CITY OF VANCOUVER

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

 

Report Date:

January 11, 2005

 

Author:

Sgt. Jim Patenaude

 

Phone No.:

604.717.2687

 

RTS No.:

4813

 

CC File No.:

3703

 

Meeting Date:

March 3, 2005

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

Chief Constable

SUBJECT:

Community Policing Initiatives and Funding

RECOMMENDATION

IF Council approve A, B, and C, above, then it is

RECOMMENDED that Council approve E:

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager notes that the report proposes increased funding to the Vancouver Police Department in order to maintain existing Community Policing Centres and to develop new Community Policing Centres. This report reflects a budget request of approximately $1 Million dollars per year.

The City Manager advises the Chief Constable that each Centre must complete a business plan that rationalizes the standardization of the proposed funding at $100,000 per Centre. The individual plans should consider the local area needs and set a plan in place, along with measurement criteria that can be reviewed annually by the Vancouver Police Board. In addition, the police department must ensure that all legal relationships are ratified through formal agreements.

The relationship established by contract will be between the Community Police Centre and the Vancouver Police Board. However, through Recommendation F, the Vancouver Police Board will be required to submit an annual business plan and an evaluation report, based on criteria, for the preceding year, for each Policing Community Centre as part of the Vancouver Police Department's annual budget submission to the City.

PURPOSE

The Vancouver Police Department is requesting that sufficient funds be placed in its operating budget to provide for sustainable core funding for the community policing centres that work in partnership with the Department to improve the safety and well being of the communities they serve.

The Department had been in discussion with the community policing centres about obtaining core funding from the traffic fine revenue money that the Provincial Government had been promising to provide to the City. On October 22, 2004 Provincial Government announced the return of traffic fines stating that the funds were being returned to provide "more money for policing, crime prevention and other programs to make the community safe."

The actual use of the Traffic Fine Revenue has already been discussed by the City and is included in the Preliminary Operating Budget on January 18, 2005. The Local Government Grant Act categorizes the contribution as an unconditional grant and is accounted for in General Revenues. Section 8.1 of the Regulations within this Act states that: "The amount that a municipality may receive to help defray costs of the local police enforcement...".

This report recommends an approval of funds that will enhance crime prevention and provide sustainable community policing programs, centres and initiatives in the amount of $1,037,267 ($150,000 existing funding and $887,267 of new funding). Contracts for service between the VPD and each CPC will need to be established as well as annual business plans and monitoring mechanisms will need to be developed to ensure compliance to those agreement and plans.

BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2003, Council approved a restructuring of the City's Community Policing Centres. This restructuring saw the emergence of eight CPCs from a former total of twenty-two. Council also approved the annual expenditure of $150,000, from the Police budget, to fund the Centres. Each Centre receives an equal share of this funding, or $18,750 per Centre. Appendix B to this report is a review of the history of Community Policing Centres. That Appendix outlines how the seven of the eight CPCs have a non-profit society based governance model. The VPD is committed to working in partnership with these Societies to deliver community policing services to their respective neighbourhoods and communities.

Vancouver's CPCs cannot meet their financial requirements on this amount alone. For their entire history, they have relied heavily on additional fundraising efforts in order to finance and administer the programs and services they provide to the public and the Police. As stated in the September, 2004 report to Council ("New Community Policing Centres Model Update"):

"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."

Vancouver's Community Policing Centres provide a broad array of services and assistance both to the general public and to the Department. Besides offering crime prevention information, community forums and neighbourhood patrols, the Centres allow police members to interact with the community in an informal environment. The public can report concerns or issues to the police members who are assigned to the Centres (one constable at each Centre), or who happen to be passing through and to discuss problem premises or crimes in the area. Moreover, members use the Centres around the clock, to write reports or take meal breaks, thus keeping them closer to their beats and better able to respond to calls for service.

UNIQUE GOVERNANCE MODEL LEADS TO OPPORTUNITY

A number of different approaches have been looked at for the provision of community policing services. These options are described in Appendix A. The conclusion from this review is that each model has its benefits and detractions, however, continued support for the existing governance structure is being recommended.

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, the Centres have formed 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, 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.

