorded-overdoses-calls-in-b-c-history/
TransLink. (2013). 2011 metro Vancouver regional trip diary survey: Analysis report.
Retrieved from http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/customer_info/
translink_listens/customer_surveys/trip_diaries/2011%20Metro%20Vancouver%20
Regional%20Trip%20Diary%20%20Analysis%20Report.pdf
TransLink. (2016). Bikes on SkyTrain. Retrieved from http://www.translink.ca/en/RiderGuide/Bikes-on-Transit/Bikes-on-SkyTrain.aspx
Transit Police. (2016). About us. Retrieved from https://transitpolice.ca/about-us/
Transit Police. (2016). History. Retrieved from https://transitpolice.ca/about-us/history/
Transit Police. (2017). Jurisdiction, mandate & authority. Retrieved from
https://transitpolice.ca/about-us/jurisdiction-mandate-and-authority/
U.S. Short Code Directory. (2017). What is an SMS aggregator?. Retrieved from
https://usshortcodedirectory.com/faq/what-is-an-sms-aggregator/
Vancouver Police Department. (2011). Update – Integrated Riot Investigation. Retrieved
from http://mediareleases.vpd.ca/2011/07/20/update-integrated-riot-investigation-2/
Yabe, M. (2016). Students, Faculty, and Staff's Willingness to Pay for Emergency Texting.
Journal Of Applied Security Research, 11(4), 437-449.
doi:10.1080/19361610.2016.1210486
Young, P., Moore, E., Griffiths, G., Raine, R., Stewart, R., Cownie, M., & Frutos-Perez,
M. Help is just a text away: The use of short message service texting to provide an
additional means of support for health care students during practice placements.
Nurse Education Today, 30(2), 118-223. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.06.010
Yu, S. V. (2011). Do bus stops increase crime opportunities? [electronic resource]. El
Paso, Tex.: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufvca/detail.action?docID=1057881

120