Evaluation of the RCMP Auxiliary Program

December 2020

Table of contents

1. Acronyms and definitions
2. Executive summary
• Introduction
• Program profile
• What we examined
• What we found
3. Introduction
   • Purpose of the evaluation
   • Evaluation objective and scope
4. Evaluation methodology
   • Evaluation approach
   • Data sources
   • Limitations
5. Program description
   • Context
   • Resources
6. Findings
   • Continued need
   • Design and implementation
   • Value of program
7. Conclusions and recommendations
8. Management response and action plan
   • Management response
   • Action plan
9. Appendix – Costs associated to each tier of the auxiliary program

Acronyms and definitions

C&IP

Contract and Indigenous Policing

HRMIS

Human Resources Management Information System

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

NCPS

National Crime Prevention Services

NHQ

National Headquarters

NPES

National Program Evaluation Services

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

RM

Regular Member

SEC

Senior Executive Committee

Executive summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Auxiliary Program conducted by the RCMP National Program Evaluation Services (NPES).

Program profile

The Auxiliary Constable Program (now called the Auxiliary Program) was established in 1963 to enhance RCMP service to communities by enlisting volunteers from the community to engage in community policing, crime prevention, and public safety activities. By 2016, the Auxiliary Constable Program consisted of approximately 1,500 volunteers across all contract divisions (i.e. all provinces and territories excluding Ontario and Quebec) other than Nunavut.

In light of an evolving policing landscape and events where uniformed police officers and members of the Canadian Forces were specifically targeted and lost their lives, the RCMP conducted a review of the Auxiliary Constable Program. This review focused on maintaining the program's relevance in the current policing environment, while also ensuring the safety of auxiliaries.

As a result of the review, in January 2016, the RCMP Senior Executive Committee (SEC) directed Contract and Indigenous Policing (C&IP) to make changes to the program such as renaming it to the Auxiliary Program, amending the roles and responsibilities of auxiliaries, developing national training standards, redesigning the auxiliary uniform, and instituting a three-tiered program model.

The change to the three-tiered program model allowed provinces and territories, in consultation with the applicable divisional commanding officer, to choose what services auxiliaries within their jurisdiction would be authorized to deliver based on local needs and circumstances.

Between 2016 and 2018, the Auxiliary Program was in transition in the divisions. While the program has now been redesigned, it has not been fully implemented in the divisions.

What we examined

The objective of the evaluation was to assess the relevance and performance of the RCMP Auxiliary Program. The evaluation covered a three-year period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019, and was national in scope, including National Headquarters (NHQ) in Ottawa and all contract divisions offering an Auxiliary Program.

What we found

1. There is a continued need for the Auxiliary Program as it addresses gaps in RCMP services, and plays a unique role within the suite of programs available to support RCMP community policing objectives.
2. The Auxiliary Program's governance structure, and roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in policy, and GBA+ factors were considered during the redesign of the program. However, changes to the program have not been well understood within detachments, primarily due to communication challenges between the division, detachments, and auxiliaries.
3. Since restrictions were placed on the Auxiliary Program in 2016, the rate of recruitment and retention of auxiliaries has decreased. The program delivery tier adopted by each division may have an impact in this regard.
4. The redesigned Auxiliary Program has resulted in some positive program enhancements. However, a number of challenges remain that may hinder the success of the program once implemented.
5. The Auxiliary Program is comparable to similar domestic and international programs in a number of respects.
6. The Auxiliary Program provides value and supports the RCMP's mandate. It also offers a number of indirect and intangible benefits.

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended that C&IP:

1. Develop a coordinated communications strategy for the redesigned Auxiliary Program to ensure the level of understanding and dissemination of information, particularly regarding changes to the program, is consistent across all levels of the organization.
2. Develop an engagement strategy to promote the Auxiliary Program with contract partners, and to facilitate the implementation of the appropriate tier to meet the needs of each division.
3. Coordinate with divisions to develop recruitment strategies adapted for the chosen tier.

Introduction

Purpose of the evaluation

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Auxiliary Program, which was conducted by the RCMP National Program Evaluation Services (NPES). An evaluation of the Auxiliary Program was identified as an out-year project in earlier iterations of the RCMP Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan, and selected as a current year project in the 2019-20 plan. The Auxiliary Program has not been evaluated previously.