FINANCIAL STABILILTY FOR CPCs

Permanent, core funding would relieve the CPCs of most of the demands of fundraising and allow them to concentrate instead on their true purpose: providing crime prevention and safety programs and services to their communities. The current average CPC budget is approximately $92,500 per year (with a range from $26,500 to $190,000). They have operated with low budgets because they pay no rent, but this has required that they often operate in very inadequate donated facilities. The Department and the Vancouver Association of Community Policing Centres (VACPC) have engaged in a process to determine what funding is required to operate and maintain an individual CPC, without resorting to constant fundraising efforts. Although VACPC originally had sought up to $154,000 per year, per Centre, a consensus has been reached in which the amount requested is $100,000 per year, per Centre. Such consensus reflects a strong spirit of cooperation between the VPD and VACPC; it also emphasizes the commitment of both groups to community policing objectives.

Each CPC will be expected to raise the additional funds needed to meet their budgets and provide the services needed in their communities. It is anticipated that each CPC will continue to form partnerships with agencies such as their respective BIAs and with ICBC. Toward that end, the VPD and VACPC have struck a committee to develop policies and guidelines regarding additional funding sources. The Committee will put in place guidelines for acceptable fundraising methods and donations for CPCs.

The funding for Community Policing Centres is proposed as global funding, with a breakdown as follows:

Each Centre will need to complete a business plan that rationalizes the standardization of the proposed funding at $100,000 per Centre. The individual plans will consider the local area needs and set a plan in place, along with measurement criteria that can be reviewed annually by the Vancouver Police Board.

AGREEMENTS

The relationship between the Department and the CPCs is defined by two documents: the Operating Agreement, signed by the City, the VPD and the CPCs, which outlines the core activities of the CPCs and terms of indemnification; and the Memorandum of Understanding which outlines the Department's and CPCs' responsibilities to each other.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the VPD and the CPCs needs to be re-written to provide a greater degree of clarity for all parties and accountability for the CPCs. A redrafted MOU will cover:

To ensure financial accountability, no funding authorized by Council pursuant to this report will be made available to the CPCs until the City's Legal Department, the City Manager and the Chief Constable concur that the appropriate agreements have been executed and are in place. The final contract for service will be for a three year term.

A NEW COMMUNITY POLICING CENTRE FOR DISTRICT 4

One of the side effects of reducing the number of CPCs in District 4 has been a "service gap" to residents in the Dunbar-Southlands, Kitsilano, West Point Grey and Fairview neighbourhoods. While other CPCs absorbed the population and geographical area of perhaps one or two closed Centres, the situation in District 4 was very different: one remaining Centre attempted to do the work of the previous five. Naturally, and through no fault of its own, this proved unworkable. In recognizing this, the Department has been marshalling resources to better deal with a rise in property crime and the concerns of area residents. A new Community Policing Centre in the northern part of the District is a cornerstone in our strategy. Such a Centre will be better able to mobilize volunteers, initiate programs and services such as neighbourhood patrols, and empower residents in making their blocks and homes safer and more secure. For 2005, the initial start-up funding requested for this Centre is $30,000. For 2006 and beyond, this Centre would require the same funding as the existing eight CPCs.

ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY POLICING CENTRE

Since its inception in the early 1980's to 2003, the aboriginal community's needs were served by the Vancouver Police Native Liaison Society. The original mandate of the Society was primarily one of victim services, funded by the Provincial Government. The society disbanded in 2003 and the province is providing victim services through other contract providers. Moreover, the original location of the Society, at 312 Main St., was not particularly helpful to the community it sought to serve. The Police Department believes strongly that many of the needs and concerns of the aboriginal community, in terms of crime prevention and community safety, can best be met through the creation of a full-service Aboriginal Community Policing Centre. The Aboriginal Community has deep reservations about a 'community office' being imposed on them. The clear message is that they have yet to be invited to a proper dialogue on the concept, or the benefits and possible structure, location and activities that might be involved. Another clear message from the community is that they view the relationship with the Department as needing significant improvement. To that end, various initiatives are underway- one of which is a meeting scheduled for February 7th with the Deputy Chief Constables and several key community leaders. The topic of an Aboriginal CPC and its implementation will undoubtedly be discussed further at that time.

