Community Constable Pilot Program Evaluation

Community Constable Pilot Program Evaluation

March 19, 2018

Table of contents

1. 1. Executive Summary
2. 2. Introduction
   • 2.1 Purpose of the Evaluation
   • 2.2 Evaluation Scope
3. 3. Program Description
4. 4. Evaluation Methodology
   • 4.1 Evaluation Approach and Design
   • 4.2 Data Sources
   • 4.3 Methodological Limitations and Mitigation Strategies
5. 5. Findings
   • 5.1 Governance
   • 5.2 Mandate
   • 5.3 Roles and Responsibilities
   • 5.4 Performance Data
6. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations
7. 7. Management Response and Action Plan
   • 7.1 Management Response
   • 7.2 Action Plan for NHQ - NCPS

Acronyms and abbreviations

ACC

Aboriginal Community Constable

CAP

Contract and Aboriginal Policing

CC

Community Constable

Cpl

Corporal

Cst

Constable

GD

General Duty

HRMIS

Human Resources Information System

NCPS

National Crime Prevention Services

NHQ

National Headquarters

PMF

Performance Measurement Framework

PRIME

Police Records Information Management Environment

PROS

Police Reporting and Occurrence System

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

RM

Regular Member

1. Executive Summary

The Community Constable (CC) pilot program was one of three new enhanced service delivery models developed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to address gaps in policing services. It was launched as the Aboriginal Community Constable (ACC) pilot program in 2009 in an effort to enhance community engagement and community policing. The ACC pilot program was re-branded to the CC pilot program in 2013, to reflect the program's expansion to non-Aboriginal communities.

A CC is an armed, uniformed peace officer, at the rank of Special Constable Member, with local knowledge of the community in which they serve, including its language, culture and geography. CCs are to place an emphasis on crime prevention through community engagement, but have the skills and ability to provide tactical, enforcement and investigational support, if required.

The pilot program became operational in D, F, K, G and V Divisions in 2011 and 2016 in E Division. As of April 2016, there were a total of 20 CCs.

Included in this report are the results of the evaluation of the CC pilot program (the "pilot program"). The evaluation was conducted by the RCMP's National Program Evaluation Services. The evaluation was national in scope and covered a one year period from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. This was the first evaluation since the creation of the pilot program.

What we Examined:

The evaluation assessed the governance structure, the mandate, the roles and responsibilities and the performance data of the CC pilot program. Multiple lines of evidence were analyzed to support the findings and recommendations of the report.

What we Found:

National Crime Prevention Services (NCPS) within Contract and Aboriginal Policing was identified as being responsible for national coordination and leadership of the pilot program; however, no management or oversight documents were found and there was no information on who governed or implemented the pilot program in the divisions or detachments. In the absence of this documentation and taking into consideration interview data, the evaluation determined that the governance structure for the pilot program was not clearly defined.

While a number of documents stated the CC was to focus on crime prevention through community engagement, documents that specifically defined the pilot program's mandate were not found. This finding was consistent with interview data, in which over half of the RCMP interviewees indicated that they did not know or were unsure of the mandate of the pilot program. In the absence of a clearly defined mandate and for the purpose of the evaluation, the mandate of the pilot program was defined as, "focus on crime prevention through community engagement."

During the reference period, CCs participated in more enforcement occurrences than prevention activities but the time dedicated to these activities was not captured; as a result, the evaluation was not able to determine if the CCs focused their time on crime prevention. However, 63% of interviewees involved in the day-to-day delivery of the pilot program were of the opinion that CCs allocated 50% or more of their time to crime prevention. According to the monthly reporting logs, the most common crime prevention activities a CC was involved in were meetings, consultations or community events. It was also concluded that CCs' hours of work (Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.), were generally supporting CCs' ability to stay within their mandate.

The CCs' roles and responsibilities were established but it was unclear how effectively these were communicated. In addition, the evaluation found CCs' roles and responsibilities were not clearly understood. According to a CC's work description, in addition to crime prevention activities, a CC could also provide tactical and investigational support but it was unclear if CCs performed duties outside of their roles and responsibilities. It was determined a more in-depth review with consultations would be needed to determine whether or not a CC regularly led enforcement occurrences or assumed a supporting role. According to interview data, almost all CCs stated they were paired with a Regular Member for enforcement occurrences; but it depended on the nature of the occurrence. Almost half of all enforcement occurrences that involved a CC were related to traffic, liquor or causing a disturbance. This finding was consistent with interview data and was within the defined CC roles and responsibilities.

