---
title: "Contextual Analysis of Crime"
type: "pdf"
year: "2019"
canonical: "/projects/397"
---

# Contextual Analysis of Crime in Edmonton, Canada 

Herman Goldstein Award Submission 2019

# Table of Contents

- [Contextual Analysis of Crime in Edmonton, Canada](#contextual-analysis-of-crime-in-edmonton-canada)
- [Contextual Analysis of Crime in Edmonton, Canada: Summary](#contextual-analysis-of-crime-in-edmonton-canada-summary)
  - [Scanning](#scanning)
  - [Analysis](#analysis)
  - [Response](#response)
  - [Assessment](#assessment)
- [Social Value Created](#social-value-created)
  - [Valuing Change](#valuing-change)
- [Project Description](#project-description)
  - [Scanning](#scanning)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Response](#response)
  - [Noise Complaints:](#noise-complaints)
- [Recovered Stolen Automobiles:](#recovered-stolen-automobiles)
  - [Youth-serving Agencies:](#youth-serving-agencies)
  - [Noise Complaints](#noise-complaints)
- [Recovered Stolen Automobiles](#recovered-stolen-automobiles)
- [Addressing the High Number of Youth-serving Organizations](#addressing-the-high-number-of-youth-serving-organizations)
- [Assessment](#assessment)
- [Social Return on Investment](#social-return-on-investment)
  - [Evaluation Framework](#evaluation-framework)
  - [Data Collection](#data-collection)
- [Social Return on Investment Analysis](#social-return-on-investment-analysis)
- [Key Project Team members](#key-project-team-members)
  - [Project Contact Person](#project-contact-person)
- [Appendices](#appendices)
  - [Appendix 1 | Back to text](#appendix-1-back-to-text)
- [**Appendix 2 | Back to text (Response) | Back to text (Assessment)**](#appendix-2-back-to-text-response-back-to-text-assessment)
- [**Appendix 3 | Back to text**](#appendix-3-back-to-text)
- [Appendix 4 | Back to text](#appendix-4-back-to-text)
- [Appendix 5 | Back to text](#appendix-5-back-to-text)
- [Appendix 6 | Back to text](#appendix-6-back-to-text)
- [Appendix 7 | Back to text](#appendix-7-back-to-text)
- [Appendix 8 | Back to text](#appendix-8-back-to-text)
- [Appendix 9 | Back to text](#appendix-9-back-to-text)
- [Back to text](#back-to-text)
- [Appendix 10 | Back to text](#appendix-10-back-to-text)
- [Appendix 11 | Back to text](#appendix-11-back-to-text)
- [Example Calculation](#example-calculation)
  - [Example Calculation:](#example-calculation)
- [Appendix 13 | Back to text](#appendix-13-back-to-text)

# Contextual Analysis of Crime in Edmonton, Canada: Summary 

## Scanning

Edmonton's Neighbourhood Empowerment Team (NET) — which works with residents, businesses and organizations to build proactive solutions to create safe and vibrant communities - approached the City of Edmonton's Analytics Centre of Excellence (ACE) to help them leverage analytics for a preventative approach to crime.

The result was the Contextual Analysis of Crime (CAC) project, which analyzes factors that are correlated with both high and low levels of crime across the city. A downtown area was selected for the pilot due to its high concentration of recovered stolen automobiles, youth-serving agencies and noise complaints, which correlate to property crime - with 100 per cent confidence, CAC predicted that property crime would occur in this area.

## Analysis

The project involved taking police crime stats and analyzing them with 233 other kinds of data. Running the data through an algorithm, ACE produced 92 "rules" (sets of multiple factors that increased or decreased the likelihood of property or violent crime occurring within each of more than 11,000 grid squares within Edmonton).

## Response

NET responded by mitigating the above-mentioned factors that lead to property crime by educating and building trust with residents and other stakeholders. This was accomplished though community conversations; documentation of concerns; planning and implementing strategies to address those concerns; projects to promote engagement, ownership and resiliency; and an increased police and by-law officer presence.

## Assessment

Though CAC, NET was able to achieve tangible outcomes:

- Increased crime and disorder reports
- Increased appropriate use of police services
- Improved relationships between police and stakeholders
- Improved condition of condominiums
- Reduced crime incidences
- Improved community cohesion
- Increased sense of safety
- Increased Youth Engagement
- Reduced time responding to emerging issues
- Improved efficiency and allocation of resources

# Social Value Created 

CAC resulted in greater participation in community; residents report feeling more connected to each other and resources that support their needs. Heightened law enforcement presence and community awareness has likely translated into fewer crimes and greater likelihood of reporting crime.

## Valuing Change

Through a Social Return on Investment analysis, impacts of the pilot project were monetized to the social value created, translating into a social return of $\$ 1.60$ for every $\$ 1.00$ invested.

# Project Description 

## Scanning

Initially an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) initiative, Edmonton's Neighbourhood Empowerment Team (NET) is now a partnership between EPS, the City of Edmonton, The Family Centre and United Way of the Alberta Capital Region, composed of highly trained members with specialized skill sets that are best suited to address the underlying causes of crime and disorder through targeted SARA interventions. Specifically, NET's mission is to:

Identify recurring situations that affect the perceptions or realities of a community's safety that would benefit from proactive and preventative interventions and then implement innovative strategies, working with the community, to address the factors that are contributing to the situation.

Previously, hotspot, or density mapping, was the approach most commonly used by NET staff. Although this is an effective approach, it remains contingent on an occurrence of crime to be properly analyzed. This positioned NET to act to prevent further instances of crime but did little to address the previous occurrences that the analysis itself was contingent on.

NET wanted to move from a reactive approach to a more proactive one.

Thus, in 2015, NET approached the City of Edmonton's Analytics Centre of Excellence (ACE) with the goal of leveraging analytics to provide actionable insights, which would allow NET to move to a more preventative approach to crime.

This resulted in the Contextual Analysis of Crime (CAC) project. This empirical and evidence-based strategy established the underlying factors that precipitate both high and low levels of crime in Edmonton.

Traditionally, NET selected geographically defined communities of Edmonton identified by a number of indicators (mainly calls for service), known as "stressed communities" to work in. However, CAC looked for communities that had the highest likelihood of crime to occur.