Evaluation objective and scope

The objective of the evaluation was to provide a neutral, timely, and evidence-based assessment of the relevance and performance (effectiveness and efficiency) of the Auxiliary Program in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results(2016).

The evaluation covered a three-year period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019, and was national in scope, including National Headquarters (NHQ) in Ottawa and all contract divisions (i.e. all provinces and territories excluding Ontario and Quebec) offering an Auxiliary Program. V Division (Nunavut) is the only contract division that does not have an Auxiliary Program.

Evaluation methodology

Evaluation approach

The evaluation used a mixed methods approach (qualitative and quantitative). It assessed, interpreted, and summarized existing and new information. The information collected was triangulated to allow the formulation of clear, reliable, and relevant findings and recommendations to help inform senior management decision-making.

The following evaluation questions guided the evaluation:

1. Is there a continued need for the Auxiliary Program?
2. How effective was the design and implementation of the redesigned Auxiliary Program?
3. To what extent is the Auxiliary Program delivering value for money?

Evaluation objective and scope

Multiple lines of evidence were triangulated to determine the findings and recommendations:

Document review: Relevant internal and external documentation were reviewed, including foundational documents, policies, operational documentation, correspondence, literature, and media reports.

Data analysis: Data sets from the Human Resource Management Information System (HRMIS) - provided by the national policy centre, National Crime Prevention Services (NCPS) - were analyzed.

Survey analysis: A survey developed for this evaluation was conducted from January 2020 to February 2020. A total of 393 auxiliaries responded to a survey questionnaire either completely or partially, for an overall response rate of 69%. A sample of Regular Members (RMs) from E Division (British Columbia) were also invited to participate, with a total of 52 responding for an overall response rate of 94%.

Key informant interviews: 35 semi-formal interviews were conducted (in person and by teleconference) with RCMP employees, auxiliaries, and provincial representatives across four divisions – E, K (Alberta), H (Nova Scotia), and J (New Brunswick) - and in NHQ.

Limitations

The evaluation incorporated a number of best practices such as stakeholder engagement, mixed methods design, and several data sources dedicated to measuring the impacts of the previous Auxiliary Program and the transition to the redesigned program.

These practices helped to mitigate the common limitations that occur as part of most program evaluations. The evaluation team considered the limitations of the study and implemented a number of mitigation measures (as outlined in Table 2).

Program description

Context

The formerly named Auxiliary Constable Program was established in 1963 to enhance RCMP service to communities by enlisting volunteers from the community to engage in community policing, crime prevention, and public safety activities.^{Footnote 1} As volunteers, auxiliaries are a complement to RCMP employees and do not replace RMs. By 2016, the Auxiliary Constable Program consisted of approximately 1,500 volunteers across all contract divisions other than Nunavut.

Following an incident at the National War Memorial in 2014 where a military reservist was killed, the RCMP undertook an initiative to assess the risk to its public safety personnel. As a result, it became a requirement for all auxiliary constables to be accompanied by RMs while performing uniformed activities.

Following another incident in 2015 where an auxiliary constable was shot in St. Albert, Alberta, the RCMP conducted another review of the Auxiliary Constable Program. This review focused on maintaining the program's relevance in the current policing environment, while also ensuring the safety of the auxiliary constables.

As a result of the review, in January 2016, the RCMP Senior Executive Committee (SEC) directed Contract and Indigenous Policing (C&IP) to

• change the program name from "Auxiliary Constable Program" to "Auxiliary Program;"
• discontinue auxiliary "ride-alongs" and firearms familiarization training;
• develop national training standards;
• review uniform options and redesign uniforms for auxiliaries; and,
• develop a national auxiliary activity matrix (three-tiered program model), as shown in
  Table 3.

The change to the three-tiered program model allowed provinces and territories, in consultation with the commanding officer for the division, to choose what services auxiliaries within their jurisdiction would be authorized to deliver based on local needs and circumstances.

While the national auxiliary activity matrix has been created, the program is in a state of transition until contract partners decide which tier they want to move forward with, and the program is implemented. While the policy for the Auxiliary Program states that a standardized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is required between the RCMP and each contract partner, to date no such MOUs are in place.

