Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I know this body has already heard some important and informative testimony so I will keep my comments brief in light of the time restrictions and what I believe you've already heard.
Matters of economics, sustainability, cost, and value in policing are of critical importance in considering the future of public safety services in any nation. Regrettably, in my opinion, these issues have largely been ignored. Resources more typically are infused into or drained away from police services and other public safety agencies with a limited understanding of how we might maximize benefits and minimize harm when those types of steps are necessary.
As a consequence, we don't really have a clear understanding of how to ensure we've received the most benefit possible from our public safety tax dollars. To me, the consideration of economics in policing comes down to the related issues of cost and value. Cost is easy to understand and relatively easy to measure. I suspect it both motivates many of the conversations around the economics of policing and it often tends to drive budgetary decision-making in this area.
Cost, however, does not give you, as decision-makers, all of the information you need to do your job with diligence. Discussions of economics in policing must also incorporate consideration of value. This is a more subjective issue, but in general, what is the value or return on investment for an infusion of public safety expenditures.
I'll focus my brief comments this morning on five major themes. I would note that my orientation is certainly conditioned by my American perspective on this issue, which you may find in this consideration either helpful or at times irrelevant. My orientation is also influenced by my work looking at future issues in policing. In conducting your important work, I would encourage you to not simply consider the current economic realities of policing and public safety in Canada, but also to consider how those realities may manifest themselves in the future, a situation that at times might be a radical departure from current circumstances.
First of all, existing performance measures in policing are convenient, though they're imperfect and limited in scope. They only tell us a small part of the narrative about the ability of police officers and organizations to influence the communities that they serve. While it's relatively easy to identify alternate performance indicators that might provide a more holistic understanding of the influence police have on communities, such as the fear of crime, a sense of safety among citizens, the provision of justice, measuring those indicators is challenging from both practical and fiscal perspectives.
Second, certainly using the United States as an example, we can find ample examples of troubled communities that have made appreciable cuts in policing services in the last five years and have experienced violent crime rates that have escalated rapidly. At the same time, we can also find examples of agencies that have made analogous staffing cuts and did not experience major increases in serious crime. Whether those distinctions are a consequence in the latter jurisdiction, whether there are other consequences, such as increases in disorder or minor crime, remains open to debate. There is not always a clear relationship between police staffing levels and crime rates. Crime reductions, whether driven by staffing or other considerations, are a function of a community's composition, the capacities and skill set of the police force, and importantly, the way in which policing resources are directed and deployed.
The point here is that increasing or decreasing police staffing by itself may not condition subsequent rates of crime and disorder in a direct manner. Our understanding of the staffing deployment crime and disorder relationships is imperfect and incomplete. More experience is needed and more evidence must be presented so we can have a more robust understanding. I would note that what we do understand about the relationship between police staffing and crime tends to be derived largely from urban areas. These dynamics may be quite different in jurisdictions serving small, rural, or first nation communities. We simply do not know.
Third, it is important that a conversation on economics in policing look beyond the crime rate in judging success. There are less evident outcomes of policing services, such as generating and sustaining public trust and confidence, fostering a sense of community, creating an environment in which people feel reasonably safe and secure, and providing citizens with quality government services that are responsive to the public's needs and expectations.
All of these are quite difficult to measure, and, at least in the United States, our experiences with recent economic difficulties do not clearly illuminate whether or not these intangibles have been affected by recent staffing and budget changes.
The value received from government investment in public safety may go beyond simple reported rates of crime and disorder. A community in which citizens are objectively safe but who live in fear and lack trust in the police is not a preferred outcome, in my opinion.
Fourth, I believe I have been asked to speak before you today because one of my areas of expertise is future studies as it relates to policing. Future thinking is not a process intended to strictly predict the future; rather, it is a process to help us make better decisions today. In effect, it is a form of strategic planning.
For the sake of brevity, I would note that a major implication of future studies is the observation that as groups engage in discussions about the economics of policing, it is critical that the discussion of the future does not always assume constancy or even a linear pace of change.
I would encourage your body to consider several questions. For instance, what challenges and opportunities will emerge for the commission and prevention of crime in the future? When, where, and how are citizens likely to wish to receive policing services in the future, a situation that might be quite different from the status we see today? How will emerging technologies create both challenges and opportunities to deliver quality public safety services and also address ancillary needs, such as training and education of police personnel? How might generational differences between those in the labour force today and those entering the labour force change the values and motivations of police personnel?
How might social and technological changes manifest themselves in the ways in which citizens wish to access police services? Today we might suspect that most citizens would prefer to personally see a police officer when they are reporting a victimization experience. In 2025, as an example, the typical crime victim may be perfectly content reporting their experiences electronically, or even by an artificial intelligence-based system. If that is the case, there are important implications for thinking about police service delivery into the future.
How will emergent social and technological transformations influence the ancillary costs of policing? For example, how might educational technologies be used to streamline when and how police personnel are trained and educated?
The fifth and final issue I would address is that this conversation should not simply be about cutting policing services and/or police personnel. It should include consideration of how services can be delivered in acceptable alternate ways and also by those other than sworn personnel. This might include using technology to facilitate police-citizen interactions that are not always direct and face to face. This might include the use of civilian and volunteer personnel.
Consideration of the latter should not be restricted to the traditional focus of off-loading low-end tasks onto non-sworn personnel. Civilians and volunteers might be ideally suited to take on some of the more challenging tasks and mandates confronting modern police agencies.
Though we certainly must use caution in deploying these strategies, we must also recognize that they may not always be available in smaller and more rural jurisdictions.
I would reinforce in this discussion that cost alone cannot win the day in considering these types of transformations. This body must examine whether the public will be adequately served and sufficiently satisfied with such changes. Will they still see that there is an appropriate value in the services they receive from the tax dollars they pay to support public safety?
I will conclude my comments with three brief suggestions for this committee and its efforts.
First, I would encourage you to approach this task with a futures orientation. Do not presume that there will be continuity in when, where, and how police operations are conducted. Do not presume that the public safety expectations of the public will remain the same. Do not presume that the motivation and skills of police personnel will be stable. Do not presume that the nature and volume of crime will look the same 20 years from now as it did 20 years ago. The future presents both challenges and opportunities for us. Be aware of the former and seek ways to capitalize upon the latter.
Second, bear in mind that errors can take a long time to correct when considering issues of public safety. An unpopular decision to stop sending first responders to immediately take a report for a given criminal incident might over time be found sufficiently unpopular with citizens, but the consequences of that error are likely relatively minimal and relatively easy to reverse. Alternately, a decision that results in a failure to effectively address emergent delinquent conduct among youth might result in a generation of future offenders being created, and once that creation has occurred the consequences of that error can take decades to be resolved.
Finally, though resources are tight, as an academic I would encourage this body to continue to seek evidence-based solutions and demand evidence-based evaluation of any changes that are made. In 1936, sociologist Robert Merton wrote a classic essay in which he discussed what he termed the “unanticipated consequences of purposive social change”. His implication for this body in that essay is that it is important to use evidence and experience to guide choices. Moving forward, it is also important to use evidence to ensure your changes achieve the desired results. Perhaps most importantly, in seeking to monitor results, it is important to look for things we did not expect, to seek to detect both the mistakes that might be made and to seek out the possibility that advantages have been realized that were not anticipated initially.
I commend this committee and its constituents for taking on such a difficult and important task. I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