To realize the goal of a CPC dedicated to this community, the Department seeks the funding necessary to restore the services and programs many feel are integral to First Nations residents in Vancouver. As with the proposed new District 4 CPC, start-up funding for 2005 can be less than recommended in subsequent years: $30,000. For 2006 and beyond, this Centre would require the same funding as the existing eight CPCs.

NEW INITIATIVES AND SERVICES FOR VPD'S COMMUNITY POLICING PROGRAMS

The Department operates three programs which are integral to our philosophy of community policing: Business Liaison, Block Watch and Citizens' Crime Watch. Each of these programs has created and fostered a partnership with citizens interested in safer communities, businesses and streets. These programs offer a wonderful opportunity to increase volunteer participation, to involve interested and committed citizens in preventing crime and reporting suspicious activities, and to participate in measurable crime prevention strategies.

Currently, each of these programs operates without program funding. The members assigned are limited in their abilities to provide effective service delivery owing to a lack of resources. In many cases, their presentations utilize either outdated materials or those they can beg or borrow from external sources, such as the provincial Block Watch association. To provide truly useful outreach, and to assist in carrying out the Department's Strategic Plan, these programs require reliable program funding, funding that has been lacking to date.

The funding would be used for meeting expenses; crime prevention pamphlets, brochures and other documents; a crime prevention video library; training courses and seminars; volunteer recognition and rewards; reimbursing volunteers' fuel expenses; newsletters; and community block party expenses. These are small investments that return large dividends in terms of strengthening not only the Department's relationship with businesses and private citizens, but also in building the relationships that lead to safer communities.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The total cost of the recommendations for is as follows:

For 2005:

Total, 2005: $897,300 ($150,000 previously approved funding plus $747,300 in new funding).

For 2006 and beyond:

Total, 2006 and beyond: $1,037,30 (including $150,000 previously approved funding).

Summary:

The relationship between the Vancouver Police Board and the Community Policing Centres will be established by contract. The contract will be for a 3-year term and include, among other things, a business plan and evaluation criteria that are to be reported on and reviewed annually.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

A police service can only be effective if there is a strong partnership with the community it serves. Community policing is not just the best way to deliver policing services, it is about the community taking responsibility to work with police to keep the City safe. In 2004, the volunteers in the CPCs provided over 100,000 hours of their time to accomplish this important goal. They staffed their Centres' counters and provided that vital link of communication between the community and the police, responding to countless queries and requests for assistance that go beyond what a 911 service can provide. They spent thousands of hours on foot and bike patrols in their communities, preventing crime and providing a sense of security for residents. They worked on crime prevention programs that are critical to reducing the high levels of property crime in our City. Having vibrant CPCs working dynamically with the police is a critical component to providing both safety and a sense of safety in our communities. The CPCs have provided more complete comments on their role in the partnership between police and the community in Appendix C to this report.

CONCLUSION

The Police Department remains committed to the ideals and goals of community policing and to its relationship with the Community Policing Centres. It believes that appropriate, permanent funding for them is the best means by which to achieve the mutual goals of more livable neighbourhoods, a reduction in crime and an improvement in overall safety.

* * * * *

Appendix A - Options for Providing Community Policing Centres

During the 1990's, police agencies across North America saw a strong movement to open storefront operations in the communities they serve. Academics, government, community leaders, and police managers themselves become part a movement calling for this type of service to the community. Common to each model being proposed was the belief that more effective policing could be achieved when there is ongoing mobilization and partnerships between the police and the public. Research conducted by the Department during this time in the US and Canada, and our own experimentation with different models has led to the storefront models (CPCs) currently being operated in Vancouver. This research included site visits, literature reviews, seminars, and discussions with police managers and community leaders in other jurisdictions.