While there was some evidence of performance data collection and reporting, this was not consistent across divisions. There was no evidence that performance data being collected in the monthly reporting logs was used to inform decision-making at National Headquarters.

Overall, community representatives interviewed were satisfied with the pilot program and indicated it positively impacted relationships between the RCMP and the community, it made the RCMP more accessible and it positively impacted the communities' views about police officers and improved communications.

What was Recommended:

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended the Program:

• Recommendation #1: Establish and communicate a clear governance structure
• Recommendation #2: Establish and communicate a clearly defined mandate
• Recommendation #3: Communicate the roles and responsibilities of a CC
• Recommendation #4: Establish, track and report performance information to help inform decision-making

2. Introduction

2.1 Purpose of the Evaluation

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Community Constable (CC) pilot program (the "pilot program"), conducted by National Program Evaluation Services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The objectives of the evaluation were to assess the governance structure, the mandate, the roles and responsibilities and program performance data of the pilot program. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide senior management with a neutral, timely and evidence-based assessment of the pilot program and to help inform decision-making on its permanency.

2.2 Evaluation Scope

The evaluation covered a one year period between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017 and included National Headquarters (NHQ) and Divisions D, F, K, E and G.

The evaluation commenced in April 2017 and concluded on March 19, 2018 with a presentation to the Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee. The report received the Commissioner's approval on March 26, 2018.

3. Program description

In 2006, national consultations were held with a variety of stakeholders to determine if the RCMP was meeting the needs of the communities it served. These consultations identified gaps in policing services and indicated the need for more flexible service delivery models.

The Aboriginal Community Constable (ACC) pilot program was one of three enhanced service delivery models developed in response. It was launched in 2009 in an effort to enhance community engagement and community policing. The ACC pilot program became operational in 2011 in Divisions D, F, K, G and V. In 2013, it was re-branded as the Community Constable pilot program to reflect the program's expansion to non-Aboriginal communities. E Division joined in 2016.

A CC is an armed, uniformed peace officer, at the rank of Special Constable Member, with local knowledge of the community in which they serve, including its language, culture and geography. They are to place an emphasis on crime prevention through community engagement, but have the skills and ability to provide tactical, enforcement and investigational support, if required.^{Footnote 1},^{Footnote 2}

CCs follow a 21-week Cadet Training Program at Depot, where they receive the same training as Regular Member (RM) cadets, with the exception of three weeks of advanced investigative techniques which only RMs receive. Following Depot, CCs returned to the community they were recruited from, where they remain for the duration of their career. The first troop of seven ACCs graduated from Depot in 2011^{Footnote 3} and were converted to CCs in 2013. In February 2016, 15 CC cadets successfully graduated Depot and as of April 2016, there were a total of 20 CCs.

National Crime Prevention Services (NCPS) within Contract and Aboriginal Policing (CAP), was responsible for national coordination and leadership of the Community Constable pilot program.^{Footnote 4} The pilot program was designed to increase the RCMP's cultural competence and strengthen relationships, visibility, communication and continuity of service within communities.

4. Evaluation Methodology

4.1 Evaluation Approach and Design

A theory-based approach was used for this evaluation. Extensive use of triangulation was undertaken as an analytical method, where multiple lines of evidence helped corroborate findings.

The evaluation focussed on key areas of concern identified by senior management and assessed the extent to which:

• the governance structure was clearly defined and understood
• the pilot program was fulfilling its mandate
• the CC roles and responsibilities were established and understood
• the pilot program performance data was being collected and reported

Qualitative and quantitative information was used to determine findings and recommendations for improvement and to help inform senior management decision-making. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with Treasury Board's Policy on Results (2016).

4.2 Data Sources

The following lines of evidence were used to inform the findings and recommendations.