Resources

NCPS within C&IP supports RCMP crime prevention and community outreach and well-being programs. As the national policy centre for the Auxiliary Program, NCPS is responsible for providing national oversight, developing policies and standards, and providing support to the divisions. These responsibilities are coordinated by one full time equivalent at NHQ. There are ten divisional Auxiliary Program coordinators, who are responsible for

• administering and managing the program at the division level;
• maintaining a list of their respective auxiliaries on HRMIS;
• retaining personnel files and statistics;
• managing program resources in accordance with policy;
• ensuring completion of mandatory training and qualifications of auxiliaries; and,
• providing recommendations to Commanding Officers for rewards and recognition of auxiliaries^{Footnote 2}

In many cases, these coordinators are further supported by coordinators at the detachment level. Divisional coordinators typically have many other responsibilities in addition to the Auxiliary Program. During the transition of the program, time dedicated to the program by coordinators has been minimal.

While auxiliaries are volunteers, there are ongoing costs for administering the program and ensuring auxiliaries have the capacity to perform their duties. The majority of ongoing costs for the program are the responsibility of contract partners, including the cost of uniforms (up to $2480 per auxiliary), training (up to $700 per auxiliary), and insurance.^{Footnote 3}

Findings

Continued need

Gaps in RCMP services

Documents and data collected from partners and stakeholders indicated that the Auxiliary Program addressed the challenge of limited RCMP resources dedicated to community engagement due to the prioritization of other operational activities.

According to interviewees, the Auxiliary Program addressed this challenge through auxiliary participation in community outreach and public education activities such as school presentations, community events, parades, etc. Interviewees described that in some areas where there are fewer RMs, auxiliaries have had the opportunity to step in and participate in these activities instead. These activities were considered important because they provided an interface between the public and the RCMP.

When interviewees were asked to describe what gaps in RCMP services the Auxiliary Program addressed, the services most often cited were predominantly Tier 1 activities (e.g., public education, parades, ceremonies) and Tier 2 activities (e.g., access control, traffic control, foot presence), as shown in Figure 1.

The Auxiliary Program also addressed the challenge of limited RCMP presence in rural communities where fewer RMs are responsible for larger geographic areas. The RCMP has less presence in, and is more reliant on forming partnerships within these communities. Engaging and networking with community members is instrumental for successful policing and ensuring officer safety in rural locations.^{Footnote 4}

According to interviewees, prior to 2016, the Auxiliary Program provided an additional resource for detachments since some auxiliaries were trained to participate on patrols with RMs. Auxiliaries also assisted in non-operational support for detachments, such as the collection of biometrics.

Auxiliaries brought with them an intimate knowledge of their community. Auxiliaries work and live in the area and are therefore able to help familiarize new RMs coming into the detachment. A consistent theme from interviews was that there was a knowledge gap in RCMP services due to the frequent rotation of RMs between detachments and divisions. As described by one interviewee, auxiliaries can bridge the disconnect between the RCMP and the community by being the "consistent face in the community and the conduit for the RMs that come and go."

Based on interviews, some key differences were highlighted between how auxiliaries were utilized in rural and urban locations. For rural locations, there is a greater need for auxiliaries to share knowledge and help build relationships with communities, as rural detachments tend to have fewer RCMP personnel and a higher turnover rate compared to urban detachments. In addition, auxiliaries in rural detachments tend to be more operationally focused because there are fewer public education volunteer opportunities available. For urban locations, auxiliaries have more opportunity to work with other municipal and/or community volunteer groups.

The extent to which the Auxiliary Program can address gaps in RCMP services depends on which tier is adopted in each division. While most interviewees indicated the redesigned Auxiliary Program addresses gaps in RCMP services by allowing auxiliaries to continue assisting RMs, a few indicated this is possible only if their division opts to adopt Tier 3 of the redesigned program model. They explained that Tier 3 would allow for the continuation of all activities auxiliaries conducted in the past, particularly assisting RMs by being an extra set of eyes and ears during patrols.

Program complementarity

In addition to the Auxiliary Program, the RCMP has a number of other programs that bolster RM resources such as the Community Constable Pilot Program, Community Program Officers, Reservists, and general volunteers. These programs have a focus on preventing crime in communities and/or providing additional support for RCMP detachments. While there are similarities (e.g., individuals supplement or support RMs and/or the detachment), each program is unique in their approach and use (see Table 2).