A Brief Summary of the Early Research

Edmonton, Alberta - In the early nineties the Edmonton Police Service was at the forefront of the movement to provide community policing in Canada. Part of that transition was setting up storefront operations known as Neighbourhood Foot Patrol offices. These offices were opened in the 21 neighbourhoods that were served by a assigned beat officer operating out of a storefront staffed by volunteers. Space was donated by the community, and funds to operate the offices were donated by the community. At the same time, Edmonton opened four community offices which were staffed by police officers 24-7 where victims or complainants could report their problem to the police rather than wait for a police officer to attend their location. These offices were funded by the Service.

The success of the Edmonton experience was evaluated by the Charles Mott Foundation who provided, for the first time in Canada, research dollars to examine programs. Edmonton's success was detailed in several International periodicals. Several police agencies, including our Department, visited Edmonton to review their program.

For the most part, the four community offices were precincts that had people go to the police to report incidents rather than the police going to them. The Foot Patrol Offices were part of a strong community-police partnership. Burnaby RCMP adopted the community office style at a cost of approximately one million dollars for two offices. This included rent, paid staff, and other associated costs. Our Department decided to try the Neighbourhood Foot Patrol style Office and soon opened the Strathcona and Gastown offices.

Portland, Oregon - The Portland Police Bureau adopted a neighbourhood association style of community partnership. Associations were created in each of the twenty some odd neighbourhoods, and if the community wanted and could support a storefront, one was opened and run solely by the association. Neighbourhood officers were assigned to each neighbourhood, but did not work out of the storefront. Later, Portland created Community Policing Teams which would work exclusively on community problems, but again operated independently. Site visits were made to Portland, and one important aspect that was discovered was the use of civic response teams similar to our NIST to deal with neighbourhood problems. Initially, the Collingwood CPC (then Joyce Street CPO) opened along these lines.

Beaverton, Oregon - Beaverton Police Department had two storefronts operations run by the police. Space was donated by local retailers, and at times, volunteers worked the front counter. Generally, the storefronts were only open a few hours a day when patrol members dropped by to write reports.

Montreal, Quebec - The Montreal Urban Police opened 45 community police stations which are better referred to as precincts. Officers reported to these offices at the start and end of their shift. Generally, they worked the surrounding neighbourhood. All expenses to operate the offices were from the police budget which was significantly increased when a metro style policing took shape around Montreal. We found very little community involvement in this type of storefront.

North Vancouver and Richmond - The RCMP opened two storefronts in Richmond where their bicycle and school liaison officers worked out of. The North Vancouver RCMP opened a similar office where a neighbourhood officer worked from. These offices were funded by their respective cities, and have paid and volunteer staff. Volunteers work in conjunction with the neighbourhood police officer to provide crime prevention programs to the local schools, residents, and merchants.

Surrey and Burnaby - These offices have evolved into a precinct style, localized in communities that they serve. Most local police functions operate from these offices, and they are funded by public dollars.

Several other storefront operations were examined in various cities including: San Diego; San Francisco; New York; Huston; Flint; Thunder Bay; Seattle; Bremerton; Nanaimo; Newark; and, Madison.

Common Themes in the Research

The common thread among most of the storefronts is that they are operated by the police agency, and each storefront was housed in a facility either purchased or leased by the city they serve. In most cases, the storefronts have two or more police officers assigned to them, and a paid coordinator who runs the office and coordinate programs and volunteer activities.

Almost all have community advisory groups that work with the agency to identify and address community issues and concerns. These groups were established by the agency, or made up of representatives from other community groups or organizations. The groups range from concerned citizens of a particular community, to business improvement associations. In addition, some jurisdictions have citizen groups that run their own organized crime prevention programs such as foot and bicycle patrols. These programs are supported by the police agency, but are independent of them.

The various types of community policing centres we looked at can be placed in two broad categories. The first is a rather broad, ambitious, but somewhat undefined initiative to enable the community to work together to solve problems by opening community run storefronts with limited funding (e.g., Portland). The second is a narrower focus in which the police operate the storefront with their own staff and funding (e.g., Burnaby). Both patterns raise many complex issues. Comprehensive evaluations, other than Edmonton's, have not uniformly been carried out. Reviewing what other police agencies and communities have done did not provide us with the ideal model for Vancouver. Our observation is that a police run CPC approach, that is simply imposed on a community does not make the significant connections and achieve the community support that leads to effective long term solutions in the community. On the other hand, community initiatives, where the police were only assisting, appeared to be less pragmatic and effective at resolving issues. The Department came to believe that our CPCs had to have a balanced partnership with the Community.