Document and Literature Review. Internal and external documentation was reviewed and analyzed. Examples of documents include, program documentation, intranet/internet information, news articles, departmental reports, internal performance reporting tools and emails.

Data Analysis. Administrative data was collected and analyzed from the following systems and information sources:

• scheduling data from the Total Expenditures and Asset Management (TEAM) System
• enforcement occurrences from the Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) and Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME) databases
• crime prevention activities from the monthly reporting logs
• position information from the Human Resources Information System (HRMIS)

Interviews. A total of 51 interviews were conducted with a sample of key program personnel and community representatives to obtain their views on the pilot program and to validate and supplement information gathered by other lines of evidence.

Figure 1: Percentage of Interviewees by Category

For analysis and reporting purposes, interviewees were grouped into the following categories:

• All interviewees (51) – CCs, community representatives, General Duty (GD) Constables (Csts), GD Corporals (Cpls), divisional coordinators, management in the detachments, CAP
• RCMP interviewees (37) - CCs, GD Csts, GD Cpls, divisional coordinators, management in the detachments, CAP
• Interviewees involved in the management and oversight of the pilot program (17) - CAP, divisional coordinators, management in the detachments
• Interviewees involved in the day-to-day delivery of the pilot program (24) – CCs, GD Csts, GD Cpls, supervisors of CCs
• Interviewees involved with monthly reporting logs (22) – CCs, divisional coordinators, CAP, supervisors of CCs

4.3 Methodological Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

Some challenges and limitations were encountered during the conduct of the evaluation. The key limitation was the availability of data. For example, data from the HRMIS could not be used to determine detachments' staffing levels and CCs' reporting structure. Monthly reporting logs could not determine a CC's time allocation for crime prevention activities. In addition, PROS and PRIME databases could not determine time allocation for enforcement occurrences or crime prevention activities.

In order to mitigate these limitations, the evaluation triangulated available data with data obtained through other lines of evidence.

5. Findings

5.1 Governance

In order to determine the extent to which the pilot program's governance structure was defined, it was expected that management and oversight documents such as a Terms of Reference, or policy documents would be available to define accountability, reporting lines for decision-making and the flow of communication. Although the RCMP intranet identified NCPS as the being responsible for the national coordination and leadership of the pilot program, there was no information on who governed or implemented the pilot program in the divisions or detachments.^{Footnote 5} This finding was consistent with the interview data, which indicated that 76% (13/17) of interviewees involved in the management and oversight of the pilot program stated they did not know the structure of the pilot program. In the absence of these documents and considering interview data, the evaluation determined that the governance structure for the pilot program was not clearly defined.

In the absence of a clearly defined governance structure, the evaluation relied on the RCMP contact lists and an internal phone directory to determine that the pilot program was situated in NCPS at NHQ and at the divisional level, it was situated in Crime Prevention/Community Policing /Aboriginal Policing units and detachments that participated in the pilot program.

5.2 Mandate

While a number of documents stated the CC was to focus on crime prevention through community engagement^{Footnote 6}, documents that specifically defined the pilot program's mandate were not found. This finding was consistent with interview data, in which 65% of RCMP interviewees (24/37) indicated that they did not know or were unsure of the mandate of the pilot program.

In the absence of a clearly defined mandate and for the purpose of the evaluation, the mandate of the pilot program was defined as, "focus on crime prevention through community engagement."

In order to determine if CCs were fulfilling the pilot program's mandate, the evaluation attempted to review the number, type and time spent on crime prevention activities compared to enforcement occurrences.

The evaluation was able to determine the number and type of crime prevention activities found in the monthly reporting log^{Footnote 7} and enforcement occurrences found in PROS and PRIME databases; however, the time a CC allocated to these activities was not captured. For example, PROS and PRIME databases are record management systems that do not account for time allocation recording, but rather are limited to recording dates when actions occurred. With regards to the CC monthly reporting log, there was no requirement to capture hours allocated to a particular crime prevention activity. As a result of time not being captured, it was difficult to determine if CCs stayed within their mandate and focused their time on crime prevention activities.

To mitigate this data constraint, the number and type of occurrences/activities were reviewed, as well as the potential impact on staffing levels and hours of work had on a CC's ability to stay within their mandate.

