EXPLORING CORE POLICING AND THE
REALITY OF POLICING
RESPONSIBILITIES
by
Richard C. Bent

MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REGUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
in the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
 Richard C. Bent 2018
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
Summer 2018

All rights reserved. This work my not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

Approval
Name:
Degree:
Title:

Richard C. Bent
Master of Arts in Criminal Justice
Exploring core policing and the reality of policing responsibilities

Examining Committee
Amanda McCormick, PhD
GPC Chair
Director, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

_________________________________________________________
Irwin Cohen, PhD
Senior Supervisor
Associate Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

__________________________________________________________
Bob Rich
External Examiner
Chief Constable, Abbotsford Police Department

__________________________________________________________

Date Defended/Approved: August 28, 2018

ii

Abstract
In Canada, in recent years, concern has been expressed about increasing policing
costs and a drift away from what is termed ‘core policing.’ In fact, the majority of
police responses to calls for service are associated to non-crime or ‘social’ calls for
service. To understand what constitutes core policing within policing services,
analyses were conducted of reported police events and calls for service in different
jurisdictional types within the Province of British Columbia. While differences in the
percentages of police events and calls for service types were noted by jurisdictional
grouping, there was general consistency in the nature of the police reported
activities. This research sets the context for further discussions of the definition of
core policing, changes in public expectations of policing services, and reform of the
role of the police.

iii

Acknowledgements:
Dr. Irwin M. Cohen, Associate Professor, University of the Fraser Valley, for his
guidance and advice throughout the research for and writing of this major paper.
Patrick Johnson, MA Student, Criminology, Simon Fraser University, for his
patience and tremendous assistance in creating the charts and tables from the raw data.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract
Acknowledgement
Table of Contents
List of Appendices
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Introduction
Background
Are core police duties or responsibilities truly defined?
The interest in core policing and why it is important
The Effects of the Context and Changing Complexity of Policing
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Recommendations
Conclusion
References
Appendices

v

iii
iv
v
vi
vi
vi
vii
1
5
17
26
31
41
52
77
84
92
96
102

List of Appendices:
A: Roles of Police
B: Ontario Mobilisation and Engagement Model of Community Policing Diagram.
C: Data Elements and Violation Coding Structure for the Uniform Crime Reporting
Survey 2.2
D: Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Priority Level and CAD Code Descriptions
E: Top 10 CAD Calls for Service by Priority Level and Jurisdictional Grouping

List of Figures:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Figure 1 – Comparative Chart of PRIME Events by UCR Series Codes
Figure 2 – Comparative Chart of All Recorded Police Events on PRIME
Figure 3 – Initial CAD Call Priority Percentages by Jurisdictional Grouping
Figure 4 – Comparative Chart of All Recorded Police Events on PRIME

List of Tables:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

Table 1 - PRIME Event Files (2013 - 2015) by Jurisdictional Grouping
Table 2 - CAD Calls for Service (2015) by Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional
Grouping
Table 3 - Top CAD Calls for Service by Priority and Jurisdictional Grouping
Table 4 - Top 20 CAD Calls for Service by Jurisdictional Grouping
Table 5 - Coded Core vs Non-Core Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) – Codes
Table 6 - Coded CAD Calls for Service, by Priority and jurisdictional grouping

vi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.

CAD – Computer Aided Dispatch
CAD CFS – Computer Aided Dispatch Calls for Service
CompStat – Computer Statistics or Compare Statistics
OACP – Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police
PRIME BC – Police Records Information Management Environment, British
Columbia
RCMP – Royal Canadian Mounted Police
UCR – Uniform Crime Reporting

vii

Introduction
In recent years, there have been calls from various levels of government,
government institutions, and some researchers for the police to return to core policing
duties or responsibilities, and for reforms to how policing is carried out in Canada
(Leuprecht 2014; Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2015; Ontario Association of
Police Service Boards, 2012). There are several underlying factors that form the basis for
these calls for change, with the main argument being the steadily increasing cost of
policing during a period of substantial reductions in reported crime (Leuprecht, 2014;
Police Modernization Report, 2015; Ontario Association of Police Boards, 2012).
While it is debateable whether the costs to policing are increasing at a greater rate
than other public sectors, or whether police are less busy as the result of declines in
reported crime (SECU, 2014; ICURS, 2014; Association of Municipalities of Ontario,
2015), the call for reform and controlling police costs has continued, often with demands
for a return to ‘core policing.’ A principle theme is that higher paid, highly trained, sworn
police officers should only respond to core duties, while the less-risky and non-crime
responses, which consume a great deal of police time, should shift to non-sworn police or
other agencies. These discussions often occur as part of the broader demand for the police
to become more efficient and effective. While there should be continuous improvements
and an evolution in policing in response to environmental, social, economic, and
demographic changes, such changes would have significant implications, not just to
policing, but to many other government services and the public. Therefore, a true
understanding of what the police do and what public expectations are is essential before
implementing reform measures.

1

While finding some efficiencies would be desirable, this might do little more than delay
the more difficult conversation about whether the police are filling the right roles and
doing so in a way that the community values. This requires ongoing good decisions
around role and value as time unfolds and the environment changes (Caputo & McIntyre,
2015, p. 269).

One common conclusion found in the reports of various commissions and studies is that
the nature and complexity of policing has changed substantially and continues to change.
Policing is complex and influenced by many external factors, including legislation and
changes in case law, public expectations, the ever-changing nature of crime itself, and
technological changes. While reported crime has declined, the calls for service have
remained relatively constant (Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2015; ICURS,
2014). Given this, the police report being as busy as ever, and even busier as the calls for
service have become more complex and require more time and resources to conclude
(Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
(SECU), 2014; Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2015; ICURS, 2014; Young,
2010).
There has always been a substantial amount of police time devoted to non-crime
activities, such as investigations into missing persons, sudden or unexplained deaths, calls
for service to deal with persons with mental health issues, and responses to major events
and disasters. As an example, police executives and government agencies have
highlighted the increase in incidents that police respond to that involve persons with
mental illness and addictions and the significant effect that has had on police time and
resources (Iacobucci, 2014; Coleman & Cotton, 2016; SECU, 2014; Police
Modernization, AMO (2015); Wilson-Bates, 2008). It is often said that the police are the
only true 24-hour response that the public rely on (SECU, 2014; Criminal Justice
Commission Research Paper Series, Queensland, 1996; ICURS, 2010). Given this, it is
2

reasonable to believe that there is a public expectation that the police will continue to take
a lead role in a wide range of incidents and activities that might be meet the definition of
core policing. Regardless, the focus on police costs has given rise to questions about
whether police should devote most of their efforts to what is considered core policing.
However, among the main challenges to any meaningful discussion on policing reform is
a lack of a good, universally accepted definition of core policing.
As mentioned above, one of the main drivers of the reform discussion is the
increased costs of policing, with particular emphasis on police compensation costs
(Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2015; Leuprecht, 2014; Ontario Association of
Police Service Boards, 2012; Council for Canadian Academies, (2014). Related to this
are the conversations based on the need to change current policing models to better
reflect core policing principles. As has been argued, “containing policing costs while
ensuring that core-policing services (e.g., those related to emergency response, criminal
investigations and enforcing laws) are of key importance to policymakers and members
of the Canadian policing industry” (The Economics of Canadian Policing Five Years Into
The Great Recession, 2014, p.1).
The focus of many of the arguments is that core policing must be narrowly defined
to focus on the prevention and investigation of crime, rather than responding to noncrime or social issues. However, suggesting that police refocus on ‘core policing’ ignores
the history and evolution of policing in Canada and elsewhere. One has to consider
whether the police were ever solely or primarily engaged exclusively in the prevention
and investigation of crime. There has always been a significant part of policing that deals

3

with maintaining the public peace and order, community safety, and crime prevention,
which goes far beyond exclusively responding to crime-related calls.
The purpose of this major paper is to explore the questions of what core policing is
and what is the current scope of policing functions, and to consider core policing as it
relates to or differs from the services and broader demands provided by police. This
major paper will also consider whether the routine activities of police have strayed from
core policing, and if so, how far, and what are the implications of this for police
organizations and communities. To accomplish this, an analysis of what the police do on
a daily basis was undertaken by analyzing PRIME BC1 and CAD2 data from British
Columbia.
The literature review portion of this major paper considers whether there is a
consensus of opinion on what constitutes core policing, and describes policing duties,
responsibilities, and models. This section will also include an examination of how and
where police operate, including public and police governance expectations, as it is clear
that there are distinct mixes of crimes and calls for service based on the context of a
particular police environment, such as geography, population makeup, and remoteness.
One additional piece that is critical as a precursor to reform is the need for decision
makers and the public to be informed about the activities that the police are actually
engaged in. For example, there have been many studies and police reports that indicate

1 PRIME BC is the provincial Records Management System used by all police jurisdictions in British

Columbia. It records all event files, both Uniform Crime Report (UCR) events and non-crime or nonUCR reported events, created by individual police jurisdictions, and it is how crime data is reported
to Statistics Canada.
2 CAD- Computer Aided Dispatch is the dispatch system utilised by police services in British
Columbia. Complaints are sent to police officers from complaint takers by electronic means and form
part of the police records management system.

4

that 70% to 80% of police calls for service are non-crime related; that is, police are
responding to what have been termed ‘social’ issues or non-crime duties (Andresen et al.,
2016; ICURS 2014; Collaborative Centre for Justice and Safety, 2014; Criminal Justice
Commission Research Paper Series, Queensland, 1996).
This major paper will also include an analysis of certain police data to provide
evidence to better understand the scope of policing duties in BC in different policing
environments or contexts. As mentioned above, an important hypothesis of this research
is that policing differs considerably based on geography, population, and remoteness, and
that core policing may be different depending on the context of a particular policing
jurisdiction. Finally, this major paper includes a discussion about why it is important to
examine these issues as a basis to any meaningful discussions about changes to the
overall police mandate, service delivery, and structure. This major paper analyses police
recorded events and calls for service with a focus on general duty or the uniformed police
as the primary responder. There is no doubt that there are reform opportunities for
specialized sections; however, for the purposes of better understanding core policing and
police activities, it is the first response by police that is of primary consideration in this
major paper.

Background:
To aid in setting the stage for the examination of core policing, various models of
policing, especially the most common policing models since the early 1960s, were
examined. This review is intended to determine whether the changes or evolution of
police models have affected or contributed to a shift away from core policing and how

5

they may have altered our understanding of core policing. The shifts in different policing
models were very much driven by significant changes to the policing environment.
Ratcliffe (2008) described the evolution of policing since the 1960s as moving from
the local constable dealing with localised crime in identifiable communities to a reactive
policing model where the focus was on investigating crimes. In the 1960s and 1970s,
crime rates increased rapidly challenging the ability of the police to deal with the volume
and increasing complexity of crime. As a result of the strategies that were implemented to
address these situations, the police began to lose touch with the communities they policed
(Ratcliffe, 2008; Weisburd & Braga, 2006). In an effort to re-establish links with the
community and provide reassurance to the public, the first community-based policing
models emerged. The community-policing model also resulted in some structural changes
in policing to support this new model. By the 1980s, a significant number of police
agencies in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom had adopted some form
of community policing (Ratcliffe, 2008; Weisburd & Braga, 2006; Morgan & Newburn
1997).
Ratcliffe (2008) described community policing, and the subsequent models of
problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing, as different ‘conceptual
frameworks’ that were not merely changes in police tactics, but fundamental shifts at a
strategic level. There were some variations of the models, with some building off of
previous approaches to policing, but all resulted from an identified need to move from the
standard policing model, which will be outlined in more detail below. Later, police
realised that they could strategically use data and data analysis to support decisionmaking and to develop new programs and initiatives. The use of data analysis and crime

6

analysis led to problem-oriented policing, intelligence-led policing models, and to
Compstat.

Traditional, Standard, or Reactive Policing Model
The standard model of policing, also referred to as the Traditional, Standard,
Reactive, or Professional model, traditionally comprised of random patrol, rapid
uniformed response, the deployment of officers to crime investigations once an offence
has been detected, and a reliance on law enforcement and the legal system as the primary
means of trying to reduce crime (Weisburd & Eck, 2004). The standard model provided
for a generalised model not focused on reducing crime, disorder, and fear of crime, but
more on law enforcement (Weisburd & Eck, 2006). While Weisburd and Braga (2006)
looked at policing in the United States, the challenges and pressures on policing were, to
a large extent, mirrored in Canada and are, therefore, informative and relevant.
The models replacing or following the standard model moved beyond principally
having a sole focus on reactive policing, to an emphasis or focus on different approaches
to crime and disorder. These subsequent models were very much evolutions or
refinements to previous policing models. According to Weisburd and Braga (2006), the
tendency has been for police organizations to revert to or retain a certain element of what
they know best when they implementing different models; namely the standard model of
policing.
Kempa (2006) presented a view of the underlying factors that drove the
introduction of public policing, and the economic and other broad societal changes that
led governments to make structural changes to policing. Kempa referred to Sir Robert
Peel as the father of modern policing and considered Peel’s principles and fundamentals

7

to still be relevant. According to Kempa et al., “professional policing was an effective
tool to deal with the relatively local, property-oriented minor crime, and public order
issues of the post-war period” (2006, p. 11). Griffiths referred to this model as the
Professional Policing Model, “based on the three R’s: random patrol, rapid response, and
reactive investigations” (2013, p. 193). Griffiths’ view was that the professional model
failed or became out-dated for several reasons, including a lack of analysis, a failure to
consider community needs, and because it stifled creativity of the individual police
officer.
There are fairly consistent views that the standard model of policing was not
effective and resulted in an inability of the police to deal with the changing and
increasing demands on police (Kempa, 2006; Griffiths, 2013; Ratcliffe, 2008). Weisburd
and Braga described the significant changes in policing in the last quarter of the 21st
century, driven in large part by the rapid pace of change that created significant
challenges for policing, and resulted in a “crisis in policing that emerged in the late
1960s” (2006, p. 3). This occurred mostly in the United States, and caused police to
rethink their primary purpose, to change core strategies, and to change the character of
the relationships with communities.

Community Policing or Community-Based Policing
Ratcliffe wrote that community policing was difficult to clearly define; however,
he suggested that; “while rarely articulated explicitly, the core purpose of community
policing has been to increase police legitimacy in neighbourhoods that have lost
confidence in the police” (2008, p. 66). Community-based policing is a model that places

8

primacy on being responsive to community priorities and expectations through
partnerships with the community. Though there may have varying levels of community
involvement and interest, or different programs depending on priorities, local programs
are designed to respond specifically to the needs of the individual community.
Community-based policing is about building or re-building relations with the community,
and relies on police engaging community resources, not just a reliance on the police to
deal with issues. Weisburd and Eck (2004) found in their review of the effectiveness of
various policing models that, with community policing, there was no evidence to support
that it reduced crime or disorder; however, there was strong evidence to suggest that fear
of crime among residents was reduced.
Griffiths (2013) referred to the three P’s of community policing; prevention,
problem solving, and partnership with the community. Community policing relied on a
traditional model to address crime and disorder, but expanded the police role to include
“prevention, problem solving, community engagement, and partnerships” (Griffiths,
2013, p. 198-199). The important changes were that, while community policing was an
organisational strategy, the individual police officer became more responsible to identify
and deal with problems in the community, and the officer had increased authority and
accountability. In this approach, officers were expected to identify the underlying issues
related to crime and disorder, to engage the community in partnership, and to jointly find
solutions in a proactive manner.
Griffiths (2013) identified among the key principles of community policing that
the public were to be more responsible for identifying and dealing with community
problems. This is referred to a responsibilisation of the public or community and falls

9

under the types of changes seen with the shift to neoliberalism. Police, particularly in
larger centres, started to not respond to less serious complaints and shifted their focus on
responding to more serious issues. At the same time, police started to identify larger
issues in the community and directed some of their efforts to solving those recurring
problems in partnership with the community and with other community services. The
move to community-based policing pushed authority and accountability to front-line
police officers relying on their discretion, and focussed officers on identifying and
solving community problems, rather than simply responding to crime once it occurred.
Taylor (2006) identified a social service ethos in which perceptions of community safety
take priority as one key aspect of community-policing. From this perspective, one might
conclude that the public’s expectations were that the police do not deal solely with crime
issues, but also address calls for service that have some social aspect. Social calls, in the
policing context and for the purposes of this major paper, are considered those that are
not necessarily crime related, but primarily involve individuals or situations in which
there are some underlying social or economic factor, such as mental illness, drug or
alcohol abuse, homelessness. This would also include those situations that affect social
order or where individuals are found in some jeopardy, and are often prolific users of
police and social services.

Problem-Oriented Policing - POP
Weisburd and Eck’s (2004) research contrasted community-policing with problemoriented policing (POP). With POP, the primary aim was to identify specific issues and
problems that may have a crime component that also negatively affected community

10

wellness and safety. The desired outcome was to prevent a continuation or recurrence of
the problem. POP often involved using crime analysts to identify crime and disorder
issues, and POP provided for better evaluation of the effectiveness of police action and
intervention, an integral part of the problem oriented policing model. POP uses structured
problem-solving models, such as CAPRA3 and SARA4, similar to community-based
policing. POP also relies on gathering information from many sources and forming
meaningful and accountable partnerships. Bradley offered the following description of
problem-oriented policing:
Problem-oriented policing would see police officers operating in highly autonomous
environments. They would see their primary core business as generating data about
incidents and cases and looking for possible relationships between such cases. They would
seek to identify the basic underlying problems indicated by such relationships, and more
accurate and comprehensive way(s) of describing them, analyze their causes, then set about
tackling them. Problem-solving would in the first instance always look for ways in which
non-police agencies and efforts might wholly or in part provide solutions or amelioration of
the outcomes, and, feeding on this, the cycle would start again. If there is one primary
distinguishing characteristic of problem-oriented policing it is its focus on broadly defined
social outcomes of policing activity, in contrast to a narrow concern with legally-defined
process and criminal law enforcement as an end in itself (although this is not to say that it
in any way abandons the notion of due process) (1994, p. 2; emphasis in original).

Bradley recognized that there were social aspects of policing and that these social aspects
were part of the police’s responsibility. It is important to note that POP typically takes a
bottom up approach to dealing with problems, which allows for local issues and concerns
to be addressed, rather than approaches and strategies to be exclusively dictated by
management. The POP model has played a key role in modern policing because it also
demonstrated to police the benefits of crime analysis to identify problems and to identify
targets.

3 CAPRA – Acronym for the police problem-solving model using the following five steps; Clients,

Acquire/Analyse Information, Partnerships, Response, and Assessment of Action Taken.
4 SARA – Acronym for police problem-solving model using the following four steps; Scanning,
Analysis, Response, and Evaluation.

11

Intelligence-Led Policing
With the challenges identified with POP, changes in globalisation, and the
increased sophistication of criminal organisations, intelligence-led policing was the next
model of policing and was touted as a smarter way to police. It started as an idea to
change from reactive, or what Ratcliffe (2006) called the standard model of policing, to a
proactive policing model using criminal intelligence as a tactical response. It also evolved
to have a broader definition and scope. Ratcliffe (2006) described Intelligence-led
policing as a ‘business model of policing’ that led to strategic solutions at local and
regional levels. Intelligence-led policing is now used to determine broader police
priorities and to direct or focus resources through an analysis of crime and disorder data.
This strategy was adopted in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, the United
States, and Canada.
Wood and Shearing asserted, “intelligence-led policing does not re-imagine the
police role so much as it re-imagines how the police can be ‘smarter’ in the exercise of
their unique authority and capacities” (2007, p. 55). Wood and Shearing were of the view
that intelligence-led policing was just a reinforcement of the traditional model that added
an evidence-base by using information and intelligence to target offenders. Ratcliffe
(2008) suggested that intelligence-led policing also was a step forward because it
included a strategic social harm approach that strengthen the notion that policing must
also address, to some degree, the local social issues that were the primary contributors to
crime and disorder.
CompStat is considered a sub-set of intelligence-led policing (Cohen et al., 2014),
and is described as a police managerial accountability mechanism (Ratcliffe, 2008).

12

Compstat is not a model of policing, but a tactical tool to address crime problems and
hold police officers accountable to addressing crime and disorder. CompStat relies on
current and real-time intelligence and analysis, rapid response and reassessment, and
accountability in local commanders. One of the biggest criticisms of Compstat was that,
given the jeopardy for the commander in the original New York model, crime was
misreported to meet targets, and also that there were wide-spread declines in reported
crime that could not be accounted for through Compstat efforts (Eterno & Silverman,
2010; Eterno et al., 2016). Though not described as being core policing, the Compstat
model’s sole role is to fight and reduce crime.
Compstat had its genesis in New York and was an approach where precinct
commanders had the authority and were held directly accountable to identify and respond
to the most pressing crime threat in a community, district, or jurisdiction (Ratcliffe,
2006). Many police agencies in Canada have adopted Compstat or some variation of it,
including the Vancouver Police Department and some lower mainland Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) jurisdictions. The Compstat approach does not focus on
community engagement and directs resources to the most pressing crimes or crime trends.

Crime Reduction Strategies
As the title implies, a crime reduction model of policing focuses on offenders,
crime problems, and being information and intelligence-led as the key elements of its
strategy (Alberta Crime Reduction Strategy, 2013-14; Cohen et al., 2014; Ministry of
Justice, British Columbia, 2014; City of Surrey, 2007). The British Columbia crime
reduction model involves partnerships across government and other agencies to develop

13

and implement effective multi-agency responses to crime. According to Cohen et al.
(2014), effective and efficient police-based crime reduction strategies require seven
elements; be information-led, be intelligence-led, focus on offenders, focus on problems,
develop meaningful partnerships, be pre-emptive, and be performance-based.
The changes to a Crime Reduction Strategy in British Columbia meant that there
needed to be a shift in the culture of police, moving from a reactive policing model to one
focused on targeting prolific offenders and to a problem-solving model relying on
effective partnerships (Cohen et al., 2014). The changes were embraced by some police
jurisdictions, but not all. From a resourcing perspective, commanders needed to dedicate
a certain portion of their human resources to crime reduction efforts and needed to rely to
a much greater extent on crime analysis to identify and target prolific and priority
offenders, problems, and locations. As noted above, one of the drivers at the time was the
call from some governments to reduce police resources as the crime rate was generally
declining. Therefore, the intent of the crime reduction strategy was to allocating existing
resources where they would have the most effect and be most efficient in reducing and
preventing crime and disorder. There was evidence of success in those jurisdictions that
implemented a crime reduction strategy, wherein those jurisdictions experienced a
substantially greater reduction in crime than the general decline in reported crime
elsewhere (Cohen et al., 2014).
The Alberta Crime Reduction Strategy (2013-14) incorporated various strategies
into one overarching strategy:
The Alberta Crime Reduction Strategy is a consultative, research-based, intelligence-led
approach to reducing crime. This is accomplished by focusing police actions toward highvolume offenders, known crime hot spots, and/or the underlying causes of crime. This
multi-layered approach is focused and coordinated using components of crime reduction:
problem solving, enforcement, intervention and prevention. For the problem-solving

14

component, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) uses CAPRA (Clients,
Acquire/Analyse Information, Partnerships, Response, Assessment of Action taken), a
community policing problem-solving model. The ultimate goals of the Alberta Crime
Reduction Strategy are to lower crime rates, reduce the fear of crime, reduce the impact
of anti-social behaviours in our communities and create efficiencies within the criminal
justice system.

The Blue Ribbon Panel on Crime Reduction (British Columbia, 2014) recommended an
expansion of the crime reduction focus to include strategies to deal with mental health
and addictions, corrections, and prevention. Clearly, the panel contemplated the policing
role including involvement in dealing with social issues, such as mental health,
addictions, and homelessness.
There are a number of more recent policing models, such as the Community
Mobilization Prince Albert, Saskatchewan (CMPA), a multi-agency team focused on
crime prevention and the Ontario Mobilisation and Engagement Model of Community
Policing. These are promising policing models or strategies. As presented in Appendix B,
the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Ontario Mobilisation and Engagement model
has four main elements; Enforcement and Crime Suppression, Community Engagement
and Liaison, Community Mobilisation and Crime Prevention, and Community Safety and
Consultation. This model includes a police service with the key responsibilities of
investigating crime, crime prevention, and maintaining peace and order. The CMPA
HUB approach is described as a community safety model based on the recognition that
traditional policing was not effectively addressing increases in crime and the underlying
issues leading to crime (McFee & Taylor, 2014). The model provides for a coordinated
response involving community and community agencies for the early identification and
intervention of emerging crime problems. The CMPA model claims some successes
based on empirical reductions of crime and disorder, particularly recurring crimes. The

15

model calls for police involvement as the leader or as an active partner in intervention,
prevention, and suppression programs depending on the nature of the intervention
required (McFee & Taylor, 2014). These models contain elements of community policing
and problem-oriented policing with a greater emphasis on cross-sector collaborative
efforts and includes non-crime related issues that affect community well-being.
Importantly, notions of what should constitute core policing did not appear to
have been a major consideration in the shift to or away from any of the policing models
or strategies considered above. The changes were more driven by discontent, high profile
events, significant challenges facing the police, demands for more accountability, or other
external factors, but apparently not by any concerns with a drift away from core policing
responsibilities. The focus in these changes is not so much on what the police investigate
or respond to, but more on how they should respond and address calls for service, and
how they interact with community and other agencies in addressing public concerns.
There was no evidence that implementing these models was based on a conscious focus
on questions of core policing. Of note, social responsibilities were more clearly included
among the main policing functions in the POP and crime reduction models suggesting
that police viewed these issues among their responsibilities and thus could be considered
in a definition of core policing.
It is important to note that in each of these models, the police still responded to
calls for service from the public, and there was no effort to limit or stop responding to
certain types of calls. The review of these various police models found no research on the
effects on police deployment, beyond the description of the move away from reactive
policing, nor did any of the references provide any evidence to help define core policing.

