To Manage Predatory Dumping Use Your Words

When the adversarial environment is blatant... While speaking to the "eight-hundred pound gorilla" internal customer, I was told, "You want me to listen to you? I have a half a million dollar problem with dumping. You find a solution to that and then I’ll listen to you."

The proverbial gauntlet hit the floor in that pause. That was it, in no uncertain terms. First, though, predatory dumping is when folks come to your property late at night and dump their trash. Such a thing is not too much of a problem for the average business, but one that accepts donations as a part of their business model tends to attract this behavior. This leader thought he was stumping me, but he unwittingly set me free at what I do best.. find solutions when no one believed any existed.


Predatory Dumping Prevention
Leaving the dynamics of office politics, the difficulties of forming a new department, and finding just the right functional space within the organizational culture, this challenge was rather significant. It would become a founding point in the department setting it up as a problem solving team.

Background

The organization received its retail inventory through an established process of accepting donations at the designated intake points. An unfortunate byproduct of being known for accepting donations was the propensity for members of the community to leave donations after-hours, without regard for the weather or how it could facilitate inappropriate behavior. This particular organization operated where rains were common during more months of the year than not, and others in the community took the opportunity to dump materials ranging from actual garbage to items that simply were not fit for resale. Consequently, these "donated" items generally had to be taken to the dump where fees were charged by weight. These after-hours donations also caused the additional serious issue of attracting human scavengers. Individuals would descend on the property during the hours of darkness to take any items of value they might find. While some of these scavengers were transients, many were not and some had used this opportunity to fuel their own thrift store and yard sale enterprises. The aftermath of this scavenging more often than not was a debris field of considerable size.

Existing Solutions and Alternatives

At the time of the challenge, the current solution placed contract security officers at a mix of sites with the worst dumping. The cost for these officers was not only significant, the solution did not cover all sites, and finally each security post cost more per hour than a donation employee.  

Where the dumping was not addressed it often became worse over time requiring a considerable morning cleanup effort. “Spring Cleaning” season saw such large amounts of dumping that additional dumpsters and forklift operators were required for clean up. Other significant dumping included landlords cleaning out delinquent properties and unpaid for storage spaces. The resulting costs were out of balance and seemed to justify the cost of security posts. However, it was an incomplete and costly solution that required continual management intervention to maintain meaningful effectiveness.

Consideration had been previously given to keeping these donation sites open 24-hours or through much of the night with safety concerns topping the list of reasons not to attempt this. Furthermore, previous inspections found that donations late at night were generally done intentionally as the items simply were not resalable.

Research

In pursuit of a solution, records from each of the security officer posts were reviewed, as was video from the small number of sites so equipped. In addition, surveillance was conducted at multiple sites and persons attempting to leave donations after-hours were engaged to determine why they chose to donate after-hours. This research was conducted in the May-June period with sunset generally after 8:00pm as the Summer Solstice approached. 

Two broad types of after-hours donors became apparent. Those who donated in roughly the first two hours after a site closed and those that donated four or more hours later. The first group, classified as “Well-intentioned Dumpers,” were well-intentioned and recognized that the location was closed but felt they were still doing a good deed with their donation. The latter, clearly “Predatory Dumpers,” showed the intention of evading any opposition to simply leaving whatever was convenient. Further research showed Predatory Dumpers being vigilant, or abstaining from dumping, when no other material was present at their arrival. It seemed as though the “Well-intentioned” were facilitating the actions of the “Predatory.” The question became could reducing the former have an effect on the latter. The answer would be yes.

While there was signage discouraging after-hours donations, discussions with the Well-intentioned Dumpers indicated the signage was too small, out of the way, and contained legal language that was not clear. The signage was often set off to one side or another from the donation point and were “visually busy” with dense text.

First, a simpler sign was quickly developed which gained organizational approval. The signage chosen was larger (roughly 2’x3’) with a large stop sign on the left, four short plain-language phrases on the right side of the sign, and the statement “Violators may be prosecuted” across the bottom. The sign had the following plain language points:

• Leaving of any item when attendant is not present is not allowed
• Removal of any item from this property is not allowed
• No trespassing after business hours
• No Loitering

Prior to deploying the new signs, images were shared and feedback sought from the police chief and prosecutor for each site's jurisdiction. With generally favorable responses, one location identified a local ordinance forbidding the use of “regulatory sign images.” An alternate sign using a circular stop sign with black lettering was created for that location with local government approval

Planned Solution and Functional Requirements

An RFP with plain language functional requirements were shared with local vendors seeking a multi-step response plan. The functional requirements described the required video coverage and quality in addition other necessary components. To keep costs low the installed system would only need to provide the first stage of the planned response. Although it was expected to be scalable to incorporate the additional stages. The stages of response were included in a narrative "Anecdote of Success" describing how a successful encounter ought to unfold.

Planned Solution and Functional Requirements
Upon the approach of an individual or vehicle into the area of detection a message would broadcast with a recorded message developed and provided by Marketing and Communications. The script included a statement that the site was closed, that leaving anything was against the law, and to support the organizations programs by donating during the posted hours. A monitor would be placed to be visible through the donation doors that displayed the donation area, the vehicle and any pedestrian donors, and contain a caption inset displaying the vehicle license plate. If the vehicle did not depart within a set period of time (planned at 15-30 seconds) a connection would be made to a remote video monitoring station allowing a Watch Officer to evaluate the situation. Based on the Watch Officer’s assessment they may: communicate directly via loudspeaker, notify law enforcement, activate asynchronous strobe lights and sirens.


Results and Conclusion
None of the vendors could produce this precise solution at the time of the request. The winning system met key points with an automated message, and the potential for scalability. Interestingly considerably less than expected was ultimately required to significantly reduce dumping.

A new store under construction received the system first for ease of installation. The results from just the first stage of the automated system response far exceeded everyone’s expectation. Video review demonstrated the combination of large clear signage and the automated verbal cue nearly eliminated well-intentioned dumping. A few instances that involved vehicles with loud music playing or where a driver threw out a bag quickly negated the verbal cue, but these were uncommon. The elimination of this early dumping appeared to have a direct effect on reducing “Predatory Dumping.” An additional beneficial result was increased enforcement later in the evening by law enforcement.

With the costs of the first system relatively high, but still less than the cost of a security officer, less expensive solutions meeting the reduced requirements were found and deployed. Initially a “Parachute” system was developed by an integrator for sites without any existing video surveillance systems. Deployment of this system at four initial locations provided sufficiently reduced cleanup costs in just a few weeks as to recover the cost of installation. The minimal ongoing maintenance costs of this capability resulted in perpetuated cost reductions in dump fees and cleanup labor costs, as well as the risk of employee injury during the unnecessary cleanup process. Further changes to the system design and implementation strategy resulted in deploying similar capabilities at all locations.



#security #physicalsecurity #solutions #investigations #organizationalculture #dumping