A small area of downtown Edmonton (approximately one square kilometre in the neighbourhood of Boyle Street) was selected for the pilot due to CAC showing that this area had a high likelihood of property crime occurring - 100 per cent confidence - due to a high concentration of recovered stolen automobiles, youth-serving agencies and noise complaints.

# Analysis 

CAC used analytics to measure the social and environmental indicators that statistically correlate with occurrences of crime. Through these insights, NET was better able to understand the social and physical environments that make criminal activity more likely to occur so that actions can be taken to mitigate those factors.

To start, ACE identified Risk Terrain Modeling (RTM) as a possible framework for this process. RTM operates by predicting the interaction between people and environment. The framework Is based on evidence that particular environments create opportunities for crime. These environments consist of elements spoken about in three criminological theories: Social Disorganization theory, Collective Efficacy theory and Broken Windows theory.

Using these principles, ACE conducted a literature review, searching for factors thought to correlate with high crime and social disorder. These factors were peer reviewed by two of Edmonton's prominent post-secondary institutions: the University of Alberta and MacEwan University.

After the review, the list of factors was used as a starting point to identify data that could support the analysis. Two hundred thirty-three (233) data sources representing these factors were mapped against incidences of crime across the City. A rule-based algorithm was then applied to the data, which generated 92 rule-sets that showed a high level of consistency in identifying high, and low, levels of crime in Edmonton.

As stated above, based on the data available, the contextual analysis led NET to select a section of the Boyle Street neighbourhood for the pilot — hereinafter referred to as the Target Zone (Appendix 1) — because it exhibited higher numbers of property crime and this correlated with a high concentration of recovered stolen automobiles, youth-serving agencies and noise complaints.

# Response 

NET engaged with community stakeholders through a number of different ways to mitigate the three identified factors:

## Noise Complaints:

- Held community conversations with residents of Barbara Manor and Glendale Court (buildings of high noise complaints)
- Documented concerns of building tenants, owners and property managers related to building security and condition, tenant and visitor activities, and community safety

- Planned and implemented strategies to address issues raised during consultations
- Educated and built trusting relationships with residents and other stakeholders


# Recovered Stolen Automobiles: 

- Held community conversations with stakeholders to better understand the issue
- Identified the issue being related to drug deals, sexual exploitation and traffic flow
- Increased police and by-law officer presence and increased subject and vehicle checks
- Educated and built trusting relationships with residents and other stakeholders through community events


## Youth-serving Agencies:

- Identified and engaged relevant youth-serving agencies within the Target Zone and in the surrounding region
- Engaged children, youth and families in conversation to understand community issues and strengths
- Organized youth projects to promote engagement, ownership and resiliency
- Partnered with youth-serving agencies to support vulnerable street youth
- Educated and built trusting relationships with residents and other stakeholders


## Noise Complaints

Based on noise complaint data and signs of physical and social distress, NET identified two buildings to engage - Glendale Court (9208 106 Avenue) and Barbara Manor (8640 106 Avenue). NET undertook specific actions to reach building residents, owners and other relevant stakeholders. Through NET assessments, facilitated discussions, photovoice, and resident surveys, NET documented a number of concerns:

- building security/safety,
- noise disturbances,
- unhygienic conditions,
- infestation (roaches, bed bugs),
- poor lighting,
- physical condition of units,
- financial stress, and
- drug use and addictions.

Although the survey of residents indicated some positive factors, there were some contradicting indicators. Even though $61.6 \%$ of residents felt like they belonged to the community and $55.5 \%$ felt they lived in a building where people help their neighbours, only $37.0 \%$ stated they were connected to their neighbours. The survey also showed that $55.5 \%$ of residents valued access to Commonwealth Recreation Centre, but only $33.3 \%$ had accessed it on a regular basis. More concordantly, $66.6 \%$ of survey respondents viewed access to green space as being important, and $70.3 \%$ of respondents had visited community parks.

Numerous stakeholders stated that there had been an influx of new individuals experiencing homelessness in this area. Additionally, this population was noted to be more aggressive in nature. The close proximity to the river valley also led to individuals traveling through the neighbourhood from their encampments on parkland to downtown and back. The NET constable suggested that there was a link between the spike in property crime and efforts to help individuals living in homeless encampments in the river valley. Indeed, 2015 saw increased rates of theft from vehicles (under \$5,000) and theft of

vehicles from the target zone and Boyle Street in general compared to the overall rate of the ten proximal neighbourhoods.

The tenant survey also identified a lack of "collective efficacy," with $40.9 \%$ of respondents indicating they do not call the police when they feel unsafe, and $61.5 \%$ not calling 311 for signs of environmental distress - tenants and landlords weren't working together to enhance community safety.

With the assistance of NET, tenants of Barbara Manor met with landlords and the Condo Board. At the meeting, attendees were able to set priorities and brainstorm actions that would improve overall conditions in the building. NET also distributed information on parks, the Commonwealth Recreation Centre and the Leisure Access Pass.

Tangible improvements were made, included tidying of exterior spaces, new paint in the hallways, improved lighting, carpet cleaning and repairs to door locks. Alberta Health Services was also engaged to initiate inspections of rental units to ascertain the quality of living conditions, which supported further actions to address infestation and degrading units.

Equally important, tenants were informed of the importance of their role in keeping the building safe, being reminded not to allow people that didn't belong into building, not to prop doors open and to call police in the event of criminal activity, suspicious persons or excessive noise.

# Recovered Stolen Automobiles 

CAC identified the Target Area as having a high number of recovered stolen automobiles. Mapping these events further defined a corridor lying on 93rd Street from 103A Avenue to 106 Avenue, and on

92nd Street to a lesser degree. Community feedback regarding this data developed a narrative related to drug dealing, sexual exploitation and traffic flow through the neighbourhood.

Community members indicated that 93rd Street, from 103A Avenue, was the first access point to the neighbourhood from Downtown. It is believed that this traffic is a result of "alleged" drug houses in the area. Drug deals and sexual exploitation were precipitating factors for stolen vehicles to be abandoned. The individuals responsible for the stolen vehicles were believed to leave the neighbourhood using the nearby Stadium LRT station.