• The Community Constable Pilot Program has the mandate to engage communities in active crime prevention/reduction activities, build positive relationships between their communities and the RCMP, and complement and support the work of RMs. Community Constables are given duties that include traffic services, supporting investigations, supporting youth crime reduction, and working with community leaders to meet local policing needs. While there is some overlap in mandates, as well as roles and responsibilities, with the Auxiliary Program, the key difference is that Community Constables are uniformed and armed peace officers at the rank of Special Constable who are trained at the RCMP Academy (Depot).^{Footnote 5}

• Community Program Officers are Civilian Members and Public Service Employees who have a mandate of preventing and reducing crime through education and early intervention community mobilization, as well as acting as an essential link between the RCMP and community resources.^{Footnote 6}

• The Reservist Program consists of former police officers who have retired or resigned in good standing and are used to temporarily fill in for operational members on leave, during events, seasonally, or in times of emergency. Reservists can be used to temporarily replace RMs while auxiliaries, as explicitly stated within the national policy, are not to be relied on as personnel for operational needs. Reservists are paid employees and are compensated at the hourly rate of a First Class Constable.^{Footnote 7}

In contrast to the Auxiliary Program, the individuals that participate in the three programs listed above are employees of the RCMP and are entitled to employment benefits.

The general volunteer program provides divisions and detachments with another option for additional volunteer support for community activities, such as public events. As stated within the volunteer policy, this program explicitly excludes the Auxiliary Program, and Search and Rescue volunteers.^{Footnote 8}

In addition to similar RCMP programs, other municipal volunteer programs, such as Citizens on Patrol and neighborhood watch groups, complement (although in some instances duplicate) the activities of the Auxiliary Program. Municipal programs are community-based crime prevention programs, which work in co-operation with local law enforcement agencies. These programs provide additional presence in their communities by observing and reporting incidents to law enforcement.^{Footnote 9}

Most interviewees indicated that auxiliaries were able to provide assistance and complemented the work of other volunteer programs such as Citizens on Patrol, other municipal volunteer groups, victim services, and programs under the RCMP. Interviewees noted key differences between auxiliaries and municipal volunteer programs included the enhanced levels of training RCMP auxiliaries receive, and greater accountability since the RCMP detachment is responsible for its auxiliaries.

It was noted by interviewees that Citizens on Patrol differed from the Auxiliary Program in that, since it was not a program within the RCMP, participants were able to undertake a wider range of activities in some cases (e.g., taking on more patrol duties in their neighborhood).

While some interviewees indicated there was a degree of overlap in activities with other programs, there was acknowledgement of the importance of providing a variety of options for contract partners so they can find the program that best suits their needs. The level of overlap or duplication depends on whether the community has in place similar volunteer programs, as well as the tier the division adopts, as similarities are more in line with Tier 1 activities compared to Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities.

Design and implementation

Governance, roles and responsibilities

A review of program documents indicates that a governance structure, and roles and responsibilities for RCMP staff and auxiliaries, are detailed in the program's national policy accessible through the RCMP's internal InfoWeb.^{Footnote 10}

The policy clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of auxiliaries and provides detail on specific activities under the three-tier model. Auxiliaries are a complement to RCMP employees but are not to be relied on as personnel for operational needs, and are not eligible for any employee benefits. Auxiliaries must only perform activities authorized by the designated tier within their division. In addition, the policy states a standardized MOU must be in place between the RCMP and the division, which further sets out the terms and conditions of the Auxiliary Program.

Documents showed the national policy centre took into account GBA+ considerations during the planning phase for the redesigned Auxiliary Program. Examples of this include:

• The design of uniforms considered tailoring for males and females.
• Based on a review of the training curriculum, a number of courses provide auxiliaries and supervisors with training that includes GBA+ considerations. These courses include Respectful Workplace, Bias Awareness, and Conduct, Diversity and Ethics.

Of the auxiliaries who responded to the survey, the majority were in the 50-59 age group (37%, 127/340) and the 40-49 age group (29%, 99/340). This trend was consistent across divisions, genders, and locations.

An analysis of cultural, racial, and socio-economic backgrounds was not included in the scope of the evaluation due to the lack of disaggregated data.

Document review and key informant interviews indicated that, during the redesign of the Auxiliary Program in 2016, there was ongoing engagement from the national policy centre to facilitate information sharing and to support divisional implementation of the three-tiered Auxiliary Program. However, while almost all auxiliary and RM interviewees were aware of the Auxiliary Program redesign and the rationale behind it, many interviewees indicated that communication from the national policy centre to divisions about detailed program changes and the way forward was ineffective.