So, after trying various models in Vancouver in the nineties, we are working with a model that we believe is the most appropriate for Vancouver at this time. At the heart of this approach is the realization that the objective in attempting to bring about change is not simply to try more and better policing strategies, but rather to work with the community to identify and solve community problems. To succeed, we need both the police and community to be engaged in an effective partnership.

Appendix B - The Historical Background of Community Policing Centres in Vancouver

Community Policing

In 1992, there was a growing awareness of a philosophy called community policing by the Vancouver Police Department. At that time, the Chief Constable set in motion events which led to the adoption of a community based philosophy of policing for Vancouver that encouraged more citizen participation in crime reduction, and allowed greater coordination with other City agencies to address crime-related problems. The philosophy was built on the success of the police and community's cooperative problem-solving that recognized the important role of other stakeholders in crime and public safety issues.

Community policing means different things to different people. There are many perspectives on community policing, and each of them is built on assumptions that are partially supported by empirical evidence. In essence, community policing supports or promotes operational strategies to address the causes of, or fear of, crime through problem-solving and partnerships. It is primarily exercised by the community, and backed-up or facilitated by the police. It strengthens partnerships among all stakeholders responsible for the vitality and liveability of Vancouver's neighbourhoods and business districts.

In the early years, motivated community members, often co-ordinated by the neighbourhood associations, wanted to have a significant impact on conditions where they lived or worked including crime, while recognizing the resource limitations of the police. A distinct part of community policing at that time in Vancouver was the extensive involvement, energy, enthusiasm, and creativity from the community, which generated an unprecedented commitment to change. Form followed function in this community-driven process of organizational development, and the community and Vancouver Police jointly determined what was needed and what demonstration projects would work. One of those projects was the establishment of storefront operations in neighbourhoods throughout Vancouver. The intent of these storefronts was to have a community assume some responsibility for making their neighbourhood safer.

Community Crime Prevention/Storefront Offices - Historical Perspective

Storefront offices established their roots in Vancouver with the formation of two ethno-centred offices: the Chinatown Community Police Services Centre and the Vancouver Police and Native Liaison Society Storefront Project. These offices were opened to service a large part of our population that had traditional difficulties with the police. The offices and their operations were not geographically based, and sometimes extended their boundaries outside the City. These two offices evolved into victim service style and these offices received core funding from the Province through Victim Services.

As a result of the initial success with the victim services style of office, storefronts in Vancouver were encouraged to evolve as part of the Department's community policing initiatives. A rigorous criterion for opening these storefronts was never established, and discussions on whether the police should even be involved took place. Each storefront entered the project with different assets, liabilities, existing expectations, and sources of leadership. Little thought and planning was given to the location, function, responsibilities, and operation of the storefronts. Start-up grants provided by the AG's Ministry through Community Programs varied from five to twenty-five thousand per office. Each police District was left to organize their own storefronts; consequently, there was a wide discrepancy between the Districts and the communities within those neighbourhoods. Two distinctive models evolved from this process.

1. The Neighbourhood Police Offices that were staffed with a full-time police officer and had volunteer support to some extent, but were generally driven by the police. This style of office was utilized in Districts One and Two (north side of the City).

2. The Crime Prevention Offices which were community driven and had some police officers assigned, but not necessarily full-time. The Crime Prevention Office was prevalent in Districts Three and Four (South side of the City).

These styles of office quickly grew into multiple models with variations on these themes spread amongst 22 offices within the City. These offices were not "core funded." The City and the AG's Ministry jointly funded programs and services through the Community Safety Funding Program. Community policing and community mobilization were closely interwoven activities in most of the storefronts. However, some modes of operation differed markedly from the organizational strategy of the Vancouver Police. Focused as they were on the neighbourhood problems, some were not willing to get involved, take initiative, and co-operate with the police. Although great work was being done, the process was chaotic.