NET strategy was to increase "collective efficacy" and increase enforcement (Edmonton Police and By-Law Officers) presence related to vehicles in the area.

Although there was an overall increase in community meetings and crime prevention education in Boyle Street and the surrounding neighbourhoods, the Displacement Zone had significantly greater levels of community input and education. Even though these activities took place in the Displacement Zone (Boyle Street Community League and YMCA Village space), community members from the Target Zone were generally the prime audience for these events.

Like Barbara Manor and Glendale Court, the overall increase in police events in the target zone and displacement zone reflected the increase in collective efficacy (Appendix 2). Many events such as assaults, noise complaints and trouble with intoxicated persons had increased within the target zone as compared to the Boyle Street neighbourhood or surrounding neighbourhoods. These types of events are typically more likely to go unreported. When residents are actively engaged to report these events, it is a positive indicator of collective efficacy.

Engagement between NET and community residents also led to members initiating a "pop-up coffee shop" across from Mother Teresa Park, which residents felt helped foster more neighbourhood connections. Additionally, residents also organized a block party that allowed more opportunities for neighbours to socialize.

Appendix 3 shows significantly greater "proactive enforcement" and "traffic/subject stop" events in the outlined target zone compared to the displacement zone, Boyle Street, and the ten surrounding neighbourhoods overall. Based on the data, these events arose through a reallocation of resources, in that the focus of officer time was shifted from photo radar to proactive enforcement and traffic/subject stops.

# Addressing the High Number of Youth-serving Organizations 

CAC initially identified 13 youth-serving agencies related to the Target Zone. The NET Youth Liaison, with further research and engagement, identified an additional seven organizations that serve youth populations (Appendix 4).

NET engaged these stakeholders through various methods, and although the majority of the organizations are not located in the Target Zone, the agencies, their services and the youth they serve have definite impact on the physical and social environment of the Target Zone.

Mother Teresa Park is the site of Mother Teresa School, the neighbourhood playground and green space, as well as the summer Green Shack Program. As a natural "attractor" for youth, NET was able to leverage the activities at this location. By connecting with Mother Teresa School, NET was able visit students in class and participate in the year-end celebration and school-community barbeque. NET also took time to engage the Green Shack Coordinator and youth and parents who use the park space.

For youth and parents, the playground equipment in Mother Teresa Park was the most cited attraction. ${ }^{1}$ Parents viewed the park as a convenient space for their children. However, the perception of safety in the park space was mixed: $16.7 \%$ of parents explicitly stated the park was safe, while $29.2 \%$ believed it to be unsafe. Other parents had cited that they disliked the presence of intoxicated individuals and crime at the park.

NET undertook a Mural Project in partnership with Mother Teresa School. Working with an artist, grade 5 and 6 students drew what "home" meant to them. The artist copied these images and incorporated them into the mural. Parents and members of the broader community were also engaged in painting and installing the mural on the school. The resulting mural beautifies the park space and builds a sense of ownership for those involved in it production (Appendix 5).

Working with the Green Shack Coordinator, NET had youth draw and colour jigsaw pieces to represent what they liked most about their neighbourhood. The pieces were then mounted on the side of the green shack (Appendix 5).

NET also engaged Boyle Street Community Services' Youth Unit and coordinated the Warming Night Drop-In for youth every Wednesday. The drop-in attendance ranges from 10 to 15 youth per night, providing a balanced meal and access to resources such as computers, phones and information.

In general, there are two types of youth in the project area - those living in the neighbourhood and those more transient who travel through the area for different purposes. NET engaged the youth living in the area through Mother Teresa School and the Green Shack Program, but had to partner with other

[^0]
[^0]:    ${ }^{1}$ Based on a survey conducted by NET with 86 Grade 5 and 6 students at Mother Teresa School and 24 parents.

organizations (e.g., Boyle Street Community Services, iHuman Youth Society, YMCA, etc.) to reach the more vulnerable and high-risk youth.

# Assessment 

Comparing police event data for 2014 and 2015 at Barbara Manor (Appendix 6) and Glendale Court (Appendix 6) there was an overall increase of $42.0 \%$ and $83.7 \%$, respectively. This increase can be generally attributed to calls for "trouble with intoxicated persons," "trouble with persons," and "family disputes intimate partner." Canadian statistics indicate that the reporting of spousal violence to police has been declining and in 2009 only $22 \%$ of events were reported ${ }^{2}$. Given this trend, the increase in the number of reports from these two buildings is promising. This increase in police events also exceeds the baseline measure of an overall increase of events by $7.1 \%$ across the ten neighbourhoods of proximity (Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, Central McDougal, Cromdale, Downtown, McCauley, Parkdale, River Valley/Kinnaird, Riverdale, and Spruce Avenue). This was a clear indicator that "collective efficacy" had improved.

During Barbara Manor's Annual General Meeting of the Condo Board just after this project, two new Board Members were elected to represent condo owners - a further indication of engagement.

In speaking with stakeholders regarding Barbara Manor, there was a sense that the building is safer. There seemed to be a change in the culture of the building. Owners of condominium units indicated that they saw an overall $50 \%-60 \%$ improvement in the condition of the building, and condos were cleaner and better maintained.

[^0]
[^0]:    ${ }^{2}$ Statistics Canada. Trends in reporting criminal victimization to police, 1999 to 2009. Juristat. (85-002-X)

Stakeholders saw a change in the attitudes towards police and don't feel that they need to be afraid of their interactions with EPS. They have improved relationships where residents seek knowledge and a raised awareness (Appendix 7).

The heightened traffic/subject stops resulted in greater numbers of recovered stolen automobiles (Appendix 2). As a baseline, Boyle Street and the ten surrounding neighbourhoods had an increase of $2.5 \%$ and $14.5 \%$ in recovered stolen automobiles between 2014 and 2015, respectively. However, analysis by Target and Displacement zones showed an increase of $23.5 \%$ and $76.9 \%$, respectively. This clearly indicates that increased enforcement lead to increased recovery. Interestingly, recovery of stolen autos was three times higher in the Displacement Zone compared to the Target Zone. This may be a sign that the problem may be moving from one area to another.