Interviewees attributed communication challenges to a lack of information being shared at all levels (i.e., from the national policy centre to divisions, and from divisions to detachments), with auxiliary interviewees specifying there was a lack of communication from their division coordinators. This gap was evident when interviewees were asked if the governance structure, and roles and responsibilities were clearly defined. While most senior management and coordinators considered the roles and responsibilities of the Auxiliary Program to be clearly defined and understood, only half of auxiliaries and some RMs agreed.

• As described by an auxiliary interviewee, "When they started the redesign, it was really good with divisional coordinators participating in weekly teleconferences, but after that, I was only contacted once by the Community Program Officer two and a half years ago."
• Participating RMs also needed to be better informed. As described by an auxiliary interviewee, "… there is a gap with the new program because RMs don't understand what auxiliaries are and why they become auxiliaries.

When the SEC directed C&IP to redesign the program in 2016, program delivery was disrupted in the divisions as "ride-alongs" and firearms familiarization training were discontinued for existing auxiliaries. While the redesigned program has been in place since 2019, it has yet to be fully implemented in all divisions. As a result, the program remains in transition.

Most interviewees indicated the restrictions placed on the Auxiliary Program in 2016 have negatively impacted the recruitment of new auxiliaries. Interviewees indicated that detachments largely halted all active recruitment and offered fewer volunteer activities in which auxiliaries could participate. One exception was in H Division where, through passive recruitment (i.e., members of the public applying through information on the website rather than through RCMP-led recruitment campaigns), six individuals are in the process of becoming new auxiliaries.

Decrease in the number of auxiliaries

Based on data from HRMIS capturing the number of auxiliaries across Canada, the majority of divisions lost approximately half of their auxiliaries from 2016 to 2019. In 2016, there were 1550 auxiliaries, and by 2019 that number decreased by 47% to 815 (as shown in Table 5).

Interviewees and survey responses identified the following contributing factors for the decrease:

• Diminished roles and responsibilities of auxiliaries – Restrictions placed on the program in 2016, particularly providing assistance during general duty patrols with RMs, were considered to have negatively impacted the number of auxiliaries who wanted to participate in the program. RMs also described the restrictions placed on auxiliaries' roles as negative since auxiliaries were no longer able to support them with operational duties.
• Impacts of the program being in transition for a number of years - When restrictions were placed on the program in 2016, there was no timeline associated with how long it would take the program to complete its redesign. Many auxiliaries were inactive in terms of being able to do any operational duties but were still considered part of the program.
• Lack of ongoing communication from the RCMP – Information updates regarding the status of the program were described by auxiliaries as minimal at the detachment level.
• Negative perception of redesigned uniforms – Auxiliaries and RMs described the appearance of the redesigned uniforms as unprofessional and, due to a design that makes the uniforms highly visible, as potentially putting auxiliaries at risk for harm.

More than half of auxiliary survey respondents indicated that they planned to continue volunteering under the redesigned program. However, if divisions opt to implement Tier 1 only, attrition may increase as auxiliaries who were undertaking Tier 2 or 3 activities prior to the restrictions placed on the program in 2016 may not be interested in the new Tier 1 roles available to them.

The percentage of respondents planning to continue in the redesigned program was consistent regardless of demographic factors (e.g., gender and location). The trend for continuing as an auxiliary increased as the individual's age increased, from 50% for the 20-29 age group to 100% for the 70 years or older age group, as shown in Figure 2.

Motivation for volunteering

When auxiliaries were asked in the survey what their initial motivation was for volunteering, the most prevalent motivation was their desire to make a contribution to their community, while some respondents indicated personal growth or exploring a career in policing, as shown in Figure 3.^{Footnote 11}

*Weighted scores were based on multiplying the count of responses divided by the total respondents with their respective inversed ranking score (e.g. (x/n)*6 for ranking score of 1 while (x/n)*1 for ranking score of 6 where x represents the count of responses).

These motivations were consistent regardless of demographic factors (e.g., gender, location, age group), suggesting that a general recruitment strategy could be considered with a focus on opportunities for auxiliaries to contribute to their community.