More neighbourhoods were demanding storefronts for their communities and a greater say in how their communities were policed. The numerous different models and names of offices, along with inconsistent levels of service, led to confusion among both the public and police. At the same time, funding bodies were demanding accountability and independent sustainability before funding was forthcoming. These demands came at a time were we entered into internal changes to make our organization more efficient, effective, and responsive to the needs of the community.

As a result, in 1998, an evaluation of all the storefront operations was conducted by the AG's Ministry and the Department. Flowing from the evaluation were 42 recommendations including the need to merge the models of storefronts into a structure that was not confusing to the public and the police. The evaluation identified a requirement for two styles of office: a victim services partnership with the police; and, a community partnership with the police. In addition, key staff in the AG's Ministry, City, police, and community were consulted regarding storefront operations. This identified eleven issues that needed to be rectified along with 27 recommendations for changes to the present storefronts which were outlined in Police Board report #9866 dated: July 29, 1998.

By and large, the report recognized that the storefronts, which were now to be referred to as Community Policing Centres, are the embodiment of our strong partnership with the community and the base for the majority of our community initiatives. They play an important part in the development of community policy and the design of policing strategies to assist that community or neighbourhood, and at times, they participate actively in the implementation of those policies and strategies. They should be readily identifiable to the police and the community as a consistent service providing individualized service in the distinct neighbourhoods of Vancouver. The title Community Policing Centre identified the two partners providing community policing: the community and the police.

The report further recommended:

The report amplified the need for Community Policing Centres to receive clear direction from the Department as to their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and accountability. The accountability was to be achieved through the maintenance of operational integrity. Operational integrity was the responsibility of each partner: the police and the community. This would form the framework for our partnerships with the Centres.

These partnerships were reflected through a written operational agreement with each of the Centres. The process involved negotiations with individual Centre governing bodies to establish each collaborator's roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Patti Marfleet, (then) City Director of Risk and Emergency Management, crafted the agreements with assistance from the police. This contractual agreement not only included indemnification language that was originally written by Mr. Terry Bland, former Director of Legal Services, but was also an agreement on standards and ethical responsibilities for each Centre. .

At that time, most of the Centres were either societies in their own right or were under umbrellas of established societies. For the most part, the Board of Directors/Police Advisory Committees served a dual role as both the Board of Directors as defined in the British Columbia Societies Act and as the community advisory group for community policing issues. In addition, the City and AG's funding program required anyone asking for funds to be a registered non-profit society.

For the next few years, the Centres tried to adhere to the agreements; however, it was difficult. Several were struggling to stay afloat, while others delivered what they could afford. Appropriate operating costs to run the Centres were still an issue. The AG's Ministry and City continued with the Community Safety Funding Program grants, but did not increase the overall funds available to ensure the viability of the Centres.

On January 16, 2003, City Council approved 18 transition/terminating grants for existing non-profit societies operating Centres for a six month period ending June 30, 2003. At the time, many Centres programs were struggling due, at least in part, to the withdrawal of the AG's Ministry from the joint Community Safety Funding Program. In addition, the Chief Constable noted inconsistencies in the level of service and performance between the Centres. The Chief Constable presented a report entitled "Revised Community Policing Centre Model" to the Police Board on April 23, 2003. The report outlined a proposal for a new model which differed significantly from the existing model. First, the proposed model would be made up of crime prevention programs and community safety activities delivered out of seven neighbourhood Centres, plus two ethno-centred Centres (Chinese and Native); second, each neighbourhood-based Centre would have two police officers assigned to each Centre; and, third the new model would be staffed by paid civilian coordinators employed by the Department, with a total annual operating budget of $389,683 for each Centre.

Two important developments prevented the approval of the revised model. First, the Department was experiencing heightened personnel demands due to a number of factors including the assignment of police officers to major projects (i.e., Missing Women Task Force, Citywide Enforcement Team), the upcoming early retirement of more police officers than anticipated, and challenges in recruiting qualified new officers. These pressures made the prospect of committing a significant number of police officers to this important aspect of community policing a challenge. Second, the community feedback received at two public meetings organized by the Board (April 28 and May 7), clearly indicated community concerns with the revised model. The community concerns, while varied, dealt for the most part with the need to clearly recognize a community role in any new model. In addition, there was a general feeling that the proposed model was too expensive, particularly in comparison with the cost of the existing model.