Like Barbara Manor and Glendale Court, the overall increase in police events in the Target Zone and Displacement Zone reflected the increase in collective efficacy (Appendix 2). Many events such as assaults, noise complaints and trouble with intoxicated persons had increased within the target zone as compared to the Boyle Street neighbourhood or surrounding neighbourhoods. These types of events are typically more likely to go unreported. When residents are actively engaged to report these events, it is a positive indicator of collective efficacy.

Since NET began working in this geographic area, a core group of residents began meeting. They noted that they have seen improvements to a number of properties, especially commercial properties. Also, with increased presence of enforcement officers, there was an increased sense of safety. Residents engaged with NET also felt more able to connect and navigate the system to address community issues.

# Social Return on Investment 

Given that CAC sought to prevent crime that hadn't happened, evaluation of its success beyond the previously stated would be difficult. However, a third-party organization, Civitas Consulting, was brought in to evaluate CAC in terms of Social Value and Social Return on Investment (SROI).

## Evaluation Framework

A number of anticipated outcomes were previously identified for NET. Understanding the degree to which these outcomes was achieved was the foundation for developing the SROI analysis. In general, outcomes were expected for the residents of the Target Zone, NET and the City of Edmonton and were measured on a number of relevant indicators (Appendix 8).

## Data Collection

Various methodologies were used to collect the data required, including surveys, focus groups, key informant interviews, and NET documentation (meeting minutes, reports, etc.) review. Data from EPS was also made available. Minutes from NET management meetings as well as notes from community events and consultations were also used.

- Tenant Survey: After engaging and building rapport with residents of Barbara Manor and Glendale Court, NET conducted a survey to gather tenant feedback. This served as a baseline measure but also helped to guide NET strategies.

Ideally, the survey would be conducted again after interventions to measure any changes; however, due to the short evaluation period, NET felt administering the survey twice would not provide enough time for significant change to occur. Also, survey responses would be limited due to high turn-over in tenancy.

- Focus Groups: NET conducted focus groups at various times with community members/groups. They used a "Talking Circle" format that allowed each individual in the circle to voice their feedback.

Focus groups were also conducted by Civitas Consulting with the NET staff to learn from the implementation process and understand how the work of NET was affecting the community.

- Key Informant Interviews: Civitas Consulting conducted personal interviews with key stakeholders:

  - NET members (front-line and management)
  - Condominium unit owners
  - Community residents
  - Youth program staff (Boyle Street Community Services)
  - Property manager
  - Condominium tenants

- Document Review: Minutes from NET management and team meetings were provided to Civitas Consulting for review. These were reviewed to determine themes, patterns and outliers in implementation of CAC. Additionally, NET developed SARA reports for each component of the rule set being addressed in the pilot. These reports served to track high-level activities and processes.

- Edmonton Police Crime Information: EPS's interactions and events are recorded categorically. For calls to 911 and then dispatched to officers, events are logged into the

database with vital information, including date, location, reason for call and final call type. Officers also log events that they initiate engagement. These events also track similar information. In either type of event, officers may issue a ticket, which is also tracked in the system.

This information was vital to this project as it allowed Civitas Consulting to isolate the impact of NET during the pilot project, comparing EPS data for the Target Zone to Displacement Zone and surrounding ten surrounding neighbourhoods of proximity (Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, Central McDougal, Cromdale, Downtown, McCauley, Parkdale, River Valley/Kinnaird, Riverdale, and Spruce Avenue) to determine if NET reduced crime or displaced it to the surrounding geographic area (data is presented in Data Tables 1 to 8 in Appendix 9).

# Social Return on Investment Analysis 

An SROI analysis is an extension of the outcomes evaluation and is a principles-based methodology that accounts for social value created by the program or intervention. Social value can be created in a number of ways: cost savings, cost reallocation, future cost avoidance, increased income to persons or state, or improved personal well-being.

In brief, the SROI process identifies relevant stakeholders and engages them to determine their most significant benefits (outcomes) that have resulted from the program.

Outcomes are measured using appropriate indicators and linked to a financial proxy that values the change that has occurred. SROI then accounts for deadweight (what would have happened anyway?), displacement (did this outcome just get moved from one place to another?) and attribution (who else gets credit in helping to make the change?).

The SROI ratio calculates the value of the social returns for every dollar invested in the program.

\frac{\sum \text { Social Value }}{\text { Investment }}=\text { SROI Ratio }

However, the ratio is only a small part of the story. Qualitative data, including anecdotes and narratives, provides a broader context of the change.

Payback period is also calculated based on the investment and social value created. Simply, the payback period is the length of time needed to recuperate the investment. In other words, it is the "break even" point.

\frac{\text { Investment }}{\sum \text { Social Value }} \times \text { Analysis duration }=\text { Payback Period }

Based on the information from the outcomes evaluation, the SROI analysis conveys social value created through financial proxies and narratives. SROI aims to capture broader benefits to a variety of stakeholders and provide a context for monetizing the benefits - for the Social Return on Investment Framework (Appendix 10).

CAC achieved some positive outcomes in 2015, and some of them were monetized with financial proxies and expressed as an SROI ratio to articulate the impact in community and broader. Appendix 11 summarizes the outcomes and financial proxies used to calculate the SROI ratio, with Appendix 12 detailing an example calculation, with a detailed description in Appendix 13.

The sum of all monetized outcomes in this analysis totaled $\$ 523,516$. This value, however, is a conservative representation of the benefits generated from the pilot project. A number of outcomes were not monetized, but nonetheless have been impactful:

- Improved relationships with police contributed to increased "collective efficacy" and greater deterrent to crime and disorder. The NET constable also served as a resource to residents of the neighbourhood.
- Increased number of youth attending activities builds resiliency factors that help to prevent high-risk behaviours. The impacts are likely to be achieved in the long-term, provided youth continue to be supported.
- Reduced lag time in responding to emerging issues - through CAC, NET was able to bring data to community conversations and address issues important to prevent crime and social disorder.
- Increase in different stakeholders engaged in crime prevention can change the way issues are addressed, with the potential of increasing efficiency and effectiveness.