Moving forward, a new recruitment strategy will be required, as existing auxiliaries may decide to leave the program if their interests lie outside the tier their division chooses to adopt. In addition, once the redesigned program is fully implemented in the divisions, interviewees indicated recruitment would need a more fluid approach compared to the past program. Depending on which tier is adopted by a division, recruitment strategies must adapt and appeal to different types of recruits (e.g., Tier 1 will attract more community-focused recruits, while Tier 3 will attract recruits interested in more operationally focused activities).

An objective of the redesign was to standardize the program, which was previously administered quite autonomously by the divisions. A review of relevant documents outlined how the national policy centre, in collaboration with stakeholders at NHQ and the divisions have

• standardized training;
• put in place a National Insurance Standard for Auxiliaries;^{Footnote 12}
• set minimum medical requirements and a national fitness standard;
• developed a threat risk assessment for supervisors; and,
• reviewed auxiliary uniforms and equipment.

While key pieces are in place for the redesigned program, since the publication of the national policy in 2018 no active auxiliaries have met the new requirements, and divisions have not yet fully implemented the redesigned program. Due to this context, interviewees mainly described successes with the previous program.

Interviewees noted the following successes with the previous program:

• Bridge to community –The previous program was successful in having auxiliaries provide support to the RCMP detachment and the community. Auxiliaries were the link between the RCMP and the community through their participation in community events and patrols, assisting RMs in their duties, and sharing with them the knowledge they have about the community and its people.
• Auxiliaries felt valued - Auxiliary interviewees indicated that they felt valued and were recognized by the RCMP and their community. In addition, auxiliary interviewees described receiving certificates of appreciation

Interviewees noted the following challenges with the previous program:

• Ineffective communication from the national policy centre to divisions and from divisions to detachments - Divisional interviewees described a lack of communication and consultation from the national policy center. The high turnover rate with the division coordinator position may have contributed to this issue as communication from the policy centre passed through multiple layers in the divisions before it reached detachments and auxiliaries. Auxiliary interviewees indicated the coordinator position was not particularly attractive since coordinators often had to "wear multiple hats," and it would be difficult for them to prioritize the program.
• Insurance coverage and having appropriate responsibilities for auxiliaries - Interviewees indicated there was a need to have some sort of insurance coverage in place for auxiliaries. One interviewee cited the St. Albert incident where an Auxiliary Constable was injured and not able to get health coverage as a driving force for this issue. While auxiliary interviewees indicated concern about liability was an issue, they generally described it as a lower personal priority with one explaining, "I think there is too much focus on liabilities because I've been doing this a long time and have ran into situations very few times where I was uncomfortable."
• Inadequate training opportunities – Auxiliary interviewees indicated that accessing training was difficult in the past, particularly with training courses delivered in person (e.g., use of force training). They explained that organizing and delivering timely training was difficult because it was seen as an administrative burden by divisional coordinators who had other priorities to attend to.

For the redesigned program, interviewees noted the following challenges:

• The potential for redesigned uniforms to increase risk to auxiliaries – As described by auxiliary and RM interviewees, the redesigned uniforms may put auxiliaries at increased risk of harm because the uniforms make them more visible, and may alert wrongdoers to the fact that they are volunteers who are less trained than RMs. As explained by an RM interviewee, "I have concerns with the uniforms being highly visible in particular because RMs are more hesitant to bring auxiliaries out since it will make them targets."
• Additional requirements for RM supervision – Due to the restrictions placed on the program in 2016, not all RMs are aware of the full benefits of the program. Some RMs interviewed viewed supervising an auxiliary as another obligation they must take on in addition to their regular duties.

When interviewees were asked to describe opportunities for program improvement, many of the opportunities identified were items already being addressed by the national policy centre, including:

• Develop a national communication plan and recruitment strategy – Auxiliaries cited examples of communication they would like to receive from the national level regarding the redesigned program, including a message to all auxiliaries outlining the changes in the program, how their role fits in with the organization, how it aligns with policy, and the way forward. In addition, interviewees described that due to the loss in the number of auxiliaries, there will need to be a recruitment strategy that will ensure a good fit for candidates who sign up for the redesigned program. As explained by one interviewee, "there needs to be a healthy mix of older mature auxiliaries and younger people too that will be there for the long run, and be the anchor for the RCMP and communities."
• Leverage the program for RCMP recruitment – It was noted that the program has historically served as a stepping-stone for some members of the public interested in a career in law enforcement. The program provides the RCMP with a pool of potential recruits with previous experience, and gives auxiliaries a chance to see if policing is something they want to explore as a career.
• Ensure consistent support for the program – There was lack of understanding of the value of, and support for, the program in the past. Interviewees noted that more consistent support from senior management through continued efforts to improve and promote the program could maximize its benefits for the RCMP and the communities it serves.
• Consider a graduated tier system – Auxiliaries and RMs described a potential program model where interested and qualified auxiliaries could graduate from one tier to the next, instead of being limited by the tier that had been adopted by the division. For example, one auxiliary interviewee described it as auxiliaries starting at Tier 1 and, based on the determination of their supervisor every 6 months, having the possibility of graduating from Tier 1 to Tier 2 and eventually to Tier 3 if interested.

Value of program

Across Canada and around the world, there are a number of police forces using auxiliary volunteers to support their officers. As highlighted by the national policy centre, some domestic examples include the British Columbia Auxiliary/Reserve Constables, the Medicine Hat Auxiliary Police Program, the Ontario Provincial Police Auxiliary Policing Program, the Saint John Police Force Auxiliary Program, and the Saint-Anne Auxiliary Police Program. International examples examined in the evaluation include the New York Police Department Auxiliary Police, Netherlands volunteer police, and Singapore Voluntary Special Constabulary Officers.

These auxiliary programs share some similarities with the RCMP's Auxiliary Program, including

• a mandate focused on community policing, crime prevention, and supporting their respective police force;
• a requirement to complete training that typically includes courses on police policies and procedures, and other areas relevant for their duties (e.g. First Aid); and,
• set requirements for minimum hours.

Differences among these programs include

• whether or not auxiliary volunteers are granted peace officer status within their jurisdiction;
• the degree to which auxiliary volunteers are able to participate in police operations;
• the level of supervision required; and,
• the degree of difference between auxiliary volunteer uniforms and police uniforms within the police service in question.

The objective of the Auxiliary Program is for volunteers to complement RCMP employees, not replace the roles and responsibilities of an RM. However, to help determine the value of the program for the evaluation, a comparative approach similar to studies conducted by National University^{Footnote 13} and the National Policing Improvement Agency^{Footnote 14} was taken. The method was to draw a comparison between the known costs for police volunteers (e.g., training, uniform, and equipment) and the salaries of officers in their respective police agencies. For the purposes of the assessment, a comparison was made between auxiliaries and RMs at the constable rank.

Known costs for auxiliaries

As the redesigned Auxiliary Program progresses from Tier 1 to Tier 3, there are graduated associated costs for the additional training requirements and uniform specifications (see Appendix for detailed breakdown of costs for each tier).^{Footnote 15}

In accordance with the Auxiliary Program policy, prior to starting their activities, auxiliaries must successfully complete all mandatory training and are expected to contribute a set minimum of volunteer hours. For Tier 1, auxiliaries are expected to contribute a minimum of 60 hours per year; for Tier 2, auxiliaries are expected to contribute a minimum of 120 hours per year; and for Tier 3, auxiliaries are expected to contribute a minimum of 180 hours per year.^{Footnote 16}

The total known costs for one auxiliary are shown in Table 6 below, with minimum costs associated with existing auxiliaries and maximum costs associated with new auxiliaries.

Comparison to RMs

The annual rate of pay for an RCMP constable ranges from approximately $53,000 to $86,000.^{Footnote 17} The cost ranges if constables were to replace auxiliaries in conducting Tier 1, 2 and 3 activities for the minimum hours in each tier are shown in Table 7.

When the costs for auxiliaries are compared to the costs for constables taking on Tier 1, 2 and 3 activities, the minimum savings and maximum savings are illustrated in Table 8.

There is a potential for savings with auxiliaries contributing the minimum 60 hours per year, and that amount increases as more hours are contributed. As an example, Table 9 highlights the difference between a constable conducting Tier 1, 2, and/or 3 activities versus an auxiliary conducting the same activities.