16

Are core police duties or responsibilities truly defined?
Over the past ten years, there has been a growing suggestion that police have
strayed from core policing responsibilities; however, it is unclear what is meant by core
policing. As such, an examination of the historical context of policing, legislation
governing policing, and some of the drivers of the change to current police duties and
actual activities is required. There is wide agreement that Sir Robert Peel played a
seminal role in the establishment of the first public police in the 19th century in England,
(Reith, 1948; Robertson, 2012; Plummer, 1999). Peel’s nine principles of law
enforcement continue to be viewed as the foundation of policing models in Canada and
other commonwealth countries. Peel’s Principles of Law Enforcement was focused
mostly on the relationship of the police with the public, the judiciary, and the
fundamentals of an effective public police, not on the details of police responsibilities of
the police beyond the first principle, which is that “the basic mission for which police
exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to the repression of crime and
disorder by military force and severity of legal punishment” (Reith, 1948).
The Constitution Act, 1867, Section 91, provided the power in the Legislative
Authorities of Parliament to make laws for peace, order, and good government. This is
sufficiently broad to allow legislative authorities to determine the roles and
responsibilities of police. The Constitution Act, while giving parliament the authority to
make criminal law, gives power and responsibility for the administration of justice, which
includes policing, to the provinces. The following excerpt from the report by the Expert

17

Panel on the Future of Canadian Policing (2014) provides a good summary of what, in
their view, defines the police role:
…the fundamental role of Canada’s various police organizations is established through
legislation that is broadly similar on this issue: to preserve the peace; enforce the
Criminal Code; and enforce other laws in their jurisdiction, such as federal laws,
provincial regulations, or municipal bylaws.
While most police forces are required by statute to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction,
the level of further duty statutorily required differs by act, ranging from nearly no
enumerated further duties to a fairly detailed list of duties. The breadth of the roles
articulated, such as “preserving the peace,” combined with the discretion to assign
additional duties afforded by much of the legislation, suggests that Canadian police
services can be called on to play a wide range of roles (2014, p. 128).
Perhaps most importantly, significant discretion is afforded to various actors, such as
ministers, police chiefs, and police officers, to determine the duties of provincial and
municipal police forces, and how these duties need to be delivered (Robertson, 2012).
The federal Police Act, for example, permits the enumeration of further duties as
identified by the Governor in Council or the Commissioner (Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act, 1985). Similarly, Manitoba’s Police Services Act allows police chiefs to
assign duties other than those identified in the Act (Police Services Act, 2009). As a
result, the duties enumerated in statute are only the baseline, vague requirements, which
are further developed by various actors (2014, p. 29).

The following is a selection of legislation, policies, and certain guiding documents
regarding policing that serve as the legislative and regulatory basis for policing in various
jurisdictions:

British Columbia
Section 2, Police Act, RSBC, 1996, requires the minister responsible for policing
to ensure that an adequate and effective level of policing and law enforcement is
maintained throughout British Columbia. Section 4.1(3) (a) indicates that an application
for a designated policing unit must provide a description of all policing and law
enforcement services to be provided by the designated policing unit on behalf of the
entity, including a description of the geographical area within which the services are to be

18

provided. Section 4.2 (2) (c)(i) provides a broad statement of police duties and functions
as a designated policing unit:
(c) prescribing the powers, duties, and functions of the board, including,
(i) a duty to
(A) enforce, within the geographical area prescribed by the
minister, the bylaws of the local government of the area, the
criminal law, and the laws of British Columbia,
(B) generally maintain law and order in the area, and
(C) prevent crime.
There is nothing in the legislation or regulations of the Act that describe minimum levels
of service or what levels of services are required by different sizes of municipality, or
other criteria.

Ontario
The applicable Ontario legislation is the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990,
Chapter 15. Section 2 identifies the basic 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).

There are directives found under the regulations of the Police Services Act: Reg. 3/99:
Adequacy and Effectiveness of Police Services that require police agencies to establish
procedures for providing the services under the categories found in Section 2.
Under the Police Services Act, the Government of Ontario introduced a set of “adequacy
standards” in 1999 that required all police services in the province to meet a set of
requirements relating to their core policing functions (Blandford, 2004). These standards

19

have created a level of consistency across police services, but have also required them to
invest already scarce resources in a variety of areas. Blandford notes that “the province
continues to direct through the Adequacy Standards the level and quality of police service
that municipalities must maintain, but does not fund the training and capital expenditures
required to meet these standards” (Council for Canadian Academies, 2014, p. 56).

Though described as core policing functions, as with most other legislation, the
descriptions are quite broad and, at best, provide guidance to police.

Québec
The Province of Québec has taken a much more defined approach to what might
be considered the core responsibilities of police. This was accomplished by creating
requirements for six different levels of police service. The functions are listed for each
level and fall within four categories of police activities; policing, investigations,
emergency measures, and support services. Levels 1 through 5 are based on the
population of municipalities, while Level 6 are the services provided by the Sûreté de
Québec – the provincial police service – and include the specialized services provided to
all police agencies in the province. Policing of smaller communities and the rural and
remote areas in Québec are also a responsibility of the Sûreté de Québec (see Appendix A
for a detailed listing of the services required at each level of population size).
The police duties found in the Québec legislation are the most comprehensive.
The lists of duties include crime investigation, prevention of crimes, many non-crime
roles, and duties relating to keeping the peace and providing overall safety and security.
In contrast to other provincial legislation and regulations, which provide broad statements
of police services to be provided, the Québec legislation and regulations articulate
specific roles and responsibilities of police services, and are quite prescriptive with

20

respect to the services that must be provided by municipalities of certain sizes. The
Québec legislation contains some specific non-crime related duties, such as emergency
measures, peaceful crowd control, investigations of missing person, apprehension of the
mentally ill who are at risk, and investigation of workplace fatalities. This specificity was
not found in other legislation and regulations in Canada.

Manitoba
The Manitoba Police Services Act, S.M. 2009, c. 32, prescribes the following
duties:
S. 25

The duties of a police officer include
(a) preserving the public peace;
(b) preventing crime and offences against the laws in force in the
municipality;
(c) assisting victims of crime;
(d) apprehending criminals and others who may lawfully be taken
into custody;
(e) executing warrants that are to be executed by peace officers,
and performing related duties;
(f) laying charges and participating in prosecutions;
(g) enforcing municipal by-laws; and
(h) performing other duties assigned by the police chief.

No further role descriptions were found in regulations or other Manitoba legislation.

Federal/National - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
The following provides a brief description of the broad responsibilities of the
RCMP:
The RCMP enforces laws throughout Canada made by or under the authority of
Parliament. The RCMP Federal mandate, drawn from the authority and responsibility
assigned under Section 18 of the RCMP Act, is multi-faceted; it includes preventing and
investigating crime; maintaining peace and order; enforcing laws; contributing to national
security; ensuring the safety of visiting state officials and dignitaries; ensuring safety of
foreign missions; providing vital operational support services to other police and law

21

enforcement agencies within Canada and abroad (Info Source - Access to Information
and Privacy Branch, “Responsibilities.”).

The RCMP Act, a piece of federal legislation, provides only a general description of the
duties of the RCMP. Given the very wide mandate and levels of policing services
provided by the RCMP, perhaps it is expected that duty descriptions are quite general in
nature (see Appendix A for the RCMP Act ‘Duties’).

England and Wales
The primary duties of police in parts of the United Kingdom are found in
Schedule 1, Police, England and Wales, Police (Conduct) Regulations, 2004:
The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life and
property, the preservation of the Queen’s peace, and the prevention and detection of
criminal offences.

Further the Statement of Common Purpose and Values for the Police Service sets out
that:
The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime;
to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; and to keep the Queen's Peace; to
protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do all this with integrity,
common sense and sound judgement (The Select Committee on Home Affairs, 2007-08).

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary (HMIC) conducted a review on the ‘Core
Business of the Police’ with the purpose of exploring “the effectiveness of policing
activity in three important areas of police work: crime prevention; police response to
incidents and crimes; and freeing up police time” (2014: p. 20). Despite the mandate to
study the extent to which police were engaged in core business, the report does not offer a
definition of ‘core policing responsibilities’ or ‘core business,’ beyond “crime prevention
is the primary purpose of the police service. Preventing crime is the responsibility of all

22

police officers and police staff in a force” (2014: p. 22) (see Appendix A for relevant
excerpts). No other specific description of core business or core policing was found in the
review of the literature concerning policing in the United Kingdom.

Queensland, Australia
Each state in Australia is responsible for policing and creating their own
legislation with respect to laws and police duties. The core duties of the police service in
Queensland are found in the Police Service Administration Act, 1990, Queensland. The
functions of police are defined broadly as:
preservation of peace and good order; protection of all communities from unlawful
disruption of peace and good order, and; a specific identification of a responsibly of
police to respond in an emergency situation.

The wording includes references to investigation of crimes, prevention of crimes, and
‘upholding of the law generally’. Section 2.3 (g) of the act expands the broad function of
police responsibility:
the rendering of help reasonably sought, in an emergency or otherwise, as are; required of
officers under any Act or law or the reasonable expectations of the community; or
reasonably sought of officers by members of the community.

This legislation, therefore, recognizes the broader role of police in dealing with noncrime issues. Other than the inclusion of specific responsibilities for police in emergency
situations or public expectations of reasonable assistance, the functions or duties included
in this act are specific to law enforcement and prevention of crime.
Though not all-inclusive, relying on this sampling of legislation from Canada,
England and Wales, and Australia, it is evident that there is no clear, consistent, or

23

commonly agreed upon definition of core policing. To address this concern, McKenna
(1998) offered the following core functions of police in Canada:






Prevent crime;
Enforce the law;
Maintain public order;
Assist victims of crime, and;
Respond to emergencies.

Of note, these core functions are essentially identical to those found in Section 4(2) of the
Ontario Police Services Act. McKenna observed that, while there were substantial
differences among provinces with respect to core responsibilities, there were still many
similarities that could be attributed to a common criminal law in Canada and a common
history. McKenna’s summary of core duties captured the essence of the various pieces of
Canadian legislation with respect to policing.
Caputo and Vallée addressed the question of defining core policing functions in
their research and offered the following:
The first question we explored was what the participants considered to be “core” policing
functions. Not surprisingly, we found a great deal of consensus on this issue. The core
functions that were identified included responding to emergencies, enforcing the law, and
ensuring public safety. Keeping the peace and doing criminal investigations were also seen
as core policing functions. Importantly, these functions were often defined in relation to
police work done in specific work environments (e.g., downtown versus suburbs, rural
versus urban, etc.). These findings were consistent for all six police agencies and across all
ranks. In general, the participants expressed a clear sense of responsibility. Indeed, it was
obvious that they felt a tremendous obligation and sense of duty to respond if the public
needed them (2010, p. 88).

Caputo and Vallée’s definition was consistent with the other studies, using broad
statements to describe police functions, though they also highlighted that the context, or
‘specific work environments,’ influences the definition of the police work.

24

The investigation by the Council for Canadian Academies (2014), having reviewed
the various statutes and background into policing in Canada, also concluded that there
was no generally accepted definition of core policing:

Although there is no agreement on core duties at the provincial or national levels, this
discussion has been proposed as a crucial input to progress on professionalization (Council
for Canadian Academies, 2014, p. 29).

The lack of a definition of core policing is a significant barrier to any serious
consideration of reform of models of policing. Leuprecht expanded on this argument by
stating that, “In all of the jurisdictions reviewed, a major challenge is that the core
functions of the police have not been defined. This makes it difficult to identify the
parameters of the role and responsibilities of the public police, and to determine the niche
for private security, working in partnership either with the police, or in an outsourcing or
privatization arrangement” (2015, p. 1). One might surmise, based on the findings of the
literature considered in this major paper, that core policing, in its simplest form, is
considered by many to be responding to high-risk situations that necessitate a sworn,
armed, and fully trained police officer. As suggested elsewhere in this major paper, such
a narrow definition fails to consider that policing has always been much more than that.
It is again worth noting that, given the unique role of the police in society, the
description of core duties could not, and perhaps should not, be more narrowly defined.
Broader statements of the policing role and responsibilities allow for the tailoring of
services based on the context of the environment, and allows for an interpretation of and
response to local public expectations. To be sure, there are very similar views of the
policing role; however, the police role in a rural/remote environment with few

25

government or other services readily available, may be very different than public
expectations in a large municipal or metropolitan area.
Yet, in spite of there being no clear common understanding of core policing, there
are calls for reform of the policing function and the return to core policing for the police.
These assertions lead to a consideration of why has there been much recent discussion
about the role of police in Canada and calls for reform.

The interest in core policing and why it is important
Although there is a lack of a common definition for what is core policing, calls for
the reform of police functions and a return to core policing is a common theme and
recommendation found in the policing literature (Council for Canadian Academies, 2014;
Association of Municipalities Ontario, 2015; Drummond Report, 2012; Ontario
Association of Police Boards; Leuprecht, 2014). The concerns about the police role are
not uniquely a Canadian issue, but can be found in references to other national and local
police forces. For example, in the United Kingdom “the service is grappling with an
expanding, yet imprecise, mission … In 2008, the police service in England and Wales
can be characterised as having a mission that is wider than ever before and having a lack
of shared clarity amongst stakeholders about what is expected of it in relation to the
breadth of the challenge” (Quote from evidence of the Association of Chief Police
Officers to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, 2007-08).
In order to understand the reform agenda and the calls for a return to core
policing, one needs to consider some of the underlying rationale advanced to support
those views. As discussed previously, two of the main concerns are the increasing costs
of policing at a time when reported crime is down, and the belief that there is

26

unsustainability of the current policing models. Chrismas suggests that the traditional
model of policing, as well as the criminal justice system broadly, have become
unsustainable:
Another cornerstone of Canadian justice is the belief, also of European origin, in
professionalized police services with authority and responsibility for keeping the peace.
Peel’s principles of police authority and powers have remained an important part of
Canada’s social fabric (Kelling 1999). Traditions of using police as regulatory agents,
coupled with imprisonment as a deterrent to crime, have resulted in Canada’s justice
system developing a culture that is not only reactive rather than preventative but very
expensive to maintain (2013, p. 11).

As part of the traditional police response, for the most part, the police have
consistently maintained a ‘we’ll respond if no one else will,’ philosophy, (Caputo &
McIntyre, 2015; SECU, 2014; Police Modernization, AMO, 2015). Based on the
submissions to the 2015 Summit on Economics of Policing and Community Safety,
(Public Safety Canada), one of their findings was that the police were not in a position to
say no to a request for service. In other words, the police must respond. Caputo and
Vallée’s findings were that the police “felt a tremendous obligation and sense of duty to
respond if the public needed them” (2010, p. 88). Another similar finding in the
Queensland study was that police try to be “all things to all people”, partially due to
police culture and because they are often the only government department in small
communities (Sustaining the Unsustainable, 2013, pg. 239). As noted, the expectations of
the police, and indeed the public, are that the police will respond to a wide variety of calls
for service, and, while more prevalent in small and remote communities where there are
fewer government or other services, these expectations remain fairly widely held. This
aspect of police culture is certainly a significant factor in the evolution to the current state
of police service delivery. To that end, policing in Canada closely models policing in

27

most western developed countries, especially those with an English common law
foundation.
Several Canadian studies on core policing and the external factors influencing
policing reported many of the same general findings. The Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) (2014) examined what they
described as the broad issue of the economics of policing. The SECU study occurred at a
time of increasing interest in police functions and was partially in response to the
concerns of different levels of government in Canada about the increasing costs of
policing, and the growing calls for improved efficiencies and effectiveness of policing
services. The parliamentary committee’s mandate was to review the issues of the
economics of policing and to recommend changes to improve police effectiveness and
efficiency. They summarised part of their findings concerning core policing as follows:
Throughout this study, witnesses highlighted the difficulties stemming from the current
policing framework, including the absence of a clear definition of the roles and
responsibilities of each level of government in policing. A key aspect of this efficiency
and effectiveness reform is the management of public expectations about when, where,
and how police services are delivered. Witnesses stressed the importance of properly
defining core policing functions. Whereas police forces have proudly responded to each
and every call for service by dispatching an officer to attend, this can no longer continue
(SECU, 2014, p. 29).

The question of the sustainability of the current policing models was among the focuses
of other Canadian studies as well:
Generally, the RAB [Research Advisory Board] members talked about sustainability as
the police making a continuing contribution to community safety in a cost effective way,
in particular with respect to core policing services, and in order to fulfill the needs and
expectations of the community (Caputo & McIntyre, 2015, p. 266).

Leuprecht argued that increasing policing costs were at least partially driven by police
doing non-core law enforcement duties.

28

The real question is why police who are making upwards of $100,000 a year are
performing so many tasks that are not really core policing duties and that other
jurisdictions are delivering as or more effectively, efficiently, and productively through
alternative service delivery in the form of both civilianization and outsourcing (2014, p.
2).
Canadian society would be better served by debating “what kind” of police service rather
than “how much” (2014, p. 2).

The Ontario Association of Police Service Boards, in their summary paper, The Rising
Costs of Policing (2012) and the SECU (2014) inquiry drew similar conclusions; namely
that one of the main cost drivers of increased policing costs was police compensation.
The SECU (2014) report devoted a section to address the question of redefining core
policing; however, they did not provide a definition of core policing or elaborate on what
they viewed as fundamental policing responsibilities. The committee spoke of a need to
look at tiered-policing models as one solution, and they identified several promising
policing initiatives for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of policing found
throughout the world. Tiered-policing includes, in addition to sworn police officers,
Special Constables for specific duties, such as traffic control and Community-Safety
Officers, civilianisation of specialised functions not requiring a police/peace officer
status, and may include private security (McKenna, 2014; SECU, 2014). SECU (2014)
identified specific integrated, cross-sector or multi-agency programs as best or promising
practises, such as Community Mobilisation, Prince Albert; Calgary Police Service Crime
Prevention and Reduction Continuum, and the START program, Selkirk, Manitoba.
SECU’s (2014) recommendations flowed from the evidence before the committee
that policing costs had been increasing at an alarming rate, that police were increasingly
being asked to take on tasks that were non-crime related and could perhaps be done by
those who were not sworn police officers, and to address the idea the police services

29

could be more cost-effective by reducing the number of sworn police and allowing sworn
police officers to not be consumed with non-core police functions. The main substance of
their findings and recommendations were that to gain efficiency and effectiveness in
policing, alternate service delivery models were needed.
Several studies mainly focused in Ontario (Building a new public safety model in
Ontario, 2015; The Rising Costs of Policing in Ontario, 2012; Drummond Report, 2012;
Economics of Policing, Public Safety Canada, 2015) have called for reforms of policing
models or functions. Consistent with Leuprecht’s (2014) views, these studies have
identified one of the main drivers for reforms as the increased costs of policing, which
grew at a greater rate than other public sectors, especially the costs of police
compensation, coupled with the ‘scope creep’ of policing. There was general agreement
that other cost drivers include the increasing complexity of policing, legislation changes
and court decisions, increasing public expectations, and demands for more accountability
of the police.
Yet, all would agree that police services across the country are facing unprecedented
challenges. As public expectations continue to rise and calls for service increase, police
costs are spiraling to the point where the current policing model is no longer sustainable.
(SECU, 2014, p. 1).

One of the many challenges is that the fundamentals of public expectations of
police have remained unchanged. That is, the public holds the expectation that the police
will respond to a wide range of crime and non-crime calls for service. However, there is a
general recognition that public demands for service have remained constant or actually
increased, and reductions in other government services have resulted in the public relying
more on the police. The last point is especially true in rural and remote areas; however, it

30

is still prevalent in urban areas (ICURS, 2014; SECU, 2014; Ontario Association of
Police Service Boards, 2012).
In sum, increasing costs of policing and the related perceived unsustainability of
current models, in the setting of changes in the nature of crime and external pressures on
policing, have led to many recommendations for reform of current policing models and
consideration for alternative service delivery models. To move forward with examining
such recommendations, there is a need not only to consider the different contexts of
policing and to have an awareness of how policing has changed, but to understand that
the policing culture of responding to all calls if needed and the policing environment has
become ever more complex. Though not specifically identified as such in the literature,
some of the functions of police do suggest that core policing should be considered within
a broader range of the services provided by police; that is, policing includes many roles
that fall outside of core policing, but are nevertheless important roles of a police service.
This distinction has not been not generally been made, though the Québec policing
requirements, as an example, certainly contain roles detailing the both core policing and
the broader policing services to be provided. These police service responsibilities are
found elsewhere as well, such as those from Queensland and Ontario.

The Effects of the Context and Changing Complexity of Policing
The substantial increase in the complexity of policing is a key issue to consider in
the debate about core policing. One of the principal observations is that policing does not
exist in isolation, but is subject to a range of external influences that substantially effect
police service delivery. Examples of the external factors over which the police have little

31

control are the exponential growth in technology, globalisation, increased demands for
more accountability, changing public policy, increased and recurring contact with
individuals with significant social issues, and reductions in some government services
(SECU, 2014; ICURS, 2010, 2014; Council for Canadian Academies, 2014; HMIC,
2014; Minister for Police and Community Safety, 2013). The pace of these changes in
policing have accelerated during the past half-century, and the rapid changes, with their
cumulative effects, have had a significant impact on policing, as they have had on other
public sectors. The police have had to adapt to the changes and demands, often relying on
existing resources, which further increases pressures on policing (SECU, 2014;
McKenna, 2014; ICURS, 2010). These changes have affected policing in different ways
dependent on context, and, as a result, core policing might be defined differently based on
the context of policing. An integral part of the studies of the complexity of policing, and
its effect on core-policing functions, is the need to understand the different contexts under
which policing functions (ICURS, 2010).
The Canadian policing landscape is characterized by the vastness of our country, its
cultural diversity and its jurisdictional framework. This reality is at the core of many of
the challenges inherent to the delivery of efficient and effective police services (SECU,
2014, p. 2).
One recent study conducted by the University of the Fraser Valley in B.C. showed that
the work of police officers has changed significantly over the last 10 years, post charter
and subsequent to any legislative and regulatory changes in the 1980s and 1990s, with
breaking and entering at 58% more processing time, driving under the influence at 250%
more processing time, and a relatively simple domestic assault at 950% more processing
time (SECU, 2014, p. 19).

Another section of the SECU (2014) inquiry was devoted to the “cost drivers and
challenges unique to small, rural and Northern communities, including Aboriginal
policing” (SECU, 2014, p. 21). While this aspect of the differences and challenges for

32

policing in those communities is not being explored in this major paper, it is certainly
noteworthy. The context of policing in those environments would require extensive
study; however, suffice to say, the context and challenges of looking at police service
delivery in Aboriginal communities, rural, and remote locations is critical to the
discussion about reforming policing, and more so given that these areas are often
overlooked in research.
Several research studies and reviews addressed the broad question of the
economics of policing and some of the drivers affecting policing (ICURS, 2014; SECU,
2014; Leuprecht, 2014, 2015; Association of Municipalities Ontario, 2015). The ICURS
study (2014) and the SECU report (2014), in particular, drew similar conclusions
identifying a number of dynamics affecting contemporary policing in Canada, and also
examined the contextual differences in policing, especially between the rural and remote
areas, and the medium and large municipalities. ICURS also pointed to increased
demands for accountability, increases and changes in public expectations, and
technological changes as effecting policing in recent decades. The authors opined that
there has always been a continual evolution of policing – shifting in response to many,
primarily external forces, and including a wide-range of activities. “The earliest days of
policing saw police officers performing a wide variety of roles – many of which would
now be described as social services work – rather than what most would think of as
police work in the modern sense” (Complexity of Policing, ICURS, 2010, p. 1).
The qualitative component of the ICURS Economics of Policing (2014) research
consisted of a series of focus groups wherein sworn police officers and support staff from
RCMP detachments and municipal police services of varying sizes and geographical

33

locations were interviewed about the changes they experienced during their service in
police work, and contrasted those with current demands on policing. The following were
the general and most significant findings from the focus groups:
1. the crime rate has only a limited relationship to policing work volume;
2. police work has continued to expand in complexity since the original “30 Year
Study”,5 and;
3. more and increasingly complex tasks and responsibilities being demanded of
police increased the costs of these services (ICURS, 2014, p. 13).
The participants described a “highly dynamic environment during the preceding decade”
(ICURS, 2014, p. 23), with public expectations and demands increasing, in conjunction
with changes in technology, including the need for increased data collection. Further,
there were consistent views that investigations were more complex, resource intensive,
and time-consuming, and that members wanted more time for crime prevention activities,
as crime prevention efforts often were put aside to deal with complaints and follow-up
duties. Police members also reported an increased burden of less serious calls for service.
The researchers found a range of police response models, from police jurisdictions with a
‘No call too small’ approach to models where police did not respond to all complaints,
but used a prioritization model, whereby police prioritize calls based on importance,
urgency, or solvability, that is, considering whether there are suspects, vehicle
descriptions, or other possible avenues of investigation. The different local response
models seemed to be driven, at least in part by public expectations in a particular
jurisdiction. There were variations in how events were recorded as well, and the

5 Malm et al., A 30 Year Analysis of Police Service Delivery and Costing. University of the Fraser Valley

and the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University, 2005 .