The initial intent of the pilot program was to place CCs in detachments that were fully staffed, to ensure CCs remained within their mandate and focused on crime prevention. In order to determine if staffing levels enabled or limited a CC's ability to conduct crime prevention activities, the monthly vacancy rates for Csts and Cpls in participating detachments were requested. While this level of data was not available, the vacancy rates in the participating divisions was available and was on average 5.3% (D: 4.4%, E: 6.4%, F: 4.4%, G: 0.5%, K: 5.6%). According to RCMP interviewees involved in the day-to-day delivery of the pilot program, 67% (16/24) were of the opinion their detachments were not fully staffed which was consistent with the divisional vacancy rates.

The CCs' hours of work were also reviewed to help determine if regular shift hours enabled or limited their ability to conduct crime prevention activities. During school months, the majority of CCs' regular shifts took place Monday to Friday (88%), from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (83%); which meant they were available during business and school hours to address the community's needs for crime prevention. From this, it was concluded that CCs' hours of work were generally supporting CCs' ability to stay within their mandate.

Crime prevention activities identified by RCMP interviewees involved in the day-to-day delivery of the pilot program were community events (19/24) and school related activities (e.g. presentations, classes, DARE) (14/24). The activities captured in monthly reporting logs were consistent with the interview data, except additional details, such as the name of the association (e.g. Boys and Girls Club, Chamber of Commerce) and the subject (e.g. Fraud) were provided.

When the same interviewees were asked how much time CCs spent on crime prevention activities, such as presentations delivered and community events attended in a given month, 63% (15/24) were of the opinion that CCs allocated 50% or more of their time to crime prevention. Interviewees who provided a response also indicated that E (57%) and G (75%) Divisions were of the opinion that CCs spent less than half of their time on crime prevention activities while D Division (57%) spent more than half of its time on crime prevention activities.

Analysis of PROS and PRIME data found that CCs participated in 7,514 enforcement occurrences during the reference period, compared to 1,103 crime prevention activities.^{Footnote 8}

Table 1: Ratio of Enforcement Occurrences to Crime Prevention Activities a CC Participated in

Data Source: PROS and PRIME databases and monthly reporting logs from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017

The number of enforcement occurrences and crime prevention activities varied across divisions. For example, one CC in E Division participated in 43 enforcement occurrences compared to 1,688 in D Division. Although some CCs participated in only a few enforcement occurrences, 60% of CCs (12/20) participated in at least 300 enforcement occurrences each during the reference period.

As the chart below indicates, almost half of all enforcement occurrences (3,555/7,514) during the reference period that involved a CC were related to traffic, liquor or causing a disturbance. This finding was consistent with interview data and was within the defined CC roles and responsibilities.

Chart 1: Most Common Enforcement Occurrences a CC Participated in

With regards to crime prevention, half (546/1,103^{Footnote 9}) of the activities a CC was involved with were participating in meetings, consultations or community events.

Chart 2: Most Common Crime Prevention Activities a CC Participated in

When RCMP interviewees (20/37) were asked to identify challenges that affected a CC's ability to remain within their mandate, the most common reasons cited were:

• The CCs were participating in more enforcement occurrences than they were supposed to (12/20).
• There were insufficient human resources in the detachment (11/20).
• The absence of NHQ oversight (8/20), such as lack of communication of the mandate, roles and responsibilities, planning and monitoring of the pilot program.

All interviewees were asked to express their level of satisfaction with the pilot program. More than half, 61% (31/51) were either very satisfied or satisfied with the pilot program. The most cited reasons were the importance of community engagement and crime prevention.

When exclusively analyzing community representatives' overall satisfaction, (a subset of the interviewees identified above), 64% (9/14) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the program. Of the interviewees who were either unsatisfied or very unsatisfied (5/14), the most common reason cited for their dissatisfaction was the CC was not available or did not stay within their mandate (3/5).

Community Engagement – RCMP's Perspective

When RCMP interviewees involved in the day-to-day delivery of the pilot program were asked about the RCMP's relationship with the community, 67% (16/24) indicated the pilot program had a positive impact on RCMP's relationship with the community, for example, the RCMP was of the opinion the community's trust had increased and that the community felt more supported.