Exclusions and limitations of known costs

• During the redesign of the Auxiliary Program, the national policy centre worked in collaboration with Learning and Development within RCMP Human Resources, and other stakeholders such as RCMP Legal Services and Labour Relations, to develop Agora training courses. The one-time costs for the development of these courses were excluded from the calculations.
• The one-time costs associated with the design of the new uniforms were also excluded from the calculations.
• All auxiliaries are required to obtain RCMP reliability status. Costs associated with the security clearance process were excluded.
• A number of existing auxiliaries completed similar training prior to the redesign and in some cases, previous training may be grandfathered under the redesigned program.
• The minimum hours required from each auxiliary may not be representative of how many hours each auxiliary actually contributes to the RCMP in a year. Based on interview responses and open-ended survey responses, auxiliaries were typically contributing more hours than were required prior to the restrictions placed on the program in 2016. For example, an auxiliary in Alberta described volunteering on average 50 hours a month to give back to his community and help support the RCMP.

Intangible benefits

In addition to cost savings, the evaluation found the program provided indirect and intangible benefits to the RCMP and the communities it serves.

• RM recruitment - The Auxiliary Program can serve as a vehicle for recruitment. Detachment coordinators noted many cases of auxiliaries using the program as a stepping-stone to become RMs, as the program provides a law enforcement background to individuals prior to applying to Depot. As previously highlighted by survey data, a future career in law enforcement may be a key motivational factor for individuals joining the Auxiliary Program. As explained by an auxiliary interviewee, "I'm surprised that the recruitment program does not use auxiliaries to augment their rate of recruitment. Other police departments use this program to test people for recruitment. If people coming to Depot have previous experience in law enforcement, it goes a long way since they understand policing and have a better maturity level."
• Unique knowledge of communities - Auxiliaries are residents of their communities who have existing relationships with their neighbors and can pass knowledge of the community on to RMs. Particularly in multi-cultural communities, auxiliaries can help with translation and the navigation of cultural differences. As described by an interviewee, auxiliaries can be a "bridge for the full time police staff and the community because there's a high level of expectation for visibility and connectivity with the communities now."
• Profile of RCMP in communities - Auxiliaries may be able to enhance the RCMP profile in a variety of communities, particularly those where relationships with law enforcement have not always been positive. As described by survey respondents, "Kids learned to not be afraid of the police. It (the Auxiliary Program) made the police more approachable," and, "The previous Auxiliary Program allowed for auxiliaries to be a more approachable face of the RCMP while engaged in various activities such as community bike patrols, foot patrols, ski patrols, general duty, and more." Having unique knowledge of their communities and being able to raise the profile of the RCMP is a key benefit of the Auxiliary Program that addressed gaps in RCMP services, particularly in rural communities.
• Technical expertise - Auxiliaries have diverse backgrounds in terms of education and work experience. There is an opportunity for the RCMP to harness the skills of volunteer experts in their field (e.g., mental health professionals, information technology, application development, etc.) to address gaps in RCMP services whenever appropriate.

Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation found there is a continued need for the Auxiliary Program, as it addresses gaps in RCMP services and plays a unique role within the suite of programs available to support RCMP community policing objectives.

The evaluation found a clearly defined governance structure, policy outlining roles and responsibilities, and considerations for GBA+ within the redesigned program.

While the redesigned Auxiliary Program has resulted in some positive program enhancements, the evaluation found a number of challenges that may hinder its success once fully implemented. Changes to the program have not been well conveyed, primarily due to gaps in communication between the division, detachments, and auxiliaries. In addition, due to the restrictions placed on the program in 2016, the rate of recruitment and retention of auxiliaries has decreased.

The RCMP Auxiliary Program is comparable to similar domestic and international programs. It provides value to the RCMP through cost savings as well as a number of intangible benefits.

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended that C&IP:

1. Develop a coordinated communications strategy for the redesigned Auxiliary Program to ensure the level of understanding and dissemination of information, particularly regarding changes to the program, is consistent across all levels of the organization.
2. Develop an engagement strategy to promote the Auxiliary Program with contract partners, and to facilitate the implementation of the appropriate tier to meet the needs of each division.
3. Coordinate with divisions to develop recruitment strategies adapted for the chosen tier.

Management response and action plan

Management response

Contract & Indigenous Policing senior management accept the findings and recommendations set out in the Evaluation of the RCMP Auxiliary Program completed by National Program Evaluation Services.

Action plan

Appendix – Costs associated to each tier of the auxiliary program

Date modified:

2021-02-15