34

researchers noted it to would be hard to empirically assess these aspects of police
response models or to directly compare different jurisdictions.
Part of the quantitative research in the ICURS (2014) study examined the
proportion of calls for police service that were crime versus non-crime in nature. The
review of the PRIME BC data for the RCMP units in British Columbia found that
approximately 30% of all PRIME events were reported in the Uniform Crime Reports
(UCR), while the remaining events were not, that is: police recorded events which were
not crime related, but still require some action on the police. This is consistent with the
percentages reported by many police agencies in Canada and other literature (Millie &
Bullock, 2013; Andresen, 2016; Public Safety Canada, 2015). As UCR police reported
events represent only a portion of police activities, other data concerning police activities
must be considered when investigating the police role. It is necessary to consider the full
range of police services provided when examining questions of complexity of policing,
the current police role, and the future role of policing. Without considering this full range
of police services, beyond what might be considered core policing, the result of such an
examination would be incomplete and therefore of limited value in developing
alternatives.
While few would suggest the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and many of the
other legislative and policy changes were not positive developments in Canada, these
pieces of legislation resulted in substantial changes to day-to-day police work. While
providing more tools and authorities to police, there were frequently unanticipated
corresponding increases to police procedures, some quite onerous. For example, the

35

Stinchcombe decision6 is often cited Canadian case law that resulted in a very significant
onus being put on police. The Supreme Court ruling was that an accused was entitled to
full disclosure of relevant investigative materials by the prosecution. There were
subsequent court interpretations that expanded on this ruling requiring additional
requirements for disclosure. The majority of the responsibility for collecting and
preparing the material fell to police, not the prosecution, and the police took on these
tasks with no new resources.
In Canada, the judicial system has become increasingly complex and demanding
(SECU, 2014; ICURS, 2010; Council for Canadian Academies, 2014), and one might
argue that Canada no longer have a criminal justice system, but a criminal legal system
more grounded in process, procedure, and case law, and, that those complexities are not
conducive to nimble policing (SECU, 2014; Council of Canadian Academies, 2014;
ICURS, 2014). Police are unable to circumvent investigative processes or procedures for
the sake of expediency to not compromise prosecutions that can have the added effect of
undermining public confidence. Examples include being adherence to Charter rights with
respect to arrest, search and seizure, or, ensuring they do not have ‘tunnel vision,’ which
might limit the scope of an investigation. Similarly, the Core Business (HMIC, 2014)
study found that in an environment of increasing demands for police to reform, the
expectations have not changed from key institutions, such as the courts, and, in fact,
many decisions are made that result in unforeseen, often significant consequences for the
police, such as the Stinchcombe decision mentioned previously, and the Feeney and

6 R v Stinchcombe, SCC, [1991] 3 SCR 326.

36

Jordan decisions7. R v. Feeney is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that found a
warrantless arrest in a residence was unconstitutional and, as a consequence of the
decision, a search warrant is required to enter a residence to effect an arrest, placing
additional requirements on police. R v Jordan requires trials to proceed within a specified
period or the charges will be dismissed for unreasonable delay. This decision resulted in
significant pressures being placed on police to promptly prepare investigations to support
prosecution. In these cases, there was no consideration for the effect that this would have
on police operations and resourcing.
Canadian courts are primarily concerned with ensuring Charter rights and legal
procedures are respected, not with whether there may be additional costs in time or
expenditures for police, prosecution, and other institutions. Frequently, the burden for
many of the additional processes or tasks required to comply with changes have fallen on
the police (ICURS, 2014; SECU, 2014; Young, et al, 2010; Association of Municipalities
of Ontario, 2015). As a result, there are increased tasks required of the police, often with
no new resources, and, therefore, in conjunction with their non-crime calls for service,
there are additional pressures on police response. The previous example of the
Stinchcombe decision illustrates this very well.
Many of the activities police routinely engage in are non-crime related, such as
responding to calls involving persons with mental illness at risk to themselves, missing
persons, sudden death investigations, and response to disasters. A provisional report

7 R v Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13, and R v Jordan, [2016] SCC 27.

37

referenced in HMIC (2014) found that approximately two-thirds of calls for service were
non-crime related, while ICURS (2014) reported that approximately 70% of police calls
for service were not reported to Statistics Canada as crimes. The HMIC (2014) study
provided a detailed analysis of the types and extent of police time involved in the noncrime calls, and the report made specific mention of calls for service involving persons
with mental illness, and assistance on ambulance calls where persons are injured, as
consuming significant police time.
The research, The Nature of General Police Work (1996), from Queensland,
Australia, also considered what activities police were occupied with. The researchers
found that much of police work or police activities were non-crime related activities. An
examination of one specific jurisdiction demonstrated that the majority of calls for
service were categorized as disturbances, described as “unruly or rowdy behaviour,
neighbourhood disputes, offensive language and complaint of loud or excessive noise.”
Many of these matters involved ‘public order’ problems, rather than criminal offences
(Criminal Justice Commission Research Paper Series, Queensland, 1996, p. 4). Many of
the remaining calls for service were also non-crime related, such as investigations of
motor vehicle collisions, general assistance to the public, and responding to family
disputes. This study found police devoted very little time to prevention or proactive
duties. The researchers observed, as many other studies have concluded, that many, both
within policing and outside police organizations, see the primary responsibility of police
to investigate crime, yet this represents fewer than half the police time recorded and calls
for service by type (HMIC, 2014; AMO, 2015; Leuprecht, 2015; OAPSB, 2012).

38

Ruddell, in describing the origins of policing in western Canada, found
“governments of the day recognized that only a fraction of their duties were enforcementrelated, and the Mounted Police also had responsibilities for social service roles as few
alternatives existed in the countryside” (2017, p. 55). Ruddell (2017) further wrote in
describing the duties of the North-West Mounted Police (NWMP) in the Yukon that:
… members of the NWMP in the Klondike acted as jailers, justices of the peace, Indian
agents, postal workers, land agents, mining recorders, coroners, returning officers during
elections, as well as serving as customs agents and bank guards (p. 57), and,
‘Some of those non-enforcement duties are still done today – especially in some rural areas
where no alternatives exist’ (2017, p. 57-58).

The Expert Panel, Policing Canada in the 21st Century (2014), did not touch on the role
of police beyond a high-level discussion about the need to rethink the role of the police
within the broader safety and security web. They concluded that, “crime is changing in
several important ways not always reflected in crime statistics or effectively addressed
through traditional policing practices. Society is also changing and, with it, the demands
and expectations it places on police” (Council for Canadian Academies, 2014, p. 14). The
expert panel did recommend, “moving beyond the generalist model of policing” (Council
for Canadian Academies, 2014, p. 9), meaning there was a benefit to finding an
appropriate mix of sworn police to civilian and specialist personnel. In an effort to define
the role of frontline policing, the panel refer to the model in England and Wales found in
HMIC (2011), “In an alternative and more informative approach to categorizing the
workforce, reporting in England and Wales distinguishes front-line police work from
middle and back of front line police roles: The police front line comprises those who are
in everyday contact with the public and who directly intervene to keep people safe and
enforce the law” (Council for Canadian Academies, 2014, p. 94). This is essentially the

39

same argument put forward for tiered-policing and revamping of models of policing
discussed in the previous section.
One specific and relevant recent study is ‘What do police do and where do they do
it?’ (Andresen et al., 2016). This paper looked at a small municipal police department in
suburban British Columbia by analysing PRIME BC data to look at police activities over
several years. The paper described the context of policing costs comparatively, the
influences of the evolving complexity of policing, the mix of police activities, and what
the police do and where they do it. The study disaggregated police activities into the
following categories; violent crime, property crime, other crime, public safety and
welfare, traffic, by-law enforcement, drugs and alcohol, and miscellaneous. The
researchers identified a ‘public safety and welfare’ category of calls for service as
encompassing the bulk of the non-crime related police activities. Andresen et al. (2016)
found that 50% of recorded police events fell within this category, while the crime events
reported to Statistics Canada ranged between 20% to 30% annually, which was consistent
with the findings of other research (Caputo & McIntyre, 2015; SECU, 2014; ICURS,
2014; Criminal Justice Commission Research Paper Series, 1996).
Few pieces of research have really identified or at least highlighted that the
reduction in reported crimes is mainly in the property and other Criminal Code
categories; incidents that the police often devote little or no time to. The drop in reported
crimes, therefore, has had little effect on how busy the police are. It is also important to
remember the complexity of crimes and the complexity of investigations have contributed
significantly to making policing ever more challenging. As crimes become more
complex, police often adjust by reducing their responses to less serious crimes, non-

40

injury motor-vehicle collisions, and alarms. As one would expect, police focus on the
more serious crimes, those crimes with some likelihood of being solved, and the
important non-crime related activities that only the police can do.
The increased and ever increasing complexity of policing is a key consideration in
any discussion about police mandate, especially when discussing reform and policies to
improve efficiencies and effectiveness. The myriad of external factors, such as case law,
demands for more accountability, and changes in technology, often over which the police
have little or no control, influence to a very large extend what the police do and how they
do it.

Methodology
At the outset of the research for this major paper, there were thought to be
differences in the mix of police event types based on community size, geographic
location and remoteness, and the general services available in those communities. Some
studies identified differing challenges for police in these various locations (ICURS, 2014;
Young, 2010; SECU, 2014). For instance, based on Statistics Canada crime reports, one
might expect there to be more violent crimes in smaller rural and remote jurisdictions
compared to larger municipal areas. Identifying these differences, if any, was part of the
examination of the nature of the police events and calls for service overall. This analysis
allowed for an examination of the scope of current police work, to compare the ratios of
crime versus non-crime calls for service, to make some assessments of how this relates to
‘core’ policing duties, and what might be the policy considerations and implications for
contemporary policing and policing in the future.

41

For the purposes of examining what activities the police are actually engaged in,
the following data sets were analysed:
1) PRIME BC police records event data for a sampling of RCMP detachments in
British Columbia between 2013 to 2015 inclusive; and
2) Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) data for a sampling of RCMP detachments
in British Columbia for 2015.8

The detachment level data was used to capture the actual activities of general duty,
uniformed police officers who respond to and investigate routine matters not requiring
special expertise. PRIME event data for municipal police departments, specialised units,
and the federal enforcement units was not available and, therefore, not considered in
these analyses. The RCMP data selected for analysis provided a good cross section of
policing jurisdictions based on detachment size and geography and over a sufficient time
frame to do the analysis. The dataset did not contain sufficient detail to allow for
differentiation of preventative or proactive measures undertaken by police, as opposed to
reported and response activities of the general duty police officer. In effect, the data was
simply the basic police event data and CAD calls for service data for detachments.
In terms of the advantages in using this type of data, RCMP and all police
departments in British Columbia use one records management system, PRIME BC, and
use the same event scoring codes, which serve both to satisfy reporting for the UCR2
Survey and as a record keeping function for all other events, as well. The RCMP follow
the same set of policies and business practises with respect to recording of event

8 De-identified police data obtained through a Memorandum of Understanding between “E” Division

RCMP (British Columbia) and the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies (ICURS), Simon
Fraser University. No personal information was available to the researcher. Access to the data for the
purposes of this research project was approved by Dr. Patricia Brantingham, Director, ICURS.

42

information, and the RCMP use additional event and statistical event codes that are
consistent throughout the province. Similarly, CAD Priority Levels and Code definitions
are standard throughout British Columbia. The initial CAD coding was used in the
analysis, which is determined by call-takers who, based in the information provided, set
the priority of the call relying on standardised policies and procedures. In terms of
limitations, though there are standard codes, there remain some different interpretations
and practises with respect to scoring rules. Some localized practises are evident where
there might be some inconsistencies between detachment. For example, one detachment
may use Disturb Peace significantly more frequently than another detachment because a
local practise may have developed to code certain routine events under a particular
classification when the event does not fit neatly into a specific event description. The
series descriptions in PRIME for the events reported through the UCR2 Survey to
Statistics Canada align with the Statistics Canada “Data Elements and Violation Coding
Structure for the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey 2” and can be found in Appendix C.
The analyses in this major paper considered the context of police activity and, for
the purposes of examining what the police are doing, the analyses considered what police
activities were core policing duties. To better understand the context of policing, the
PRIME BC data and CAD data were analysed under four categories of police
jurisdictions or jurisdictional groupings in British Columbia developed for this major
paper. The groupings were: large municipal, medium municipal, medium rural (with a
built up rural population), and rural/remote jurisdictions. These groupings were
developed to provide a good cross-section of jurisdiction types, and the individual
detachments within each group were selected to provide a good sample of detachment

43

type within that grouping. The large municipal detachments have a variety of other
services available, similar to what would be found in most larger municipalities in
Canada, such as dedicated Bylaw Enforcement Departments, essential government
services, such as Social Services, and full-range medical facilities, including mental
health facilities. Three of a possible six large municipal detachments were selected for the
sample. The Medium-Municipal detachments are outside the built up large metropolitan
area, serve as a regional hub for other government services, yet are similar and allow for
‘bundling’ for comparison purposes with the other detachments within that grouping.
There were 22 detachments identified as Medium-Municipal detachments in the province.
The Medium-Rural detachments differ in that they also have a significant built up rural
area nearby and which serve, to a certain extent, as a smaller ‘metro area’. These areas
have essential government services, though not the extended full-range of services found
in large municipalities. In total, 46 detachments were designated for the Medium-Rural
group. Both the Medium Municipal and the Medium Rural detachments have some
specialised police services though not the full range of these services. The Remote-Rural
detachments were selected as these detachments have only the basic government services,
and do not have the full range of specialised police services readily available. In total, 56
detachments were identified as Rural-Remote.
The following is a description of each detachment’s jurisdiction within the
jurisdictional groupings.
Large Municipal
LM – 1


Large city in a large metropolitan area of lower mainland British Columbia,
bordered by other large municipalities.

44




Population Served: Urban population 323,000.
Community Services: Full range of services.

LM – 2




Large city in a large metropolitan area of lower mainland British Columbia,
bordered by other large municipalities.
Population Served: Urban population of approximately 525,000.
Community Services: Full range of services.

Medium Municipal
MM – 1




Medium large city. A regional hub in the Northern central part of the
province. In addition to policing the city, the detachment polices a number
of smaller communities and one First Nations reserve.
Population Served: City of 74,000, and total population served including the
surrounding area is 87,000.
Community Services: Full range of services as it serves as a regional centre.

MM – 2




This is a regional detachment serving two medium sized cities, a number of
smaller communities, and two First Nations reserves.
Population Served: The population of the two cities are 24,000 and 15,000,
respectively. The population of the surrounding area policed is 22,300. The
population of the two First Nations communities total 800.
Services: Medium-high level of services.

Medium Rural
MR – 1


This is a hub detachment consisting of one large office providing central
services to three community/satellite offices in three larger towns. There are
a number of First Nations bands serviced by the various offices. The
detachment area includes two major highways and number of recreational
areas.

45




Population Served: The main office polices a city of 84,000. The total
population in surrounding area 66,000, with the population of the First
Nation bands being 2,600.
Community Services: Medium to medium-high range of services

MR – 2




This detachment is situated in a small regional hub city. The detachment
serves a small city and a built up area comprise of a number of smaller
communities.
Population Served: City of 7,800 and the surrounding area with additional
population of 8,000.
Community Services: Medium level of services.

MR – 3





The detachment is situated in a small regional hub in the central part of the
province. The detachment provides police service to a medium-small city,
and to smaller towns and villages, as well as rural areas, and one First
Nation reserve.
Population Served: Main community, medium-small city of 12,000 with
total population including the surrounding area of 18,000. This is a smaller
regional hub.
Community Services: Medium level of services.

Rural Remote
RR – 1




The detachment is situated in an isolated remote location and polices a
number of small communities including one town, some villages, three First
Nations communities, and a sparsely populated rural area.
Population Served: The main community population is 1,800, and total
population served is 5,000, of which 1,250 are First Nations communities
Community Services: There are few services. Nearest major centre is two
hours in normal conditions.

RR – 2


This detachment is isolated and remote. The detachment is situated in a
village and also provides policing services to one First Nation reserve. The
46




community is approximately six hours drive, under normal conditions, to a
medium sized city that serves as a regional hub.
Population Served: Village and surrounding area population 1,500, as well
at a First Nation reserve of 700.
Community Services: Remote, with few services.

RR – 3




The detachment is situated on a First Nation reserve. It is a coastal
community, very remote, and isolated. Jurisdiction has a large geographic
area, sparsely populated. Many services must be provided by boat access.
Population Served: 1,400.
Community Services: There are few services.

PRIME BC - Event Data
The PRIME Event data for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015 was analyzed by UCR
event category, whether they were actual offences, unfounded, some type of assistance,
and by other non-crime type events. The PRIME reporting of events served two purposes.
Any founded criminal offences are recorded and submitted to Statistics Canada and all
events are recorded and classified for police record management purposes; that is
maintaining a historical record of police recorded events (PRIME event files are
maintained for varying lengths of time dependent on file retention requirements and
policies). The three years of data selected contain all events recorded as no files had, to
that point, been deleted or purged from the system.
For the analysis of the recorded events, the PRIME Event Codes were used to
identify the primary nature of the event. The RCMP Occurrence Code Table (UCR and
Survey Codes) is broken down by series as follows:
1000 series: Criminal Code Crimes against persons

47

2000 series: Criminal Code Offences against property
3000 series: Other Criminal Code violations
4000 series: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violations
6000 series: Other Federal statute violations
7000 series: Provincial Statistics codes
8000 series: RCMP Statistics codes (all non-crime events), and
9000 series: Traffic violations
Note: 5000 series is reserved and not used in PRIME coding.
Appendix C provides a more detailed listing of UCR2 codes by category aligned with the
reportable series code descriptions above. Under Series 9000, Statistics Canada collects
only the Criminal Code traffic offences, not provincial statute or bylaw offences.
Statistics Canada reporting rules provide that only founded criminal offences are
included in police reported crimes. In cases where there are multiple offences arising
from the same incident, only the most serious is reported. Primary event codes may be
supplemented by either additional offense codes or by the various RCMP Survey Codes
to capture other police activities associated to a particular incident. Many events in
PRIME have more than one UCR code associated with that event, indicating that the
event had many elements or offences requiring police attention. However, Statistics
Canada only reports the most serious offence. Given this, Statistics Canada police
reported crimes underreport the actual number of offences in Canada. Also, Statistics
Canada does not recognize police activities for those incidents that are unfounded or
unsubstantiated.
PRIME events data also captures self-generated incidents, such as impaired driving,
drug seizures, and investigations detected during patrol. In addition, police routinely deal
with a multitude of non-crime activities. The non-crime events, those in which there is no
criminal offense recognised by Statistics Canada, along with the unfounded and

48

unsubstantiated events, are considered in these analyses as the police have taken some
action. Again, this is necessary as it is the actual police activities that the police engage in
that is part of the focus of analysis in this major paper.
The RCMP in British Columbia use a unique event scoring practice in which
certain events that are not reportable to Statistics Canada are captured identified by a Zcode prefix. Again, these are various police activities that can consume a considerable
amount of police effort and, therefore, are considered in these analyses. As an example,
imagine a person apprehended for his or her own safety under the Mental Health Act.
There has been no actual offence committed. There are certain offences in the Mental
Health Act; however, apprehension in such a circumstance is not. The coding of the
PRIME file in RCMP jurisdictions would be scored using a Z-Code prefix. The PRIME
BC events data used in this analysis comprised 1,802,359 event code records (Table 1).
Table 1 – PRIME Event Files (2013 - 2015) by Jurisdictional Grouping
Jurisdiction Grouping
PRIME Event Codes –
2013 - 2015
Large Municipal - LM-1 & LM - 2
916,430
Medium Municipal - MM-1, MM-2 & MM - 3
492,942
Medium Rural – MR-1, MR – 2, MR- 3 & MR – 4
371,708
Remote/Rural - RR-1, RR – 2 & RR - 3
21,279
Total PRIME Events
1,802,359

Computer-Aided Dispatch – CAD Calls for Service
The analyses of CAD calls provide a different perspective of police activities, as
these generally indicate what events the police actually respond to and spend some time
and resources on. A number of PRIME event files are recorded for information only and
there is no police effort expended. Examples might be minor thefts or frauds where the
value of the goods stolen or fraudulently obtained is not of high value and there are no
49

suspects or investigative avenues to pursue. As noted previously, some larger police
jurisdictions have implemented on-line reporting of these crimes. CAD data, therefore,
provides some insight into what events police attend and take some action on. More indepth analysis of the PRIME and CAD data would be required for better reconciliation of
which events police actually attended, and that depth of analysis is not possible with the
level of detail available in the data for this major paper.
Examination of the CAD data revealed some concerns about missing data. For
instance, the times recorded on the CAD file do not accurately reflect the actual efforts of
all police on scene, and, once the CAD file is converted to a PRIME file, the follow-up
times for investigation, paper-work, and other requirements to complete an investigation
are not recorded. Given this, no analysis was conducted on the time or effort expended on
any particular event. Regardless, the analysis does provide insight into what events the
police responded to and took some action, and sets the context for considering what
current police functions or duties might be devolved to other agencies, stop doing
entirely, or should be retained by police. CAD does not identify multiple crimes from the
initial CAD call. Multiple crimes or different activities police must perform flowing from
one event are not recorded in CAD; however, this information would, in most cases, be
captured more accurately in the PRIME event file. For example, drugs found subsequent
to an arrest or other more serious offences would be recorded in the PRIME General
Occurrence file.
For the purposes of this major paper, only the initial CAD call code was used, as
this was the information available to police at first response. In RCMP jurisdictions, the
vast majority of CAD calls for service result in a PRIME event file being created. Some

50

Priority 4, the lowest response priority for a CAD call, are not always attended to,
especially in large urban detachments where the higher priority calls consume much of
the investigators time, but may be dealt with without attendance (ICURS, 2010; ICURS,
2014).
The CAD Event Code is determined by the call taker after obtaining relevant
information using a standard set of questions to categorize the event. There is a system
default for the Priority of the particular Event Type; however, the call taker can override
the Priority setting based on the information provided. There is discretion provided the
call taker, but there is an attempt to limit the subjectivity of the call by using standardised
procedures. Provincial CAD Priority Level Descriptions and CAD Code descriptions are
found in Appendix D.
One year of CAD calls for service (n = 374,123) were analyzed for the ten RCMP
detachments in the sample group. The detachments sampled were then placed in their
respective jurisdictional grouping for comparison purposes. A sample size of one year of
CAD calls was deemed sufficient given the sample size. As would be expected, the large
municipal detachments received a large number of calls for service and the number of
calls per detachment ranged to a small number of calls in the Rural/remote grouping,
primarily reflecting the population and make up of the communities served and the size
of the detachment resources. The CAD calls were analyzed by the type of call (CAD
Code), the Priority assigned to the calls, and the nature of the calls. The nature of the calls
for service is important because not all calls require similar effort and expenditure of
resources, and there are differing levels of complexity of the investigation. The
hypothesis is there would be differences in the nature of the calls for service between

51

jurisdictional groupings reflecting the context of the work in the various detachments in
the sample.
Table 2 provides the number of CAD calls for service by jurisdiction and by
jurisdictional grouping. The number of calls for service in the one year period varied
greatly considering the population within each jurisdiction.
Table 2 – CAD Calls for Service (2015) by Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Grouping
Jurisdiction
Large Municipal – LM-1
Large Municipal – LM-2
Medium Municipal – MM-1
Medium Municipal – MM-2
Medium Rural – MR-1
Medium Rural – MR-2
Medium Rural – MR-3
Remote/Rural – RR-1
Rural/Remote – RR-2
Rural/Remote – RR-3
Total CAD CFS

CAD Calls for Service – (CFS)
2015
60,148
184,865
40,171
16,891
51,516
4434
11,349
3,298
601
850
374,123

Jurisdictional
Groupings
Large Municipal
Large Municipal
Medium Municipal
Medium Municipal
Medium Rural
Medium Rural
Medium Rural
Rural Remote
Rural Remote
Rural Remote
374,123

The most frequent events and calls for service by detachment in the CAD call data was
sorted and aggregated by jurisdictional group.
It was anticipated a majority of the PRIME event files and a majority of the CAD
calls for service were non-crime related and that there would be differences in the mix of
events and calls for service based on the context of the jurisdiction. This information is
considered important in understanding what the police currently do and this
understanding must be a precursor to any discussion of policing functions or changes to
policing functions or models.