83% (10/12) of supervisors of CCs, GD Csts and GD Cpls interviewed in the detachments indicated the pilot program had positively impacted the ability of the unit/detachment to respond to the community. The most cited example was that the pilot program provides extra support to RMs (8/10).

Community Engagement – Community's Perspective

Community representatives were also asked about the impact the pilot program had on their relationship with the RCMP and 86% (12/14) indicated it had been positively impacted by the pilot program.

Examples of positive impacts:

• The pilot program makes the RCMP more accessible (10/12).
• The pilot program has positively impacted the communities' views about police officers (5/12).
• There has been an improvement in communication because CCs know the language and/or the community (5/12).

5.3 Roles and Responsibilities

In 2008, a Task Bank was developed to provide basic, objective information about their role for a range of uses in the Human Resources Sector. It was updated in 2013, to reflect the expansion and rebranding of the pilot program.

Based on the Task Bank, NCPS developed a work description which outlined the key responsibilities of a CC. Examples of key activities:

• Contribute to the delivery of a culturally competent police service that meets the needs of communities.
• Deliver core policing, community policing, problem solving, crime prevention, traffic support, investigative support and youth crime reduction to communities.
• Assist with investigations by providing investigation support such as: receiving and following up on phone calls, data/information collection and input, exhibit management; updating clients; arresting of individuals, presenting evidence in Court; among others.
• Liaise with community leadership and other stakeholders (public, communities, media, federal, provincial and municipal department, law enforcement agencies and detachments) to establish, maintain and deliver community based policing measures designed to meet local needs.

Communication of Roles and Responsibilities

During the reference period, NCPS shared information such as the CC work description with coordinators in divisional Crime Prevention/Community Policing /Aboriginal Policing units. However, direction regarding distribution of the work description to the detachments was not found. This was consistent with interview data where 70% (30/43) of interviewees stated they did not receive enough communication about the pilot program. About half of these interviewees (21/43) stated they would like to know more about the roles and responsibilities and/or the mandate of the pilot program.

NCPS also delivered a presentation on CC roles and responsibilities to 15 CC cadets during their training at Depot. During the presentation, the work description was distributed to CC cadets. It was unclear whether it was also shared with ACCs that were rebranded in 2013 as one of the CCs interviewed stated he was an ACC not a CC.

Although, 64% (24/37) of RCMP interviewees stated CC roles and responsibilities were not defined; when asked if they could describe the role of a CC, interviewees described activities such as community engagement (30/37) school activities (talks, presentations, programs) (16/37) and supporting/backing up enforcement (15/37), which were activities within the defined CC roles and responsibilities.

When asked whether the roles and responsibilities of CCs were defined and understood by the community, 54% of RCMP interviewees (20/37) stated they were not understood and of these 60% (12/20) were of the opinion that the community did not see, for example, a difference between a CC and an RM. When community representatives (13/14) interviewed were asked if they were aware of a CC in their community, 71% (10/14) stated the CC was visible in community schools, attending meetings and events or delivering community programs.

When asked whether the roles and responsibilities of CCs were defined and understood within the detachment, 46% of RCMP interviewees (17/37) stated they were understood within the detachment or their specific unit. When all interviewees were also asked if they believed there was a difference between a GD Cst and a CC, the majority, 80% (41/51) stated there was a difference. The most common difference identified was that a CC was engaged in community-related activities (21/51), while a GD Cst focused on calls for service (12/51).

According to a CC's work description, in addition to crime prevention activities, a CC could also provide tactical and investigational support.

The evaluation was not able to determine whether CCs went beyond their defined roles and responsibilities by leading an investigation or an enforcement occurrence as there was no specific field or check box in PROS and PRIME databases, for example, to identify if the occurrence a CC participated in required an investigation.

Due to this limitation and the volume of files a CC participated in (7,514), a sample of enforcement occurrences was reviewed but it was determined a more in-depth review with consultations would need to be conducted for a more definitive finding on whether or not a CC regularly led enforcement occurrences or assumed a supporting role.^{Footnote 10}

According to interview data, almost all CCs (11/12) stated they were paired with an RM for enforcement occurrences; but it depended on the nature of the occurrence. Examples of enforcement occurrences some CCs identified as doing alone were serving subpoenas and enforcing the highway traffic act, while carrying out a warrant was identified as an occurrence done with another RM.

