|
CITY OF VANCOUVER ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT |
Date: |
August 6, 2004 | |
Author: |
Jeremy Johnson | |
Phone No.: |
604-717-2687 | |
RTS No.: |
3497 | |
CC File No.: |
3703 | |
Meeting Date: |
September 16, 2004 |
TO: |
Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets |
FROM: |
Chief Constable |
SUBJECT: |
New Community Policing Centres Model Update |
INFORMATION
This report is submitted for Council's information.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
Following approval in 2003 of the new Community Policing Centres (CPCs) model, Council requested a follow-up report after one year had passed. This update includes information on the efficacy of the Centres, their fundraising activities and the incorporation of neighbourhoods into the area now served by the City’s eight remaining CPCs.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On June 26, 2003, Council approved a restructuring of the City’s Community Policing Centres. This restructuring saw the emergence of nine CPCs from a former total of eighteen. Council also approved the annual expenditure of $150,000, from the Police budget, to fund the Centres.
For internal reasons, the Vancouver Police Native Liaison Society disbanded in 2003. The Society’s original mandate, providing victim services to the aboriginal community, is now being met by counselors funded by Provincial Victim Services in cooperation with the Police Department. A second CPC, Granville Downtown South, now functions without a Board, and is being run by staff from District 1.
In total, then, there are currently eight CPCs which, in 2004, have shared equally in the funding provided through the Police budget. Also, the City continues to indemnify the Centres, their volunteers and programs. To help address the issues Council requested for this report, the CPCs were sent a survey in May, seeking input and information.
EFFICACY OF THE CPCs, POST-RESTRUCTURING
Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the CPCs in the new model is serving a greater geographical area than before the restructuring. Most CPCs absorbed the territory of at least one other Centre, some absorbed two; in the case of District 4, one CPC (Kerrisdale Oakridge Marpole) exists in an area that was formerly served by five. One CPC reported not providing services to any new areas, feeling that they lacked resources to do so. Other CPCs have moved energetically into areas formerly served by other Centres, organizing citizen patrols and recruiting volunteers. The CPCs have frequently incorporated volunteers that formerly served in now-closed Centres (e.g., the Dickens Community Group affiliated itself with the South Vancouver CPC).
One of the positive developments in the past year has been a closer working relationship among the CPCs. They celebrated the 10th anniversary of the opening of the first office in April of this year, marked by a public event at Library Square. The Centres also collaborated in organizing and staffing a booth at this year’s Children’s Festival. With a smaller number of CPCs, logistics and working relationships are simpler and improved. The CPCs better recognize the importance of teamwork and co-operation, both in day-to-day operations as well as promotion and “marketing” of their programs and services. In addition, the Department has initiated quarterly meetings with representatives of the eight Boards, attended by the Deputy Chief Constable for Operations and his District Commanders, in order to discuss issues of mutual interest. Finally, the CPCs continue to serve as convenient locations in which area patrol officers can write reports, interview witnesses or simply take meal breaks, while remaining in the District and available to respond to calls. This also allows for interaction with the volunteers and promotes an excellent relationship between them and the Department.
For various reasons, the Department now operates the Granville Downtown South CPC without a board and coordinator. Through the efforts of the District Commander, the District’s Community Policing Sergeant, and the Centre’s NPO (Neighbourhood Patrol Officer), this CPC has continued to function effectively in delivering programs and services to the area. It has, in fact, seen an increase in applications to volunteer and an improvement in relationships with area merchants and residents. The NPO has also noted a reduction in thefts from vehicles in the recent past, owing in part to the efforts of the Centre’s volunteers.
FUNDING AND FUNDRAISING
Generally, the CPCs desire greater funding and have expressed that wish with varying intensity. Given that all the surviving Centres serve greater geographical areas, they tend to feel burdened with greater demand. Most receive funding from sources such as ICBC and gaming grants, and the majority do not pay rent or utilities (i.e., they utilize donated space). There is also a feeling that fundraising activities take away from time better spent on program and service delivery. In one case, a CPC described fundraising success that came “only at the great personal sacrifices of its staff and volunteers.” In the case of this CPC, it undertook sales of chocolates and coupon books, garage sales, auctions, raffles and membership drives. The staff stated in its survey response that, “Our program delivery suffers because of the constant need to fundraise.” Another Centre wrote: “We are able to live within our budget mainly because we pay no rent, light, heat or hot water and do not pay our Office Coordinator $30,000 a year.” Some CPCs rely on “in-kind” donations, such as labour, supplies and services, provided by area businesses or agencies with which a relationship has been established. One Centre cited a cost of $85,000 - $90,000 per year for basic, “core” expenses.