The NET partners collectively invested a total of $\$ 326,845$ in 2015 for the pilot project. This includes the annual costs for NET staff (EPS Constable, City of Edmonton Social Worker and Youth Liaison Worker) as well as costs incurred in the development of the analytical tool. The SROI ratio is calculated by dividing the total social value created by the investment.

\frac{\sum \text { Social Value }}{\text { Investment }}=\frac{\$ 523,516}{\$ 326,845}=1.60

Based on these values, the "payback period" was calculated to be 7.5 months. The payback period is the length of time required for the investment to be recuperated.

This SROI analysis is a very conservative accounting of the impacts NET achieved in Boyle Street. Determining the impacts of prevention strategies is often difficult. We can't be certain how many incidents of victimization were prevented with this project, but it is highly likely that at least one incidence of victimization (assault) was prevented. The SROI analysis therefore accounts for only a single incidence of assault being avoided. With a conservative approach, the SROI analysis was still able to show positive returns. Furthermore, projections beyond the first year would likely show social returns greater than $\$ 1.60$, since investment in the first year of social innovations are usually the greatest.

# Key Project Team members 

Stephane Contre
Kris Andreychuck
Crystal Woloshyn
Alec Stratford
Ryan May

## Project Contact Person

Kris Andreychuk
Manager of Data Governance
City of Edmonton
9803 - 102A Avenue NW
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 3A3
780-908-3126
kris.andreychuk@edmonton.ca

# Appendices 

## Appendix 1 | Back to text

Geographic Boundaries of the Target and Displacement Zones
![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-17_edmonton_ab_contextual_analysis_of_crime/img-0.jpeg)

# **Appendix 2 | Back to text (Response) | Back to text (Assessment)**

Change in Police Events from 2014 to 2015

|   | DISPLACEMENT
ZONE |  | TARGET ZONE |  | BOYLE STREET |  | 10 SURROUNDING
NEIGHBOURHOODS |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | # CHANGE | %
CHANGE | # CHANGE | %
CHANGE | # CHANGE | %
CHANGE | # CHANGE | %
CHANGE  |
|  AGGRAVATED ASSAULT | -1 | -100.0% | -1 | -100.0% | 2 | 200.0% | 12 | 80.0%  |
|  ASSAULT BODILY HARM
NO WEAPON | 3 | 100.0% | 3 | 300.0% | 8 | 200.0% | 24 | 51.1%  |
|  ASSAULT BODILY HARM
WEAPON | 17 | 130.8% | 7 | 140.0% | 4 | 22.2% | 79 | 41.1%  |
|  ASSAULT COMMON | 28 | 56.0% | 10 | 40.0% | 29 | 28.4% | 238 | 25.0%  |
|  B & E APT. OR SUITE | 6 | 20.7% | 11 | 78.6% | 16 | 53.3% | 60 | 40.0%  |
|  NOISE COMPLAINT
BYLAW | 9 | 15.0% | 15 | 31.3% | 5 | 5.6% | 24 | 5.3%  |
|  NOISE COMPLAINT
NOISY PARTY | -7 | -23.3% | -4 | -11.8% | -9 | -18.4% | -66 | -24.5%  |
|  TROUBLE WITH
INTOXICATED PERSONS | -18 | -10.8% | 18 | 27.3% | -17 | -5.5% | -178 | -6.9%  |
|  FAMILY DISPUTES
INTIMATE PARTNER | 34 | 53.1% | 13 | 27.1% | 38 | 49.4% | 77 | 15.9%  |
|  FAMILY DISPUTES
VIOLENCE | 12 | 37.5% | 5 | 20.8% | 15 | 35.7% | 10 | 3.3%  |
|  RECOVERED STOLEN
AUTO | 20 | 76.9% | 4 | 23.5% | 1 | 2.5% | 36 | 14.5%  |
|  SUSPICIOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES | 9 | 75.0% | 6 | * | 16 | 177.8% | 59 | 56.2%  |
|  THEFT FROM VEHICLE
UNDER $5000 | 6 | 27.3% | 10 | 90.9% | 20 | 100.0% | 79 | 36.4%  |
|  THEFT OF MOTOR
VEHICLE | 13 | 100.0% | 6 | 42.9% | 17 | 94.4% | 37 | 20.3%  |
|  ALL EVENTS | 380 | 12.1% | 337 | 22.3% | 604 | 7.0% | 2988 | 7.1%  |

*No events recorded in 2014, therefore "% Change" calculation is not possible. N.B. Not all Event Types are listed.

# **Appendix 3 | Back to text**

Change in Officer-Initiated Events from 2014 to 2015

|   | DISPLACEMENT ZONE |  | TARGET ZONE |  | BOYLE STREET |  | 10 SURROUNDING NEIGHBOURHOODS |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | # CHANGE | % CHANGE | # CHANGE | % CHANGE | # CHANGE | % CHANGE | # CHANGE | % CHANGE  |
|  PHOTO RADAR | 4 | * | -62 | -21.1% | -16 | -8.5% | 175 | 16.9%  |
|  PROACTIVE COMMUNITY INPUT MEETING | 5 | 250.0% | 0 | * | 8 | 160.0% | 38 | 84.4%  |
|  PROACTIVE CRIME PREVENTION EDUCATION | 8 | 400.0% | 3 | * | 6 | 150.0% | 37 | 108.8%  |
|  PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT | 214 | 55.7% | 101 | 107.4% | -170 | -12.3% | 639 | 10.2%  |
|  TRAFFIC OR SUBJECT STOP | 314 | 36.7% | 209 | 103.0% | 144 | 12.6% | 1452 | 14.1%  |
|  ALL EVENTS | 636 | 48.9% | 267 | 44.5% | -23 | -0.8% | 2544 | 13.6%  |

*No events recorded in 2014, therefore "% Change" calculation is not possible. N.B. Not all Event Types are listed.