5.4 Performance Data

In 2013, a draft pilot program logic model and Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) were developed. The PMF identified the results the pilot program intended to achieve, along with a number of indicators to measure the performance of the program.

To capture crime prevention data such as presentations, programs delivered by a CC and participation at community activities or events, NCPS created a monthly reporting log. Other performance reporting tools identified in the PMF, such as an annual report to NHQ, semi-annual visits/interviews and surveys with divisions, were not implemented. As a result of only implementing one of the identified reporting tools, the majority of data identified in the PMF was not collected.

In March 2016, the monthly reporting log was distributed directly to the coordinators within the divisional Crime Prevention/Aboriginal policing/Community Policing units. No specific instructions regarding data collection and reporting expectations such as an annual or bi-annual roll-up of the data from the monthly reporting log were disseminated.

Based on 20 CCs participating in the pilot program, it was expected that 240 monthly reporting logs would have been submitted during the reference period but only 127 were submitted (53%). D Division had the highest submission rate at 81%, while K Division had the lowest with no monthly reporting logs submitted.

Chart 3: Percentage of Monthly Logs Submitted

Although NCPS periodically reported to senior management on the progress of the pilot program during the reference period, there was no evidence indicating that NCPS monitored data collection and reporting of the monthly reporting logs, or that the information contained in them was used to inform decision-making at NHQ. As a result, the impact of the monthly reporting logs could not be determined.

Of the 22 interviewees involved with monthly reporting logs, half identified strengths and weaknesses. The most cited weakness was that the monthly reporting log only captured the number of activities carried out and not the time it took to complete an activity or the level of effort it required (4/11). This was consistent with the performance data collected from the monthly reporting logs.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The RCMP intranet site identified NCPS as being responsible for national coordination and leadership of the pilot program; however, there was no information on who governed or implemented the pilot program in the divisions or detachments. In the absence of this information, combined with interviewees indicating they did not know the structure of the pilot program, the evaluation found the governance structure was not clearly defined or understood.

In absence of a clearly defined mandate and for the purpose of the evaluation, the mandate of the pilot program was defined as, "focus on crime prevention through community engagement". There was evidence that CCs were engaged in crime prevention activities across divisions but due to the lack of data, it was not possible to determine the amount of time allocated to these activities. Nonetheless interviewees were generally of the opinion that 50% or more of a CC's time was spent on crime prevention activities.

As a result of not being able to determine the amount of time CCs allocated to crime prevention activities, the type and frequency of crime prevention and enforcement occurrences were analyzed. Data showed that CCs participated in more enforcement occurrences than prevention activities.

The majority of the community representatives interviewed were satisfied with the pilot program and indicated it had positively impacted relationships between the RCMP and the community. The most common positive impacts attributed to the pilot program were that it made the RCMP more accessible, it positively impacted the communities' views about police officers and it improved communication.

The CCs' roles and responsibilities were established but it was unclear how effectively these had been communicated. The evaluation found that both within the detachments and the community, the roles and responsibilities were not clearly understood. While CCs may engage in some enforcement occurrences, it was unclear if they were performing duties outside their roles and responsibilities; however, the majority of CCs stated they were generally paired with an RM while performing enforcement.

While there was some evidence of performance data collection and reporting, it was not consistent across divisions. Furthermore, the data that was collected in the monthly reporting logs was not used to inform decision-making at NHQ.

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended the Program:

• Recommendation #1: Establish and communicate a clear governance structure
• Recommendation #2: Establish and communicate a clearly defined mandate
• Recommendation #3: Communicate the roles and responsibilities of a CC
• Recommendation #4: Establish, track and report performance information to help inform decision-making

7. Management Response and Action Plan

7.1 Management Response

CAP accepts the recommendations proposed by National Program Evaluation Services, and will review, establish, and communicate a Community Constable governance structure, mandate, and roles and responsibilities. CAP will also establish track and report performance information to help inform decision-making.

7.2 Action Plan for NHQ - NCPS

Date modified:

2018-06-21