Analyses
PRIME Events

52

Figure 1 presents the percentages of all crime events recorded, including those
additional crimes not reported to Statistics Canada. This data excludes provincial and
bylaw offences and the RCMP Statistical Codes for other police activities not captured by
UCR data. Figure 1 represents the mix of crime events dealt with by jurisdictional
grouping. Of interest is the higher percentage of violent crimes (Series 1000) in the
Rural/Remote jurisdictions (22% of all crime events recorded) compared to, on average,
13% for the other jurisdictional groupings. The 2000 series (Criminal Code – Property)
dominated the other three jurisdictional grouping; Large Municipal (61%), Medium
Municipal (45%), Medium Rural (43%), and Rural/Remote (33%).
The Criminal Code Property and Criminal Code Other offences represent
approximately three-quarters of the reported crime in the Large Municipal, Medium
Municipal, and Municipal Rural jurisdictions, and approximately 70% of the
Rural/Remote jurisdictions. Moreover, Criminal Code Traffic offences represented a
similar percentage of reported crimes in all jurisdictional groupings. Noteworthy is that
many traffic offences are self-generated or the result of proactive policing activities, not
necessarily the result of responding to a complaint from the public, though as will be seen
in the analysis of CAD calls, Traffic complaints are among the most frequently
dispatched calls.
On a percentage basis, the 4000, 6000, and 9000 series are fairly consistent across
all jurisdictional groupings. The significant differences are evident in violent crime
(1000) in the Rural/Remote, and the Criminal Code – Property (2000) crimes in the large
municipal detachments.

53

Figure 1: Comparative Chart of PRIME Events by UCR Series Code
70%

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UCR 1000

UCR 2000

Large Municipal

UCR 3000

Medium Municipal

UCR 4000

UCR 6000

Municipal Rural

UCR 9000

Rural Remote

The data presented in Figure 1 supports the hypothesis that there is a different mix
of crime events reported to police based on the geography, remoteness, and other factors.
Another important observation of the greater percentage of violent crimes found in the
rural/remote areas is that violent crime investigation generally takes more time and
resources to investigate, and the incidents are not as readily concluded with minimal
action, as is the case with other reported crimes. Further, the support services available to
the rural and remote jurisdictions are more limited than in larger jurisdictions (ICURS,
2010, 2014). For example, Forensic Identification Sections and plain-clothes detectives
are often regional resources that attend only the most serious crimes. Therefore, the
general duty uniformed police officer in those smaller or more remote locations often will
fill those roles increasing the complexity and demands for the individual police officer in

54

dealing with some incidents. The findings from Figure 1 will be further considered at the
end of the Analysis section when looking at all the results from all the analyses.
The data presented in Figure 2 indicates that the majority of PRIME events are noncrime and not reported to Statistics Canada. The 8000 series in each jurisdictional
grouping dominate the events. This series contains many common occurrences, such as
Prisoners Held, Intoxicated Persons, Motor Vehicle Collisions, Mental Health Act
apprehensions, provincial driving offences, court document service, and missing persons.
Some of the 8000 series incidents recorded are supplemental codes to other incidents that
are higher precedent in the same event. As an example, Vehicles Impounded is frequently
associated to impaired driving investigations or roadside suspensions. Such Statistical
Codes serve to track other police activity in PRIME as part of the police records
management system. There are certain PRIME event files created for information
purposes, such as minor crimes reported for insurance purposes, or other minor events to
which police do not respond.
The events found in Figure 2 represent a full range of the types of complaints and
crime reported to police, the majority of which result in some police action. If these
complaints to police, with their associated incidental events and activities, reflect the
public’s expectations of police, these mixes of PRIME events are informative in
determining what might be considered core policing and illustrate what activities fall
within the broader services provided by police.
Of note, one cannot presume that the crime calls are necessarily of higher priority
or importance than the non-crime events. As noted in the literature review, there are
many non-crime related calls that are urgent and/or of high importance, such as missing

55

persons, especially missing children, missing elderly with medical conditions, or missing
persons under suspicious circumstances. Similarly, investigations of very serious motor
vehicle collisions or sudden deaths are frequently lengthy and resource consuming
investigations.
Finally, the less serious property crimes and other Criminal Code events often
receive the least police attention; however, an ICURS (2014) finding from the focus
groups of police personnel was that smaller detachments tended to not only record more
of the less serious reported incidents, but responded and conducted follow-up
investigation more frequently than police officers in larger jurisdictions. This may be a
reflection of differing expectations of the public in smaller communities. As mentioned
above, the data presented in Figure 2 demonstrates that the mix of calls is generally
consistent across all groupings and illustrates the significant percentage of non-crime
events.
Figure 2: Comparative Chart of All Recorded Police Events on PRIME
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UCR 10006000

UCR 7000

Large Municipal

UCR 9000

Total 8000 Z 1000-6000

Medium Municipal

Municipal Rural

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Calls for Service

56

Z 7000

Z 9000

Rural Remote

The CAD data set was described in the Project Methodology Computer-Aided
Dispatch – CAD Calls for Service section previously. To aid in interpreting the CAD
Priority levels data, the following are the standard event priority definitions as approved
by the British Columbia Provincial CAD Committee:
Priority 1 – Urgent Response Incidents that involve life threatening circumstances
and situations that produce or is likely to produce serious bodily injury and/or
death to any person.
Priority 2 - Immediate Response Incidents in progress that present the potential
for injury or property damage/loss or requires immediate response due to the state
of the victim or seriousness of the call.
Priority 3 - Routine Response Non- urgent routine service related calls that do not
require an officer immediately but need investigation, mediation or intervention.
Priority 4 - Routine Response Where the call does not require a quick response
from an officer or the call is handled over the telephone (agency dependent).
As demonstrated in Figure 3, though within a range of 1.9% to 4.4%, there is some
consistency in the overall percentage of the total Priority 1 calls for service across
jurisdictional groupings. Conversely, there is considerable variability between Priorities 2
and 3 calls for service between the jurisdictional groupings. The Priority 4 calls for
service demonstrate the most consistency across jurisdictional groupings. Some of the
variability can be accounted for because of local dispatch practises, such as differences
based on the information provided the dispatcher and dispatcher discretion following
their assessment of the nature of the complaint. For example, in the Municipal Rural
grouping, Suicide calls show up as both Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls for service and
Abandoned 911 calls in the Large Municipal grouping are either Priority 2 or Priority 3.
Further, Figure 3 contains the results of an analysis of the Priority levels assigned to
CAD calls for service. Priority 2 calls for service ranged from 21.2% in the Rural Remote

57

jurisdictions to 52.2% in Large Municipal jurisdictions, while the Priority 3 calls for
service ranged from 43.8% in the Large Municipal jurisdictions to 77.8% in the Rural
Remote. While the differences might be partially explained by localised practises, what is
important is that the nature of the calls were deemed sufficiently important to be assigned
Priority 2 response 31.7% of the time. Though the amount of time or police effort was not
considered in this analysis, as a point of observation, the time-consumption does not
necessarily relate to the priority level assigned to the initial call. Some higher priority
calls, such as Abandoned 911 calls, might be resolved very quickly, while an assault,
missing person, or a Break and Enter investigation may require a great many resources
involved over an extended period of time.
Figure 3 – Initial CAD Call Priority Percentages by Jurisdictional Grouping
70.0%
60.0%

55.3

50.0%

59.1
51.2

42.9

40.0%

35.0

33.9

30.0%

22.5

21.0

18.3 17.7

20.0%
10.0%

12.9

15.5

3.7 4.4 1.9 4.2

0.0%
Large Municipal

Medium Municipal

Municipal Rural

Rural Remote

In Table 3, the Top 10 CAD calls for service in each jurisdictional grouping were
considered. There was considerable consistency found among the Top 10 CAD calls for

58

service by grouping in the Priority 1 category and, as might be expected, calls for service
in Priority 1 include calls for Domestic Disputes in Progress, Suicide, Weapon, Injury
Motor Vehicle Collisions, Robberies, Assaults in Progress. In the MM, MR, and RR
groupings, Missing Child was included as a Priority 1 calls for service. Seven CAD calls
for service codes are found in each jurisdictional grouping, with a total of 12 different
codes in the Top 10 of Priority 1. In the Priority 2 calls for service across jurisdictions,
there were five codes found in each jurisdictional grouping, and an additional three of the
Top 10 Priority 2 calls for service were found in three of the jurisdictional groupings.
Again, there was a great deal of consistency across jurisdictional groupings. Reflecting
the nature of the information provided and the determined urgency of response, Domestic
Disputes also appear in Priority 2 calls for service. Priority 4 calls for service are also
fairly consistent and contain nothing remarkable as those incidents generally are reported
after the fact and are, at that point, not urgent. Crimes in progress, especially those
involving violence and incidents involving injury or potential injury, such as Suicide,
Injury motor vehicle collisions, and Missing Child, are assigned higher priority.
Some of the calls for service appearing in Table 3 can be very time consuming,
though they are frequently not of the highest priority. Generally, the examination of the
priority levels assigned the calls for service was, in and of itself, not informative of what
might be considered core policing. Nevertheless, there are some interesting observations
with respect to the calls and the priority assigned. The findings of the consistency in the
Top 10 CAD Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls for service are informative when considering
what might be considered core policing when factoring in the findings of all the analyses
considered together, which is presented below.

59

Table 3- Top CAD Calls for Service by Priority and Jurisdictional Grouping
PRIORITY 1
Large
Municipal
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
MVIINJ
SHOTS
ASLTI
MISSIP
ALARMH
ROBBI
SCREAM

Medium
Municipal
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
SHOTS
MVIINJ
ALARMH
DISTB
ASLTI
SCREAM
MISSIC

Municipal
Rural
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
SHOTS
MVIINJ
ALARMH
DISTB
ASLTI
ROBBI
MISSIC

Rural
Remote
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
SHOTS
MVIINJ
DISTB
MARINE
ALARMH
ASLTI
MISSIC

Large
Municipal
AB911
ALARM
DISTB
ASSPFA
CHECK
SUSPP
TRAFF
SUSPC
MVI
UNWANT

Medium
Municipal
AB911
ALARM
ASSPFA
DISTB
TRAFF
IMPAIR
MVI
DOMI
SUSPC
FIGHT

Municipal
Rural
TRAFF
ALARM
AB911
ASSPFA
DISTB
MVI
IMPAIR
DOMI
SUSPC
SUICID

Rural
Remote
ASSPFA
AB911
ALARM
TRAFF
DISTB
FIGHT
IMPAIR
ASLTSX
DOMI
ASLT

Large
Municipal
AB911
ALARM
TRAFF
ASSGP
BYLAW
BNE
ASSOA

Medium
Municipal
TRAFF
ASSGP
SIP
ASSOA
SUSPC
DISTB
THEFT

Municipal
Rural
TRAFF
THEFT
ASSGP
ASSOA
SUSPC
SIP
SUSPP

Rural
Remote
SIP
TRAFF
ASSGP
ASSOA
DISTB
UNWANT
ASLT

PRIORITY 2

PRIORITY 3

60

THEFT
SUSPC
SUSPV

SUSPP
UNWANT
THREAT

MISCH
UNWANT
DISTB

OCC
THREAT
SUSPC

Large
Municipal
THEFT
PROP
MISCH
DRUGS
FRAUD
BREACH
BNE
TRAFFS
THEFTV
ASSGP

Medium
Municipal
PROP
THEFT
DRUGS
MISCH
BREACH
WARRAN
TRAFFS
BYLAW
FRAUD
BNE

Municipal
Rural
PROP
THEFT
TRAFFS
DRUGS
ALARM
MISCH
BREACH
WARRAN
FRAUD
BYLAW

Rural
Remote
BREACH
DRUGS
THEFT
MISCH
PROP
LIQUOR
TRAFFS
BYLAW
BNE
FRAUD

PRIORITY 4

Table 4 was created from the one year of CAD data for the detachments in the
sample group, expanding on Table 3 by including the percentages of the overall CAD
calls by the jurisdictional group. The Top 20 CAD calls for each jurisdictional grouping
represent approximately three-quarters of all CAD calls for each of those jurisdictions.
There are certain commonalities and differences in the CAD Calls found in each
jurisdictional grouping. Abandoned 911 calls, while found in all groupings, represent a
large overall percentage of calls for service for the large municipal jurisdictions, and a
substantial number of calls for service for all jurisdictional groupings. There are a number
of non-crime related calls, such as the variety of Assistance calls in each jurisdictional
grouping. Mischief, property offences, and thefts are all within the top 20 CAD calls,
which is not surprising given that these offences, though decreasing in recent years, are
among to most common in most jurisdictions in Canada – Property Crime Total being
61% of all Criminal Code - excluding Traffic (www.statscan.gc.ca/daily61

quotidien/170724/t001b-eng.htm. Accessed September 16, 2017). Based on CAD data
only, some of the data cannot be broken down as reportable crime versus a non-crime
event without access to the narrative of the CAD call or related PRIME file, which was
not available. Some examples are Disturbance, Suspicious persons, Unwanted Persons, or
Alarms. The CAD data used for this analysis included only the initial Code assigned the
call.
Moreover, assaults represent 4% of the calls for service for rural/remote, and only
figure in the Top 20 in the Municipal Rural category at 2%. This is consistent with the
higher rate of violent crimes found in the PRIME event data for the rural/remote
grouping. Calls coded as Assistance capture a wide range of possible events, though
without access to records narrative or the related PRIME file, they cannot be further
categorized; however, these calls for service are not reported as crime events. Breaches
are also interesting as ICURS (2014) focus groups identified changes to bail reform, as
one example of a change that placed more responsibility on police to do curfew checks
without receiving new resources to deal with the increased demands on service. This
category includes breaches of restraining orders and breaches of release conditions from
domestic violence incidents. The public policy decision of handling domestic violence
situations as full investigations that require referral to Crown Prosecutors for charge
approval, and placing any suspects on conditional release with stringent conditions
increased the workload on police as the conditional releases require additional
investigative steps, and frequently result in breaches of conditions that require further
police investigation. As a responsibility or duty, policy makers certainly might consider

62

the full range of activities associated with a domestic violence investigation a core role of
police.
It is known anecdotally that the majority of Bylaw calls dealt with by police are for
excessive noise complaints (ICURS, 2014). These calls fall into the nuisance or disorder
categories, which can be considered maintenance of public safety and order. It is
anticipated that Rural Remote jurisdictions likely receive more varied bylaw complaints
due to the lack of separate bylaw enforcement officials, though this assumption cannot be
verified with the data available. A reflection of public expectations is that Traffic CAD
calls are the top in three of the four jurisdictional groupings, and fourth in the large
municipal grouping. Traffic calls for service are differentiated from motor vehicle
collisions. Detail of those calls was not available to fully understand the range of traffic
complaints.
It had been anticipated that some inferences could be drawn from the mix of calls
for service with respect to differences between the rural/remote setting and the medium
and the large municipal jurisdictions, especially when considered in conjunction with the
PRIME data analysis. Based on the analysis of the top CAD calls for service there were
no significant differences found, and these data do not support the view that any
differences are due to the differing levels of government and other support services
available in the communities (SECU, 2014; Ruddell, 2017; ICURS, 2010).

63

Table 4 – Top 20 CAD Calls for Service by Jurisdictional Grouping

Top 20 CAD Calls for Service by Jurisdictional Grouping
Large Municipal
Medium Municipal
Municipal Rural
Rural/Remote
% Top 20
CAD Calls

Top 20
CAD Calls

% Top 20
CAD Calls

Top 20
CAD Calls

% Top 20
CAD Calls

Top 20
CAD Calls

AB911

16

TRAFF

12

TRAFF

14

TRAFF

% Top
20
CAD
Calls
13

THEFT

10

ASSGP

9

THEFT

10

SIP

12

ALARM

8

THEFT

7

ASSGP

8

ASSGP

10

TRAFF

6

DISTB

7

ALARM

6

DISTB

9

DISTB

6

PROP

6

PROP

6

ASSOA

6

ASSPFA

5

SIP

6

DISTB

6

BREACH

5

SUSPP

5

AB911

5

ASSPFA

5

ASSPFA

5

SUSPC

5

SUSPC

5

MVI

5

ALARM

4

PROP

5

ALARM

5

AB911

5

UNWANT

4

CHECK

5

ASSOA

5

SUSPC

5

AB911

4

ASSGP

4

ASSPFA

4

SIP

4

ASLT

4

UNWANT

3

MISCH

4

ASSOA

4

DOMI

3

MVI

3

DRUGS

4

SUSPP

4

THEFT

3

MISCH

3

SUSPP

4

MISCH

4

MISCH

3

DRUGS

3

MVI

3

UNWANT

3

DRUGS

3

SUSPV

3

DOMI

3

DRUGS

3

OCC

3

BNE

3

UNWANT

3

BYLAW

2

THREAT

3

BYLAW

3

BREACH

3

THREAT

2

MVI

2

FRAUD

3

CHECK

3

BNE

2

CHECK

2

ASSOA

3

THREAT

3

ASLT

2

SUSPC

2

Top 20
CAD Calls

72.89%

72.54%

71.83%

77.66%

Note: the percentages shown are from the total of all CAD Calls for Service.

A final piece of analysis was conducted wherein CAD calls for service were coded
as either core or non-core policing calls for service and then analysed to determine
whether such analyses would be informative as to what calls for service could be
considered core functions and those that were considered non-core policing functions.

64

The analysis was subjective, based largely on personal experience9, whereby values were
assigned to each CAD code and was also applied to the prioritised list of CAD calls by
jurisdictional grouping using the same criteria and coding.
In Table 5, utilising the list of CAD Codes (see Appendix D), a ‘1’ was assigned to
those calls that were deemed to be core policing functions, and a ‘0’ was assigned to
those that were deemed not to be core functions. Though difficult to assign a
classification based solely on the CAD Code description, for the purposes of this analysis,
a forced classification was assigned even though imperfect. In Table 6 the top 10 CAD
calls for service in each priority level and for each jurisdictional grouping were assigned
the same coding scheme. Certain Priority 3 and Priority 4 CAD calls in Table 6 were not
assigned a ‘1’ or ‘0’ code as they were too general in nature. As an example, Assistance
to Other Agencies (ASSOA) calls for service could be roles that require a police
response, such as keeping the peace while a bailiff executes a court order, or could be a
minor, non-urgent situation. Other call codes were not assigned a ‘1’ or ‘0’ as they were
final CAD classifications, such as Alarm False and Alarm Diversion, as only the initial
CAD Codes were used for these analyses.
For the coding process, there was an assumption that if the police were dispatched
there had been an assessment of the nature of the call and, based on that assessment, there
was a determination that there was a police role for that particular call for service. There
was heavy reliance on this assumption in classifying the particular code a core policing.
The determination made by the call taker as to whether police action is required may also
consider context, including the availability of other services in the jurisdiction. Some of
9 The author of this major paper served 35 years in the RCMP primarily dealing with general duty

police roles at various levels from Constable to executive levels.

65

the CAD Codes are deemed to be for records management purposes and are not suitable
to classify, such as Motor Vehicle Incident/Collision (MVI) Involving a Police Vehicle,
Alarm False, and Youth.
The coding assignments for each the list of CAD Codes (see Table 5) and the
Coded CAD Calls for Service by priority and jurisdictional grouping (see Table 6) are to
be read together as these analyses complement one another to better understand whether
the types of CAD calls represent core or non core responsibilities. There are a number of
CAD calls that, in most situations, might not be non-core policing responsibilities, though
it is important to note in some circumstances there is a police role, such as Assist
Police/Fire/Ambulance.
Most of the Priority 3 and 4 calls are crimes and incidents discovered after the fact,
not in progress incidents, and may not require a uniformed response or certainly not an
immediate response. Some of those calls require police action, but may be referred to a
specialised unit, for example Frauds, or the initial response and crime scene processing
may be completed by non-sworn police personnel, such as civilianised Forensic
Investigation Services attending thefts or break and enters. At some point in the
investigation of those lesser priority complaints, especially criminal incidents, there may
well be a role for sworn police officers, such as conducting some components of the
investigation, effecting arrests, and executing search. Still, in many cases, the initial
investigation can be handled effectively by non-sworn personnel.
The general list of CAD calls include some calls for service that range from
complaints that might more clearly fall within a definition of core policing, e.g.; domestic
assault in progress, shots fired, robbery, and assaults in progress. Others do not

66

necessarily fall into the category of non-core responsibilities and rely on the
circumstances of the particular call, such as Traffic, or Bylaw. If assigned Priority 1 or 2,
the assumption is the circumstances required some immediate police action. Traffic calls
may involve hazardous circumstances, such as careless or dangerous driving in progress,
which would be assigned a Priority 1 or 2, as opposed to a minor traffic incident, being
more of a nuisance in nature that might reasonably be assigned a Priority 3 or 4.
Table 5 – Coded Core vs Non-Core Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) – Codes
AB911
ABANDV
ABDUC
AIREM
ALARM
ALARMA
ALARMD
ALARMF
ALARMH
ALARMS
ANIMAL
ANNOY
ARREST
ARSON
ASLT
ALSTI
ALSTSX
ASSGP
ASSMHA
ASSOA
ASSPFA
BAIT
BOMB
BORDR
BREACH
BNE
BNEI
BYLAW
CHECK
COUNT
DEMON
DISTB
DNA
DOMI
DOMRPT
DRUGS

Abandoned 911 Calls
Abandoned Vehicle
Abduction
Air Emergency
Alarm
Alarm Airport Check Point
Alarm Dvers
Alarm False
Alarm Hold Up
Alarm Silent/Panic
Animal
Annoying Circumstance
Arrest
Arson
Assault
Assault in Progress
Assault Sexual
Assist General Public
Assist Mental Health Act
Assist Other Agency
Assist/Police/Fire/Ambulance
BAIT Car Activated
Bomb Threat
Border Runner
Breach
Break and Enter
Break and Enter In Progress
Bylaw
Check Well-Being
Counterfeit Currency
Demonstration/Protest
Disturbance
DNA Collection
Domestic In Progress
Domestic Report
Drugs

1
0
1
1
1
1

1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1/0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1/0
1
1/0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1

67

EXPLOS
EXTORT
FIGHT
FIREAR
FOUNDP
FRAUD
HARASS
HAZARD
HOMEIN
HOSTAG
IMPAIR
INDEC
INDUST
INSEC
INTELL
JUMPER
KPEACE
LIQUOR
MAND
MARINE
MISCH
MISCHI
MISSIC
MISSIP
MVI
MVIHR
MVIINJ
MVIPOL
NOK
1033
OCC
OVERD
PANHA
PARK
911
PROP
PROST
PROWL
PURSUE
RECVEH
ROBB
ROBBI
SCREAM
SHOPL
SHOTS
SIP
SPAT
STALK
SUDDEN
SUICID
SUSPC
SUSPP
SUSV

Explosives
Extortion
Fight
Firearms (For Pickup/Transport)
Found Person
Fraud
Harassment
Hazardous Situation
Home Invasion
Hostage
Impaired
Indecent Act
Industrial Accident
Insecure Premises or Vehicle
Intelligence Information
Jumper
Keep the Peace
Liquor Act/Licensed Premises Check
Man Down (Person Down)
Marine Incident
Mischief
Mischief in Progress
Missing Child
Missing Person
Motor Vehicle Incident (Collision)
MVI Hit and Run
MVI Injury
MVI Involving Police Vehicle
Next of Kin Notifications
Officer in Trouble
Other Criminal Code
Overdose
Panhandler
Parking
Police – Any Call
Property
Prostitution
Prowler
Pursuit
Recovered Vehicle
Robbery
Robbery In Progress
Screaming Heard
Shoplifter
Shots Fired/Heard
Subject Intoxicated in Public Place
Special Attention/Detail/Event
Stalking
Sudden Death
Suicidal Person
Suspicious Circumstances
Suspicious Person
Suspicious Vehicle

68

1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1/0
0
1
1
1
0
1/0
1
0
1
1
1/0
0
0
1
1/0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

THEFT
THEFTI
THEFTV
THREAT
TRAFF
TRAFFS

Theft
Theft in Progress
Theft of Vehicle
Threats
Traffic Incident
Traffic Suspension/24 HR/12 HR/Prohibition Notice

TRANS
UNWANT
WARRAN
WEAPON
YOUTH

Transit Incident
Unwanted Person
Warrant
Weapon
Youth

0
1
1/0
1
1/0
1
0
1
1
1

Table 6 - Coded CAD Calls for Service, by Priority and jurisdictional grouping:
Priority 1
Large
Municipal
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
MVIINJ
SHOTS
ASLTI
MISSIP
ALARMH
ROBBI
SCREAM

