Decision 2010: Calgary Municipal Election

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Yeah. In any case, the police budget needs a good look through. Does the city really need two helicopters? Is the tactical unit too big? Should the force be refocused on community beat policing, and can that be accomplised with internal reassignment?

I don't think any of us are able to answer those questions, but it would likely be good to hire a consultancy to ask Calgarians what they want police to focus on and then sketch out how to transform the police into that vision within the budgetary envelop.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by mooky

Fusili,

Naheed's query isn't about officers / capita .... if you read close its about:

1) cost per officer as it relates to the total CPD budget
2) percentage increase in total officers on the street when compared to the percentage increase in CPD budget

Apples and oranges, and that's exactly how easy it is for and how easily Chief Hanson deflected the issue by knowing that a lot of people wouldn't know or make the distinction.

Thanks for clearing that up. Nenshi is exactly right to question the cost per officer, which essentially translates into high admin costs. And if the budget increases, let's say 15%, but that only increases the # of officers on the street by 8%, something is wrong.

By the way, what Nenshi article are you referring to? Hanson mentioned it was released today, but I haven't heard a peep from the Nenshi campaign. Maybe something released earlier?

[Radley77]

I think Nenshi asked some good questions, and I had a couple of points that I think highlights why costs are high on a per capita basis, as well as why the budget increased.

Alberta already has very high weekly earnings:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100826/t100826a1-eng.htm

Just to pick up on a few of the bigger provinces:
Province - $weekly earnings - City - Per officer cost - Per capita cost - Crime severity index - Police officers per 100,000
Alberta - $1004 - Calgary - $166,628 - $265 - 84.5 - 153
Ontario - $879 - Toronto - $163,820 -$348 - 81.5 - 178
BC - $815 - Vancouver - $150,693 - $346 - 141.3 - 155
Quebec - $798 - Montreal - $130,747 -$315 - 112.6 - 186

A lot of the high per capita cost could just be a reflection of the overall high level of wages in Alberta and cost of being competitive. During the boom, City of Calgary police had a hard time trying to recruit and had to go to England. What is the cost of retraining officers due to retention issues? Can City of Calgary outsource police work (lab work, call support staff) to PEI for the police where the pay is less? Can leases be modified or extend lifespan on police vehichles?

With respect to wage increases, 5.8%, 6.0%, and 3.0% respectively between 2007-2009, plus 11% increase in staffing would explain a 28% increase in budget. This compares against the actual increase in police budget of 23% that Nenshi cited in his news release.

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/aboutalberta/spotlights/2010-0305-wage-update.pdf

Overall, I agree that the budget needs to be looked at an item by item basis. CPS has dozens upon dozen of different divisions. Maybe there is an opportunity to consolidate some of these to meet changing crime patterns (any redundant or new needs?)...

Crime severity in Calgary is already in the lower quartile for major Canadian cities, and the per capita costs are less than average. To me, this indicates that the CPS is already operating with a high degree of efficiency.

Iincreasing the staffing levels was a smart thing during the boom, because booms tend to attract young people, and young people correlate with higher crime rates. As a side note, Canada's aging population is a reason why crime forecasters have and continue to predict declining crime rates. This demographic trend, plus that CPS seem to have finally got around to the point of being proactive instead of reactive is a good reason to keep up with police staffing, on trend with population growth. There's no reason for having a police state, or at the other extreme places that are open air drug dealing on a daily basis which was happening to a much larger degree only a few years ago.

A starting place for any sort of discussion about the police budget should start with the chief of police, and also be looking to what people are wanting from the police service as Sir Humphrey mentioned. Barb Higgins at least called the chief of police up and asked what was important to him for the next mayor, and he said that a lot could be improved simply by working more to improve communication so that more coordination could occur between social agencies.

[srperrycgy]

Not really surprising but Paul Hughes (the Chicken Guy) has a Barb sign on his very messy yard.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Crime severity in Calgary is already in the lower quartile for major Canadian cities, and the per capita costs are less than average. To me, this indicates that the CPS is already operating with a high degree of efficiency.

I'm going to be honest, I couldn't be bothered to read through your entire post but the snippet above stood out during my glance at it. There is a rather large difference between effectiveness and efficiency. For example, a police officer could kill a man with one bullet or one hundred bullets. While both would be effective, only one would be efficient.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I understand during the boom, City of Calgary police had a hard time trying to recruit and had to go to England.

So what? It is easy to recruit from England. Just show them the value of their home their will equate to in Calgary - which is exactly how they did it.

Frankly, I'm perplexed at some of the responses to the point made in the forum today. Naheed simply asked why these types of questions were not asked by city council. To go off on a wild goose chase straw man argument is just uneducated.

[freeweed]

Calgary has a low crime rate because we're so damned prosperous, period. When you can make $12/hr at Timmy's, and anyone with a pulse can get hired, there's far less motivation for people to commit petty crimes. If Calgary's economy actually tanked for a decade or more (not this teensy weensy slowdown we just went through), crime would soar. It's pretty much a linear correlation between poverty/desperation and crime.