# Appendix 4 | Back to text

Youth Serving Agencies Identified by CAC and NET

|  Organization | Address | Identified by
Tool
(Y/N) | Youth
Attending?
(Y/N) | In Target
Zone?
(Y/N)  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  AB Solicitor General Victims
Services | 1036597 Street | Y | N | N  |
|  Bissell Centre | 1053096 Street | Y | N | N  |
|  Boyle Street Community
Services | 10116105 Avenue | Y | Y | N  |
|  E4C | 9321 Jasper Avenue | Y | N | Y  |
|  Edmonton Catholic School
District of Alternative Ed. | 9624108 Avenue | Y | N | N  |
|  Edmonton Police Service/
Child Abuse Hotline | 9620 - 103A Avenue/
Child Abuse Hotline no
longer at location | Y/Y | Y/N | N/N  |
|  Hope Mission Youth Shelter | 9908106 Avenue | Y | Y | N  |
|  iHuman Youth Society | 1012496 Street | Y | Y | N  |
|  Inner City Youth Housing
Project | 1052796 Street | Y | N | N  |
|  Multicultural Health Brokers
Co-Op Ltd. | 9538107 Avenue | Y | Y | N  |
|  Shine Clinic (now Boyle-
McCauley Health Centre) | 1062896 Street | Y | Y | N  |
|  The Mustard Seed | 1063596 Street | Y | N | N  |
|  Mother Teresa School \& Park/
Green Shack Program | 9008 105A Avenue | N | Y | Y  |
|  Cunningham Place (NCSA) | 9330104 Avenue | N | Y (18-30) | Y  |
|  YMCA Welcome Village/BSCL | 9538103 A Avenue | N | Y | N  |
|  Sahaba Mosque/Edmonton
Downtown Islamic Association | 9216105 Avenue | N | Y | Y  |
|  Commonwealth Recreation
Centre | 11000 Stadium Rd. | N | Y | N  |
|  Assist Community Services | 9649105 A Avenue | N | Y | N  |
|  Young, Diverse, and Proud | 1082196 Street | N | Y | N  |

# Appendix 5 | Back to text 

Mother Teresa Mural
![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-17_edmonton_ab_contextual_analysis_of_crime/img-1.jpeg)

Green Shack Jigsaw
![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-17_edmonton_ab_contextual_analysis_of_crime/img-2.jpeg)

# Appendix 6 | Back to text

Police Events at Barbara Manor

|   | 2014 | 2015 | #
CHANGE | \%
CHANGE  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  ASSAULT COMMON | 1 | 2 | 1 | $100.0 \%$  |
|  SEXUAL ASSAULT | 0 | 1 | 1 | *  |
|  B \& E APT. OR SUITE | 1 | 0 | -1 | $-100.0 \%$  |
|  MISCHIEF UNDER \$5000 | 2 | 0 | -2 | $-100.0 \%$  |
|  DISTURBANCE | 1 | 2 | 1 | $100.0 \%$  |
|  NOISE COMPLAINT BYLAW | 1 | 3 | 2 | $200.0 \%$  |
|  NOISE COMPLAINT NOISY PARTY | 1 | 0 | -1 | $-100.0 \%$  |
|  TROUBLE WITH INTOXICATED PERSONS | 12 | 17 | 5 | $41.7 \%$  |
|  TROUBLE WITH PERSON | 8 | 13 | 5 | $62.5 \%$  |
|  FAMILY DISPUTES INTIMATE PARTNER | 4 | 9 | 5 | $125.0 \%$  |
|  FAMILY DISPUTES VIOLENCE | 2 | 2 | 0 | $0.0 \%$  |
|  FAMILY RELATED OCCURRENCE | 8 | 8 | 0 | $0.0 \%$  |
|  NEIGHBOR DISPUTES | 1 | 0 | -1 | $-100.0 \%$  |
|  POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY UNDER \$5000 | 0 | 1 | 1 | *  |
|  FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION | 10 | 35 | 25 | $250.0 \%$  |
|  TOTAL EVENTS | 88 | 125 | 37 | $42.0 \%$  |

*No events recorded in 2014, therefore "\% Change" calculation is not possible. N.B. Not all Event Types are listed.

Police Events at Glendale Court

|   | 2014 | 2015 | #
CHANGE | \%
CHANGE  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  ASSAULT BODILY HARM NO WEAPON | 0 | 1 | 1 | *  |
|  ASSAULT BODILY HARM WEAPON | 1 | 2 | 1 | $100.0 \%$  |
|  ASSAULT COMMON | 0 | 2 | 2 | *  |
|  B \& E OTHER | 0 | 1 | 1 | *  |
|  MISCHIEF UNDER \$5000 | 2 | 4 | 2 | $100.0 \%$  |
|  DISTURBANCE | 4 | 1 | -3 | $-75.0 \%$  |
|  NOISE COMPLAINT BYLAW | 4 | 1 | -3 | $-75.0 \%$  |
|  NOISE COMPLAINT NOISY PARTY | 1 | 2 | 1 | $100.0 \%$  |
|  TROUBLE WITH INTOXICATED PERSONS | 3 | 5 | 2 | $66.7 \%$  |
|  TROUBLE WITH PERSON | 5 | 7 | 2 | $40.0 \%$  |
|  FAMILY DISPUTES INTIMATE PARTNER | 3 | 1 | -2 | $-66.7 \%$  |
|  FAMILY DISPUTES VIOLENCE | 0 | 1 | 1 | *  |
|  FAMILY RELATED OCCURRENCE | 1 | 5 | 4 | $400.0 \%$  |
|  ROBBERY PERSONAL | 1 | 0 | -1 | $-100.0 \%$  |
|  RECOVERED STOLEN AUTO | 0 | 2 | 2 | *  |
|  SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES | 0 | 1 | 1 | *  |
|  SUSPICIOUS PERSONS | 0 | 3 | 3 | *  |
|  THEFT FROM VEHICLE UNDER \$5000 | 1 | 2 | 1 | $100.0 \%$  |
|  THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLE | 0 | 4 | 4 | *  |
|  THEFT UNDER \$5000 | 2 | 1 | -1 | $-50.0 \%$  |
|  ABANDONED AUTO VEHICLE | 0 | 2 | 2 |   |
|  FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION | 10 | 17 | 7 | $70.0 \%$  |
|  TOTAL EVENTS | 49 | 90 | 41 | $83.7 \%$  |

# Appendix 7 | Back to text

Quotes from residents of Barbara Manor

> "They (N.E.T.) have done a great job. We would not have been able to shake up people without them."

> "[I] would appreciate if they could keep tabs on the building."