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Medium
Municipal
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
SHOTS
MVIINJ
ALARMH
DISTB
ASLTI
SCREAM
MISSIC

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Municipal
Rural
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
SHOTS
MVIINJ
ALARMH
DISTB
ASLTI
ROBBI
MISSIC

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Rural
Remote
DOMI
SUICID
WEAPON
SHOTS
MVIINJ
DISTB
MARINE
ALARMH
ASLTI
MISSIC

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Rural
Remote
ASSPFA
AB911
ALARM
TRAFF
DISTB
FIGHT
IMPAIR
ASLTSX
DOMI
ASLT

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Priority 2
Large
Municipal
AB911
ALARM
DISTB
ASSPFA
CHECK
SUSPP
TRAFF
SUSPC
MVI
UNWANT

1
1
1
0
1
1
1

Medium
Municipal
AB911
ALARM
ASSPFA
DISTB
TRAFF
IMPAIR
MVI
DOMI
SUSPC
FIGHT

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Municipal
Rural
TRAFF
ALARM
AB911
ASSPFA
DISTB
MVI
IMPAIR
DOMI
SUSPC
SUICID

69

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Priority 3
Large
Municipal
AB911
ALARM
TRAFF
ASSGP
BYLAW
BNE
ASSOA
THEFT
SUSPC
SUSPV

1

0
0
1
1

Medium
Municipal
TRAFF
ASSGP
SIP
ASSOA
SUSPC
DISTB
THEFT
SUSPP
UNWANT
THREAT

1
1
1
0
1
1
1

Municipal
Rural
TRAFF
THEFT
ASSGP
ASSOA
SUSPC
SIP
SUSPP
MISCH
UNWANT
DISTB

0

1
1
1
0
1
1

Rural
Remote
SIP
TRAFF
ASSGP
ASSOA
DISTB
UNWANT
ASLT
OCC
THREAT
SUSPC

1

1
1
1
1

Priority 4
Large
Municipal
THEFT
PROP
MISCH
DRUGS
FRAUD
BREACH
BNE
TRAFFS
THEFTV
ASSGP

0

1/0
1
0

Medium
Municipal
PROP
THEFT
DRUGS
MISCH
BREACH
WARRAN
TRAFFS
BYLAW
FRAUD
BNE

0

1/0
1

Municipal
Rural
PROP
THEFT
TRAFFS
DRUGS
ALARM
MISCH
BREACH
WARRAN
FRAUD
BYLAW

1

0
1/0

Rural
Remote
BREACH
DRUGS
THEFT
MISCH
PROP
LIQUOR
TRAFFS
BYLAW
BNE
FRAUD

1/0

0
1

In considering the results of the analyses of both the PRIME data and the CAD
Calls for Service data, regardless of context, there are generally not substantial
differences noted by jurisdiction in the overall nature of the types of events and the calls
that police are dealing with, or at least any differences are not important in looking at the
question of core policing. Any differences lie primarily in the numbers or percentages of
certain types of events and calls for service, while the general nature of the types of

70

events is essentially similar across jurisdictions. The analyses of the PRIME data and the
CAD data complement one another in that the PRIME events data show the full range of
the events reported to police, while the CAD data shows what the police actually are
dispatched to. As noted previously, it was not possible to look at the actual allocation of
police time and efforts as the data was incomplete, regardless, the analyses are important
in understanding the types and numbers of calls responded to in the current policing
environment in British Columbia.
There are some substantial differences in the events recorded in PRIME by
jurisdictional grouping; however, the differences are not considered important when
considering the question of core policing. The non-crime events recorded in PRIME
(Series 8000 and the Z-coded events) represent approximately 70% of the events across
the jurisdictional groupings. Considered most important is the difference in reported
violent crime, Series 1000, in the rural/remote jurisdictions. As argued previously, the
difference is not important until one considers police resourcing or the structure of the
policing service in a particular area.
In the examination of the Top 20 CAD calls for service, the most serious incidents
are not as prevalent, with the percentage of PRIME calls involving Crimes Against
Persons being relatively low overall. Given this, these call types do not factor high in the
overall percentages of PRIME events. The most substantial percentage of the Top 20
calls for service are Priority 3 and Priority 4, the aggregate percentages being: LM =
53.3%, MM = 73%, MR = 64.1%, and RR = 74.6%. Though the more serious incidents
are fewer, many require a greater expenditure of police resources, such as violent crimes,
including domestic violence calls. These are the crimes where police devote more energy

71

because of the very seriousness of the incident. While it is reasonable to expect police
would prioritise their work demands, it is not just the seriousness of a particular crime
call, but the priority of a particular call that will most influence the prioritisation. A noncore policing call could very well take precedent over a serious crime related call that is
not as urgent to respond to. To better understand the full nature of calls for service, an
analysis of the prioritisation of calls becomes important, that is the examination of a
sampling of what constitute Priorities, 1, 2, 3, and 4; however, such analysis is not within
the scope of this major paper.
Looking at the nature of the Priority 1 calls, the majority of those calls are such that
immediate police response is required and, in many cases, require responses from other
agencies as well, such as injury motor vehicle collisions. Reported incidents, such as
Domestic disputes/assaults in progress (DOMI), Weapons, Shots fired/heard, Assaults in
progress (ASLTI), or Robberies in progress (ROBBI) require responses by sworn and
fully trained police.
With respect to Priority 2 CAD calls, there is a similar argument, that the majority
of these calls for service would require some more immediate police response by sworn
police officers. Abandoned 911 (AB911) calls, traffic incidents, suspected Impaired
driving complaints and some disturbances, based on the Priority assigned, are also among
the calls for service requiring an immediate police response.
In examining the Priority 3 calls for service, there are many suspicious activities
complaints, assistance type of calls, and the majority of reported crimes that are were
discovered later, that is not in progress, such as break and enters, thefts, mischiefs. There
are some potentially volatile calls that, while not deemed a high priority in the first

72

instance, necessitate some person in authority to mitigate or deescalate the situation. The
majority of the Unwanted Persons complaints, as an example, are Priority 3, but certainly
can be emotionally charged situations.
The routine after the fact reported crimes do not necessarily require a sworn officer
to attend in the first instance, though that has been and is currently the common practise
where police respond to less serious matters. Breaches, thefts, break and enters,
mischiefs, frauds, found in Priority 4 could well be handled in the first instance by nonsworn police personnel who would gather evidence and where appropriate pass the
investigation to investigators, who may or may not need to be sworn police officers. As
an example, non-sworn police could carry out many fraud investigations, though there are
certain tasks within an investigation that are Criminal Code requirements for peace
officers, such as applying for and executing search warrants, and affecting arrests. In
these cases, the availability of non-sworn officers and other support services becomes a
factor. In the majority of situations in the rural/remote environment, there are limited
options to replace a sworn officer attending.
Considering the data presented above, it is clear that the types of calls and
complaints made to police, to a certain extent, reflect the public expectations of their
police. For instance, complaints about Traffic incidents figure high in the Top 20 CAD
calls in all jurisdictions, as do Assistance calls of all natures, suspicious persons and
activities, disturbances, and relatively minor crimes, such as thefts and mischiefs. This is
consistent with the finding of the Queensland study (Criminal Justice Commission
Research Paper Series, Queensland, 1996) and HMIC (2014). While the public report
serious crime, they are also concerned with general disorder and well-being in the

73

community, and look to the police for general assistance, which is evident in the types of
complaints made to police.
The hypothesis that there was an increased level of reported violent crimes in the
rural/remote areas was borne out in the finding of the PRIME data analysis. Because such
incidents required more police time and effort to investigate and deal with, they
disproportionately affect policing in those areas. The example of violent crimes in
different jurisdictional groupings goes to how resources are deployed or how a police
service is structured to deal with differences, for example, the higher percentage of
violent incidents and fewer services in the rural/remote jurisdictions. It is in the
structuring of the police service that context matters most. When considering the context
of the environment on a police service, even though this is a legitimate consideration, one
must be cautious not to be too distracted from the question of what constitutes core
policing. Certainly the context of a particular policing environment is a concern. Rural
and remote areas do not have the same level of support services or other agencies, such as
dedicated bylaw enforcement officers to rely upon to handle the minor calls for service
found in Priority 3 and 4 calls for service. There may be a number of distinct social issues
that contribute to higher violent crime rates in the rural/remote jurisdictions, which, given
the importance of dealing effectively with violent crimes, is worthy of more in depth
research. It is likely that research into that issue would contribute to any discussion of the
police role and how to structure police services within the broader context of public
services to the public.
Moreover, based on other studies, the mix of police reported events and police calls
for service found in this research is not unusual. It is likely that the mix of calls for

74

service has not changed that much over time, especially in the rural/remote jurisdictions.
Given the unique circumstances and dynamics in different jurisdictions, it is also clear
that the police are not always in a position where they can say no to responding to certain
calls for service, and the data used in this major paper tends to support this notion.
No one model or structure of a police service will work in all contexts, so an
effective policing service must be tailored to the local environment. As such, what
constitutes core policing may look a little different by jurisdiction. Though the data and
analyses were unable to support the notion that the lack of other services in the rural and
remote and smaller jurisdictions affects police calls for service, this was reported
anecdotally as a key factor (SECU, 2014; EOP, 2014; Young, 2010). While volume and
the nature of calls for service dictate how a police service should be structured, other
important issues must also be considered, such as political and local concerns and
priorities and the public’s willingness to pay for certain levels of police service.
In one respect, we cannot say that contemporary policing has strayed from core
policing because many of the non-crime calls for service have always existed (SECU,
2014; Ruddell, 2017). An analysis of a sampling of the full range of police calls and
activities over the past century or more would be necessary to fully explore this question.
The analysis in this major paper is, nevertheless, useful to further the discussion of
whether fully trained sworn police officers should devote their energies to priority and
high-risk calls exclusively and devolve their other responsibilities to non-sworn police
personnel or to other agencies.
In the absence of a generally accepted definition of core policing, the analysis
looking at the coding of CAD Calls for Service aids in thinking about what core policing

75

might be. Based on the findings in this major paper, it is argued that Priority 1 and 2
CAD calls for service are core policing responsibilities. Though an imperfect analysis,
this exercise is informative in beginning to identify core policing responsibilities from
within the full range of actual calls for service. The nature of the incidents found in the
Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls for service suggest that an immediate response is required
by police, specifically by an armed and sworn police officer in most situations. For
example, responding to complaints of domestic violence, weapons incidents, robberies,
priority traffic incidents, abandoned 911 calls, and suicide threats should be considered
core duties requiring sworn police, particularly for first response. There are certainly
outliers, such as sudden death investigations that are suspicious in nature, some missing
persons cases that are suspicious or involve vulnerable persons, or certain mental health
calls for service that fall within core responsibilities of police, again which by their very
nature require immediate and full investigations.
Considering the previous assertions that core policing is a component within the
broader range of services provided by a police service, one way of thinking about core
policing would be that sworn police would be responsible for those core policing roles
and other non-core roles would fall to non-sworn specialised support personnel. Such a
model falls in general agreement with some of the recommendations for the
categorisation of core policing duties as high-risk incidents requiring sworn and armed
police response (Leuprecht, 2014; Council of Canadian Academies, 2014; Ontario
Association of Police Boards, 2012).
The PRIME data presented in this major paper supports other research and studies
concerning the mix of police calls for service, wherein approximately 70% of events

76

handled by police fall into a variety of non-crime duties and that there are some
contextual differences between jurisdictional groupings. Further, reported violent crime is
higher in the rural/remote jurisdictional grouping; however the general nature of the other
types of events is not dissimilar. The differences do become important when structuring
and resourcing of the local police service.
Finally, it is argued that the highest priority calls for service should constitute the
bulk of core policing responsibilities. Though the percentages of the Priority 1 and
Priority 2 calls range considerably in the overall percentages of total calls for service
among the groupings, there is considerable consistency in the types or nature of calls
across the four groupings. The remaining calls for service complement the findings of
other literature reviewed in this study on the mix of police events and calls for service.

Discussion
A number of researchers have argued that the nature of policing has changed
(Malm et al., 2005; Caputo & McIntyre, 2015; ICURS, 2010, 2014; SECU, 2014;
Andresen, 2016); however, at a basic level, the broad public expectations of policing
have not really changed. The public continue to call police with many of the same general
types of complaints as they have historically, such as reporting crime, reporting
suspicious activities, reporting unruly activities, and calling police for assistance in noncrime matters. At a time when the reported crime has declined significantly during the
past two decades, the numbers of calls for service have remained relatively constant
(Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2015; ICURS, 2014). What has changed is the
mix of calls for service and the complexity and seriousness of police work (ICURS, 2014;

77

Canadian Council of Academies 2014; SECU, 2014). By way of example, police have
always responded to mental health calls for service, though police throughout Canada are
experiencing an increase in the their number of mental health calls for service and the
complexity in responding to these types of calls. Another example is how police in many
jurisdictions in British Columbia have started carrying and administering Naloxone in
response to the very significant increases in opioid drug overdose cases (Vancouver
Police Department, Report to Vancouver Police Board, April 20, 2017; New Westminster
Police website, http://www.nwpolice.org/blog/2017/01/31/new-westminster-policedepartment-adopts-naloxone-fight-opioid-crisis/; Surrey Detachment, RCMP,
http://surrey.rcmpgrc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=2214&languageId=1&contentI
d=49317). Accessed December 6, 2017). Few would argue that these are not roles for
police as first responders. Police have always had a responsibility to ensure safety and
security of vulnerable individuals, and there is not a genuine suggestion that this
responsibility should change because it is not crime related.
The review of literature on core policing, some of its contextual factors, and the
analyses of police data serve to inform the question of what is expected by the public of
their police and, by extension, what is core policing. The analyses of PRIME events and
CAD calls for service are instructive as the data shows the types and numbers of calls the
police receive from the public and, therefore, reflect, from a certain perspective, the
expectations of the public. The legislation, regulations, and principles statements of
police responsibilities, for the most part, contain broader statements of the police role and
are also not too prescriptive, which allows for the contextualization of services. The ‘no
call to small model’ is likely not sustainable in most police jurisdictions and likely not

78

effective beyond reducing the public’s fear of crime. There are certainly many other
dynamics that need to be considered, such as the availability of other resources in the
area, what the police have traditionally responded to and dealt with, and the shifts and
changes in society. The ‘no call too small’ model results in police devoting time to
activities that do not necessarily contribute to a safer community, but satisfy a political or
public expectation that police will have a higher level of visibility and be available for a
wider variety of calls for service. The small calls might detract from the broader police
objective of providing for safe and secure communities, as police can become
overwhelmed with minor issues. Some police officers have expressed frustration with the
no call too small model due to the inordinate amount of time devoted to minor, non-crime
calls which take away from available time to conduct proactive prevention or proactive
enforcement (EOP, 2014). Such a model serves to highlight the influence of a police
service taking on a local flavour. The concerns expressed by police boards and
municipalities about escalating police costs bring focus to the higher percentage of noncrime calls, what is core policing, and to the current mix of calls for service.
Perhaps most importantly, the mix of reported incidents, both crime and non-crime,
reinforces the notion that police services have a greater role than simply law enforcement.
One could argue that the incidents police respond to all contribute, to varying degrees, to
the maintenance of peace and the overall safety and security of a community. Devolving
certain types of calls or responsibilities from police requires some thought as to which
agency or agencies are best positioned to deal with those issues, especially in suggesting
that there may be a shift or further shift to responsibilisation in which the individual or
community must take more responsibility.

79

As noted previously, while police still respond to less serious complaints, the public
in larger centres have become accustomed to not reporting minor incidents as the
expectation is police are too busy or will take no action (ICURS, 2014; Ruddell, 2017).
Only about 31% of crime is reported to police, with the more serious crimes being more
likely to be reported (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2014). The most frequent
reasons cited by victims for not reporting to police were that they felt the incident was not
important enough or too minor and they felt the police could not do anything (Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics, 2014). Adjusting to the increased demands, police have
devolved themselves from certain activities that they used to respond to as routine. In
many large jurisdictions, police no longer respond to minor motor vehicle collisions or
business alarms (RCMP Prince George, Reporting Vehicle Collisions; Edmonton Police
Service, Traffic Collisions; Sonitrol Western Canada). Other changes include the use of
Internet reporting of minor crimes where there are no suspects, where certain monetary
thresholds have not been exceeded, or where there is no expectation a police officer will
attend or take any action. Conversations with Vancouver Police Department (Acting/Sgt.
J. Abbott, personal communication, July 13, 2017) and Edmonton Police Services
(Deputy Chief B.S. Simpson, personal communication, July 18, 2017) indicated varied
successes with on-line reporting. In the case of Edmonton Police Service, Simpson
advised that the average time for calls for service was 104 minutes and, in 2016, there
were 1,300 fewer calls dispatched, which resulted in more time available for proactive
policing. Abbott and Simpson both indicated anecdotally that, while there were other
factors, some of the decline in dispatched calls was the result of on-line reporting, and
that on-line reporting has been beneficial in freeing up responders to deal with other calls

80

and to engage in more proactive policing. There were no formal evaluations of on-line
reporting found in a search of other Canadian police agencies.
Based on a number of quotes from participants collected during their research,
Caputo and McIntyre concluded that “the public police routinely deal with the
consequences of poverty, homelessness, addictions and mental health. Communities have
come to expect the police to shoulder the responsibility for many non-criminal code
related issues in addition to their law enforcement obligations” (2015, p. 268). One of the
challenges and recurring views heard in recent years is that police should not be engaged
in ‘social’ calls for service. Some of these views come from the police themselves based,
in part, on police culture and police held-beliefs as to what is ‘real police work’ versus
non-crime related activities:
Some members of the Service appear to believe that there should be a separation between
police work, on the one hand, and social work and the provision of mental healthcare, on
the other. They resist the fact that the job of a police officer inherently involves a social
work aspect and a mental healthcare aspect as part of the “service” component of the
TPS’s role in society. Related to this view is a perception by some officers that the work
of units like the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) is less important, and does not
involve true policing. This is by no means a universally held view, but it does seem to be
an undercurrent within the TPS culture (Iacobucci, 2014, p. 123).

In some of the representations to the committees on policing, many police officers voiced
the view that police should not be responding to ‘social’ calls for service because they are
not properly trained to deal with many of these issues, it is the responsibility of other
agencies, and that they are not crime related events. The inference is that police should
only deal with the investigation and prevention of crime. This argument from those police
representations suggests the role of the sworn officer is to deal with core policing duties.

81

Nonetheless, an examination of the evolution of policing in Canada and other
commonwealth countries includes duties that are much more than law enforcement
(Minister for Police and Community Safety, 2013; HMIC, 2013; Millie & Bullock 2013;
SECU, 2014; Ruddell, 2017). In their report, Policing in the 21st Century (2014), an
expert panel examined the broad role of the police and the need for changes to police
roles and practises. The panel recommended that the role of policing must change in
response to changing demands, the context of policing, and the need to be more efficient
and effective, while working more closely in the safety and security web that
encompasses all actors and agencies contributing to public safety. They further
recommended clarifying the role of police and identified the need for changes in police
practises. Specifically, they stated, “both the demands on police and the context in which
they work have changed considerably since police were initially institutionalized to
provide public security in Canada”(Policing in the 21st Century, 2014, p. xi).
The expert panel further commented that, “While the diffusion of successful models
can be encouraged, it must be recognized that no one specific model is universally
applicable, given the diversity of local crime contexts and of community-based safety and
security efforts” (2014, p. xiv). This is an important point when one looks at the varying
contexts of police service delivery throughout Canada. The panel correctly highlighted
that most research in Canada focused on urban policing. The significance of this
observation is the recognition that the context of policing differs by community or area in
Canada, and any reform must consider these different environments in which the police
function. Reform must first involve some comprehensive evaluation or research into all

82

different and unique contexts of the needs and demands for policing services, whether
urban, rural, or remote.
The numbers of civilian personnel to sworn police have increased steadily over
the past decades from 18% of total police resources in 1962 to 29% in 2016 (Police
Resources in Canada, 2016). This is partially driven by the need for more support
services to deal with the increased complexity of policing investigations and to free up
sworn police officers to respond to calls for service and investigation. One of the
common recommendations of the various studies is the need for police to civilianize to a
greater extent to free up sworn officers to concentrate their efforts on those activities
where their training and specialised skills are required (McKenna, 2014; SECU, 2014;
Association of Municipalities Ontario, 2015; Leuprecht, 2014).
Another common theme in the research literature is that police work should be
primarily focused on law enforcement. One might expect that when asked, the public
would say ‘enforcing laws’ should be the main function of their police; however, if one
considers how the public might answer the question of ‘in what circumstances would they
call the police or in which kind of circumstances would they expect their police to take
some action?’, it is likely that the range and scope of police duties would expand greatly
to include many non-crime related duties that have become expectations of police. Public
expectations are certainly a component of a police service reflecting the contextual
differences of a jurisdiction and become a consideration for what core policing is. By
extension, this includes a discussion on what police services are provided in that
community. Core policing and the policing services tailored for one area may well differ

83

from neighbouring jurisdictions. This view is consistent with the findings in Policing in
the 21st Century (2014) and SECU (2014).
The examples and findings discussed above demonstrate some of the difficulties
and challenges in addressing current models of policing. It seems clear that, over time,
police have moved further from what experts and police leaders consider to be ‘core
policing’, but this is occurring in the context of a lack of agreement about what exactly is
meant by core policing. The analyses of the police data in this major paper are consistent
with and supports the conclusions found in SECU (2014), Andresen (2017), and others
that a majority of police calls for service are non-crime related. In addition, the analyses,
though partially subjective with respect to the coding of core versus non-core calls for
service, form a basis for what might be considered core policing.

Recommendations
This research started with the question of whether police calls for service and
activities have strayed from the original intention of the police function and away from
‘core’ policing activities. With no clear definition or even accepted understanding of what
core policing is, one could argue that public expectations, based in legislative and
regulatory requirements and reflecting public expectations, should be the main
determinate of the police role. Perhaps somewhat by default, policing has evolved with
changes in societies; however, one constant has been the strong sense of responsibility on
the part of the police to respond to public needs no matter the nature of the situation.
The research literature outlines the need for change in the current models of
policing. Policing models are not rigid, being continually affected by the external

84

environment and the fundamentals of policing. Moreover, there does not seem to be any
support in the literature that the public’s expectations of the fundamentals of policing
have changed. An argument of this major paper is that the principles of policing have not
changed and that those historic principles must be considered in what constitutes core
policing and the structure of local police services.
Core policing does not mean minimal policing. In a Canadian context, the police
have always had a clear mandate to deal with a range of societal issues. Crime
prevention, crime investigation, and maintaining public order are the foundations for the
legitimacy of public policing. Still, there are other key elements to the policing function,
such as ensuring community safety and well-being and the protection of vulnerable
persons. Given this, the Expert Panel, Council for Canadian Academies encouraged the
creation of a definition of core policing:
The Committee encourages governments responsible for the administration of policing to
work together to seek consensus in defining the core policing duties in Canada, and
consider what services currently executed by police forces could be better done by other
governmental and non-governmental organizations. (SECU, Recommendation 5, 2014, p.
29).

Based on the literature, and the findings of the analyses in the research for this
major paper, the author argues against a universal, restrictive definition of core policing,
and proposes a new inclusive definition of core policing that serves to initiate discussion
about expectations of the police role, responsibilities, and functions as it considers the
history and evolution of policing in Canada and the historic role of the peace officer. This
is a deliberate effort to expand the definition of core policing in the context of policing
services beyond the prevention and investigation of crimes. It considers environmental
contexts, such as geography, population density, and distribution, and the availability of

85

other services and stakeholders that allows for a certain amount of localised setting of
policing levels within legislative and regulatory requirements. This definition
contemplates flexibility on the part of police services to achieve the overall objectives of
community safety and well-being.
Core policing is part of the public policing service whose primary objective is to contribute
to the safety and well-being of individuals and community, through a variety of activities
or responses, often inter-related or serving multiple objectives, and, where applicable in
partnership with other services and agencies, which reflect both broad and localised public
expectations This encompasses a broad range of services. Policing Services are influenced
by the context and environment in which the service is provided. Core policing includes
prevention and investigation of crimes, maintaining public peace and order, emergency
response, and striving to contribute to social and individual well-being. Core policing is not
minimal policing, but a component of the range of services provided by police agencies
(Bent, 2018).