It's not that I don't think CPS does a good job (I'm a big fan of theirs compared to some people), but they don't deserve all the credit. It's one of the main reasons we have such a low officer per capita ratio. We just don't need that many cops when the vast majority of the city has food in its bellies, plus disposable income.

From what I gather, Nenshi was not saying anything about actual officers. He was pointing out our rather high administrative costs for CPS, which are undeniably out of line even considering Calgary's high labour costs.

[mooky]

Originally Posted by fusili

Thanks for clearing that up. Nenshi is exactly right to question the cost per officer, which essentially translates into high admin costs. And if the budget increases, let's say 15%, but that only increases the # of officers on the street by 8%, something is wrong.

By the way, what Nenshi article are you referring to? Hanson mentioned it was released today, but I haven't heard a peep from the Nenshi campaign. Maybe something released earlier?

Just got this update on my facebook from Naheed's Campaign:

CPD Controversy

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Calgary has a low crime rate because we're so damned prosperous, period.

The lowest crime rates in North America are in Newfoundland. Prosperity can impel very, very massive INCREASES in crime.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

The lowest crime rates in North America are in Newfoundland. Prosperity can impel very, very massive INCREASES in crime.

True, although I wonder how much population density plays in there. Small town Canada typically has very low crime even in the most impoverished areas.

Calgary just seems to have a lot less of a certain type of opportunistic crowd that I see in other cities. We apparently have a gang problem that I've never even noticed, but beyond that...

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

True, although I wonder how much population density plays in there. Small town Canada typically has very low crime even in the most impoverished areas.

Calgary just seems to have a lot less of a certain type of opportunistic crowd that I see in other cities. We apparently have a gang problem that I've never even noticed, but beyond that...

Crime is a mystery to me. It doesn't seem to correlate to economics entirely. It doesn't seem to correlate to population density (Singapore is incredibly safe while Sao Paolo is a crime haven). The best explanation to me is the broken window theory- crime thrives in environments where there is no presence of authority.

[Radley77]

Another factor could be income disparity. I have travelled to some poor places before and crime seems to be more to do with income distribution. If everyone is poor, there isn't a lot of crime (Newfoundland). If there are some that are poor, and some that are wealthy, watch out (see: South Africa).

economic inequality = skewed risk/benefit of business of crime = less social cohesion

In general large centers attract all types of hubs of commerce. High density is at risk of creating nodes specialized at crime. Requires monitoring and assessment to break up these marketplaces (change risk profile). I think this is important for creating a livable vibrancy.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Crime is a mystery to me. It doesn't seem to correlate to economics entirely. It doesn't seem to correlate to population density (Singapore is incredibly safe while Sao Paolo is a crime haven). The best explanation to me is the broken window theory- crime thrives in environments where there is no presence of authority.

I would say that is it. Singapore has (or at least had) the highest per capita capital punishment rate in the world. That ought to deter at least a few people. And as we all know, things like chewing gum are technically illegal there. Consequently, I find it to be a rather boring place... Anyway, before derailing too far, these are the trade-offs we face in having a truly crime free city. I, for one, would rather not go overboard on "the man" watching our every move.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by freeweed

We apparently have a gang problem that I've never even noticed, but beyond that...

If you were still a young man you might.

Originally Posted by fusili

The best explanation to me is the broken window theory- crime thrives in environments where there is no presence of authority.

It is a good theory but if there is too much of a presence there is a risk rebellion crimes.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Riise

If you were still a young man you might.

Crime that only affects you if you associate with it has never really bothered me. I mean sure, I'd like to live in a world where we have zero violence - but from a "feeling safe" perspective it's lovely to never be affected by it.

Kinda callous in some ways, I know.

[Just Build It]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

The lowest crime rates in North America are in Newfoundland. Prosperity can impel very, very massive INCREASES in crime.

It's more complicated then that. Gary, Indiana (which I'm sure you're familiar with) is far from prosperous.

[You Need A Thneed]

If we take the comments following online news articles as a accurate cross section of the general population ( of course it isn't really), then Nenshi has picked up a lot of votes by questioning the police budget.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

If we take the comments following online news articles as a accurate cross section of the general population

[Aegis]

This Hanson/Nenshi controversy is stupid. Nenshi asked a legit question, Hanson responded about a completely different set of facts.

We're in a democracy and the police are supposed to be accountable to Council.. not the other way around.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Another factor could be income disparity. I have travelled to some poor places before and crime seems to be more to do with income distribution. If everyone is poor, there isn't a lot of crime (Newfoundland). If there are some that are poor, and some that are wealthy, watch out (see: South Africa)

I've heard of this theory as well, and it makes sense to me. Looking around the world, this tends to be the case.

Another major factor is education. Countires with higher education rates, tend to have less crime. This also fits for Calgary and Singapore, which both have an educated population.

Of course, there is one major skew in both the above theories; the US. They have an extremely high crime rate, despite high levels of education and low economic disparity. (compared to most third world countries.)