In response to the above concerns, the April 2003 proposal for a revised Centre model was further refined. Many of the core elements found in the April 2003 proposal were incorporated into another revised model. Other elements were eliminated or changed. The revised model proposed in June 2003 retained some of the positive features of the April proposal, considered the human resource demands within the Department, and was responsive to the community concerns expressed during the consultation meetings. The revised model was also consistent with the basic principles outlined in the January 16 report endorsed by Council.

Like the April proposal, the June 2003 model recommended that crime prevention programs and community safety activities be delivered out of seven neighbourhood Centres, plus two Centres to address the needs of ethnic communities:

Further, the Department committed to maintaining a presence with these Centres and provided police officers to maintain the existing links. The nine Centres continued to be operated by the existing nine societies, in conjunction with the Department.

Under the previous Centre model, the Department entered into operating agreements with the various societies involved in the operation of the Centres. Each of these agreements had an indemnification provision and a termination clause which allowed any party to the agreement to terminate it by giving 30 days notice. To implement the revised model, all of the existing agreements were terminated. As part of the new operating agreements, the City agreed to indemnify the operating societies' employees and volunteers who participate in the delivery of approved safety and crime prevention programs and activities from third party claims arising out of that participation. Separate contractual agreements tied to the funding between the society and Department were to be considered. Funding was established in 2004 as an annual Department line budget item ($150,000). A subsequent audit of the funds distributed was completed in 2004 to ensure compliance and accountability by all Centres. Again, there were varying degrees of programs and expenditures in each Centre.

Current Situation

Since 1994, several Departmental, Board, and Council reports have outlined issues, good and bad, surrounding Community Policing Centres. Common problems have been identified, and various attempts to solve these problems have had mixed success. One common problem that was identified early on relates to operating cost for these Centres. Ultimately, the focal point for every report since that time has been these costs. The Department has committed itself to working with this model and there is an established governance model and community ownership that is well-entrenched into the community and would be very damaging to change for the current Centres.

We are now embarking on an appropriate funding formula that will address the current realities, all while holding Centres accountable. We are currently working with the CPCs to redraft the memorandum of understanding. We will use the standards set in this agreement to hold them more accountable for the operating costs, ensure better outcomes for the monies spent, establish preferred structures, maintain standards, link programs, services, initiatives, and activities to community issues or problems, and ensure thorough performance measures are in place that will be reported on quarterly. There will be an audit performed to ensure each CPC is meeting the standards set. Compliance is essential for each CPC to maintain its association with the Department and continue to be funded. An audit was conducted in 2004 to some agreed basic standards. This process will be built on as we go forward as set out above.

The Granville Street CPC, which had a Society whose members were part of the business community on Granville Street, is currently being run by the Department as per the guidelines discussed in the April 2003 report. A Neighbourhood Advisory Committee is working with District 1 Management and the police officers to provide services. This occurred only after the Society running the CPC dissolved. The Department found that a Society run by the business community in this part of the City had the potential to come into conflict with the policing strategies and objectives.

The Vancouver Police Native Liaison Society ended when the Province ceased to fund victim services through the Society and chose to provide these services through another contract. The Department has currently begun talking with the Aboriginal Community about starting an Aboriginal CPC. This community has asked that the Department develop a model that makes sense to both partners and this is being explored.

With a core funding provided by the City, there will be rigorous evaluations of the Centres to measure how far the program, practice, or innovation has met its stated objectives or goals. Of critical importance will be the success of reducing crime, fear of crime, victimization, and engaging the community at large. There will be a review of whether the Centre has delivered what was intended, and an assessment of the program benefits in relation to its costs. Structure, staffing, and specific operational effectiveness will be monitored to see if they can be improved, revised, or even terminated to improve efficiency. Regular feedback will be given on the operational effectiveness along with the worth of the program. These are necessary to show that public money is being spent wisely.

We have explored other models of Centres throughout North America, some community driven while others police run. No one has the perfect operation. Each style has its benefits and drawbacks. What was discovered from our conversations, literature reviews, and our experiences is that this component of community policing is paramount to engage the community and to de-centralize police services. It is the most identifiable aspect of community policing and the centre for constructing productive partnerships.

