CAPB Annual Conference 2009
Sydney, Nova Scotia
Plenary Session: Crisis in Policing
August 14, 2009
Speaking notes for
Alok Mukherjee
Chair, Toronto Police Services Board
Let’s Tackle the Mismatches!
I. INTRODUCTION
That there is a crisis looming over municipal policing in Canada due to expanding demands, escalating costs, and an inefficient funding system, to name a few factors, has been widely accepted for some time among police oversight agencies and police leaders. With its report, “Towards Equity and Efficiency in Policing,” released last year, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has joined the conversation. Largely absent from the table is the country’s federal and provincial political leadership.
Our efforts to bring the country’s leadership to the discussion have been based largely on the argument that while both levels of government have downloaded many policing responsibilities on to municipal policing, they have not picked up their fair share of the cost for these responsibilities. To the extent that municipal policing is affected by decisions of all levels of government, a seamless approach crossing jurisdictional boundaries with respect to financing of local policing would, of course, be immensely beneficial.
In my view, the discussion of who pays for what in local policing must be contextualized in a larger framework of what municipal policing today is all about. Therefore, I propose to discuss the issue of crisis in policing in terms of what I would call “the mismatches". I will name three:
1. Mismatch between what police are supposed to do and
what police actually do;
2. Mismatch between a community’s and the state’s needs and demands, and allocation of resources; and,
3. Mismatch between the legislative supports police organizations want and the supports they get.
II. THE “MISMATCHES”
Let me speak briefly about each of these mismatches.
1. Mismatch between what police are supposed to do and
what police actually do
Local policing has moved way beyond its origin in the protection of private property. As anyone who has done a few full shifts with frontline police officers can testify, police officers who are assigned to primary response, community response, neighbourhood safety and other such units perform a wide variety of tasks. In one tour of duty, they may respond to a landlord-tenant dispute, a domestic assault, a public complaint about noise, a neighbourhood’s concern about the presence of prostitutes and drug dealers, a person suffering from mental illness, a fracas among groups of young people, a fight, a traffic infraction; or they may patrol neighbourhoods making contact with residents, establishing a visible presence; or they may show their presence at community events, even helping out; or, as in Toronto, they may be ensuring public safety at massive public festivals and events attended by tens of thousands.
Sometimes, as in Toronto, safety in schools becomes a public issue and everyone looks to the police to respond. And the police do with dedicated resources.
These are among the things that the bulk of our frontline uniform officers routinely do, and is by no means an exhaustive list.
Every so often, there is a homicide or a traffic fatality or some other act of violence. Once in a while, there is a dramatic development that captures media or public attention. A missing child, the violent death of a young person, a major drug bust – and so on.
On top of these, there are demands and pressures on our police services imposed by federal and provincial governments either through straight downloading, or by an abdication of their policing responsibilities or because the local police organization is best placed to deal with them. These include, for example, areas such as international/national security, emergency planning, coast guarding, consulate protection, organized crime investigation and court security.
There are demands, as well, due to new forms of crime that have the potential to touch every person. I am referring to financial crimes and cyber crimes.
But what is it that the law describes as core policing services? Let me quote the relevant section from Ontario’s Police Service Act by way of example. I assume that this description is not very dissimilar from descriptions of core policing services in other provinces’ police service acts.
Police services in municipalities
4. (1) Every municipality to which this subsection applies shall provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs. 1997, c. 8, s. 3.
Core police services
(2) Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services:
1. Crime prevention.
2. Law enforcement.
3. Assistance to victims of crime.
4. Public order maintenance.
5. Emergency response. 1997, c. 8, s. 3.
As a description of “core police services,” this list does not capture a considerable part of what police officers and police services actually do on a daily basis, except through an extremely broad reading of the words. The law reflects a conventional view of policing in terms of crime, law and order, when, in reality, municipal police services today have become a critical partner in preserving and enhancing a community’s overall quality of life.
This gap between what local policing actually does and what it is supposed to do is the first “mismatch.” We simply do not have a framework for local policing that represents our contemporary reality.
2. Mismatch between a community’s and the state’s needs and demands, and allocation of resources
The second mismatch, which flows from the first, is between a community’s and the state’s needs and demands and allocation of resources in terms of staffing, training and finances.
I would put it to you that while some police officers, especially the members of our tactical and specialized units, may deal with violent crimes on a regular basis, the majority of our uniform members are routinely engaged in activities that, not so long ago, police officers used to sneeringly refer to as “social work.”
Many of these activities are imposed by the state. The municipality wants the police service to enforce a plethora of by-laws. The province gives the police service an important role in enforcing mental health acts, intervening in landlord tenant disputes, and so on. The federal government, as I have noted earlier, looks to local policing in numerous areas that fall under its jurisdiction.