> "The recommendations are good solutions that we would never have come up with."

*Source: Google Maps*

# Appendix 8 | Back to text

Project Outcomes, Indicators and Data Sources

|   |  | INDICATOR/MEASURE | DATA SOURCE  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | Increased reports of crime and disorder. | Calls from community members regarding criminal activity or disturbances within the boundaries of the project. | Edmonton Police Service  |
|   | Increased appropriate use of police services. | Decreased numbers of inappropriate calls for service. | Edmonton Police Service  |
|   | Improved relationships with police and other stakeholders. | Community members report better interactions with police, by-law officers, businesses, etc. | Community Member Survey  |
|   | Improved community cohesion. | Community members report an increased sense of belonging in the community. | Community Member Survey  |
|   | Increased sense of safety. | Community members report feeling safer in their community. | Community Member Survey  |
|   | Reduced incidence of property crime. | Decreased numbers and rate of property crime within the boundaries of the project. | Edmonton Police Service  |
|   | Number and types of programs delivered. | Tracking of workshops, education sessions, etc. and number of community members attending. | N.E.T. Team  |
|   | Number of community conversations. | Tracking of community consultation events and number of community members attending. | N.E.T. Team  |
|   | Number of linkages made between stakeholders. | Tracking of number of partners and/or stakeholders engaged and strength of engagement. | N.E.T. Team, Stakeholder Survey  |
|   | Number of administrative meetings attended. | Tracking of administrative meetings and number of staff attending. | N.E.T. Team  |

# Appendix 9 | Back to text

Data Table 1: Police Events at Glendale Court (9208 106 Avenue NW)

|  Event Description | 2014 | 2015 | CHANGE  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  103 FOUND PROPERTY | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  106 ASSAULT BODILY HARM NO WEAPON | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  106 ASSAULT BODILY HARM WEAPON | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  106 ASSAULT COMMON | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  107 ASSIST EMS | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  107 ASSIST OTHER AGENCY | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  110 B \& E OTHER | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  111 MISCHIEF TO VEHICLE | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  111 MISCHIEF UNDER \$5000 | 2 | 4 | 2  |
|  112 DEATHS SUDDEN | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  113 DISTURBANCE | 4 | 1 | $-3$  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT BYLAW | 4 | 1 | $-3$  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT NOISY PARTY | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH INTOXICATED PERSONS | 3 | 5 | 2  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH PERSON | 5 | 7 | 2  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES INTIMATE PARTNER | 3 | 1 | $-2$  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES VIOLENCE | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  114 FAMILY RELATED OCCURRENCE | 1 | 5 | 4  |
|  116 DRUG RELATED COMPLAINTS | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  118 FRAUD CHEQUE | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  119 THREAT UTTER OR THREAT BY LETTER | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  120 SEXUAL OFFENCES INDECENT ACTS | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  121 MENTAL HEALTH ACT COMPLAINTS | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  122 CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  122 GENERAL COMPLAINTS | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  122 LANDLORD AND TENANT TROUBLES | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  125 CHECK ON WELFARE | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  126 ROBBERY PERSONAL | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  128 RECOVERED STOLEN AUTO | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS PERSONS | 0 | 3 | 3  |
|  129 WARRANT EXECUTION | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  130 THEFT FROM VEHICLE UNDER \$5000 | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  130 THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLE | 0 | 4 | 4  |
|  130 THEFT UNDER \$5000 | 2 | 1 | $-1$  |
|  132 ABANDONED AUTO VEHICLE | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  132 BYLAW COMPLAINTS PARKING | 3 | 9 | 6  |
|  133 TRESPASSING | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  134 TROUBLE NOT KNOWN | 1 |  | $-1$  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT GUN | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION | 10 | 17 | 7  |
|  Grand Total | 49 | 90 | 41  |

Data Table 2: Police Events at Barbara Manor (8640 106 Avenue NW)

|  Event Description | 2014 | 2015 | CHANGE  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  103 LOST PROPERTY | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  106 ASSAULT COMMON | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  106 SEXUAL ASSAULT | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  107 ASSIST EMS | 2 | 3 | 1  |
|  107 ASSIST FIRE DEPARTMENT | 2 | 0 | $-2$  |
|  107 EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER EPO | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  110 B \& E APT. OR SUITE | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  111 MISCHIEF UNDER \$5000 | 2 | 0 | $-2$  |
|  113 DISTURBANCE | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT BYLAW | 1 | 3 | 2  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT NOISY PARTY | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH INTOXICATED PERSONS | 12 | 17 | 5  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH PERSON | 8 | 13 | 5  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES INTIMATE PARTNER | 4 | 9 | 5  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES VIOLENCE | 2 | 2 | 0  |
|  114 FAMILY RELATED OCCURRENCE | 8 | 8 | 0  |
|  119 THREAT UTTER OR THREAT BY LETTER | 1 | 1 | 0  |
|  121 MENTAL HEALTH ACT COMPLAINTS | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  122 GENERAL COMPLAINTS | 1 | 1 | 0  |
|  122 NEIGHBOR DISPUTES | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  122 POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY UNDER \$5000 | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS JUVENILE FEMALE | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  125 CHECK ON WELFARE | 4 | 1 | $-3$  |
|  125 STAND BY TO PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE SBTPBP | 2 | 2 | 0  |
|  128 RECOVERED STOLEN AUTO | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS PERSONS | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  129 WARRANT EXECUTION | 5 | 5 | 0  |
|  130 THEFT UNDER \$5000 | 1 | 2 | 1  |
|  131 COLLISION HIT AND RUN | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  132 ABANDONED AUTO VEHICLE | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  132 BYLAW COMPLAINTS PARKING | 1 | 1 | 0  |
|  132 TRAFFIC OFFENCES | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  134 TROUBLE NOT KNOWN | 12 | 9 | $-3$  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT OTHER | 1 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION | 10 | 35 | 25  |
|  Grand Total | 88 | 125 | 37  |