Community policing has its roots in police-community relations and crime prevention. It has become a dominant strategy for policing. An empowered Community Policing Centre is an intricate part of this strategy. It has the capability to impact crime, liveability, and economic conditions in the neighbourhood it serves. It empowers citizens to participate in community affairs with a sense of ownership and responsibility for the large community as well as their own neighbourhood. It better aligns police and other resources with neighbourhood concerns. It becomes increasingly sensitive and responsive to community desires and expectations. Within this environment, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Much has being done. Much remains to be done. Building on the foundations laid, history, and successes, our models with sufficient operating funds are the most appropriate for Vancouver at this time.

Appendix C - Comments from the Vancouver Association Of Community Policing Centres

When Community Policing Centres first opened in Vancouver in 1992 they were sustained by enthusiasm, commitment and bake sales. Over the past decade a community-driven policing centre model has developed in this city that is unique in BC and at the forefront of progressive community policing trends in North America.

In the course of their development, CPCs have proven to be frugal, accountable and cost effective. As registered non-profit societies their annual financial statements are available to the Registrar of Societies, City staff, VPD management and the general public. All CPCs would be very willing to provide regular reports to Council and/or the VPD on our use of any funds received. Their annual financial and performance reports demonstrate the tremendous return the citizens of Vancouver receive for the funding allocated to the CPCs. In 2004 a total of 100,914 volunteer hours were logged by the 7 community-driven community policing centres. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority's policy is to assign a value of $15 per volunteer hour. Using VCH's criteria, CPC volunteers contributed the equivalent of $1,513,710.00 in hours worked last year for the residents of Vancouver. Total funding from the City was $150,000 for all CPCs, so this volunteer contribution represents a ten-fold return on investment. It also represents a tremendous contribution to the safety and quality of life of all Vancouver neighbourhoods.

The CPCs have developed and delivered innovative and effective community safety programs with minimal funding for over 10 years. During this time community expectations and demands for service have increased steadily and at this point the centres are under funded and 'running on fumes.' When the number of community-driven CPCs shrunk from 17 to 7, the geographic and demographic responsibilities of the remaining offices increased dramatically. Every CPC has responded to requests for assistance from residents of underserved areas, as people select the most convenient office to go to for help. Property crime in this city is out of control and residents are looking for solutions. Community policing centres bridge the gap between police and the citizens they serve and they can effectively help communities fight crime.

Sustainable core funding of $100,000 per office will allow the CPCs that are currently operating in inadequate or inappropriate locations to rent visible and accessible space to meet the needs of the public, the volunteers and the police officers who use the offices.

The job descriptions of the CPC coordinators have expanded along with the increasing demands on their offices, and these remarkably hard working employees have not been adequately compensated for the complex range of skills they bring to their jobs. These coordinators manage large numbers of volunteers, liaise with NIST teams, bylaw enforcement officers, Park Board staff, community agencies and VPD members and management. They often deal with members of the public who are distraught, angry or desperate. These front line first responders serve thousands of Vancouver residents every year and they deserve to be fairly paid for this work.

The CPCs need sustainable core funding in order to improve and expand programs and services to the public. To this point, they have struggled to survive on a year to year basis, devoting time to fundraising that would have been better spent on programs. The volunteer boards of directors responsible for these centres have been unable to offer their employees and landlords any long term commitments. With a guaranteed annual budget of $100,000 Vancouver's Community Policing Centres will be able to:

· Locate in adequate and accessible premises
· Retain qualified staff by paying competitive wages
· Expand programming into larger, currently underserved geographical areas by adding more bikes, more volunteers and more staff outreach
· Develop additional projects to address specific community needs
· Spend more time on providing services to promote community safety and crime prevention once the need to spend an excessive amount of time on fundraising is eliminated.

A relatively small amount of money invested in a CPC will bring a ten-fold return in programs delivered by committed community volunteers which will assist the currently overstretched Vancouver Police department in keeping our neighbourhoods safe. (End VACPC comments)

cs20050303.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver