Flaws in the 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Report – Part III

This post will examine the “Events for Service” statistics listed in the 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Report.

As the table below indicates, in 2009 there were 162,394 events.  In 2010 there were 162,678.  The difference is so marginal that in percentage terms it is correctly listed as zero.

The variances in the number of events for service in the 5 Districts are listed as between -3 and -10 percent.  This raises the question:  If the actual city-wide calls for service were essentially static then how is it possible that each District would show a reduction?

The culprit again is the new unexplained category ‘Not District Specific” introduced in 2010.  This category which consists of 7748 events when added to the 2010 District numbers produces a variance of zero as opposed to the listed 3 to 10 per cent decrease.  Again, another error.

2009

2010

Variance shown in 2010 Annual Report
District 1

45,483

43,756

-4%
District 2

17,443

15,641

-10%
District 3

40,106

38,349

-4%
East District

36,106

35,197

-3%
District 6

23,256

21987

-5%
Non District Specific

did not exist in 2009

7748
Total City Wide

162,394

162,678

0%

Data Source:  2009 and 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Reports

Based on the response I have received to these recent postings, there is significant interest in what will hopefully be a response in the near future from the Winnipeg Police Service as to why the “Not District Specific” category was introduced, or what it represents.

Flaws in the 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Report – Part II

Dealing with the 9549 crimes listed as “Not District Specific”. 

In the previous post I discussed some of the major issues with the 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Report.  They included the addition of two new statistical categories: one in the “Criminal Code by District  Table (Not District Specific)”, and in the “Criminal Code Offences by Month Table (Undertermined)” – small matter that the latter word is misspelled in the report.  As it turns out, the most glaring aspect of the report is in the math: crunch the city-wide crime numbers  as they are shown and compare 2010 to 2009 and you will come up with a 9 percent increase in crime as opposed to the 7 percent decrease that the Annual Report states.  What?!

What originally caused me to take a closer look at the numbers was the apparent disparity between the reported reduction at the district level (see column 1) .  The District numbers show reductions in the range of 20-30 percent and yet the city-wide reduction was listed as -7%.  Something’s wrong here.

The next step was to do the actual calculations using the District and city-wide data as listed in the 2009 and 2010 Annual Reports.  The results of those calculations are listed in column 2.  There is a significant disparity between the two columns – at this point I’m ready to suggest that the Police Service  pull the 2010 Annual Report off the website, scrap the whole mess and start over.

Another reason to start over:  Let’s look at the reported crimes listed under the new category of “Not District Specific”.  Without the help of an explanation, one is left to assume these are reported crimes in addition to those listed under the five Districts (when you add the numbers listed for the 5 districts and then add 9,549 from the “Not District Specific” category you arrive at 61,680 – the numbers listed in the 2010 Annual Report as the total number of crimes reported city-wide).

Although these  9549 crimes would be disproportionately distributed  (ie District 1 would have more than District 2),  for the purpose of the table below column 3 represents the percentage crime rate change if the “Not District Specific” crimes were equally distributed throughout the five districts).

Area

Column 1

As Reported*

Column 2

Actual**

Column 3

Projected***
City wide

-7

-8

+9
District 1

-20

-10

+4
District 2

-32

-14

+16
District 3

-23

-5

+10
East   District

-25

-7

+7
District 6

-26

-8

+13

*    These are the percentages as listed in the 2010 Winnipeg police Annual Report.

**  These are the percentages arrived at when you crunch the raw data in the 2009 and 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Reports excluding the 9549 offences listed under “Not District Specific”.

*** These are the percentages when you factor in the 9,549 incidents listed in the “Not District Specific ” and evenly distribute them within the 5 Districts.

At this point I am not certain if the statistical wizards within the Winnipeg Police Service did a double count of some incidents or simply out smarted themselves with the introduction of the new categories.  I suppose the only way to find out is to ask.

I sent the following email to the Winnipeg Police  Service:

I have now had the opportunity to have a quick look at portions of the 2010 Annual Report and I have a few questions:

1.  The Criminal Code Offences by District table has a new column titled “Not District Specific” added.  Why was this column created? How are offences determined to be “not district specific”?  How are not district specific offences handled in terms of plotting them on Crimestat?

2.  The temporal table also had a column added under the heading “undertermined”.  I assume this was meant to say “undetermined” . Why was this column added?  How, for example, can there be 7,707 thefts in this category?  Does the WPS not require the complainant to provide dates in terms of when the offence took place?

3.  The 2010 Annual Report shows 61,680 as being the number of total criminal code offences reported to police and shows this to be a 7% reduction over 2009.   The 2009 Annual Report showed 56,427 .  Based on those two figures how was the 7% reduction calculated?

Thank you for your help.

I’m hoping to get a response in a more timely fashion than the release of the Annual Report – almost a year after the fact.  When (or if) I receive a response I will post it because this is important enough that it demands an answer.

Flaws in the 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Report

Do the math:  According to the numbers in the Winnipeg Police Annual Report, crime in Winnipeg may be up by as much as 9% and not down 7% as stated. 

As I made my way through the just released 2010 Winnipeg Police Annual Report I admired the politically correct pictures, and the really cute picture of the puppies.

It was when I got to the meat of the matter, the statistics that is, that I realized that there was a problem with the report – a big problem.

Winnipeg Police Annual Reports have traditionally reported on the number of Criminal Code Offences both geographically (by district of occurrence) and temporally ( month of occurrence).  This year is no different, however, in each case a new column has been added.

The Criminal Code Offences By District Table has a new column titled “not district specific” .  A total of 9548 offences are reported in this column including 1 homicide, 138 robberies and  8109  “theft $5000 or under (Non-Motor Vehicle)”.  It seems inconceivable that the Police Service took reports of over 8000 thefts and was not able to determine in which of the five police districts the theft occurred.  But, as there is no note attached to this newly introduced column, one must assume that is the case.  Whatever happened to occurrences being assigned a location by address and atom?

The Criminal Code Offences By Month Table also saw the addition of a new column, again without any note or explanation attached.  The column is titled “Undertermined”.  I’m assuming it should read as ‘undetermined’.  This column lists 8521 offences.  They include 132 robberies and 7707 Theft $5000 or Under (Non-Motor Vehicle) offences.  Again, one would think that the police should be able to determine with some degree of accuracy when people were robbed and where and when they had their property stolen.  Without any note or explanation attached to this addition to the annual report one must assume they can not.

Lastly, the big one.  The 2010 Annual Report lists the total number of Criminal Code Offences reported to police in 2010 as 61,680.  The report says that this represents a reduction of 7% from the previous year.  Here is the problem:  the 2009 Annual Report lists the total number of crimes reported as 56,427.  Based on those numbers that would mean a 9% increase compared to 2009.  That is a 16% difference and that is significant.

Pending an explanation one must conclude, based on the numbers in the Annual Report, that crime in Winnipeg may be up by as much as 9% in 2010 compared to 2009.

I guess 12 months was just not enough time to do all the ‘figurin and cipherin’ required to get the numbers right.  I have attached a link to a video on Ma and Pa Kettle Math that might help.

Santa Visits Winnipeg 2011

Not having read the January 9, 2012 issue of McLean’s, Santa was not aware that his chance of being robbed in Winnipeg was  1:342  (more than 3 times the Canadian average),  so he paid the price for coming to Winnipeg  unprepared.

Personal Video Recorders

Several companies such as Taser and Vievu are selling small personal video recording  (PVR) devices designed specifically for police use.  These small cameras are very durable and are capable of recording extended police/citizen interactions.

These cameras serve two main purposes:  they provide video evidence police can use in the prosecution of charged persons, and they assist police managers in monitoring police behaviour.

A few major American police departments such as Cincinnati and Oakland have adopted the use of personal video recorders by its members.

The American experience has shown that police managers and unions don’t see eye to eye on the use of PVR’s.  They are especially appealing to police managers  who are dealing with a high volume of allegations of police misconduct.  Police unions are worried that management will use video footage against officers.

In Seattle where the police department is being investigated by the Justice Department for alleged misconduct,  a City Councilman is lobbying the mayor to include money in the 2012 budget to conduct a PVR pilot project in Seattle.  He hopes that such a pilot project would provide a more complete view of police encounters with the public,  and that it would improve police behaviour.

The American experience has shown that the implementation in Winnipeg will in all likelihood require extensive negotiations with the Winnipeg Police Association.

The Winnipeg Police Service has 1 million dollars set aside in the Capital Budget  for PVR’s.  The priority of capital budget items can usually be judged fairly accurately by how often they get pushed back into the last year of the capital budget cycle.   For example, last year the expenditure was slated for 2015 in the final year of the cycle.   In this year’s Capital Budget it has been moved back to 2016.  In Winnipeg this is obviously not considered a priority.  It will be interesting to track the Capital Budget for the next several years to see if this proposed expenditure ever becomes a high priority.  Or will it be moved back year after year?  Or even perhaps eliminated or converted to some other use?

Does Money Buy Happiness?

Are You “Very Happy” With the Police Services You Receive?

When polling firms conduct public opinion surveys they attempt to quantify and qualify their results in terms of the overall accuracy of the survey  and how strongly respondents feel about a particular issue.  When asked questions respondents are given response options like “strongly agree, agree, either agree or disagree, disagree or strongly disagree”.  When doing surveys on satisfaction levels with a service being provided the terminology used is usually framed  in terms such as  “very happy, happy”, etc.

A recent poll conducted by Forum Research showed that in Winnipeg 25% of respondents were “very happy” with the services offered by the Winnipeg Police Service.

Nationally, 39% of respondents were “very happy” with the policing services they receive.

The current budget for policing in Winnipeg is around $200 million per annum.  That is  up approximately $50 million from 5 years ago.

One could argue that when it comes to policing, money does not necessarily buy ‘happiness’.

The Plight of “I Can’t Speak”

A variation on the Three Wise Monkeys Theme

I was surprised by the number of emails and phone calls  I received after posting the Three Wise Monkeys cartoon yesterday.  Winnipegers are quite willing to guess at the “Who Am I” questions.  There is a high level  of agreement as to who the best candidates are at City Hall for  “I see nothing” and “I hear nothing”.

I also ran across another image that  attempts to answer the question of what causes poor hearing, eye sight and the inability to speak within bureaucracies.  It is very revealing.

On a more serious note (if that is possible), it  caused me to ponder the predicament that “I cannot speak” (aka the city employee),  is in.  The province has whistle blower legislation in the form of The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistle Blower Protection) Act to protect provincial employees who in good faith bring forward instances of wrong doing.  The City of Winnipeg has not enacted similar legislation at the municipal level, essentially leaving city employees who wish to expose possible wrong doing, frankly, exposed.

In July of 2006 the  CAO of the City of Winnipeg approved the Fraud, Theft or Related Irregularities Standard which applies to all civic employees.  This standard was introduced in recognition that fraud, theft and unethical behavior is an issue within municipal administrations.  The Standard requires that an employee who becomes aware of any incidents of fraud or a violation of the code of conduct must report such incidents to their manager or supervisor.  What is missing of course is protection for employees who do so.

In September of 2010 the City of Winnipeg Audit Department issued the  Fraud and Waste Hotline Research Study.

It would appear the impetus for this study was the lack of reporting as required under the City’s Fraud, Theft or Related Irregularities  Standard.  During the first 3 years after the  City introduced the Fraud, Theft or Related Irregularities Standard in 2006, a total of 3 reports were received, 2 in 2007, 1 in 2008 and none in 2009.  The audit report notes that:  None of the reports were in compliance with the administrative Standard as none of the reports were made to a supervisor or manager as directed by the standard. (p.7)

The report indicates that one of the most common forms of fraud within government and public administration are schemes related to corruption (p.5).  The audit report examined the reporting rates in several Canadian cities. Their review showed that between 2007 and 2009 Ottawa averaged 165, Calgary 50 , Edmonton 45,  Winnipeg 3. (p.10)

One important difference between Winnipeg and the other cited cities is that the other cities have instituted a Fraud and Waste Hotline which allows city employees to make their reports anonymously to a third party and not directly to their supervisor or manager.

The audit department concluded:   Some employees hesitate to report information regarding fraud or waste as they do not want to reveal their identity due to fears about potential retaliation for reporting a peer or manager. (p.7).  If employees live in fear of retaliation for reporting a peer or manager, imagine the level of fear that must  exist in terms of reporting a statutory or  elected official.  Another conclusion drawn is that  fraud and waste is  under reported in Winnipeg:   it is likely that a number of possible fraud and waste incidents are going unreported due to the requirements in the City of Winnipeg standard to report to the supervisor with no reference to anonymity. (p.10)

The Audit report  recommended that Winnipeg establish a Fraud and Waste Hotline managed by the Audit Department.

According to the City the process to create a Fraud and Waste Hotline is currently underway.

It is not known at this time if the City will also introduce whistle blower legislation at the same time.  It is difficult to imagine why they would not.  Whistle blower legislation would empower civic employees to be in a position to do the right thing and be protected.  The winners would be the taxpayers and all honest employees, managers, supervisors, officials and politicians.  The losers would be the dishonest ones.  And who can make such a change?  That would be the politicians, our city councillors.  And if they don’t make the change does that mean we should assume they see themselves as having something to lose? (Did I say that out loud?)

Until such time as the City introduces meaningful legislation to protect honest employees who are prepared to put it on the line, “irregularities” will continue to flourish at City Hall and throughout the civic service.  Why?  Because they can.

The RCMP Standard of Conduct

During the recent debate on the expunging of police disciplinary records Winnipeg’s Chief of Police essentially took the position that because criminals can apply to receive pardons after five years of criminal inactivity, police officers should be able to apply to have their disciplinary records expunged after five years as well.  I wrote a post at the time which stated in part:

Talk about lowering your level of expectations by comparing police officers to criminals.  Whatever happened to the principle of expecting the very best from police officers and holding police officers to a higher standard?  The Chief’s position on this is poorly thought out and just plain wrong.

The recent press release by RCMP Assistant Commissioner Bill Robinson in response to the criminal conviction of two RCMP officers is a refreshing change when compared to the drivel being spouted by Winnipeg’s Chief.

Robinson stated:

We recognize that our members are held to a higher standard and we are proud of the hundreds of hard-working men and women providing highly professional police services to Manitoba communities. (emphasis added is mine)

That is how it should be!