Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Community Safety Officer Pilot Program Evaluation Report

This report has been reviewed in consideration of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act. An asterisk [*] appears where information has been removed; published information is UNCLASSIFIED.

Final Report: July 2012

Table of Contents

Acronyms

Acronym Definition
ACC Aboriginal Community Constable
ARLU Annual Reference Level Update
BC British Columbia
CAP Contract Aboriginal Policing
CLC Canada Labour Code
CM Civilian Member
CPO Community Program Officer
CP&PSS Crime Prevention & Program Support Services
CSO Community Safety Officer
CSEP Client Service Enhancement Project
DEPOT RCMP Training Academy (Regina, SK)
GD General Duty (member)
ICURS Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies
NAPS National Aboriginal Policing Services
NPESNational Program Evaluation Services
OC Spray Oleoresin Capsicum Spray (pepper spray)
OHSBOccupational Health and Safety Branch
OICOfficer in Charge
PAAProgram Activity Architecture
PRTCPacific Region Training Centre
RMRegular Member of the RCMP
SECSenior Executive Committee
SMESubject Matter Experts
TBSTreasury Board Secretariat
UBCUniversity of British Columbia

1.0 Executive Summary1

The evaluation of the Community Safety Officer (CSO) pilot program, covering activities from July 2008 to December 2009, was conducted by the RCMP National Program Evaluation Services. This evaluation report was written in compliance with the Treasury Board’s Policy on Evaluation and provides an evidence-based and neutral assessment of the relevance and performance of the CSO pilot program.

The CSO is one of three pilot programs the Client Service Enhancement Project has launched to explore alternative service delivery options for the RCMP. The objective of the CSO pilot program is to contribute to safer homes and communities through visible, accessible, policing and crime prevention services.

Funding required to implement the CSO pilot was approved in February 2008 by the RCMP Senior Executive Committee for an 18 month period in “E” Division. The total cost for the CSO pilot from February 2008 to June 2009 was approximately $2.2 million. Ninety percent of these funds were provided by the municipality and the remaining 10% was provided by the federal government.

The CSO pilot program was intended to result in the following immediate outcomes:

  • Communities feel that Community Safety Officers understand, address and follow up on crime/safety issues in their area.
  • Community/detachment awareness, understanding and utilization of Community Safety Officer services and crime prevention initiatives.

Achieving both of these immediate outcomes would indicate that the CSO pilot program would be successful in meeting its final goal. However, evidence revealed that the CSO pilot program is achieving one of its two immediate outcomes.

Findings:

Relevance
There is a continued need for reassurance policing options from a police organization’s perspective, to effectively address community specific policing requirements. Furthermore, the CSO pilot program is aligned with government priorities and with the federal government and the RCMP’s roles and responsibilities.

Performance
Performance information was analyzed to measure the success of the CSO pilot program after an 18 month period. Analysis of available data revealed that there was a lack of full compliance and accountability with CSO policy and that there was minimal consistency applied across pilot sites with respect to the work being undertaken by CSOs.

In addition, activities listed in the CSO Task Bank did not accurately reflect the mandate CSOs were intended to perform and CSOs were not provided with the accurate training and tools in relation to policy, their work description, and the objective of the program. Furthermore, the CSOs’ uniform made them indistinguishable from General Duty members and increased their level of risk to incidents for which they may be exposed to. These findings, paired with the decision to recruit CSOs from the Auxiliary Constable pool, were contributing factors to duties being performed outside of the CSO’s approved key activities.

Document review of available financial data and interviews suggested that the majority of municipalities in the pilot region believed that a CSO costs half of the amount, in terms of salary dollars, of a General Duty member. This was a clear misunderstanding associated to the true costs of the CSO pilot program. It was found that after five years of service, the annual salary cost of a CSO is 83% of a General Duty member’s salary.

Based on these and other supporting findings, as identified in this report, the CSO pilot program is no longer operating within its defined parameters and has exposed a clear sign that scope creep has occurred in the implementation phase.

Should RCMP senior management wish to pursue the CSO option in its suite of client service enhancement projects, the pilot program would need to be brought back to its original vision and mandate and may be done by considering the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: It is recommended that clearly defined and understood policies, duties and activities be consistently applied to each of the pilot sites to minimize the likelihood of high risk situations and to maintain the integrity of the CSO pilot program.

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that performance measures for the intermediate and long term outcomes of the CSO pilot program be determined and how baseline data will be captured for further program management and reviews.

Recommendation 3: It is recommended that if the CSO pilot program becomes a permanent service delivery option for the RCMP that partners and stakeholders be fully informed of the true costs associated to CSO services and their relation to other existing options.

Recommendation 4: It is recommended that should the CSO pilot program become a permanent service delivery option for the RCMP that further recruiting be expanded beyond the Auxiliary Constable pool.

Recommendation 5: It is recommended that current CSO uniform, training and tools be revisited as soon as possible to consider identified risks against the intended role and functionality of a CSO in the community.

Recommendation 6: It is recommended that Contract Aboriginal Policing (CAP) or the responsible policy centre examine the requirement for CSO’s to be classified as Special Constables in order to fulfill their mandate.

2.0 Background and Context

2.1 Project Profile

The RCMP’s Client Service Enhancement Project (CSEP) was launched in February 2006 in efforts to identify critical success factors for the RCMP to refine its client focus.2 The Community Safety Officer (CSO) is one of three pilot programs the RCMP CSEP has launched to explore alternative options to service delivery. While each of the CSEP pilot programs are focused on enhancing service delivery, each has its own distinct objectives and characteristics.

The three pilot programs being delivered under the CSEP are:

  • Community Program Officer: pilot in “J” Division (New Brunswick)
  • Community Safety Officer: pilot in “E” Division (British Columbia)
  • Aboriginal Community Constable: pilot in “D” and “V” Divisions (Manitoba and Nunavut)

CSOs are unarmed RCMP members who complement and support General Duty (GD) members, providing visible and accessible uniformed presence to improve the quality of life in the community and to offer greater public reassurance. Their primary purpose is to provide increased police visibility and operational support, while assisting in the delivery of crime prevention and public reassurance programs. Their key duties include community policing, crime prevention, traffic support, investigative support and community safety.3

The CSO pilot program was approved for an 18 month period in “E” Division by the RCMP Senior Executive Committee (SEC) in February 2008. “E” Division senior management was of the opinion that the CSO model would fit well into the Division’s Crime Reduction Strategy and would provide an increased visible presence in their communities. As a result, four detachments were identified as pilot sites in “E” Division. Municipalities were selected based on identified needs and on their willingness to fund the positions.

The following is a list of key activities that have been completed for the CSO pilot program. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • May 2007 - CSO work description developed
  • May 2007 – CSO Risk Assessment - North West Region Integrated Risk Management Team  
  • February 2008 - SEC approval for CSO pilot and recruiting from Auxiliary Constable pool
  • April 2008 – CSO Risk Assessment – National Headquarters Occupational Health and Safety Branch (OHSB)
  • June 2008 - CSO policy published by “E” Division
  • June 2008 - CSO Competency Profile developed
  • June 2008 - Training of CSOs at Pacific Region Training Centre (PRTC)
  • July 2008 - Deployment of CSO’s to pilot sites
  • November 2008 - Risk Assessment -National Aboriginal Policing Services (NAPS)
  • March 2009 - Logic Model & Performance Measurement Workshop
  • April 2009 - CSO Task Bank implemented
  • May 2009 – Risk Assessment - Pacific Region Training Centre
  • July 2009 - Progress Review by Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University

2.2 Program Funding, Resources and Governance

The total cost for the CSO pilot from February 2008 to June 2009, was approximately $2.2 million.Footnote 4 The municipalities funded 90% of the CSO pilot program and the remaining 10% was provided through federal funds.

Candidates for the CSO pilot program were selected from “E” Division’s Auxiliary Constable pool and received and completed their training at the PRTC from June 16, 2008 to July 5, 2008. The initial three weeks of training was in addition to the 40 hours of Auxiliary Constable training each candidate completed for the purposes of their previous role, as an Auxiliary Constable.

CSOs were deployed in four detachments in “E” Division: Surrey, Langley, Ridge Meadows and Prince George.

RCMP Detachment Number of CSOs
Surrey Detachment 10 members
Langley Detachment 2 members
Ridge Meadows Detachment 3 members
Prince George Detachment 2 members
Total CSOs 17 members

CSOs began to perform their duties at their respective detachments in “E” Division in July, 2008. Subsequent to their deployment, the CSOs received two weeks of crime prevention, problem solving, community engagement and public speaking training.

CSOs are sworn in as members of the RCMP under Section 7(l)(a) of the RCMP Act. They are Special Constables with a Peace Officers status and are full-time members of the RCMP under Special Constable Law Enforcement Support.

For the CSO pilot program, there was no clear policy lead identified. It was decided by RCMP senior management that all aspects of the pilot program’s implementation and progress would be solidified based on consultation between NAPS (a business line to the RCMP’s Contract and Aboriginal Policing section) and “E” Division’s Crime Prevention & Program Support Services (CP&PSS). Detachment commanders and supervisors were deemed responsible for the CSOs’ daily activities.

3.0 Evaluation Design

3.1 Purpose and Scope

This evaluation was conducted as a result of a request made by the RCMP’s Senior Executive Committee (SEC) to better determine whether or not the CSO pilot program should be expanded further. This evaluation assesses the relevance and performance of the CSO pilot program in accordance with the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation.

The evaluation was conducted by the RCMP’s National Program Evaluation Services (NPES) and covers the pilot program’s activities from July 2008 to December 2009. The majority of the research for this evaluation was conducted from January 2010 to July 2010.

3.2 Methodology and Approach

In March 2009, NPES conducted a two day workshop with CSOs, their supervisors and program managers to develop an evaluation framework. This framework included a logic model and performance measures that clarified the expected results of the pilot, facilitated program management and aided in the eventual evaluation of the pilot.

The following methodologies were utilized in conducting this evaluation:

Key interviews
Interviews were conducted in each of the four pilot sites in mid-April 2010. An additional interview was conducted with Provincial Officials from British Columbia (BC) in early November 2011. A total of 76 individuals were interviewed through one-on-one and group interviews to gain the perspective of all parties involved. The interviews also served to validate information gathered through other research methodologies.

The following table summarizes the numbers and categories of employees who were interviewed.

Interview Category Number of Interviewees
RCMP Senior Management 19
“E” Division Headquarters 18
Community Safety Officers 17
Elected Municipal and Provincial Officials 9
Community Partners 13
Total 76

Document and file review
Relevant documentation, such as monthly CSO activity summary reports, internal and external partner agreements, other files and correspondence were collected and analyzed for the purposes of conducting this evaluation.

3.3 Evaluation Research Limitations

Limited quantitative data was available and baseline data was difficult to acquire. One of the main challenges for this evaluation was analyzing data from the CSO’s monthly reports as there was little consistency in how their activities were reported.

The quick implementation of the CSO pilot program and the time in which the pilot program was evaluated (18 months) also presented substantial limits on acquiring evidence-based information. Empirical data as evidence of intermediate or long term outcomes was difficult to assess.

In addition, the pilot project was deployed in the field prior to the development of the evaluation framework. The two day workshop NPES conducted was held nine months after the start of the pilot. Ideally, this process should have occurred either before or shortly after the initiation of the pilot to allow for ongoing collection of performance information.

4.0 Relevance

4.1 Continued Need for the Program

1. There is a continued need for reassurance policing from an organizational perspective but not explicitly from an environmental perspective.

Reassurance policing refers to the intended outcome(s) of actions taken by the police and other agencies to improve perceived police effectiveness (mainly confidence in, and satisfaction with, the police), and to increase feelings of safety (including reducing fear of crime).Footnote 5

Both in volume and in severity, police-reported crime fell in 2009 and revealed a continuing downward trend over the past decade.Footnote 6 In support of this finding, the 2004 General Social Survey revealed that 18% of the Canadian population, aged 15 years and older, indicated they experienced a sense of fear related to crime while the majority (82%) indicated that they did not experience fear of crime.Footnote 7 From an environmental perspective, analysis of criminal statistics in Canada from 2004-2009 has not changed in the last five years which strongly suggests that there was no explicit need for additional reassurance policing models.

However, from an organizational perspective, the need to provide communities with flexible service delivery options arose during consultations CSEP conducted with contracting partners across Canada. The consultations identified the need for an increase in client focus and service and to expand the continuum of police resources to better address local concerns, further develop police/community contact and enhance existing regular services.Footnote 8

Document review indicates communities are asking for a more visible police presence and greater focus on prevention programs.Footnote 9 For instance, as stated in a CSO report entitled, “A Progress Review of the Pilot in British Columbia”, the Provincial Government of British Columbia, contracting partners and the community have been supportive of the CSO pilot program, some overwhelmingly, and communities are anxious to hire additional CSOs.

With reassurance policing as its focus, the CSO pilot project is expected to provide a client-driven service and an enhancement to police capacity to increase the community’s satisfaction, trust and confidence in the RCMP. More specifically, the CSO Preliminary Business CaseFootnote 10 outlined the key duties of a CSO. Duties include: crime prevention, community policing, traffic support, community safety, and investigational support. These five duties were designed to address the public’s expectations and to enhance the RCMP’s general duty policing services.

From a police organization’s perspective, there is a continued need for reassurance policing options in order to effectively address community specific policing requirements. The CSO pilot program is an option communities can choose to create the best mix of RCMP services that best meet their community’s priorities.

4.2 Alignment with Government Priorities

2. The CSO pilot program is aligned with government priorities.

The CSO pilot program is aligned with the Government of Canada social affairs outcome for a, “Safe and secure Canada”. It is also aligned with the Public Safety Canada outcome for a, “Safe and resilient Canada.”

Over the last few years, Speeches from the Throne have identified crime reduction and safety of Canadians as a priority. Specifically, the 2010 Speech from the Throne states under the heading ‘Making Canada the Best Place for Families’:

“Our Government acted decisively to crack down on crime and ensure the safety and security of our neighbourhoods and communities.”

The November 19, 2008 Speech from the Throne states under the heading, ‘Keeping Canadians Safe’:

“In times of uncertainty as in times of prosperity, Canadians need to be assured that they are safe in their homes and communities.”

The CSO pilot program’s intended focus on reassurance policing activities has a final goal of contributing to safer homes and communities. Additionally, the RCMP and the BC Ministry of Public Safety and the Solicitor General established nine priorities for the 2009/10 fiscal year. The provincial priorities align with those established by the RCMP at the national level, allowing the provincial government to set their objectives based on needs in BC, while still supporting the overall goals of the RCMP. The CSO pilot program is aligned with the community policing priority.

4.3 Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

3. The CSO pilot program is aligned with the federal government and the RCMP’s roles and responsibilities.

As Canada’s national police force, the RCMP is responsible for providing federal, provincial and municipal policing services, where applicable and under contract.

While policing is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and responsibility, the federal government is broadly responsible for public safety. The federal government fulfils that mandate in large measure through Public Safety Canada which does so with respect to safety in partnership with communities through crime prevention initiatives. The federal government also provides policing services under contract through the RCMP in provinces such as in BC.

The CSO pilot program falls under the Program Activity Architecture (PAA) heading of Municipal Policing. The CSO program’s final outcome is well aligned to the RCMP’s overall objective of a “Criminal activity affecting Canadians is reduced.”

5.0 Performance

4. There is a lack of full compliance and accountability with CSO policy.

Document review revealed that there was no policy lead identified for the CSO pilot program. RCMP senior management decided that all aspects of the pilot's implementation and progress would be solidified based on consultation between NAPS and “E” Division’s CP&PSS. However, one of the recommendations of the CSO Progress Report created by “E” Division was for immediate clarification to be made to the roles and responsibilities of the various units and personnel at National Headquarters (NAPS) and in “E” Division in regards to the pilot’s management, implementation and evaluation.

In June 2008, “E” Division published the CSO policy in their operational manual which identified approved and prohibited duties of a CSO. The policy stated that a CSO would perform the following duties: crime prevention, community policing traffic support, community safety and investigation support.

The policy also stated that CSOs were prohibited from: performing duties for which they have not been trained and performing “high risk” duties or duties that could reasonably be considered to place them in harm’s way or in contact with unsecured/un-incarcerated suspects in an operational environment.Footnote 11 More specifically, Appendix A of “E” Division’s operational manual on the CSO pilot program provided a complete list of prohibited duties, some of which included, but were not limited to the following:

  • Arresting violators (with exception of exigent circumstances)
  • Being a first responder to police emergencies
  • Providing back-up to a General Duty member
  • Conducting traffic stops
  • Taking statements from suspectsFootnote 12

Document review and key interviews have revealed that CSOs have engaged in some of these prohibited duties. A CSO questionnaire revealed that:

  • 35% of CSOs have arrested someone
  • 59% have utilized items from their duty belt (primarily handcuffs)
  • 59% of CSOs have performed enforcement duties (e.g. violation tickets, notice and
    orders, warnings, seatbelt checks)
  • 6% of CSO’s have been physically assaulted with little or no injury

Enforcement tendencies performed by the CSOs during the pilot phase may derive from CSOs being Auxiliary Constables prior to assuming a CSO role. This deviation from the CSOs key duties is an indicator of scope creep and may be attributed to the manner in which the CSO policy was developed and implemented within each of the detachments.

The implementation of the CSO pilot program, in some cases, had been applied in a format similar to the one a GD member would have received. Detachment Commanders and supervisors have a critical role to play and must be accountable for ensuring that the CSO pilot program is implemented in accordance with those duties that have been approved in policy. Section 3.1.1. of the CSO policy states that a Commander of a detachment should, “Outline the duties, subject to the limitation in 2.10 (approved duties), that CSOs may perform in your detachment.”

There is a lack of compliance and accountability with CSO policy by some Detachment Commanders, supervisors and CSOs. Based on document review, interpretation of CSO policy varied amongst the pilot sites and in a few instances, the CSO position was utilized to address detachment needs as opposed to the community’s needs. In the event that the community’s needs are not being met through the services the CSO program has been mandated to deliver, then they must be made aware of other alternative policing options/programs that are available to contracting partners.

It would prove beneficial for all parties involved in the CSO pilot program to become familiar and compliant with the CSO policy for a consistent application of the program’s key activities. This would ensure that prohibited duties are not performed which may expose the RCMP and its members to unnecessary “high risk” situations.

5. There is minimal consistency applied across pilot sites with respect to the work being undertaken by CSOs.

In September 2006, a preliminary business case was drafted for the RCMP’s senior management and stated that employing CSOs for community-specific functions would improve the probability of consistently meeting a wider range of clients’ public safety needs.

A work description was drafted for the CSO pilot program in May 2007 to address a service gap to existing policing options being offered by the RCMP. The CSO work description states the position’s five key activities. The CSO’s key activities are: community safety, crime prevention, traffic support, community policing and investigation support. Each of these activities were defined further into specific actions and each was to be performed equally, 20% of the time.

Document review demonstrated that there is minimal consistency being applied across jurisdictions with respect to the work being undertaken by CSOs. For instance:

  • In one jurisdiction, the CSOs participated in 23 meetings, talks or presentation per month and in another jurisdiction they attended 3.0.
  • In one jurisdiction, CSOs are involved in 24 partnership programs per month and in another jurisdiction only 0.6.

It is important to note however, that these jurisdictions may or may not be comparable in terms of the community’s identified needs. In order to conclude, with absolute certainty, that inconsistencies are being applied with respect to the work being undertaken by CSOs, similar jurisdictions would need to be compared. This finding should be considered with caution.

Data reports pertaining to those activities CSOs are performing indicate that although CSOs generally perform the same activities, the differing demands in the various pilot sites required CSOs to allocate their time differently.Footnote 13 This is to be expected as all communities will require different services based on their individual needs. However, it is essential for the CSO pilot program to deliver on its mandate through the delivery of its key activities, as defined. While the CSO program’s design is intended to be flexible and responsive to the community’s needs, the program’s integrity needs to be respected.

Recommendation 1: It is recommended that clearly defined and understood policies, duties and activities be consistently applied to each of the pilot sites to minimize the likelihood of high risk situations and to maintain the integrity of the CSO pilot program.

6. The activities listed in the CSO Task Bank do not accurately reflect the mandate CSOs are intended to deliver in the community.

The CSO Task Bank was originally developed for the Aboriginal Community Constables (ACC) program. The rationale for developing the CSO Task Bank based on the ACC model was that there was some overlap in activities in the two roles (CSO and ACC). Designing the CSO Task Bank from the ACC Task Bank was also intended to ensure consistency in the phrasing of similar tasks and the ability to more readily compare the two.Footnote 14

This approach to, and design of the CSO Task Bank, led to inaccurate activities being performed by the CSOs and generated confusion as to what the CSOs were intended to perform in the community. The identification and implementation of the activities in the CSO Task Bank contributed to the development of a scope creep in the pilot program as the activities listed in the Task Bank did not reflect those key activities CSOs were to be performing in the communities. For instance, according to the report on the CSO titled, “A Progress Review of the pilot in British Columbia”, most CSOs expressed concern with the implementation process of the pilot project. Many described the frequent changing of roles and duties as frustrating and difficult to adjust to.

According to the CSO work description, key activities were defined in order to achieve the program’s final goal: to contribute to safer homes and communities through visible, accessible policing and crime prevention services.

The chart provides a comparable assessment of the CSOs’ defined duties, as per their work description, versus the categories that have been listed in the Task Bank.

CSO Work Description Key Activities CSO Task Bank Categories
Community safety Community Education and Relationship Building
Crime prevention Engaging in Community Problem Resolution
Traffic support Providing General Assistance to the Public
Community policing Maintaining Visibility in the Community
Investigation support Performing Duties under Supervision of a Regular Member (Constable)
Performing Court–Related Activities
Internal Activities

While similar in nature, the individual tasks of each of the above noted activities/categories and the degree to which they are to be performed by CSOs are not consistently defined by the CSO pilot program and do not entirely correspond to CSO policy. As a result, the breakdown of CSO activities in the Task Bank are not entirely an accurate reflection of what CSOs are intended to do, the extent to which they are to accomplish their tasks or the precise means to reporting their activities to measure the true success of the program.

7. There is a lack of awareness and/or communication associated to the revisions to the CSO Task Bank.

While the majority (99%) of supervisors were of the opinion that all CSOs’ activities are within the Task Bank, 20% of CSOs’ time could not be accounted for and approximately 5% of their overall performed activities fell outside of the Task Bank.Footnote 15 In sum, one quarter of the CSOs’ efforts could not be accounted for. This statistic suggests supervisors and CSOs do not share a common understanding of CSOs’ role and responsibility in the community and/or program expectations have not, on a continual basis throughout the pilot phase, been clearly communicated to CSOs.

This occurrence may be attributed to the fact that the CSO Task Bank has been revised three times since it was introduced. The CSO Task Bank was revised on the following dates:

  • December 22, 2008 - Version 1
  • March 6, 2009 – Version 2
  • April 7, 2009 – Version 3

While the CSO Task Bank’s version upgrades were aimed at creating consistency amongst CSOs and their role, they may have also contributed to confusion over the CSOs levels of authority. For instance, the third revision to the CSO Task Bank was established by “E” Division’s CSO Advisory Group. Key changes made to this version included detailing tasks requiring direct supervision and general supervision. According to the, “Community Safety Officer Pilot Project: Reported Activities of CSOs in 2009” report, CSOs spent nearly 7% of their time under the supervision of a GD member and approximately 5% of their time engaging in activities outside of the Task Bank.

The CSO policy was published in June 2008, ten months prior to the development of Version 3 of the CSO Task Bank. Section 3.1.2. of the CSO policy states that the Commander of a detachment is to outline which duties CSOs may perform under general supervision and which approved duties they must perform under the direct supervision of a GD member. Therefore, CSOs were performing duties potentially outside of their mandate without the required supervision from June 2008-April 2009. When CSOs perform tasks beyond their mandate and/or are unsupervised, it increases the risk to the CSO and to the RCMP.

No supporting documentation could be located as to whether or not all affected parties were informed or educated on revisions made to the CSO Task Bank. When changes are made to the Task Bank, CSOs and their Commanders should be kept fully informed, especially during a pilot project, so that an accurate measurement of success can be assessed.

8. The CSO pilot program is achieving one of its two immediate outcomes.

The following immediate outcome is being achieved and was defined in March 2009 as:

Communities feel that Community Safety Officers understand, address and follow up on crime/safety issues in their area: Participating communities feel that Community Safety Officers adequately understand, and are taking the appropriate steps, to address crime and safety issues in their area. Community Safety Officers continue to keep community members and/or complainants informed regarding any concerns raised and/or complaints made.

The CSOs are engaged in a wide range of activities that are being recognized by the community. Interviews with community partners, clients and municipal leaders were very positive particularly, responses from municipal leaders where most indicated they would be prepared to expand the presence of CSOs in their municipalities if the pilot was to continue.

The summary of CSOs’ activities, as per categories in the CSO Task Bank in Table 1.0, supports interviewees’ perception that the CSOs are performing activities to engage in the community.

Table 1.0: Pie Chart of All Pilot Sites - Full Year
Text of Pie Chart to follow Image

All Pilot Sites - Full Year

The pie chart above illustrates the breakdown of CSOs’ activities as per categories in the CSO Task Bank for all pilot sites over a 12 month period.

The summary of CSOs’ activities as per categories in the CSO Task Bank are as follows:

  • 22.18% Maintaining Visibility in the Community
  • 20.66% Time not Accounted For
  • 19.99% Community Education and Relationship Building   
  • 12.83% Internal Activities
  • 8.20% Providing General Assistance to the Public
  • 6.59% Performing Duties under Supervision of a Regular Member
  • 5.08% Activities not in the Task Bank
  • 4.25% Engaging in Community Problem Resolution
  • 0.22% Performing Court-Related Activities

The three categories the CSOs spent most of their time on were:

  • maintaining visibility in the community
  • community education and relationship building
  • internal activities

This average of time remained largely the same from the first half of the year to the second with the exception of the Prince George detachment which focused more on community education and relationship building.Footnote 16

In various deliveries, the CSOs are spending on average more than 50% of their time being visible in the community, based on Task Bank summary reports. This would include maintaining visibility in the community (22%), community education and relationship building (20%), providing general assistance to the public (8%) and engaging in community problem resolution (4%). As a result, the CSO pilot program is achieving the immediate outcome of: Communities feel that CSOs understand, address and follow up on crime/safety issues in their area.

The following immediate outcome is not being achieved:

Community/detachment awareness, understanding and utilization of Community Safety Officer services and crime prevention initiatives: As participating communities and detachments develop an increased awareness and understanding of the Community Safety Officer function, utilization (e.g. number of requests for assistance/service) of Community Safety Officer services and associated crime prevention initiatives will increase.

While interviewees had a positive view of the CSO pilot program, there was a lack of understanding with respect to the roles and responsibilities of the CSOs both within the detachments and within the communities. The inconsistent application of CSOs’ duties has adversely affected the pilot’s ability to achieve this outcome.

The majority of CSOs interviewed stated that the policy and roles as they relate to their position are unclear which limits their understanding of what activities they should be engaged in. This finding is supported by the combined total of 25% of activities being performed by the CSOs that are unaccounted for or are not reflected in the CSO Task Bank.

While standardized reporting has begun to occur through the CSO Task Bank (after 18 months), more consistency in terms of the program’s deliverables and evolving expectations are required to support effective program management and help determine the achievement of the intermediate and long term outcomes.

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that performance measures for the intermediate and long term outcomes of the CSO pilot program be determined and how baseline data will be captured for further program management and reviews.

6.0 Cost-Effectiveness

9. The majority of municipalities in the pilot region believe that a CSO costs half of the amount, in terms of salary dollars, of a GD member.

Municipalities for the CSO pilot program were chosen based on an identified need and on their willingness to fund the positions. Through the Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU) process, 17 CSO positions were funded by the municipalities selected in BC (“E” Division) for the pilot. No other funding for the start-up of the pilot was provided to “E” Division.  These start-up costs are considered “sunk costs” and are not part of the cost comparison with other services.

During the course of the interviews with Detachment Commanders and municipal officials, it became evident that there is a misunderstanding of the costs associated with the CSO pilot program. The majority of Detachment Commanders and municipal officials were under the impression that CSOs cost about half that of a GD member while community members believed they could potentially get two CSO’s for the cost of one GD member. GD members were under the impression that the cost differential between a GD member’s salary and a CSO’s salary was about $50,000. Through document review, it was revealed that the public’s perception is not an accurate reflection of the costs associated to employing a CSO in the community.

For the purposes of this evaluation, cost differential between a CSO and a GD member will focus solely on salary dollars. Because the CSO program is still currently in a pilot phase, too many variables have taken place to be able to accurately determine the exact and cumulative costs associated to the program to date. However, the PRTC’s Revised Costing Report on the CSO pilot program in June 2010 reveals that from February 2008 to June 2009 the CSO pilot program spent $2,235,808.99.Footnote 17

Ninety percent of these funds have been provided by the municipality and 10% of funds were provided by the federal government.

The below table (Table 2.0) identifies the differences in costs between a CSO and GD member’s salaries. The presented data reflects salary dollars based on 2010 pay scales. It is important to note that the data below does not include a GD member’s salary dollars associated to supervision of a CSO for field coaching purposes. The approximate cost to pay a GD member to field coach a CSO is estimated at $179.71 per hour. This cost, multiplied by 520 hours (three months) of field coaching training, is a supplementary expense of $5,381.47 per CSO.

Table 2.0

Salary CSO GD member % of GD salary
Year 1 54,241 61,577 88%
Year 2 56,491 66,811 85%
Year 3 58,739 72,045 82%
Year 4 60,965 76,792 79%
Year 5 63,993 76,792 83%

Salaries based on 2010 pay scales

When compared, the annual salary cost of a CSO is 83% of a GD member’s salary after five years of service. This represents a difference of approximately $12,800 in salary dollars a year. Indirect costs relative to pension contributions, administration, operating and maintenance, etc. for both categories of employees (CSOs and GD members) are approximately $35,000. Training and equipment costs vary.

However, salary differential may not be an issue to some contracting partners given their understanding of the mandate, duties and activities of a CSO; a dedicated resource that cannot be easily shifted to other policing services. This may be a key consideration for some municipalities as the appeal of CSOs are that they are unarmed and cannot be redirected to other emergency and risky situations. They will remain focused on their assurance policing duties. Visibility and accessibility are critical to reducing the fear of crime and therefore increasing the belief that the municipalities are addressing the situation.

Recommendation 3: It is recommended that if the CSO pilot program becomes a permanent service delivery option for the RCMP that partners and stakeholders be fully informed of the true costs associated to CSO services and their relation to other existing options.

7.0 Design and Delivery

10. The decision to recruit CSOs from the Auxiliary Constable pool was a contributing factor to duties being performed outside of the CSO’s approved key activities.

In February 2008, correspondence was disseminated to all “E” Division Auxiliary Constables to solicit interest in becoming a CSO. Auxiliary Constables were able to apply for a CSO position if they completed the Auxiliary Program after 2003 and had one year of Auxiliary experience.

The Auxiliary Constable pool was the selected target group as their training, duties and experience were similar to those of a CSO. In addition, there was a very restrictive timeline to implement the CSO pilot program and therefore, this decision helped to facilitate an expedited recruiting process.

Some CSOs are engaging in activities that are beyond the scope, role and mandate of the CSO pilot program. This may be attributed to the fact that CSOs were Auxiliary Constables prior to assuming their new role. Statistics from the CSO Task Bank indicate that 35% of CSOs have arrested someone and 59% have been involved in an enforcement role. The fact that CSOs are engaging in high risk related activities increases the level of threat to their safety and is a significant change from the original vision of the program.

The Auxiliary program should not have been utilized as a benchmark for the CSO pilot program as it itself had not undergone a Risk Assessment or a Job Hazard Analysis.Footnote 18 Recruitment of individuals with varying backgrounds and experiences would provide a more balanced delivery of the program’s mandate. According to some interviewees’ responses, CSO recruitment should have been from a different recruiting pool, one with more social science and/or crime prevention background. This recommendation was echoed in the Progress Review of the CSO pilot conducted by “E” Division which stated, “The key focus should be recruiting people with the right skills and attributes for the role, for example, with an aptitude for problem solving, have an interest in policing, crime prevention, and working with communities. Varying options to recruit CSOs from a wider pool are desirable (external/any parties).” Footnote 19

Recommendation 4: It is recommended that should the CSO pilot program become a permanent service delivery option for the RCMP that further recruiting be expanded beyond the Auxiliary Constable pool.

11. The CSOs’ uniform makes them indistinguishable from a General Duty member of the RCMP and increases the level of risk and incidents they may be exposed to.

In the planning phase of the CSO pilot program, a decision was made that CSOs would be uniformed but that their uniform would be distinct from a GD member. Wearing a uniform which identifies the wearer as an affiliate of the RCMP but is distinct from a GD member plays an important part of fulfilling the pilot’s objective of providing reassurance to citizens by ensuring a visible presence in the community. Footnote 20

In a preliminary business case to the RCMP’s Senior Executive Committee in September 2006, it was recommended that a distinctive uniform coupled with a strong communications strategy on the CSOs’ role, would provide visual differentiation, help shape public expectations and support managers’ to make appropriate deployment decisions. A distinctive uniform could also decrease the level of risk for the individual CSO while preserving the perception that the individual is a police officer. Despite these and other related recommendations, CSOs have been issued a uniform that is very similar to a GD member’s uniform.

CSOs have been issued the same:

  • duty belt (without a holster and duty pistol)
  • blue exterior soft body armor carrier 
  • forage cap (without the yellow stripe)
  • grey shirts
  • blue trousers (without the yellow stripe)

The CSO uniform, in its current form, does not distinguish them from GD members. A member of the community may easily conclude that a CSO is a GD member upon first glance and may believe that they hold a full range of enforcement capabilities and authorities.

The majority of the CSOs were of the opinion that their uniform does not create a safety issue. Other interviewees such as mayors, councillors and city managers were of the view that the CSO uniform was appropriate for their duties. They believe their uniform enhanced their visible presencein the community. On the other hand, some interviewees were of the opinion that the simple wearing of a uniform places the CSOs at risk, while others felt it was the duties conducted while wearing the uniform that created a potential risk.

As per risk 5.1 in NAPS’s risk assessment on the CSO pilot project, there is a potential that the uniform, transportation, tools and equipment provided to the CSO’s are defective, not available, unreliable, insecure or inappropriate to support CSO’s in their duties (facilities, tools and equipment).Footnote 21

The 2008 Risk Assessment conducted by Occupational Health and Safety Branch (OHSB) is also an important source to consider as their mandate and rules are based on Canada Labour Code (CLC) requirements. The risk identified in their assessment was that the CSOs’ issued uniform did not adequately distinguish them from a GD member and as a result posed a potential risk to their safety.

In addition, the Staff Relations Representative (SRR) Program and OHSB believe that CLC requirements are not being met. SRRs believe CSOs should, in their current capacity, be armed while the OHSB recommends a significantly unique and distinct uniform be established and issued. Use of force subject matter experts believe that either the CSOs need to be equipped with a pistol or they need to move to a softer civilian business attire without intervention options and soft body armour.Footnote 22

While there are potential risks associated to a CSO looking indistinguishable from a GD member in the public, an important factor to consider is that without a recognizable uniformed presence in the community where CSOs are stationed, the final goal of the program may experience some difficulty in attaining success.

12. CSOs’ training and tools do not currently comply with policy, the work description, and the objective of the program.

Recruitment for the CSO pilot program began in late February 2008. As there was a very restrictive timeline to implement the pilot program, for reasons unknown, 17 CSOs were sworn in early July, 2008. During this approximate five month period, an initial three week training program was offered by the PRTC. The CSO pilot program training was held at the PRTC in Chilliwack, BC from June 16, 2008 to July 5, 2008.

As the CSOs were Auxiliary Constables prior to assuming their new role, they received three weeks of crime prevention and problem solving training, supplemental to their initial Auxiliary training. More specifically, CSOs were provided with 121.5 hours of training in addition to the 140 hours they received as an Auxiliary Constable.

The additional 121.5 hours of training the CSOs received was as follows:

  • 60 hours of Applied Sciences
  • 33 hours of Police Defence Tactics
  • 8 hours of PRIME training
  • 8 hours of scenario based training
  • 12.5 hours of additional topics such as crime prevention and community engagement

CSOs expressed that the initial three weeks of training at PRTC was not sufficient in length and that it was too compressed. This concern was echoed in a NAPS risk assessment which stated that there is a potential risk that, “CSO learning and training programs are too short, not ongoing, and not provided consistently across the organization to help support people in carrying out their roles and responsibilities.”Footnote 23

Outside of the 261.5 hours of training, CSOs later received an additional two weeks of training from March 2, 2009 to March 13, 2009 which included crime prevention, problem solving, community engagement and public speaking training.

In terms of the tools issued to CSOs to perform their duties, Section 2.3 of the CSO policy states, CSOs wear soft body armour, carry OC spray, and a police defensive baton. A CSO questionnaire revealed that approximately 70% of CSO either ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ with the following statement: “I have received all the proposed uniform items.” The most common item CSOs reported they did not receive was the duty belt.Footnote 24

At a later and unspecified date, the PRTC staff advanced the position that CSOs be trained in the use and carry of such tools as OC spray, defensive baton and handcuffs. The difference between the CSO policy and the PRTC’s position was the issuance of handcuffs to CSOs. The issuance of handcuffs did not take into account published risk assessments nor was it substantiated by a documented need.

Document review revealed that approximately 60% of CSOs have utilized items from their duty belt, primarily handcuffs. Providing CSOs with tools such as handcuffs encourages enforcement activities which clearly go beyond the scope of CSOs roles and responsibilities. For instance, 35% of CSOs have made arrests.

Further contradictory documentation exists on the need for certain tools to support the CSOs approved key activities. For example, the CSOs Terms of Reference report, produced by the CSEP in May 2007, states CSOs could be armed Peace Officers whose role also addresses a specific level of public order, traffic and criminality. The report goes on to say that, “armed CSOs are a necessary consideration, at least conceptually, if the Force wants to examine the full potential of a tiered approach to service delivery. While perhaps a consideration for the future armed CSOs are not a part of the pilot program.”

Conversely, as per a presentation on the CSO to SEC in September 2009 and as stated in the Progress Review of the pilot in British Columbia report, “Given the duties envisioned for the CSO pilot, as distinct from General Duty members, they do not carry a firearm; are not deployed as first responders to calls for service; do not act as back-up to an armed police officer for the purpose of the RCMP back-up policy; and do not conduct arrest in the normal course of their duties. They may arrest only in exigent circumstances and only in the confines of the Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM) training.”

Furthermore, a CSO questionnaire revealed that 88% of CSOs feel additional intervention tools and skills are needed for their role, as implemented. Nearly all CSOs identified the need for firearms and firearms training. This identified need may be attributed to one of the CSOs key activities of “Investigative Support”, as listed in the CSO’s work description. The activity is defined to include assisting investigators with investigations, guarding/processing/releasing prisoners, and by-law enforcement. The PRTC staff utilized this approved activity to advance the position that CSOs be trained in the use of handcuffs.

According to the CSO OHSB risk assessment, “If CSOs are fully equipped (like Auxiliaries), paid, and come under the RCMP Act there may be temptation, by members, to utilize CSOs in duties that are not consistent or within the scope of the ‘key activities’ envisioned for the Community Safety Officer.” The risk assessment goes on to say that, “If CSOs provide investigative support or enforcement duties beyond ‘Low Risk’ duties then the increased duties places a greater risk on the CSOs. This may require additional training and equipment and would ... be outside of the ‘key activities’ of the duties and functions of the CSO.”

By providing the CSOs with a tool that is outside of their role, creates an opportunity and/or an expectation that CSOs will respond to higher risk situations. This finding reveals another example of how the CSO pilot program has drifted from its intended objective.

Recommendation 5: It is recommended that current CSO uniform, training and tools be revisited as soon as possible to consider identified risks against the intended role and functionality of a CSO in the community.

13. There is no clear rationale as to why CSOs were designated Special Constables based on the program’s mandate.

Conceptually, according to document review, assignments will determine whether a CSO wears a uniform, is armed or unarmed, the training requirements and, if the CSO is an RCMP employee, the classification and compensation for the position.Footnote 25

As a result of a decision that was made to proceed with RCMP hired personnel, CSOs received their appointment under Section 7(l)(a) of the RCMP Act and have been designated Special Constables with “Peace Officer” status.

Section 9 of the RCMP Act states:
“Every officer and every person designated as a peace officer under Section 7(1) is a peace officer in every part of Canada and has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges that a peace officer has by law until the officer or person is dismissed or discharged from the Force as provided in this Act, the regulations or the Commissioner’s Standing Orders or until the appointment of the officer or person expires or is revoked”.

No document rationale could be found to identify the need for CSOs to be Special Constable of the RCMP as opposed to Civilian Member. The CSO program was, by design, not intended to have an arrest or enforcement function, which would warrant a Special Constable status. The decision to classify CSOs as Special Constables conflicted with the program’s concept and intent. This is another clear illustration of how scope creep has emerged in the CSO pilot program.

This deviation from the CSO program’s mandate has also contributed to some overlap in activities between CSOs and some GD members. For instance, most detachments have GD members on full-time duties such as for school liaison officers and/or community policing officers. Programs such as the CSO and other service delivery options are, by design, there to provide a benefit to Regular Members by freeing them up to focus on their files and emergent situations.Footnote 26

In addition, the majority of CSO’s interviewed expressed their desire to remain with the RCMP and had plans to attempt to convert from a CSO to a GD member. This identifies the potential for the pilot to become a portal for individuals looking to become GD member. This career aspiration may be attributed to CSOs being Auxiliary Constables prior to assuming their new roles.

An important historical factor to consider is that the RCMP had previously employed Special Constables in community support roles in Aboriginal Policing. Special Constables were created to be community liaisons and undertake crime prevention programs on reserves. They were indistinguishable to the public from GD members. Over a short period of time, Special Constables became involved in operational files on the reserve and many were eventually deployed off the reserve. The result was that the objective of the program was never fully realized. The program was eventually cancelled and most of the 3(b) ACCP Special Constables were converted to general duty members.Footnote 27

Recommendation 6: It is recommended that Contract Aboriginal Policing (CAP) or the responsible policy centre examine the requirement for CSO’s to be classified as Special Constables in order to fulfill their mandate.

8.0 Conclusion

As currently implemented, the CSO pilot program will experience difficulty in meeting its final goal of contributing to safer homes and communities through visible, accessible, policing and crime prevention services. This is largely attributed to a finding that reveals that one of the two immediate outcomes of the CSO pilot program is being met.

The immediate outcome, “Communities feel that Community Safety Officers understand, address and follow up on crime/safety issues in their area” is being achieved while the immediate outcome, “Community/detachment awareness, understanding and utilization of Community Safety Officer services and crime prevention initiatives” is not being achieved.

There is a misunderstanding of the true costs associated with employing a CSO in the community. When compared, the annual salary cost of a CSO is 83% of a GD member’s salary after five years of service. Municipalities should be made fully aware of CSO services, their limitations and true operating costs in order to best identify the service delivery option that best meets their community-specific needs.

Risk assessments conducted on the CSO pilot program have identified potential risks associated to some of the findings in this report. Risks must be considered further and/or addressed immediately if the program is to be implemented more broadly. For instance, the CSO’s uniform and tools must be revised and their key activities require refinement and consistency in their application.

As a result of the findings identified in this report, the CSO pilot program is no longer operating within its defined parameters and has exposed a clear indication that a scope creep has occurred in the implementation of the pilot program.

Although the CSO pilot project is not currently achieving all of its outcomes, positive feedback on the pilot has been received in various forms. Should RCMP senior management wish to pursue this option in its suite of client service enhancement projects, the pilot program would need to be brought back to its original vision and mandate to ensure that the risks associated to the RCMP and its members are significantly minimized.

9.0 Management Response and Action Plan

National Aboriginal Policing has reviewed the Community Safety Officer (CSO) evaluation report in consultation with “E” Division, Crime Prevention and Program Support Services.

This evaluation was conducted to assess the relevance, performance and need of the CSO program in the RCMP’s suite of service delivery options proposed by the Client Service Enhancement Project.

This report will be submitted to the Senior Executive Committee (SEC) for a decision regarding the outcome of the CSO pilot program. Should it be decided that the CSO program be implemented nationally, then the following Management Action Plan (MAP) would apply to expediently and efficiently address the evaluation’s recommendations and to garner support for a more streamlined and risk-mitigated way forward. On the other hand, should SEC recommend that the CSO be discontinued as a pilot then the following MAP need not apply.

Recommendation 1: It is recommended that clearly defined and understood policies, duties and activities be consistently applied to each of the pilot sites to minimize the likelihood of high risk situations and to maintain the integrity of the CSO pilot program.
Responsibility: RCMP, OIC National Aboriginal Policing Services

Current Status: A workshop was conducted with NAPS and E Division CP&PSS, in consultation with E Divisions SRR’s, District Commanders, Detachment Commanders, and the Province of B.C., to determine desired and effective roles and responsibilities. The CSO task bank has been modified to accommodate the Community Constable model. 

Planned Action: A task bank will be solidified to accommodate changes to the model. NAPS, in consultation with E Division CP&PSS and other partners/clients, will draft clear roles and responsibilities in line with proposed changes to the model.

Diary Date: Pending SEC decision

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that performance measures for the intermediate and long term outcomes of the CSO pilot program be determined and how baseline data will be captured for further program management and reviews.
Responsibility: RCMP, OIC National Aboriginal Policing Services

Current Status: A workshop was conducted with participation from E Division CP&PSS, E Division SRR, and NAPS to develop measurables.
NPES and E Division Occupational Safety Officer (OSO) were unable to attend, but will have equal contribution, to the development/finalizing of measurable via consultation.

Planned Action: Finalize intermediate and long term measurable for the Community Constable model, with Community Safety Officer model incorporation, as required.

Diary Date: Pending SEC decision

Recommendation 3: It is recommended that if the CSO pilot program becomes a permanent service delivery option for the RCMP that partners and stakeholders be fully informed about the CSO services and their actual costs in relation to other existing options.
Responsibility: RCMP, Director, National Aboriginal Policing and Crime Prevention Services

Current Status: Preliminary stages of a communication strategy have been initiated in consultation with E Division CP&PSS and NAPS.

Planned Action: NAPS and E Division CP&PSS, in consultation with NHQ Communications and E Division Communications, will develop and finalize a communications strategy for the Community Constable model to include this recommendation and those noted in response to #1, #4 and #6.

Diary Date: Pending SEC decision

Recommendation 4: It is recommended that should the CSO pilot program become a permanent service delivery option for the RCMP that further recruiting be expanded beyond the Auxiliary Constable pool.
Responsibility: RCMP, Director, National Aboriginal Policing and Crime Prevention Services

Current Status: There are currently no ongoing recruiting initiatives.

Planned Action: Future hiring of Community Constables will not be limited to an Auxiliary Constable pool of applicants.

Diary Date: N/A - Accepted

Recommendation 5: It is recommended that current CSO uniform, training and tools be revisited as soon as possible to consider identified risks against the intended role and functionality of a CSO in the community.
Responsibility: RCMP, Director, National Aboriginal Policing and Crime Prevention Services

Current Status: This recommendation is fully supported and the uniform will change based on the risk mitigation strategy with the change to a Community Constable model and the required approval.

Planned Action: Seek approval from CAP management to modify the uniform to accommodate proposed changes to the model.
Modifications will be made in consultation with all partners and with approval from CAP management.

Diary Date: Pending SEC decision

Recommendation 6: It is recommended that Contract Aboriginal Policing (CAP) or the responsible policy centre examine the requirement for CSO’s to be classified as Special Constables in order to fulfill their mandate.
Responsibility: RCMP, Director, National Aboriginal Policing and Crime Prevention Services

Current Status: The RCMP is committed to retaining CSO’s as employees upon conclusion of the pilot. As Special Constables, CSO’s were sworn in under the RCMP Act and as such, will retain Special Constable status. Approval for a Community Constable model will support the requirement for Special Constable status based on the Community Constable full use of force options.

Planned Action: Continue consultation and exploration to ensure informed final decision on required category of employee status within the Community Constable model.
Provide rational for final category of employee decision to all involved.

Diary Date: Pending SEC decision

Appendix A – CSO Financials

Salary & Allowance Pay First Year Second Year Third Year
Special Constable (CSO) 60,900 61,814 62,741
Total Salary $60,900 $61,814 $62,741
Operating Cost First Year Second Year Third Year
31 – Overtime - RM $9,600 $9,600 $9,696
223 – Radio Communicatiosn System - Services 500 500 505
52 – Training travel 900 900 909
190 – Training & Seminars 800 800 808
100 – Telephone Services 1,100 1,100 1,111
101 – Telephone Services - Unit Commander Authority 600 600 606
430 – Fuel 3,200 3,200 3,232
50 – Travel 1,700 1,700 1,717
370 – Repair of Vehicles 1,700 1,700 1,717
500 – Stationery (Including EDP) 500 500 505
510 – Clothing & Kit 300 300 303
540 – Post budget & Expenditures 3,000 3,000 3,030
811 – Software Development - Non-salary (CIO only) 500 500 505
External Review Committee/ Public Complaints Commission 400 400 404
Total Operating Cost $24,800 $24,800 $25,048
One Time Start–up Costs / Capital / Evergreen First Year Second Year Third Year
890 – Vehicles 10,000
841 – Computer Equipment - Div/Dir Purchases 3,000
830 – Furniture & Fixtures 5,600
Total One Time Start–up / Capital $18,600
Total Costs (before indirect costs) $104,300 $86,614 $87,789
Indirect Costs First Year Second Year Third Year
Indirect Costs
RM Pensions - RMs, CM's and IMs Pension $7,302 $7,411 $7,523
Div Admin - RMs, CMs, TCEs, Ims 20,000 21,500 23,500
Training RM and CMs 3,500 3,500 3,500
RM/CM/TCE/IM - EI 874 874 874
ERC/PCC - RMs and CMs 400 400 400
Indirect Costs $32,076 $33,686 $35,797
Grand Total $136,376 $120,299 $123,585

Appendix B –Definitions of RCMP Service Delivery Options

  • Community Safety Officer (CSO): a Special Constable who wears a uniform, is unarmed and is to be visible in the community doing crime prevention, community policing, traffic support and community safety. A detailed report entitled “A Progress Review of the Community Safety Officer Pilot in “E” Division” was prepared in July 2009 by the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies (ICURS), Simon Fraser University. This report examined the development and implementation of the CSO pilot in its first year. This review was provided to members of the RCMP’s Senior Executive Committee for their information and consideration in mid-2009.
  • Community Program Officer (CPO): a Civilian Member (CM) of the RCMP who does not wear a uniform and is unarmed. Community Program Officers wear a collared sport type shirt and wind breaker with the RCMP crest to identify them as part of the RCMP. The Community Program Officers main activities include coordinating and implementing community policing and crime prevention programs in schools and the community as well as liaising with social agencies and community groups dedicated to crime prevention and social development. An evaluation of this pilot was conducted by the RCMP’s National Program Evaluation Service in 2009 and the report was accepted by the RCMP’s Departmental Evaluation Committee and approved by the Commissioner in February 2010.
  • Aboriginal Community Constable (ACC): a pilot program began training of its first troop of Special Constables in December 2010. The Aboriginal Community Constables are armed, uniformed peace officers who are engaged in policing activities in their home First Nations and Inuit communities. The Aboriginal Community Constables main activities will be crime prevention, community mobilization/engagement and crime reduction. They also have the capacity to provide tactical, enforcement and investigational support to core resources as a secondary function. The first troop of ACCs graduated from DEPOT in April 2011 and have been deployed to their home communities.
  • Auxiliary Constable: purpose is to strengthen community and police partnership by providing an opportunity for citizen, volunteers to perform authorized activities in support of activities to support causes or reduce the fear of crime or disorder. Their primary purpose is to participate in community policing services activities relating to public Safety and crime prevention on an unarmed basis and as authorized. Are authorized to accompany regular members on patrol and perform other police functions under both general and direct supervision, such as office duties, special events, property checks and traffic and crowd control.

1 This report should be read in conjunction with, “A Progress Review of the Community Safety Officer Pilot in “E” Division.” Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University; July 2009.

2 Risk Assessment, Client Service Enhancement Project (CSEP); June 2007. 

3 Project Charter: Community Safety Officer Pilot Program Evaluation. RCMP, October 1, 2008.

4 Pacific Region Training Centre: Research & Development Unit. CSO Pilot Program – Revised Costing. June, 8, 2010

5 “Community Safety Officer: A Progress Review of the pilot in British Columbia July 2009”(Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University), p. 16.

6 Statistics Canada (2010). Police-reported crime statistics. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100720/dq100720a-eng.htm

7 Statistics Canada (2004). Defining fear of crime in the neighbourhood. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-561-m/2008013/5200222-eng.htm

8 “E” Division Operational Manual. Bulletin No. OM-427. Part 38 Community Policing; Part 1 Prevention; 2008-06-25.      

9 Community Safety Officer: Frequently Asked Questions. Infoweb,  “E” Division; Last updated: October 2011.

10 Client Service Enhancement Project: Community Safety Officer Preliminary Business Case. A/Commr. Bill Robinson, CSEP. September 19, 2006.

11 “E” Division Operational Manual. Bulletin No. OM-427. Part 38 Community Policing; Part 1 Prevention; 2008-06-25.      

12 “E” Division Operational Manual. Bulletin No. OM-427 Appendix A. Part 38 Community Policing; Part 1 Prevention. 2008-06-25.

13 Community Safety Officer Pilot Project: The Reported Activities of CSOs in 2009. “E” Division Crime Prevention & Support Services; February 2010.

14 “Community Safety Officer: A Progress Review of the pilot in British Columbia”. July 2009(Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University), p.60.

15 Task Bank Document with the Dataset and Analysis Methodology Report a.k.a The 2009 Full Year CSO Report 

16Community Safety Officer Pilot Project: The Reported Activities of CSOs in 2009. “E” Division Crime Prevention & Support Services; February 2010.

17 Pacific Region Training Centre: Research & Development Unit. CSO Pilot Program – Revised Costing. June, 8, 2010.

18 Community Safety Officer Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment. April 2008.

19 “Community Safety Officer: A Progress Review of the pilot in British Columbia”. July 2009(Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University), Appendix S p. 144.

20 “Community Safety Officer: A Progress Review of the pilot in British Columbia”. July 2009(Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University), p. 19.

21 Risk Assessment: National Aboriginal Policing Services (NAPS), Version 1. November 2008.

22 Community Safety Officer pilot presentation: A Client Service Enhancement Project (CSEP). September, 28, 2009.

23 NAPS Risk Assessment – November 10, 2008.

24 “Community Safety Officer: A Progress Review of the pilot in British Columbia”. July 2009(Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University), Appendix H - CSO pilot program questionnaire, p.102.

25 Client Service Enhancement Project: Community Safety Officer Preliminary Business Case. CSEP. September 19, 2006.

26 National Program Evaluation Services, Community Program Officer – Impact Evaluation (RCMP); 2009.

27 Client Service Enhancement Project: Community Safety Officer Preliminary Business Case. CSEP. September 19, 2006.