Related to the issue of resources is staffing. All eight of the Centres now serve a much larger area than before the restructuring, placing on them additional demands for programs and service delivery. What naturally follows is a greater demand placed on the Constable assigned to the Centre, in terms of property inspections, NIST participation, lectures/presentations and general enforcement action. Several CPCs expressed a wish for the assignment of a second Constable to the office, and one also wished the Department would restore the Sergeant responsible for community policing within its patrol district. Although current resources make the provision of additional staffing resources unlikely at this time, we are committed to providing a comprehensive community policing response to the whole city.
SATISFACTION WITH THE NEW MODEL
As with any major change, the degree of satisfaction with the new model varies among stakeholders. As noted above, the CPCs are working better together than ever before, and have maintained the independence and autonomy they emphasized as important during the restructuring. Some areas of the city (Broadway and Commercial, or Fraser and Broadway, for example) benefit from the new model in the form of volunteer patrols. These either did not previously exist or had not been seen in several years. At the same time, the closure of some CPCs has placed demands on neighbouring Centres, again as previously noted. In the case of District 4, the Kerrisdale Oakridge Marpole CPC has defined its boundaries and isn’t able to extend service delivery beyond them. This has left a gap in areas such as Kitsilano and Point Grey.
Citizens’ reactions, too, are varied. There remains in the Cedar Cottage area a group of residents committed to the re-establishment of the “Neighbourhood Safety Office.” While the Department has no plan to locate another CPC in the area, it acknowledges the feeling of some that a community office in some form enhances their feelings of safety and well-being in their neighbourhood. Although the office now serving Cedar Cottage (Collingwood CPC) is some distance away, that office has established regular citizen patrols in the area, including a partnership with Translink that allows storage space and a mustering area for volunteers. For the purposes of reporting neighbourhood concerns and problems, the Grandview Woodland CPC accepts complaints and reports from the Cedar Cottage area. In addition, the “MOBY” (My Own Back Yard) group is actively engaged, in cooperation with the Collingwood CPC, in developing a community garden project in the area of 11th Ave. and Commercial Drive. It has enlisted the support of a variety of organizations and individuals to complete the project, and believes that bringing people out of their homes and onto the streets will enhance liveability and security. The Vancouver Police Department supports such a view.
For its part, the Department recognizes both the achievements and the challenges of the new model. Working with the eight CPCs is more efficient than with the previous eighteen. While the CPCs each have an autonomous and independent board, the Department and the CPCs have agreed on minimum standards that will be updated annually. Each CPC will be audited to ensure compliance with the standards.
The unique structure of CPC governance in Vancouver (each office operating as an autonomous body, but with a direct relationship with the police) presents challenges and opportunities that would not exist elsewhere. For example, most Centres have chosen to take part in an umbrella organization to fundraise and promote their services to the public. Other examples include CPC compliance with new information privacy legislation, implementing a new Operating Agreement, the need for the audits mentioned above, and variance among CPCs in terms of the programs and services delivered to the public. Each of these has an impact on the Centres’ efficacy and requires their energy and time, as well as the Department’s. However, many neighbourhoods and communities benefit from the model because of its uniqueness. Many people consider their local CPC to be a focal point in the neighbourhood, a place to contact not just the police, but a number of other civic departments. The “ownership” of a variety of neighbourhood problems is often seen to rest with the CPC and its local society and board. In addition, the societies can offer programs or services that meet specific needs within the community. The Department continues to work toward strengthening and improving both its relationship with the Centres and the services they provide.
Not to be overlooked are the many success stories that come out of the individual Centres. These include videos on marijuana grow-ops, presentations to the Police Board, safety programs for foreign students and a “Cops and Kids” day on Commercial Drive, to name only a few. The Centres are doing a wonderful job of establishing partnerships with their neighbours, area merchants and other service providers to enhance community safety and reduce crime.
CONCLUSION
Several issues have stood out over the past year. The Community Policing Centres feel stretched in their ability to serve geographical areas that increased in size under the new model, both in terms of staffing and funding, and have expressed themselves clearly in this regard. Some have worked hard to provide service in the new areas; others have not been so successful. Resource allocation is not a simple task, either in human or financial terms. The new model provides some flexibility to the Centres in terms of how they use financial resources provided to them by the Department, but also requires them to seek outside funding. The eight remaining CPCs have all proven to be vibrant and vital in the services they provide their respective communities, and we remain committed to their endeavours.
The improved cooperation among CPCs is very encouraging, in terms of planning future events and activities. The Department is pleased with this development and has every expectation it will continue. There is every reason to believe that the CPCs will not only continue to provide a valuable service to the community, but that they will expand their roles and programs in the future.
The degree of satisfaction with the new model is difficult to state categorically. The answer may well depend on the respondent or, perhaps, the neighbourhood. However, both the CPCs and the Vancouver Police Department are working together to provide the best possible level of service to citizens in all areas of the city, and remain committed to doing so.
Attached to this report is a pamphlet, produced by the CPCs this year, outlining their services, locations and contact information.
* * * * *