It is arguable whether each and every one of these roles must involve uniform police officers trained in use of force. But in our model of policing, allocation of human resources is based on the assumption that every single task must be performed by a uniform police officer armed with full police powers and equipped with all use of force options.
In some areas, specifically court security and parking enforcement, we have made effective use of special constables with limited police powers as well as civilians. In responding to people experiencing mental health crises, police services in cities like Toronto have entered into partnerships with local hospitals whereby a police officer teams up with a mental health nurse to respond to calls for service.
I would put it to you that there is room for considerable discussion as to whether all of the policing services must be provided by uniform police officers. Perhaps it is time for us to look at staffing strategies being used in places like London, England, or to broaden our own use of a combination of uniform and non-uniform members.
Another way that this mismatch in allocation of resources shows up is in terms of training. Because of the persistence of the conventional model of policing, basic training and re-training required by provincial adequacy regulations as well as local policies and procedures emphasize training related to dealing with criminal situations over everything else that members of police services do. Police officers re-certify every year in use of force. This is obviously critical. But what about dealing effectively with mental health, homelessness, sexual assaults, victimization of the vulnerable, white collar crime, etc.? What about all the social causes of public disorder that police services must deal with? Can we say with confidence that the training regimen of our services provides members with the necessary level of knowledge, skills and abilities in all of the areas in which we provide services? In other words, is allocation of training resources commensurate with need? Are we making the most effective and efficient use of the money we invest in training and development? Are we getting the best value for money?
Finally, then, let us turn to the money itself – the tax dollars that are allocated year after year to support police budgets. It is now accepted in police governance circles that police budgets are fast approaching a level that they will have a serious impact on a municipality’s ability to pay for all those other programs that are as important as policing for fostering healthy communities.
Police budgets are tied to the ability of a police service to deliver on priorities established periodically in the context of the core services that are legally required to be provided. I have suggested that those core services are not consistent with and do not capture fully what police services actually do today. Yet, in building annual budgets there continues to be an over-emphasis on a crime fighting model of policing at the expense of a full and adequate analysis of the work that police services actually do. This budget is, as a consequence, affected by the notion that all work must be done by uniform officers, on one hand, and training should be primarily based on a crime fighting model delivered primarily by uniform police officers.
I believe there is significant room for reflection with respect to this mismatch.
3. Mismatch between the legislative supports police organizations want and the supports they get
I now come to my third and final mismatch, that is, between the legislative supports police organizations want and the supports they get.
Let me give a couple of examples to illustrate the point I wish to make.
In Ontario, as in some other jurisdictions, the Police Services Act does not permit an extension of the probationary period for a probationary police constable. Neither does it permit the suspension without pay for a police officer accused of an egregious offence. Both are outdated and inefficient human resources practices. In the first instance, we run the risk of losing our investment in someone who, with some additional training, could be a perfectly satisfactory member of the service. In the other instance, we may carry on our payroll, sometimes for years, an officer whose conduct is an affront to community standards and expectations.
For years, police boards and police chiefs have asked the province to make the necessary changes in the legislation to align it with contemporary standards. This is not a case of downloading or uploading but of giving us the tools to run our affairs along modern human resource management principles. So far, we have been unsuccessful, and the local community pays the price.
My second example comes from the federal jurisdiction. In recent years, police boards and chiefs have asked for support in dealing with the gun crime that challenges communities like Toronto. Our request has included a variety of legislative and administrative measures to staunch the illegal importation of guns, ban on use of handguns for other than law enforcement purposes and strengthening of the gun registry. There have been pleas as well for enhanced investment in crime prevention. Even Canada’s Chief Medical Officer has called for such investment.
On the face of it, these may appear to have little to do with the escalating cost of policing. In fact, they are very much related. In the absence of strengthened legislative and administrative support, the onus on local policing to deal with these challenges is increased significantly. It is the local services that must find the resources for encouraging prevention. And if, instead of maintaining and strengthening the gun registry, it is abolished or rendered meaningless, police services will find it that much more difficult to deal with crimes involving firearms.
These are just a few examples of the way in which refusal or failure of governments to give the police the legislative and administrative tools they need contributes to the crisis we face in our ability to deliver the policing that our communities need and want. There is a mismatch caused by political considerations that are out of sync with the realities of policing.
III. CONCLUSION
To conclude, then, my point is that the crisis caused by the escalating cost of policing is only partly the result of downloading of responsibilities by federal and provincial levels of government. I believe that the pressure on resources is caused by a multiplicity of factors, primary among which is a continuing and growing mismatch on several levels. It is incumbent upon police governance bodies, police leaders and municipal governments to develop a full understanding of these mismatches as well as a comprehensive strategy to tackle them.
Thank you.