By way of comparison, the Manitoba Summary of Core Health Services
(www.gov.mb.ca/health/rha/docs/core.pdf) is a comprehensive document summarising all
aspects of public health care in Manitoba. The document goes well beyond a concise
definition of health care. It is relevant here because there are similarities in that both
health care and policing are public services. While creating a comprehensive document
for core policing services would require detailed consultation involving the public,
governance bodies, community partners, the police, and other key stakeholders, such a
document would be very useful as a foundational piece for developing reforms to
policing.
The findings and recommendations of this study are not to suggest that current
models of policing should maintain the status quo. On the contrary, policing must evolve
with societal changes. Aside from an examination of the core functions of policing and a
validation of those functions, there are things the police can do from an organisational or

86

re-organisation standpoint with meaningful input from government leaders, academic
researchers, key stakeholders, and the public. There have been many recommendations
that police agencies consider alternate service delivery models, such as civilianisation of
support functions, tiered-policing models, and community mobilisation models.
Certainly, there were recommendations for significant reform of policing (Leuprecht
2014; Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2015; Ontario Association of Police
Service Boards, 2012). Such reforms must start from an informed position, something
that is just now starting to be a reality through research (SECU, 2014; ICURS, 2014;
Public Safety Canada, 2015).
Some possible solutions are public policy changes, legislative and regulatory
changes, increased use of tier-policing, and an expansion or broader implementation of
cross-sector collaborative community mobilisation efforts. The concerns raised in recent
years about the mission creep and the increased costs of policing often point to the need
or desire from some to focus the police function on crime-related activities and high-risk
situations, and to move away from what some have described as social issues policing.
Importantly, such suggestions lead to the question, as identified and asked by SECU
(2014), ‘if police stop responding to some calls, then who will fill the gap?’
Legislative changes could be more prescriptive with respect to basic requirements
for a police service. There would need to be significant input from governing bodies and
the public, and also consideration of the differing environmental contexts for
development of local services. While a description or articulation of minimum levels of
policing is valuable, there are certain benefits to deliberately leaving the description of
duties and responsibilities broad, so as to allow for tailoring at a local level and to address

87

public expectations. The Québec example is worthy of consideration as it contains
detailed descriptions of the minimum level of service that must be provided by police
agencies; however, this must be subordinated to overarching principles of the police role
in society. According to McKenna (2014), tiered-policing might include more
civilianisation of certain duties, increased use of Community Safety Officers and Special
Constables, private security, and volunteers. McKenna does not propose devolving some
of the current police functions, but offers recommendations to enhance sworn officers to
deal with demand for services. Still, tiered-policing only addresses part of the issues with
current policing models and their associated costs.
There are some promising examples of collaborative, cross-sector initiatives
aimed at crime reduction. Examples are the OACP Mobilisation and Engagement model
of community-based policing, the Crime Reduction model in British Columbia, and the
Community Mobilisation - HUB Model originating in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
These models all include an arrangement among key stakeholders to provide resources
and to share information to better deal with prolific offenders or prolific users of services.
In each of these examples, the police remain key partners in dealing with not only the
immediate issue, but with a focus on addressing underlying causes collaboratively with
other services. That is, the police with appropriate partners contribute to overall
community safety and well-being, which many argue is one of the prime objectives of the
public police and, as such, a core policing function. It is clear in these models that the
police are seen as having a role to play in addressing social issues, though not necessarily
taking a leading role.

88

While there have been many recommendations to reduce the numbers of sworn
police officers, one aspect of police allocation or time not considered in much of the
research is that of unallocated or unfettered time for the police to problem solve with the
community or to effectively use proactive time. The concept of including unallocated
time in police resourcing models is relatively new and, while there is little literature on
this subject, it is worthy of consideration in the discussion of core policing duties.
Potential research to inform this discussion could focus on developing additional
empirical evidence to support the need for proactive, unallocated time for police. Police
are increasingly asking for a resource model that would allow a certain percentage of
unfettered time for police to problem solve with the community, yet there seems to be
little empirical evidence to support the benefits of unfettered, proactive time for police.
Moreover, good evaluations of cross-sector collaborative initiatives are important to
determine the long-term contribution of proactive time to reducing crime and dealing
effectively with recurring social issues.
A University of the Fraser Valley Study (2011) evaluated police officer time by
conducting a ride along with general duty police officers in a large municipality in British
Columbia. Based on their findings, police officer’s shifts were consumed with a variety
of duties, though they found that general duty police officer had very little time available
for proactive or problem-solving activities. While it is difficult and ill advised to draw
any conclusions from the sampling of one detachment, this study suggests that the
general duty response in a large municipal detachment is still rooted in a reactive model
and has not changed significantly. The findings of that study are supported by the
interviews of police officers from a wide variety of jurisdictions in the ICURS (2014)

89

study. Further study of other jurisdictions would be necessary to draw any conclusion on
the effect of police resourcing levels.
There is a wide range of research that is needed to further inform discussions of
core policing. Part of this major paper’s original hypothesis was that the mix of crimes
and calls for service can differ depending on the context of the jurisdiction in which the
service is provided, therefore, part of the analysis of this major paper looked at whether
core policing needs also differed by geography, remoteness, and expectations. The
analysis of both PRIME events and the CAD calls for service tended to not support the
view that context matters with respect to core policing, though better conclusions would
result from a more nuanced analysis that was beyond the scope of this major paper. As
highlighted previously, where the context and any differences in the nature of crime and
non-crime events does matter is in how policing services are structured in particular
jurisdictions.
It is also necessary to examine what is required to advance the discussion and
develop a better understanding of police activities. The Expert Panel, Council for
Canadian Academies (2014) identified the need for better call for service data to fully
understand what the police really do. It is important to keep in mind that police record
management systems were not all developed with planning or strategic analysis in mind.
Regardless, sufficient data currently exists in police records management systems to
conduct more detailed analyses.
This discussion about future research leads to a consideration of a new theory of
policing. Such a theory might suggest policing in Canada has always been broader than
law enforcement or crime response and has always included a social element to police

90

work. The theory would include a definition or distinguish the core policing
responsibilities in describing the broader services provided by police. This is reflected in
the types of incidents that the public call the police for. While tiered-policing and more
civilianisation may reduce policing costs and allow sworn police officers to devote more
time so as to be more proactive in crime prevention and reduction, it is unlikely that the
public expectations of the police will change to any great degree.
The original premise of this major paper was to address the questions of what core
policing is and to assess the degree to which the police may have strayed from these
principles. Without an agreed upon or acceptable definition of core policing, this question
cannot be adequately answered. It is a reasonable conclusion that policing has become
more complex and the nature of policing as continued to evolve; however, even in times
of resource constraints, policing has continued to respond to the increasing proportion of
calls for service that represent non-crime or social types of calls.
Regardless of the lack of a clear understanding of core policing, it is proposed that
the analyses of the Priorities of CAD calls do aid in defining, or at least identifying, core
policing. The Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls for service are those very calls that should be
considered core policing. The findings of this major paper support the anecdotal evidence
presented in the research literature that there have been increasing demands for service on
the non-crime calls for service and that the majority of calls for service that the police
respond to and deal with are non-crime calls for service, regardless of the type of
jurisdiction. Found in the Priority 3 and Priority 4 CAD calls are many crime reports,
though, based on the priority of those calls, they are not urgent, reported after the fact,
and are not of any immediate threat to the public. If we consider that contemporary

91

policing is very similar to the range of activities and functions that police have
historically engaged in, police likely have not strayed too far from the broader mandate of
public expectations. Given this, what is required is a rethinking of the structure of
policing services to differentiate the roles that absolutely need sworn police (core
policing) and those that can either be served by non-sworn personnel, responded to by
other agencies, or through more responsibilisation of the public.

Conclusion
The purpose of this major paper was to identify some of the issues and concerns
with the sustainability of current Canadian policing models and to emphasize the need for
a common understanding of what the police routinely do. This understanding is crucial to
better inform the discussion around the need to reform and define core policing, and to
understand what the public wants and expects from their police service. The analyses of
the PRIME events and the CAD calls for service data provide evidence of the range and
variety of call types in differing contexts that police devote some energy and time to.
There was sufficient variety of policing contexts that this analysis will serve to help
inform the public, policy, and decision makers with respect to a starting point for any
consideration for reform of policing.
Policing is an essential component of a well-functioning society. It falls to the police to
maintain peace, order, security and safety for the common good. While the desire for
these objectives may be universal, pursuing them is not a simple task (In Search of
Security, 2006, p. xiii).
An informed discussion must also prioritize responsibilities that are genuinely core to
policing over those deemed discretionary, consider how to deliver in alternative ways
those responsibilities that emerge from this debate as discretionary, and make efforts to
manage demand and expectations. The essence of the argument is to shift from increasing
the numbers of uniforms to increasing how police complement the community through a

92

more visible presence as a result of civilianized and/or outsourced noncore duties
(Leuprecht, 2014, p. 6).

The focus on containing costs by returning to core policing services would seem
to be a fairly commonly held view of the public, some academics, and some in
government. With the number of studies, reviews, commissions, and academic research
recommending a return to or a redefining of core policing responsibilities, there is often
mention of core policing or core policing responsibilities, yet there has not emerged a
clear definition or understanding of what, in a formal sense, this really means.
Caputo and McIntyre (2015) indicated that one of the key findings of their
Research Advisory Board (RAB) was the recognition that it is very difficult for police to
stop doing some of the things they currently do, especially if public safety is involved or
the activity has become an expectation of the public. Further, Caputo and McIntyre
reported that the RAB “were more concerned, however, about enhancing the capacity in
policing to think critically about role and value in order to enhance the tendency to
gravitate toward the more relevant and the more valuable roles" (2015, p. 267). Further,
they expressed that “they were also more concerned about enhancing the capacity in
policing to handle broad societal changes on the political, economic and technological
fronts in an anticipatory and proactive way” (2015, p. 267). These comments are
particularly relevant to the questions examined in this major paper. Finally, there is the
question of what options there are with respect to collaborative efforts and with respect to
having some of the current police roles being taken over by other agencies.
The RAB (Caputo & McIntyre, 2015) suggested that contemporary policing is not
sustainable and what is required is different thinking on the part of police leaders.
Historically, police resources were increased based on population growth and crime

93

trends. What has been absent in the submissions for additional resources are more
analyses about changes to legislation and its implications for policing. In addition, a
fulsome analysis of contemporary complexities that are challenging the effectiveness and
efficiency of policing is required.
An underlying sense in many of the findings and recommendations in the research
literature is that it is the police leaders who should figure this out or find solutions to the
challenges. While the police can make some changes, there are many issues and
expectations external to police decision making that make such a suggestion impractical.
The police cannot act in isolation of public and government input, and that requires, at
least, a basic understanding of the scope of what police are currently doing. While police
are a key stakeholder, it is governments who also need to be a key stakeholder or have
shared leadership.
It is unreasonable to expect that core police duties are or could be itemized or
regulated because police fulfill a unique role or public service, and must respond to the
broader duties of maintaining peace and order in communities. There is a clear need to
tailor any police response to the individual community context. There have been some
formalized efforts to ensure or create collaboration between police agencies and other
government agencies due to the recognition that many of the issues police respond to,
many of which are from recurring sources, necessitate a cross-sector response. These
types of responses are considered to be more effective and more likely to be sustained
when they are structured and formalized.
There have always been certain roles that the police have undertaken that do not
clearly fall into what might be considered core policing. This is especially true in non-

94

urban areas where fewer government agencies are readily available, and the police are the
only true 24-hour response. There has always been, and likely always will be, non-crime
related calls for service that the police either are best suited to deal with in a first
instance, or must respond to as they are the most available public service in many
locations. The broad mandate of keeping the peace, investigating crime, preventing
crime, and maintaining order is the cornerstone of policing, and should remain so. That is
not to say there could not, or should not, be reforms to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of police services, but this must come with a recognition that policing is
much more than law enforcement and crime prevention. Importantly, no one suggests this
will be an easy task. An understanding of what the public, governments, and police
governance bodies consider ‘core’ policing, as well as an understanding of how core
policing fits within the broader services provided by police in contemporary Canadian
society, is fundamental to any meaningful change. Considering the interest in recent
years, an informed discussion about the future of policing in Canada is vitally important
for the police to maintain legitimacy and the public’s support of police.

95

References
Alberta Crime Reduction Strategy. Public Safety Canada Economics of Policing,
Website, https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/plcng/cnmcs-plcng/ndx/snpssen.aspx?n=459.
Andresen, M.A, et al (2016). What do police do and where do they do it?, Simon Fraser
University, (Under Review).
Association of Municipalities Ontario (2015). Building a new public safety model in
Ontario, AMO’s Policing Modernization Report. Retrieved from
https://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Reports/2015/AMO-Policing-Modernization-ReportFinal-2015-04-27.aspx
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, Criminal victimization in
Canada, 2014.
Caputo, T., & McIntyre, M.L. (2015). Addressing role and value in policing: toward a
sustainable policing framework. Policing: An International Journal
of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, 265-278.
Caputo, T. & Vallée, M. (2010). Creating Safer Communities for Children and Youth:
The Role of the Police In Crime Prevention. International Journal of Child, Youth &
Family Studies,Vol. 1, No.1. University of Victoria.
Chrismas, R. (2013). Canadian Policing in the 21st Century: A Frontline Officer on
Challenges and Changes. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Kingston, Ontario.
City of Surrey, British Columbia. Crime Reduction Strategy. (2007). Retrieved from
https://www.surrey.ca/files/Crime_Reduction_Strategy.pdf
Cohen, I., Plecas, D., McCormick, A., and Peters, A. (2014). Eliminating Crime: The 7
Principles of Police-based Crime Reduction. University of the Fraser Valley.
Collaborative Centre for Justice and Safety, (2014). The Economics of Canadian Policing
Five Years into the Great Recession. Retrieved from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn80407908-eng.pdf.
Coleman, T and Cotton, D. (2016). A strategic approach to police interactions with
people with a mental illness, Journal of Community Safety and Well Being, Vol. 1, No. 2,
August 2016.
Community Safety Officer Pilot Program Evaluation Report, RCMP National Program
Evaluation Services, 2012. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/aud-ver/reports-rapports/ppcsoasc-evaleng.htm

96

Cooper, G.S. (1981). McGrath, W. & Mitchel, T. Eds)(1981). The police function in
Canada, In McGrath, William T and Michael Mitchel (eds). `The Evolution of Canadian
Police.` Toronto: Methuen.
Council for Canadian Academies, (2014). Policing Canada in the 21st Century: New
Policing for New Challenges. The Expert Panel on the Future of Canadian Policing
Models, Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%
20news%20releases/policing/policing_execsummen.pdf.
England and Wales, Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004), Schedule 1. Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/645/pdfs/uksi_20040645_en.pdf
Economics Of Policing: Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public
Safety and National Security (SECU), 41st Parliament - 2nd Session, 2014. Retrieved
from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/parl/xc76-1/XC76-1-1-412-4eng.pdf
Edmonton Police Service Reporting,
http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/TrafficVehicles/TrafficCollisions/ReportACollision.
England and Wales, Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004), Schedule 1. Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/645/pdfs/uksi_20040645_en.pdf
Eterno, J.A. and Silverman, E.B. (2010). The NYPD’s Compstat: compare statistics or
compose statistics. International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 12,
No.3.
Eterno, J.A., Verma. A. & Silverman, E.B. (2016) Police Manipulations of Crime
Reporting: Insiders’ Revelations, Justice Quarterly, 33:5, 811-835.
Getting Serious About Crime Reduction. Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Crime
Reduction, British Columbia, 2014. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-andjustice/criminal-justice/police/publications/government/blue-ribon-crime-reduction.pdf.
Accessed September 27, 2017).
HMIC (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary), (2011). Demanding Times: The
Front Line and Police Visibility. London, United Kingdom.
HMIC (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary). (2014). Core business. An
inspection into crime prevention, police attendance and the use of police time. September
2014. Retrieved from https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wpcontent/uploads/core-business.pdf
Home Office, Police Workforce, England and Wales, Statistical Bulletin 10/17, 2017.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/630471/ho
sb1017-police-workforce.pdf

97

Info Source - Sources of Federal Government and Employee Information, Access to
Information and Privacy Branch, “Responsibilities.’ Retrieved from www.rcmpgrc.gc.ca/atip-aiprp/infosource/index-eng.htm#res.
Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University, (2014).
Economics of Policing: Complexity and Cost in Canada, 2014., SFU Summit Repository,
Burnaby, Canada.
Juristat, Statistics Canada. Mental health and contact with police in Canada, 2012.
Kempa, M. (2014). Understanding the Historical Relationship between Economics and
Change in Policing: A Policy Framework. Canadian Police College Discussion Paper
Series. Retrieved from https://www.cpc.gc.ca/sites/default/files/uploadImages/vol3dpseng.pdf
The Law Commission of Canada, 2006. In Search of Security: The Future of Policing in
Canada. Retrieved from
http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/10293/In%20Search%20of%20Secu
rity%20Report%20EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Leuprecht, C. (2014). The Blue Line or the Bottom Line of Police Services in Canada?
Arresting runaway growth in costs. MacDonald-Laurier Institute Publication. Retrieved
from http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf
Leuprecht, C (2015). Use of Private Security of Policing. Research Summary, Public
Safety Canada, S041, 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-s041/index-en.aspx
Malm, A. et al, (2005). A 30 Year Analysis of Police Service Delivery and Costing.
University of the Fraser Valley and the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies,
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada.
McKenna, P.F. (1998). Foundations of Policing in Canada, Prentice Hall, Scarborough,
Canada.
McKenna, P.F. (2014). Tiered Policing; An Alternative Model of Police Service Delivery.
Canadian Police College Discussion Paper Series, Ottawa.
Millie, A. & Bullock, K. (2013). Policing in a time of contraction and constraint:
Re-imagining the role and function of contemporary policing. Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 13(2), Pg. 133-142.
Minister for Police and Community Safety, Queensland, Australia, (2013). Sustaining the
Unsustainable: Queensland Police and Community Safety Review, Final Report.
Retrieved from

98

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Content/MediaAttachments/2013/pdf/Police%20and%20Co
mmunity%20Safety%20Review%20Report.pdf
Ministry of Justice of British Columbia (2014). Getting Serious About Crime Reduction.
Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Crime Reduction.
Morgan, R. & Newburn, T. (1997). The Future of Policing. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, England.
The Nature of General Police Work, Criminal Justice Commission Research Paper Series,
Queensland, Australia, Vol. 3, No.2, May 1996.
The Police Act and Regulations, British Columbia, RSBC 1996.
Police encounters with people in crisis, An Independent Review Conducted by the
Honourable Frank Iacobucci for the Toronto Police Service, 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/police_encounters_with_peopl
e_in_crisis_2014.pdf
The Police Foundation and Policy Studies Institute, (1996). The Role And
Responsibilities Of The Police, London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.policefoundation.org.uk/uploads/catalogerfiles/inquiry-into-the-roles-and-responsibilities-ofthe-police-2/roles_and_resp.pdf
Plummer, L.C., Community Policing: Thriving Because it Works, Police Quarterly, Vol.
2, No. 1, March 1999.
Police Resources in Canada, 2016, Statistics Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170329/dq170329c-eng.htm
The Police Services Act, Manitoba, S.M. 2009, c. 32
The Police Services Act and Regulations, Ontario, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990,
Chapter P. 15.
Public Safety Canada. Summit on the Economics of Policing and Community Safety,
2015. Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/smmt-cnmcsplcng-2015/smmt-cnmcs-plcng-2015-en.pdf.
Public Services For Ontarians: A Path To Sustainability And Excellence, (2012).
Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services, referred to as; The
Drummond Report, Ontario Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/chapters/message.html.
Ratcliffe, J. (2008), Intelligence-Led Policing, Willan Publishing, Portland, Oregon.

99

The RCMP Act, RSC 1985, c. R-10
Reith, C. (1948). A Short History of the British Police. London: Oxford University Press.
The Rising Costs of Policing in Ontario, Ontario Association of Police Services Boards
(OAPSB), (2012).
Robertson, N. (2012), Policing: Fundamental Principles in a Canadian Context, Canadian
Public Administration, Vol. 55, Issue 3, 343-363.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Prince George website, http://bc.rcmpgrc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=2087&languageId=1&contentId=51624..
Ruddell, R. (2017). Policing Rural Canada. de Sitter Publications, Whitby, Ontario.
Sécurité publique Québec. The Six Levels of Police Service According to Population
Size. Retrieved from
http://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/en/police-prevention/police-service-levels.html
The Select Committee on Home Affairs, Parliament of the UK, Seventh Report, Session
2007-08. The Expectations of Police in the 21st Century. Retrieved from
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/364/36406.htm.
University of the Fraser Valley, Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research
(2011). RCMP Surrey Ride Along Survey: General Findings. https://cjr.ufv.ca/surreyrcmp-ride-along-study-general-findings/
Sonitrol Western Canada, Police Department False Alarm Policies Across Western
Canada. https://www.sonitrolwesterncanada.com/blog/police-department-false-alarmpolicies-across-western-canada.
Vancouver Police Mental Health Strategy (2016), Vancouver Police Department, British
Columbia. http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/reports-policies/mental-healthstrategy.pdf.
Vancouver Police Department, Report to Vancouver Police Board, April 20, 2017
http://vancouver.ca/police/policeboard/agenda/2017/0420/1704V09-Naloxone-Policy.pdf
Weisburd, D. and Braga, A.A. (2006). Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives.
Cambridge University Press, New York and Cambridge.
Weisburd, D. and Eck, J.E. (2004). What Can the Police Do To Reduce, Crime, Disorder,
and Fear? Annuals of American Academy of Political Science, 593, 42-65.

100

Wilson-Bates, F. (2008). Lost in Transition: How a Lack of Capacity in the Mental
Health System is Failing Vancouver’s Mentally Ill and Draining Police Resources,
Vancouver Police Department, British Columbia.
Young, F. et al, (2010). Feasibility Study on the Development of a Policing Complexity
Index: Final Report. Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser
University, SFU Summit Repository, Burnaby, Canada.

101

Appendix A - Roles of Police
Core Functions and Duties of Police in Québec
French version
http://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/police/police-quebec/services-police.html
(August 16, 2016)
Quelle est la mission des corps de police?
1. Maintenir la paix, l'ordre et la sécurité publique;
2. Prévenir et réprimer le crime et les infractions aux lois et aux règlements
municipaux;
3. Rechercher les auteurs des crimes et infraction.
Les six niveaux de services policiers en fonction du nombre d'habitants
(http://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/police/police-quebec/services-police/dessertepoliciere/six-niveaux-service.html)
chapitre P-13.1, r. 6
Règlement sur les services policiers que les corps de police municipaux et la Sûreté du
Québec doivent fournir selon leur niveau de compétence
Loi sur la police (chapitre P-13.1, a. 81)
Les corps de police municipaux doivent fournir un certain niveau de service selon la
population qu'ils desservent ou leur localisation géographique. La Sûreté du Québec, qui
joue un rôle complémentaire, fournit les services du niveau supérieur à ceux offerts par
les corps de police municipaux (CPM), dont les services de niveau 6.
Les activités des corps de police sont divisées en quatre catégories : gendarmerie,
enquêtes, mesures d'urgence et services de soutien. La complexité de ces activités
augmente en fonction du niveau de service du corps de police. Par exemple, un corps de
police de niveau 1 pourra contrôler une foule pacifique alors que ceux des niveaux 5 et 6
devront contrôler des foules avec risque élevé d'agitation, de débordement ou d'émeute.
Chaque niveau de service comprend, en sus, les services énumérés aux niveaux
inférieurs.
Moins de 100 000 habitants : niveau 1
100 000 à 249 999 habitants : niveau 2
250 000 à 499 999 habitants : niveau 3
500 000 à 999 999 habitants : niveau 4

102

1 000 000 d'habitants et plus : niveau 5
Services du niveau 6
Par ailleurs, sauf exception, toute municipalité faisant partie d'une communauté
métropolitaine ou d'une région métropolitaine de recensement est desservie par un CPM
de niveau 2 ou plus, selon la population.
Les corps de police doivent fournir les services policiers énumérés ci-dessous et
correspondant à leur niveau :
Moins de 100 000 habitants : niveau 1
Gendarmerie
Patrouille 24 heures
Réponse à toute demande d'aide d'un citoyen, répartition et prise en charge de celle-ci
dans un délai raisonnable
Sécurité routière
Application de la Loi sur les véhicules hors route et surveillance des sentiers de véhicules
tout-terrain et de motoneiges
Sécurité nautique des plaisanciers circulant sur un plan d'eau
Transport de prévenus
Délit de fuite
Programmes de prévention
Protection d'une scène de crime
Capacité d'endiguement
Enquêtes
Sous réserve des obligations prévues aux autres niveaux de service, les infractions
criminelles ou pénales relevant de la compétence respective des corps de police sont
notamment les suivantes :
Enlèvement
Agression sexuelle
Infractions d'ordre sexuel
Pornographie juvénile lorsqu'il y a flagrant délit
Voies de fait
Accident de travail mortel, en collaboration avec la Sûreté du Québec
Vol qualifié
Taxage
Extorsion de personnes vulnérables ou en situation de dépendance face à leur entourage
Introduction par effraction
Incendie

103

Vol de véhicules
Production, trafic et possession de drogues illicites au niveau local ou de rue
Prostitution de rue
Fraude par chèque, carte de crédit ou carte de débit
Escroquerie, faux semblant, fausse déclaration
Vol simple et recel
Biens infractionnels
Accident de véhicule
Méfait
Infraction criminelle causant la mort ou des lésions corporelles menaçant la vie, commise
lors de la conduite d'un véhicule, en collaboration avec la Sûreté du Québec
Conduite dangereuse
Capacité de conduite affaiblie
Crime relié aux gangs de rue
Objet suspect ou appel à la bombe, si négatif
Armes et découverte d'explosifs
Utilisation de monnaie contrefaite
Décès survenu dans des circonstances obscures
Décès ou lésions corporelles menaçant la vie d'un enfant de moins de trois ans en
collaboration avec la Sûreté du Québec
Disparition
Fugue
Mesures d'urgence
Contrôle de foule pacifique
Assistance policière lors de sauvetage
Assistance policière lors de recherche en forêt
Assistance policière lors de sinistre
Services de soutien
Recherche d'empreintes par poudrage et photographie sur une scène de crime
Production et mise en commun du renseignement criminel tactique et opérationnel relatif
à des personnes, des groupes ou des phénomènes touchant leur territoire
Contribution importante aux activités d'échange de renseignements criminels entre les
corps de police et avec les organismes chargés de l'application de la loi
Gestion des sources humaines d'information
Contribution, dans les délais prévus au Guide de pratiques policières, au Système
d'analyse des liens de la violence associée aux crimes (SALVAC), à la banque de
données québécoise de renseignement criminel et à la banque d'empreintes digitales de la
Sûreté du Québec
Détention
Garde des pièces à conviction

104

Liaison judiciaire
Prélèvement d'une substance corporelle aux fins d'analyse génétique
Gestion des mandats et localisation des individus
Gestion des dossiers de police
Affaires publiques
Alimentation et interrogation du Centre de renseignement policiers du Québec (CRPQ)
Affaires internes
Moniteur pour l'utilisation d'équipements et de la force
Technicien qualifié d'alcootest
Bertillonnage
Collecte de renseignements pour l'enregistrement des délinquants sexuels visés par la Loi
sur l'enregistrement de renseignements sur les délinquants sexuels
Intervention dynamique à risque faible
Alimentation de la banque de données québécoise sur les armes à feu récupérées
100 000 à 249 999 habitants : niveau 2
Enquêtes
Meurtre avec arrestation imminente
Négligence criminelle ayant causé la mort
Tentative de meurtre
Accident de travail mortel
Vol qualifié dans les institutions financières et les transporteurs de biens de valeur
Incendie mortel
Incendies en série
Incendie majeur d'édifices commerciaux, industriels, institutionnels, gouvernementaux et
communautaires
Fraude commerciale et immobilière
Loterie illégale
Infraction criminelle causant la mort ou des lésions corporelles menaçant la vie, commise
lors de la conduite d'un véhicule
Production, trafic et possession de drogues illicites visant les fournisseurs des revendeurs
locaux ou de rue
Vols de cargaison
Infraction criminelle commise par un réseau
Tenir une maison de jeu ou de pari et tricher au jeu
Infractions relatives à la monnaie
Mesures d'urgence
Contrôle de foule avec risque d'agitation
Services de soutien
Technicien en scène de crime et en identité judiciaire

105

Technicien en scène d'incendie
Reconstitutionniste de scène de collision
Identification de véhicules
Conception d'un portrait-robot par ordinateur
Production et mise en commun du renseignement criminel stratégique relatif à des
personnes, des groupes ou des phénomènes touchant leur territoire
250 000 à 499 999 habitants : niveau 3
Enquêtes
Meurtre
Enlèvement avec risques pour la vie
Extorsion
Accident d'aéronef mortel
Produits de la criminalité
Production, trafic et possession de drogues illicites visant des fournisseurs de niveau
supérieur
Gangstérisme pour les délits du niveau de service applicable
Infraction criminelle commise par des organisations criminelles opérant sur une base
interrégionale, en collaboration avec la Sûreté du Québec
Pornographie juvénile
Proxénétisme
Maison de débauche
Événement impliquant un corps de police, à la demande du ministre
Méfait ou vol concernant des données informatiques
Vol, usage illégal ou possession d'explosifs sans excuse légitime
Décès ou lésions corporelles menaçant la vie d'un enfant de moins de trois ans
Mesures d'urgence
Intervention impliquant une personne barricadée et armée sans coup de feu et sans otage
Services de soutien
Filature
Extraction de banques de données informatiques
Infiltration
Analyse de déclaration pure
Équipe cynophile en matière de drogue, protection et pistage
Groupe d'intervention
Intervention à risque modéré
Assurer le retour au Québec d'un individu ayant contrevenu à une décision ou à une
ordonnance de la Commission d'examen des troubles mentaux (CETM)

106

500 000 à 999 999 habitants : niveau 4
Enquêtes
Meurtre ou tentative de meurtre commis par des organisations criminelles opérant sur une
base interrégionale, en collaboration avec la Sûreté du Québec
Mesures d'urgence
Contrôle de foule avec risque élevé d'agitation, de débordement et d'émeute en partenariat
avec la Sûreté du Québec
Intervention impliquant une personne barricadée et armée avec coup de feu
Services de soutien
Surveillance électronique
Intervention à risque élevé
Groupe tactique d'intervention
1 000 000 d'habitants et plus : niveau 5
Gendarmerie
Sécurité nautique des plaisanciers circulant sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent
Enquêtes
Gestion d'événements terroristes
Importation et exportation de drogues, en collaboration avec la Sûreté du Québec
Trafic d'armes et d'explosifs
Enlèvement dont la victime est emmenée à l'extérieur du Québec
Gageure et bookmaking
Infraction criminelle commise par un réseau opérant sur une base interrégionale
Corruption de fonctionnaires judiciaires ou municipaux
Fraudes commerciales et immobilières commises par une personne ou une entité visée
par la Loi sur le recyclage des produits de la criminalité et le financement des activités
terroristes et ses règlements.
Mesures d'urgence
Intervention héliportée
Contrôle de foule avec risque élevé d'agitation, de débordement et d'émeute
Intervention lors d'une prise d'otage ou impliquant un tireur actif
Services de soutien
Plongée sous-marine
Désamorçage et manipulation d'explosifs impliquant le recours aux techniciens
d'explosifs
Infiltration des plus hautes sphères de la hiérarchie criminelle
Polygraphie et hypnose
Équipe cynophile en matière d'explosifs

107

Renseignement de sécurité opérationnelle
Évaluation et protection des collaborateurs de justice
Soutien aux interrogatoires vidéo
Utilisation d'agent civil d'infiltration
Services du niveau 6
Enquêtes
Coordination des enquêtes lors d'événements hors du commun
Coordination des enquêtes de meurtres et d'agressions commis par un prédateur
Coordination policière de la lutte contre le crime organisé
Crime touchant les revenus de l'État, sa sécurité ou son intégrité
Coordination des enquêtes d'incendies en série sur une base interrégionale
Infraction criminelle commise par un réseau ayant des ramifications à l'extérieur du
Québec
Malversation
Transaction mobilière frauduleuse
Crime à l'intérieur des établissements de détention provinciaux et fédéraux
Cybersurveillance
Entraide judiciaire internationale
Mesure d'urgence
Coordination du rétablissement et du maintien de l'ordre lors de situations d'urgence ou
de désordre social d'envergure provinciale
Services de soutien
Protection des personnalités internationales
Protection de l'Assemblée nationale
Enquête et renseignement en matière de sécurité de l'État
Atteinte à la sécurité et à l'intégrité des réseaux informatiques du gouvernement
Coordination du SALVAC
Profilage criminel
Portraitiste
Identité judiciaire spécialisée
Banque centrale d'empreintes digitales
Liaison avec Interpol
Gestion du CRPQ
Unité d'urgence permanente
Coordination et enregistrement de renseignements au Registre national des délinquants
sexuels.
English Translated Version:

108

Level 1: Less than 100,000 inhabitants:
Policing
Round-the-clock patrol
Response to any request for help from a citizen within a reasonable time and dispatching
Road patrolling
Enforcement of the Act respecting off-highway vehicles and off-road vehicle and
snowmobile trail patrol
Recreational boating safety
Transportation of accused persons
Hit and run incidents
Prevention programs
Crime scene securing
Containment
Investigations
Subject to the obligations corresponding to higher levels, the criminal or penal offences
under the jurisdiction of police forces consist of the following:
Kidnapping
Sexual assault
Sexual offences
Child pornography when caught in the act
Assault
Fatal work injury, in cooperation with the Sûreté du Québec
Robbery
Taxing
Extortion of vulnerable persons or persons who depend on their family circle
Breaking and entering
Fire
Auto theft
Production, trafficking and possession of illicit drugs at local or street level
Street prostitution
Bad cheques, credit card or debit card fraud
Scams, false pretences, false statements
Theft and possession of stolen goods
Offence-related property
Vehicle accidents
Mischief

109

Criminal offence causing death or life-threatening bodily injuries, committed while
driving a vehicle, in cooperation with the Sûreté du Québec
Reckless driving
Impaired driving
Street gang crime
Suspicious object or bomb threat, if negative
Weapons and discovery of explosives
Use of counterfeit money
Death under mysterious circumstances
Death or bodily harm threatening the life of a child under three years of age, in
cooperation with the Sûreté du Québec
Disappearances
Runaways
Emergency Measures
Peaceful crowd control
Rescue operations
Forest search and rescue
Emergency response to local disaster
Support Services
Crime scene dusting and photography
Production and pooling of tactical and operational criminal intelligence relating to
persons, groups or phenomena affecting their territory
Significant contribution to criminal intelligence exchanges between police forces and
bodies in charge of enforcing the law
Management of human resources of intelligence
Routine contribution to the Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System (ViCLAS), the
Québec criminal intelligence data bank and the Sûreté du Québec fingerprint bank
Detention
Custody of exhibits
Court liaison
Taking of a bodily substance for forensic DNA analysis
Warrant management and tracking of individuals
Police records management
Public affairs
Québec Police Intelligence Centre (QPIC) input and retrieval
Internal affairs
Technical equipment and use of force instructor
Services of a breath analysis expert
Bertillonage

110

Information collection for the registration of sex offenders under the Sex Offender
Information Registration Act (S.C. 2004, c. 10)
Low-risk dynamic intervention
Entry of data in the Québec data bank on recovered firearms
Level 2: Between 100,000 and 249,999 inhabitants:
Investigations
Murder with imminent arrest
Criminal negligence causing death
Attempted murder
Fatal work injury
Financial institution or armoured car robbery
Fire involving fatality
Series of fires
Major fire involving commercial, industrial, institutional, government or community
buildings
Commercial or real estate fraud
Illegal lottery
Criminal offence causing death or life-threatening bodily injuries, committed while
driving a vehicle
Production, trafficking and possession of illicit drugs involving suppliers of local or street
dealers
Freight theft
Criminal offence committed by a crime ring
Keeping a common gaming or betting house and cheating
Counterfeit money offences
Emergency Measures
Crowd control involving risk of disturbance
Support Services
Crime scene and criminal identification expert
Fire scene expert
Reconstructionist (collision investigation)
Vehicle identification
Computer-generated composite sketching
Production and pooling of strategic criminal intelligence relating to persons, groups or
phenomena affecting their territory
Level 3: Between 250,000 and 499,999 inhabitants:

111

Investigations
Murder
Life-threatening kidnapping
Extortion
Fatal aircraft accident
Proceeds of crime
Production, trafficking and possession of illicit drugs involving high-level suppliers
Gang crime corresponding to applicable service level
Criminal offence committed by criminal organizations operating on an inter-regional
basis, in cooperation with the Sûreté du Québec
Child pornography
Procuring
Common bawdy-house
Event involving a police force, upon request by the Minister
Computer data mischief or theft
Theft, illegal use or possession of explosives without lawful excuse
Death or bodily harm threatening the life of a child under 3 years of age
Emergency Measures
Intervention involving armed and barricaded suspect (no shots fired, no hostages)
Support Services
Physical surveillance
Database retrieval
Infiltration
Analysis of pure version statements
Dog team (drugs, guarding and tracking)
Special unit
Moderate-risk intervention
Return to Québec of an individual who has contravened a decision or order of the
Commission d'examen des troubles mentaux
Level 4: Between 500,000 and 999,999 inhabitants:
Investigations
Murder or attempted murder committed by criminal organizations operating on an interregional basis, in cooperation with the Sûreté du Québec
Emergency Measures
Crowd control involving high risk of disturbance or riot in cooperation with the Sûreté du
Québec
Intervention involving barricaded and armed suspect, and shots fired
Support Services

112

Electronic surveillance
High-risk intervention
Special weapons and tactics team
Level 5: 1,000,000 inhabitants and more:
Policing
Recreational boating safety on the St. Lawrence River
Investigations
Terrorist incident management
Importation and exportation of illicit drugs, in cooperation with the Sûreté du Québec
Weapons and explosives trafficking
Extra-provincial kidnapping
Betting and bookmaking
Criminal offence committed by a ring operating on an inter-regional basis
Judicial or municipal civil servant corruption
Commercial or real estate fraud committed by a person or an entity referred to in the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (S.C. 2000, c. 17)
and its regulations.
Emergency Measures
Helicopter operations
Crowd control involving high risk of disturbance or riot
Intervention involving hostages or an active shooter
Support services
Underwater diving
Defusing and handling of explosives (explosives experts)
Infiltration at top level of criminal organization
Polygraph and hypnosis
Dog team (explosives)
Operations security intelligence
Evaluation and protection of justice collaborators
Video interrogation support
Use of undercover civil agents
Level 6 services
Investigations
Coordination of investigations during unusual events
Coordination of investigations of murders and assaults by predator
Police cooperation to counter organized crime
Crime relating to State revenues, security or integrity

113

Coordination of investigations of series of fires at inter-regional level
Criminal offence by a ring operating in and outside Québec
Misappropriation of funds
Fraudulent securities transactions
Crime within provincial or federal detention centres
Cybersurveillance
International judicial cooperation
Emergency Measures
Coordination of recovery operations and maintenance of order during emergencies or
civil disturbances of provincial scope
Support Services
Protection of international VIPs
Protection of the National Assembly
State security investigations and intelligence
Security and integrity of government computer systems
ViCLAS coordination
Criminal profiling
Composite sketching
Specialized criminal identification
Centralized fingerprint database
Interpol liaison
QPIC management
Permanent emergency service unit
Coordination and registration of information in the National Sex Offender Registry.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Act - (R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10)
Following is a brief description of policing duties by the NWMP when they first arrived
in western Canada:
The police performed a wide array of civic duties, from serving as postmasters to
customs collectors. They rescued lost children and retrieved missing livestock.
NWMP surgeons often tended to civilians. The constables enforced the law and
kept the public peace in white communities and on Indigenous reserves. NWMP
investigators solved crimes like robbery and murder, and were effective in
breaking up rustler gangs operating along the international border. Source:
thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/north-west-mounted-police/#h3_jump_5.
Accessed January 19th, 2017.

114

RCMP Act – RSC
Duties
18. It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the
Commissioner,
(a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the
preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws
of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed,
and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully
taken into custody;
(b) to execute all warrants, and perform all duties and services in relation thereto,
that may, under this Act or the laws of Canada or the laws in force in any
province, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers;
(c) to perform all duties that may be lawfully performed by peace officers in
relation to the escort and conveyance of convicts and other persons in custody to
or from any courts, places of punishment or confinement, asylums or other places;
and
(d) to perform such other duties and functions as are prescribed by the Governor
in Council or the Commissioner.

Ontario Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15
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.

England and Wales

115

Police service’s Statement of Common Purpose remains a helpful one. It is as follows:
The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly
and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice
those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to
protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to
do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgment. (Roles and
Responsibilities of Police, Pg xii).
Queensland Police Service, Australia
Extract from the Police Service Administration Act ,1990:
2.3 Functions of service.
The functions of the police service are the following:
(a) the preservation of peace and good order—
(i) in all areas of the State; and
(ii) in all areas outside the State where the laws of the State may lawfully be
applied, when occasion demands;
(b) the protection of all communities in the State and all members thereof:
(i) from unlawful disruption of peace and good order that results, or is likely to
result, from:
(A) actions of criminal offenders;
(B) actions or omissions of other persons;
(ii) from commission of offences against the law generally;
(c) the prevention of crime;
(d) the detection of offenders and bringing of offenders to justice;
(e) the upholding of the law generally;
(f) the administration, in a responsible, fair and efficient manner and subject to due
process of law and directions of the commissioner, of:
(i) the provisions of the Criminal Code;
(ii) the provisions of all other Acts or laws for the time being committed to the
responsibility of the service;
(iii) the powers, duties and discretions prescribed for officers by any Act;
(g) the provision of the services, and the rendering of help reasonably sought, in an
emergency or otherwise, as are:
(i) required of officers under any Act or law or the reasonable expectations of the
community; or
(ii) reasonably sought of officers by members of the community.
2.3 Presence of police officers at fire or chemical incident
(1) On receiving information of the occurrence of an incident requiring the
attendance of fire authority officers, the commissioner or the police officer in
charge, at the time, of the police station nearest to the location of the incident
116

must immediately send as many police officers as are considered necessary to
preserve order and to help at the incident.
2.4 Community responsibility preserved
(1) The prescription of any function as one of the functions of the police service
does not relieve or derogate from the responsibility and functions appropriately
had by the community at large and the members thereof in relation to —
(a) the preservation of peace and good order; and
(b) the prevention, detection and punishment of breaches of the law.
(2) In performance of the functions of the police service, members of the service
are to act in partnership with the community at large to the extent compatible with
efficient and proper performance of those functions.

117

Appendix B – Ontario’s Mobilization Model of Community Policing

118

Appendix C
Data Elements and Violation Coding Structure for the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey
2.2 Incident-Based (Last modified 2016-07-12)
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey was designed to measure the incidence of crime in
Canadian society and its characteristics. Presented are the data elements that are captured by the
survey, and the violation codes that are used in data collection.
Data Elements
Aboriginal Indicator
Apparent Age Attempted/Completed Violation Charges Laid or Recommended Clearance Date
Counter Frauds and Motor Vehicles – UCR 2.1 Counter Frauds and Motor Vehicles – UCR 2.2
CSC Status (Charged/Suspect - Chargeable) Cybercrime
Date Charges Laid or Recommended or Processed By Other Means Date of Birth
Fps Number
Fraud Type
Geocode Information
Hate Crime
Incident Clearance Status
Incident Date/Time (From and To Date and Time) Incident File Number
Level of Injury
Location of Incident
Most Serious Violation / Violations
Most Serious Violation Against The Victim (VAV)
Most Serious Weapon Present
Motor Vehicle Recovery
Organized Crime / Street Gang
Peace – Public Officer Status
Property Stolen
Relationship of CSC, (Charged/Suspect – Chargeable), To The Victim Report Date
Respondent Code
Sex
Shoplifting Flag
Soundex Code – UCR 2.1
Soundex Code – UCR 2.2
Special Survey Feature
Target Vehicle
Update Status
Vehicle Type
Weapon Causing Injury

119

Violation structure for the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey
CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
Violations Causing Death Murder 1st Degree
Murder 2nd Degree Manslaughter
Infanticide
Criminal Negligence Causing Death Other Related Offences Causing Death
Attempting The Commission Of A Capital Crime Attempted Murder
Conspire to Commit Murder
Sexual Violations
Aggravated Sexual Assault
Sexual Assault With A Weapon
Sexual Assault
Other Sexual Crimes (expired 2008-03-31)
Sexual Interference (effective 2008-04-01)
Invitation To Sexual Touching (effective 2008-04-01)
Sexual Exploitation (effective 2008-04-01)
Sexual Exploitation of a Person with a Disability (effective 2008-05-01) Incest (effective 200804-01)
Corrupting Children (effective 2008-04-01)
Making Sexually Explicit material available to Children (effective 2012-08-09) Parent or
guardian procuring sexual activity
Householder permitting prohibited sexual activity
Luring a Child via a Computer (effective 2008-04-01)
Anal Intercourse (effective 2008-04-01)
Bestiality / Commit / Compel / Incite a Person (effective 2008-04-01) Voyeurism (effective 200804-01)
Nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (effective 2015-03-09)
Assaults
Aggravated Assault Level 3
Assault With Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm Level 2 Assault Level 1
Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm
Discharge Firearm with Intent
Using Firearm/Imitation of Firearm in commission of offence (effective 2008-04-01) Pointing a
Firearm (effective 2008-04-01)
Assault Against Peace Public Officer
Assault Against Peace Officer with a weapon or causing bodily harm (effective 2009-10-02)
Aggravated Assault Against Peace Officer (effective 2009-10-02)

120

Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm
Trap Likely To or Causing Bodily Harm (effective 2008-04-01) Other Assaults
Violations Resulting In The Deprivation Of Freedom
Kidnapping / Forcible Confinement (expired 2010-01-08) Kidnapping (effective 2010-01-08)
Forcible Confinement (effective 2010-01-08)
Hostage Taking
Trafficking in Persons (effective 2005-11-01)
Abduction Under 14, Not Parent/Guardian
Abduction Under 16
Removal of Children from Canada (effective 1998-01-01) Abduction Under 14 Contravening A
Custody Order Abduction Under 14, by Parent/Guardian
Commodification of Sexual Activity
Obtaining sexual services for consideration (effective 2014-12-06)
Obtaining sexual services for consideration from person under 18 years (effective 2014-12-06)
Receive material benefit from sexual services (effective 2014-12-06)
Receive material benefit from sexual services provided by a person under 18 years (effective
2014-12-06)
Procuring (effective 2014-12-06)
Procuring - person under 18 years (effective 2014-12-06)
Advertising sexual services (effective 2014-12-06)
Other Violations Involving Violence or the Threat of Violence Robbery
Robbery to steal firearm (effective 2008-05-01)
Extortion
Intimidation of a Justice System Participant or a Journalist (effective 2008-04-01) Intimidation of
a Non-Justice System Participant (effective 2008-04-01)
Criminal Harassment (effective 1994-01-01)
Indecent/Harassing Communications (effective 2008-04-01)
Utter Threats to Person (effective 1998-01-01)
Explosives Causing Death/Bodily Harm (effective 1998-01-01)
Arson – Disregard for Human Life (effective 1999-05-01)
Other Violations against the person
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Arson
Break and Enter
Break and Enter to steal firearm (effective 2008-05-01)
Break and Enter a motor vehicle (firearm) (effective 2008-05-01)
Theft over $5,000
Theft of a motor vehicle over $5,000 (effective 2004-01-01) (expired 2011-04-28) Theft over
$5,000 from a motor vehicle (effective 2004-01-01)
Shoplifting over $5,000 (effective 2008-04-01)
Motor Vehicle Theft (effective 2011-04-29)
Theft $5,000 or under

121

Theft of a motor vehicle $5,000 and under (effective 2004-01-01) (expired 2011-04-28) Theft
$5,000 or under from a motor vehicle (effective 2004-01-01)
Shoplifting $5,000 or under (effective 2008-04-01)
Have Stolen Goods (expired 2011-04-28)
Trafficking in Stolen Goods over $5,000 (effective 2011-04-29)
Possession of Stolen Goods over $5,000 (effective 2011-04-29)
Trafficking in Stolen Goods $5,000 and under (effective 2011-04-29)
Possession of Stolen Goods $5,000 and under (effective 2011-04-29)
Fraud
Identity
Identity
Mischief
Mischief
Mischief
Mischief
Mischief
Mischief
Altering/Destroying/Removing a vehicle identification number (effective 2011-04-29)
OTHER CRIMINAL CODE VIOLATIONS
Prostitution
Bawdy House (expired 2014-12-05)
Living off the avails of prostitution of a person under 18 (effective 1998-01-01) (expired 201412-05)
Procuring (expired 2014-12-05)
Theft (effective 2010-01-08) Fraud (effective 2010-01-08)
over $5,000 (expired 2008-03-31)
$5,000 or under (expired 2008-03-31)
in relation to cultural property
to Religious Property Motivated by Hate (effective 2008-04-01) relating to war memorials
(effective 2014-06-19)
Obtains/Communicates with a Person Under 18 for Purpose of Sex (effective 1998-01-01)
(expired 2014-12-05)
Other Prostitution (expired 2014-12-05)
Communicating to provide sexual services for consideration (effective 2014-12-06)
Stopping or impeding traffic for the purpose of offering, providing or obtaining sexual services
for consideration (effective 2014-12-06)
Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting Betting House
Gaming House
Other Gaming and Betting
Common Bawdy House (effective 2014-12-06)
Offensive Weapons Explosives

122

Prohibited (expired 1998-12-01)
Restricted (expired 1998-12-01)
Firearm Transfers/Serial Numbers (expired 1998-12-01)
Other Offensive Weapons (expired 1998-12-01)
Using Firearms/Imitation (expired 2008-03-31)
Weapons Trafficking (effective 1998-12-01)
Weapons Possession Contrary to Order (effective 1998-12-01) Possession of Weapons (effective
1998-12-01)
Unauthorized importing/exporting of weapons (effective 1998-12-01) Pointing a Firearm (expired
2008-03-31)
Firearms Documentation/Administration (effective 1998-12-01) Unsafe Storage of Firearms
(effective 1998-12-01)
Other Criminal Code
Failure to Comply with Conditions
Counterfeiting Currency
Disturb the Peace
Escape Custody
Indecent Acts
Child pornography
Making, or distribution of child pornography
Voyeurism (expired 2008-03-31)
Public Morals
Luring a Child Via a Computer (expired 2008-03-31)
Obstruct Public Peace Officer
Prisoner Unlawfully At Large
Trespass at Night
Failure to Attend Court
Breach of Probation
Threatening/Harassing Phone Calls (expired 2008-03-31)
Utter Threats Against Property or Animals (effective 2008-04-01)
Advocating Genocide (effective 2008-04-01)
Public Incitement Of Hatred (effective 2008-04-01)
Unauthorized recording of a movie/purpose of sale, rental, commercial distribution (2007-0622)
Offences Against Public Order (Part II CC)
Property or Services for Terrorist Activity (effective 2002-01-01)
Freezing of Property, Disclosure, Audit (effective 2002-01-01)
Participate in Activity of Terrorist Group (effective 2002-01-01)
Facilitate Terrorist Activity (effective 2002-01-01)
Instruction/Commission of Act of Terrorism (effective 2002-01-01) Harbour or Conceal Terrorist
(effective 2002-01-01) (expired 2013-07-14) Hoax – Terrorism (effective 2005-01-01)
Advocating/Promoting Terrorism Offence (effective 2015-07-18)
Firearms and other offensive weapons (Part III CC)
Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group (effective 2013-07-15)
Leaving Canada to facilitate terrorist activity (effective 2013-07-15)
Leaving Canada to commit offence for terrorist group (effective 2013-07-15)
Leaving Canada to commit offence that is terrorist activity (effective 2013-07-15) Concealing

123

person who carried out terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable
to imprisonment for life (effective 2013-07-15)
Concealing person who carried out terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that
person is liable to any punishment other than life (effective 2013-07-15)
Concealing person who is likely to carry out terrorist activity (effective 2013-07-15) Offences
Against the Administration of Law and Justice (Part IV CC)
Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct (Part V CC)
Invasion of Privacy (Part VI CC)
Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting (Part VII CC) (expired 2008-03-31)
Offences Against the Person and Reputation (Part VIII CC)
Offences Against the Rights of Property (Part IX CC)
Fraudulent Transactions Relating to Contracts and Trade (Part X CC)
Intimidation of Justice System Participant (expired 2008-03-31)
Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property (Part XI CC)
Offences Related to Currency (Part XII CC)
Proceeds of Crime (Part XII.2 CC) (effective 1998-01-01)
Attempts, Conspiracies, Accessories (Part XIII CC)
Instruct Offence for Criminal Organization (effective 2002-01-01)
Commit Offence for Criminal Organization (effective 2002-01-01)
Participate in Activities of Criminal Organization (effective 2002-01-01)
Recruitment of members by a criminal organization (effective 2014-09-06)
All other Criminal Code (includes Part XII.1 CC)
CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT (EFFECTIVE 1997-06-01)
Possession Heroin
Cocaine
Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Cannabis
Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth) (effective 2008-04-01) Methylenedioxyamphetamine (Ecstasy)
(effective 2008-04-01)
Trafficking Heroin
Cocaine
Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Cannabis
Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth) (effective 2008-04-01) Methylenedioxyamphetamine (Ecstasy)
(effective 2008-04-01)
Importation and Exportation Heroin
Cocaine
Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Cannabis
Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth) (effective 2008-04-01) Methylenedioxyamphetamine (Ecstasy)
(effective 2008-04-01)

124

Production
Heroin (effective 2008-04-01)
Cocaine (effective 2008-04-01)
Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (effective 2008-04-01) Cannabis
Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth) (effective 2008-04-01) Methylenedioxyamphetamine (Ecstasy)
(effective 2008-04-01)
Precursor/Equipment (crystal meth, ecstasy) (effective 2011-06-26) Proceeds of Crime (CDSA)
(expired 2002-02-01)
OTHER FEDERAL STATUTE VIOLATIONS
Bankruptcy Act Income Tax Act Canada Shipping Act Canada Health Act Customs Act
Competition Act Excise Act
Young Offenders Act (expired 2003-03-31)
Youth Criminal Justice Act (effective 2003-04-01)
Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Human Trafficking (effective 2011-04-29)
Human Smuggling fewer than 10 persons (effective 2011-04-29) Human Smuggling 10 persons
or more (effective 2011-04-29) Firearms Act (effective 1998-12-01)
National Defence Act (effective 2002-01-01)
Other Federal Statutes
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
Dangerous Operation Causing Death
Causing Bodily Harm
Operation of Motor Vehicle, Vessel or Aircraft
Flight From Peace Officer (effective 2000-03-30) Causing Death
Causing Bodily-Harm Flight From Peace Officer
Impaired Operation/Related Violations Causing Death (Alcohol)
Causing Death (Drugs)
Causing Bodily Harm (Alcohol)
Causing Bodily Harm (Drugs)
Operation of Motor Vehicle, Vessel or Aircraft or over 80 mg. (Alcohol) Operation of Motor
Vehicle, Vessel or Aircraft or over 80 mg. (Drugs) Failure to Comply or Refusal (Alcohol)
Failure to Comply or Refusal (Drugs)
Failure to Provide Blood Sample (Alcohol)
Failure to Provide Blood Sample (Drugs)

125

Other Criminal Code Traffic Violations
Failure to Stop or Remain (unspecified) (expired 2011-04-28) Failure to Stop Causing Death
(effective 2011-04-29)
Failure to Stop Causing Bodily Harm (effective 2011-04-29) Failure to Stop or Remain (effective
2011-04-29)
Driving While Prohibited
Other Criminal Code
Street Racing
Causing Death by Criminal Negligence While Street Racing (effective 2006-12-14)
Causing Bodily Harm by Criminal Negligence While Street Racing (effective 2006-12-14)
Dangerous Operation Causing Death While Street Racing (effective 2006-12-14) Dangerous
Operation Causing Bodily Harm While Street Racing (effective 2006-12-14) Dangerous
Operation of Motor Vehicle While Street Racing (effective 2006-12-14)
Source: Statistics Canada. http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/3302_D15_T9_V4eng.pdf. Accessed 2017-06-09.

126

Appendix D
Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) Priority Level Descriptions
The following are the standard event priority definitions as approved by the British
Columbia Provincial CAD Committee.
Priority 1 – Urgent Response Incidents that involve life threatening circumstances
and situations that produce or is likely to produce serious bodily injury and/or
death to any person.

Priority 2 - Immediate Response Incidents in progress that present the
potential for injury or property damage/loss or requires immediate
response due to the state of the victim or seriousness of the call.
Priority 3 - Routine Response Non- urgent routine service related calls
that do not require an officer immediately but need investigation,
mediation or intervention.
Priority 4 - Routine Response Where the call does not require a quick
response from an officer or the call is handled over the telephone
(agency dependent).
Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) – Codes
AB911
Abandoned 911 Calls
ABANDV Abandoned Vehicle
ABDUC Abduction
AIREM
Air Emergency
ALARM Alarm
ALARMA Alarm Airport Check Point
ALARMD Alarm Dvers
ALARMF Alarm False
ALARMH Alarm Hold Up
ALARMS Alarm Silent/Panic
ANIMAL Animal
ANNOY Annoying Circumstance
ARREST Arrest
ARSON Arson
ASLT
Assault
ALSTI
Assault in Progress
ALSTSX Assault Sexual
ASSGP
Assist General Public
ASSMHA Assist Mental Health Act

127

ASSOA Assist Other Agency
ASSPFA Assist/Police/Fire/Ambulance
BAIT
BAIT Car Activated
BOMB
Bomb Threat
BORDR Border Runner
BREACH Breach
BNE
Break and Enter
BNEI
Break and Enter In Progress
BYLAW Bylaw
CHECK Check Well-Being
COUNT Counterfeit Currency
DEMON Demonstration/Protest
DISTB
Disturbance
DNA
DNA Collection
DOMI
Domestic In Progress
DOMRPT Domestic Report
DRUGS Drugs
EXPLOS Explosives
EXTORT Extortion
FIGHT
Fight
FIREAR Firearms (For Pickup/Transport)
FOUNDP Found Person
FRAUD Fraud
HARASS Harassment
HAZARD Hazardous Situation
HOMEIN Home Invasion
HOSTAG Hostage
IMPAIR Impaired
INDEC
Indecent Act
INDUST Industrial Accident
INSEC
Insecure Premises or Vehicle
INTELL Intelligence Information
JUMPER Jumper
KPEACE Keep the Peace
LIQUOR Liquor Act/Licensed Premises Check
MAND
Man Down (Person Down)
MARINE Marine Incident
MISCH
Mischief
MISCHI Mischief in Progress
MISSIC Missing Child
MISSIP
Missing Person
MVI
Motor Vehicle Incident (Collision)
MVIHR MVI Hit and Run
MVIINJ MVI Injury
MVIPOL MVI Involving Police Vehicle
NOK
Next of Kin Notifications

128

1033
Officer in Trouble
OCC
Other Criminal Code
OVERD Overdose
PANHA Panhandler
PARK
Parking
911
Police – Any Call
PROP
Property
PROST
Prostitution
PROWL Prowler
PURSUE Pursuit
RECVEH Recovered Vehicle
ROBB
Robbery
ROBBI
Robbery In Progress
SCREAM Screaming Heard
SHOPL
Shoplifter
SHOTS
Shots Fired/Heard
SIP
Subject Intoxicated in Public Place/Drunk In Public Place
SPAT
Special Attention/Detail/Event
STALK
Stalking
SUDDEN Sudden Death
SUICID Suicidal Person
SUSPC
Suspicious Circumstances
SUSPP
Suspicious Person
SUSV
Suspicious Vehicle
THEFT
Theft
THEFTI Theft in Progress
THEFTV Theft of Vehicle
THREAT Threats
TRAFF
Traffic Incident
TRAFFS Traffic Suspension/24 HR/12 HR/Prohibition Notice
TRANS Transit Incident
UNWANT Unwanted Person
WARRAN Warrant
WEAPON Weapon
YOUTH Youth

129

Appendix E – Top 10 CAD Calls for Service by Priority Level and Jurisdictional Grouping
Top 10 CAD Calls for Service by Priority Level – Large Municipal
Large Municipal Grouping
Top 10
CAD
Calls

LM -2
(Count)

LM - 2
(Percent)

LM – 1
(Count)

LM – 1
(Percent)

LM
Grouping
Total
(Count)

LM
Grouping
Total
(Percent)

AB911

4,037

100.0%

25,207

100.0%

29,244

100.0%

1

43

1.1%

89

0.4%

132

0.5%

2

3,912

96.9%

12,667

50.3%

16,579

56.7%

3

61

1.5%

12,263

48.7%

12,324

42.2%

4

15

0.4%

188

0.8%

203

0.7%

5

6

0.2%

0

0.0%

6

0.1%

THEFT

5,038

100.0%

12,236

100.0%

17,274

100.0%

1

0

0.0%

4

0.1%

4

0.1%

2

55

1.1%

1,091

8.9%

1,146

6.7%

3

243

4.9%

2,929

23.9%

3,172

18.4%

4

4,738

94.1%

8180

66.9%

12,918

74.8%

5

2

0.0%

0

0.00%

2

0.0%

6

0

0.00%

32

0.3%

32

0.2%

ALARM

5,332

100.0%

9,759

100.0%

15,091

100.0%

1

14

0.3%

29

0.3%

43

0.3%

2

283

5.3%

8,510

87.2%

8,793

58.3%

3

5,009

94%

1,197

12.3%

6,206

41.2%

4

22

0.4%

23

0.3%

45

0.3%

5

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

9

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

TRAFF

2,048

100.0%

8,594

100.0%

10,642

100.0%

1

2

0.1%

8

0.1%

10

0.1%

2

120

5.9%

4,539

52.9%

4,659

43.8%

3

1,915

93.5%

3,648

42.5%

5,563

52.3%

4

9

0.5%

381

4.5%

390

3.7%

5

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

18

0.2%

18

0.2%

DISTB

2,340

100.0%

7,854

100.0%

10,194

100.0%

1

25

1.1%

58

0.8%

83

0.8%

2

599

25.6%

7,005

89.2%

7,604

74.6%

3

1,702

72.8%

704

9.0%

2,406

23.6%

4

12

0.5%

87

1.1%

99

1.0%

5

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

ASSPFA

2,378

100.0%

6,815

100.0%

9,193

100.0%

1

29

1.2%

35

0.5%

64

0.7%

2

2,208

92.9%

4,392

64.5%

6,600

71.8%

3

102

4.3%

1,576

23.2%

1,678

18.3%

130

4

29

1.2%

809

11.9%

838

9.1%

5

10

0.4%

0

0.0%

10

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

3

0.1%

3

0.1%

SUSPP

2,254

100.0%

6,489

100.0%

8,743

100.0%

1

14

0.6%

15

0.3%

29

0.4%

2

785

34.9%

4,883

75.3%

5,668

64.9%

3

1,444

64.1%

1,312

20.2%

2,756

31.5%

4

10

0.5%

272

4.2%

282

3.3%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

7

0.1%

7

0.1%

SUSPC

2,486

100.0%

5,819

100.0%

8,305

100.0%

1

86

3.5%

61

1.1%

147

1.8%

2

1,122

45.2%

3,151

54.2%

4,273

51.5%

3

1,261

50.7%

1,813

31.2%

3,074

37.1%

4

16

0.64%

787

13.5%

803

9.7%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

7

0.1%

7

0.1%

PROP

2,601

100.0%

5,555

100.0%

8,156

100.0%

0.0%

25

0.5%

25

0.3%

2
3

130

5.0%

719

13.0%

849

10.4%

4

2,468

94.9%

4,805

86.5%

7,273

89.2%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

6

0.1%

6

0.1%

7

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

9

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

CHECK

1,219

100.0%

6,874

100.0%

8,093

100.0%

1

7

0.6%

25

0.4%

32

0.4%

2

321

26.4%

5,795

84.3%

6,116

75.6%

3

887

72.8%

985

14.4%

1,872

23.2%

4

3

0.3%

68

1.0%

71

0.9%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

1

0.0%

1

0.1%

Top 10 CAD Calls for Service by Priority Level – Medium Municipal
Medium Municipal Grouping
Top 10
CAD
Calls

MM –
1
(Count)

MM – 1
(Percent)

MM – 2
(Count)

MM – 2
(Percent)

MM Grouping
Total (Count)

MM Grouping
Total (Percent)

TRAFF

3,267

100.0%

1,593

100.0%

4,860

100.0%

1

4

0.1%

4

0.3%

8

0.2%

2

792

24.3%

128

8.1%

920

19.0%

3

2,395

73.3%

1,446

90.8%

3,841

79.1%

131

4

72

2.2%

15

1.0%

87

1.8%

5

4

0.1%

0

0.0%

4

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

ASSGP

2,881

100.0%

806

100.0%

3,777

100.0%

1

11

0.4%

2

0.3%

9

0.3%

2

206

7.2%

63

7.8%

548

14.5%

3

2,630

91.3%

710

88.1%

3,171

4.0%

4

32

1.1%

31

3.9%

49

1.3%

5

2

0.1%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

6

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

THEFT

2,180

100.0%

921

100.0%

3,101

100.0%

1

2

0.1%

0.0%

2

0.1%

2

86

4.0%

20

2.2%

106

3.4%

3

1,140

52.3%

268

29.1%

1,408

45.40%

4

951

43.6%

633

68.8%

1,584

51.1%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

DISTB

2,036

100.0%

753

100.0%

2,789

100.0%

1

52

2.6%

8

1.1%

60

2.2%

2

753

37.0%

278

37.0%

1,031

37.0%

3

1,222

60.1%

465

61.8%

1,687

60.5%

4

9

0.5%

2

0.3%

11

0.4%

5

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

PROP

1,657

100.0%

1,013

100.0%

2,670

100.0%

2

6

0.4%

0

0.0%

6

0.2%

3

241

14.6%

77

7.6%

318

11.9%

4

1,405

84.8%

935

92.3%

2,340

87.7%

5

5

0.3%

1

0.1%

6

0.2%

SIP

2,032

100.0%

324

100.0%

2,356

100.0%

1

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

120

5.9%

24

7.4%

144

6.1%

3

1,907

93.9%

300

92.6%

2,207

93.7%

4

4

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

0.2%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

7

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

AB911

1,562

100.0%

524

100.0%

2,086

100.0%

1

9

0.6%

1

0.2%

10

0.5%

2

1,507

96.5%

511

97.5%

2,018

96.8%

3

14

0.9%

7

1.4%

21

1.1%

4

30

2.0%

5

1.0%

35

1.7%

5

2

0.2%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

SUSPC

1,443

100.0%

591

100.0%

2,034

100.0%

1

10

0.7%

0

0.0%

10

0.5%

132

2

240

16.7%

70

11.9%

310

15.3%

3

1,181

81.9%

513

86.8%

1,694

83.3%

4

12

0.9%

8

1.4%

20

1.0%

5

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

6

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

ALARM

1,382

100.0%

626

100.0%

2,008

100.0%

1

13

1.0%

4

0.7%

17

0.9%

2

1,144

82.8%

493

78.8%

1,637

81.5%

3

85

6.2%

126

20.2%

211

10.5%

4

139

10.1%

3

0.5%

142

7.1%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

9

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

ASSOA

1,236

100.0%

627

100.0%

1,863

100.0%

1

2

0.2%

0

0.0%

2

0.1%

2

37

3.0%

19

3.1%

56

3.0%

3

1,186

6.0%

565

90.1%

1,751

94.0%

4

10

0.8%

43

6.7%

53

2.9%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

6

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Top 10 CAD Calls for Service by Priority Level – Municipal Rural
Municipal Rural Grouping
Top 10
CAD
Calls

MR -1
(Count)

MR – 1
(Percent)

MR – 2
(Count)

MR – 2
(Percent)

MR – 3
(Count)

MR -3
(Percent)

MR Grouping
Total (Count)

MR
Grouping
Total
(Percent)

TRAF
F
1

4,941

100.0%

483

100.0%

1,199

100.0%

6,623

100.0%

4

0.1%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

0.1%

2

2,462

49.9%

111

23.0%

255

21.3%

2,828

42.7%

3

2,414

48.9%

369

76.4%

939

78.3%

3,722

56.2%

4

59

1.2%

3

0.6%

2

0.2%

64

1.0%

5

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

3

0.3%

4

0.1%

6

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

THEF
T
1

4,007

100.0%

212

100.0%

513

100.0%

4,732

100.0%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

2

219

5.5%

5

2.4%

16

3.1%

240

5.1%

3

3,180

79.4%

67

31.6%

142

27.7%

3,389

71.6%

4

607

15.2%

140

66.1%

355

69.2%

1,102

23.3%

ASSG
P
1

2,804

100.0%

391

100.0%

582

100.0%

3,777

100.0%

7

0.3%

1

0.3%

1

0.2%

9

0.3%

2

474

16.9%

25

6.4%

49

8.4%

548

14.5%

3

2,278

81.3%

363

93.0%

530

91.1%

3,171

84.0%

4

45

1.6%

2

0.5%

2

0.4%

49

1.3%

133

ALAR
M
1

2,397

100.0%

179

100.0%

481

100.0%

3,057

100.0%

9

0.4%

2

1.1%

3

0.6%

14

0.5%

2

1,613

67.3%

166

92.8%

420

87.3%

2,199

72.0%

3

166

7.0%

9

5.1%

40

8.3%

215

7.1%

4

609

25.4%

2

1.1%

18

3.8%

629

20.6%

PROP

2,189

100.0%

230

100.0%

535

100.0%

2,954

100.0%

2

8

0.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

8

0.3%

3

730

33.4%

21

9.2%

36

6.8%

787

26.7%

4

1,451

66.3%

209

90.9%

499

93.3%

2,159

73.1%

DISTB

2,183

100.0%

202

100.0%

473

100.0%

2,858

100.0%

1

17

0.8%

13

6.5%

7

1.5%

37

1.3%

2

1,414

64.8%

116

57.5%

152

32.2%

1,682

58.9%

3

726

33.3%

73

36.2%

314

66.4%

1,113

39.0%

4

26

1.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.00%

26

0.9%

ASSPF
A
1

1,770

100.0%

132

100.0%

413

100.0%

2315

100.0%

6

0.4%

2

1.5%

2

0.5%

10

0.5%

2

1,404

79.3%

122

92.4%

373

90.3%

1,899

82.1%

3

266

15.1%

8

6.1%

34

8.3%

308

13.3%

4

94

5.3%

0

0.0%

3

0.8%

97

4.2%

5

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.3%

1

0.1%

MVI

1,760

100.0%

181

100.0%

358

100.0%

2,299

100.0%

1

7

0.4%

1

0.6%

0

0.0%

8

0.4%

2

1,268

72.1%

75

41.5%

102

28.5%

1,445

62.9%

3

453

25.8%

105

58.0%

254

71.0%

812

35.3%

4

32

1.8%

0

0.0%

2

0.6%

34

1.5%

AB911

1,619

100.0%

232

100.0%

396

100.0%

2,247

100.0%

1

7

0.5%

3

1.3%

1

0.3%

11

0.5%

2

1,551

95.8%

210

90.5%

392

99.0%

2,153

95.9%

3

20

1.3%

17

7.4%

2

0.5%

39

1.8%

4

41

2.6%

2

0.9%

1

0.3%

44

2.0%

SUSP
C
1

1,743

100.0%

144

100.0%

337

100.0%

2,224

100.0%

5

0.3%

1

0.9%

1

0.3%

7

0.3%

2

511

29.3%

28

19.5%

45

13.4%

584

26.3%

3

1,192

68.4%

113

78.5%

290

86.1%

1,595

71.8%

4

35

2.0%

2

1.4%

1

0.3%

38

1.7%

Top 10 CAD Calls for Service by Priority Level – Rural Remote
Rural/Remote Grouping
Top 10
CAD
Calls

RR - 1
(Count)

RR – 1
(Percent)

RR – 2
(Count)

RR – 2
(Percent)

RR - 3
(Count)

RR - 3
(Percent)

RR Grouping
Total (Count)

RR
Grouping
Total
(Percent)

TRAF
F

367

100.0%

62

100.0%

62

100.0%

491

100.0%

134

1

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

75

20.5%

11

17.8%

18

29.1%

104

21.2%

3

292

79.6%

47

75.8%

43

69.%

382

77.8%

4

0

0.0%

4

6.5%

1

1.6%

5

1.1%

SIP

364

100.0%

43

100.0%

39

100.0%

446

100.0%

1

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

13

3.6%

1

2.4%

0

0.0%

14

3.2%

3

351

96.5%

42

97.7%

38

97.5%

431

96.7%

4

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

2.6%

1

0.3%

ASSG
P
1

176

100.0%

100

100.0%

84

100.0%

360

100.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

9

5.1%

3

3.0%

4

4.8%

16

4.5%

3

166

94.3%

92

92.0%

80

95.3%

338

93.9%

4

1

0.6%

4

4.0%

0

0.0%

5

1.4%

5

0

0.0%

1

1.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.3%

DISTB

212

100.0%

32

100.0%

73

100.0%

317

100.0%

1

5

2.4%

0

0.0%

1

1.4%

6

1.9%

2

66

31.2%

7

21.9%

25

34.3%

98

30.9%

3

139

65.6%

24

75.0%

47

64.4%

210

66.3%

4

2

1.0%

1

3.2%

0

0.0%

3

1.0%

ASSO
A
1

131

100.0%

67

100.0%

32

100.0%

230

100.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

1

0.8%

2

3.0%

0

0.0%

3

1.3%

3

130

99.3%

65

97.0%

32

100.0%

227

98.7%

4

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

BREA
CH
1

162

100.0%

4

100.0%

21

100.0%

187

100.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

4.8%

1

0.6%

3

20

12.4%

3

75.0%

7

33.4%

30

16.1%

4

142

87.7%

1

25.0%

13

61.9%

156

83.5%

ASSPF
A
1

121

100.0%

26

100.0%

31

100.0%

178

100.0%

1

0.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.6%

2

103

85.1%

25

96.2%

28

90.3%

156

87.7%

3

14

11.6%

1

3.9%

2

6.5%

17

9.6%

4

3

2.5%

0

0.0%

1

3.3%

4

2.3%

ALAR
M
1

135

100.0%

1

100.0%

17

100.0%

153

100.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

109

80.8%

1

100.0%

13

76.5%

123

80.4%

3

20

14.8%

0

0.0%

4

23.6%

24

15.7%

4

4

3.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

2.6%

5

2

1.5%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

1.3%

UNW
ANT

80

100.0%

13

100.0%

56

100.0%

149

100.0%

135

1

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

11

13.%

1

7.7%

3

5.4%

15

10.1%

3

69

86.3%

12

92.3%

51

91.1%

132

88.6%

4

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

1.8%

1

0.7%

5

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

1.8%

1

0.7%

AB911

116

100.0%

23

100.0%

4

100.0%

143

100.0%

1

1

0.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.7%

2

114

98.3%

22

95.7%

4

100.0%

140

97.9%

3

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

0

0.0%

1

4.4%

0

0.0%

1

0.7%

5

1

0.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.7%

136