Data Table 3: Change in Police Events (2014-2015) by Neighbourhood

|  Event Description | ALBERTA AVENUE | BON D STREET | CENTRAL MICROSSALL | CROMOALE | DOMINTOWN | MCCADEY | PARADALE | BURR VALLEY KINNAKES | RIVERSALE | SANJOE AVENUE | GRAND TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  101 ABDUCTION | 4 | -2 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1  |
|  101 ABDUCTION OF YOUNG PERSONS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1  |
|  101 KIDNAPPING | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0  |
|  102 CHILD ABUSE PHYSICAL | 0 | -2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | 0 | -3 | -6  |
|  102 CHILD LEFT UNATTENDED | -2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 4 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 6  |
|  102 CHILD WELFARE ACT COMPLAINTS | 6 | -5 | 3 | -3 | -2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | -5 | 3  |
|  103 DOCUMENT SERVICE | 1 | -4 | -2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -3  |
|  103 ESCORTS | 1 | -3 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 5  |
|  103 ESCORTS CELLS EYOC ETC | 0 | -41 | -2 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -45  |
|  103 ESCORTS FUNERAL | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -8  |
|  103 ESCORTS JUVENILES | 0 | -7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -7  |
|  103 FOUND BICYCLES | 0 | -1 | 2 | -2 | -2 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -5  |
|  103 FOUND PROPERTY | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 13 | -3 | -5 | -1 | 1 | 4 | 21  |
|  103 LOST PROPERTY | -1 | -4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -7  |
|  104 ALARMS COMMERCIAL INTRUSION | 7 | -7 | 20 | -1 | 3 | -7 | 6 | 0 | 1 | -3 | 19  |
|  104 ALARMS HOLD UP ROBBERY | 4 | 0 | -2 | 1 | -5 | -2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -7  |
|  104 ALARMS OTHER | 4 | -4 | -1 | 0 | -10 | 9 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -5  |
|  104 ALARMS RESIDENTIAL INTRUSION | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | -2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 17  |
|  105 BYLAW ANIMAL | -1 | 1 | -2 | -1 | 1 | -3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | -2 | -3  |
|  105 CRIJELTY TO ANIMALS | -5 | 0 | -2 | -2 | -3 | 2 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -10  |
|  105 WILDLIFE | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0  |
|  106 ASSAULT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT | -1 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12  |
|  106 ASSAULT BODILY HARM NO WEAPON | 2 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 24  |
|  106 ASSAULT BODILY HARM WEAPON | 26 | 4 | 16 | 9 | 19 | -4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 79  |
|  106 ASSAULT COMMON | 5 | 29 | 43 | 12 | 74 | 52 | 13 | 0 | -5 | 15 | 238  |
|  106 ASSAULT ELDERLY PERSON | -1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  106 CHILD ABUSE SEXUAL | 1 | -2 | 1 | 0 | -3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2  |
|  106 SEXUAL ASSAULT | 5 | 15 | -16 | 2 | 2 | -3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12  |
|  106 SEXUAL ASSAULT AGGRAVATED | 0 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2  |
|  106 SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | -4  |
|  107 ASSIST EMS | -18 | -27 | -15 | -5 | -47 | -17 | 12 | 1 | 0 | -12 | -128  |
|  107 ASSIST FIRE DEPARTMENT | -1 | -3 | 3 | 4 | -3 | 5 | -2 | 1 | -1 | -2 | 1  |
|  107 ASSIST OTHER AGENCY | 4 | -2 | -12 | -1 | -70 | -5 | 7 | -1 | -5 | -13 | -98  |
|  107 ASSIST RCMP | 0 | 5 | -1 | 1 | -13 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3  |
|  107 ASSIST TO LOCATE PERSONS | 0 | -1 | -5 | -1 | 1 | -7 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -14  |
|  107 ASSIST TO LOCATE VEHICLE | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2  |
|  107 CHILD APPREHENSION PCHAD | -1 | -2 | -1 | 0 | -2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -4  |
|  107 EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER EPO | -10 | -2 | 0 | -1 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6  |
|  108 BOMB EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  108 BOMB SUSPICIOUS PACKAGE | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | -2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 5  |
|  109 BOMB THREATS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 7  |
|  110 B \& E APT. OR SUITE | 7 | 16 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 60  |
|  110 B \& E HOUSE | 39 | 11 | 7 | 13 | 1 | 6 | 15 | 0 | 2 | 12 | 106  |
|  110 B \& E INSTITUTION BUILDING | 4 | 7 | 2 | 0 | -3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15  |
|  110 B \& E OFFICE BUILDING | 2 | -8 | 2 | -1 | -14 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | -11  |
|  110 B \& E OTHER | 21 | 8 | 10 | -2 | 20 | 6 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 78  |
|  110 B \& E PRIVATE GARAGE | 17 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | -4 | -1 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 44  |
|  110 B \& E SCHOOL | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1  |
|  110 B \& E SHOP | 1 | -2 | 0 | 0 | -6 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -1  |
|  111 ARSON FIRES | 1 | -4 | 2 | -1 | 0 | -2 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -6  |
|  111 ARSON FIRES MOTOR VEHICLES | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 4  |
|  111 MISCHIEF GRAFFITI | 1 | -1 | 1 | -2 | -4 | -9 | -6 | 0 | 1 | -1 | -20  |
|  111 MISCHIEF TO VEHICLE | 13 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 78  |
|  111 MISCHIEF UNDER \$5000 | -2 | 24 | 9 | -8 | 23 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 3 | -10 | 48  |
|  112 DEATHS CRIMINAL | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2  |
|  112 DEATHS SUDDEN | 7 | -8 | -8 | -1 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1  |
|  112 DEATHS SUICIDE | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  113 DISTURBANCE | 6 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 62 | -17 | -9 | 0 | -2 | 14 | 75  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT BYLAW | -15 | 5 | 10 | 11 | -6 | 5 | 18 | 3 | -2 | -5 | 24  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT NOISY PARTY | -14 | -9 | -16 | -2 | 2 | -5 | -9 | -1 | -6 | -6 | -66  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT TRAFFIC GENERAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1  |
|  113 NUISANCES | -2 | -2 | 2 | -1 | -9 | 11 | 1 | -2 | 2 | 0 | 0  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH INTOXICATED PERSONS | -30 | -17 | -30 | 12 | -44 | -61 | 5 | -3 | -2 | -8 | -178  |

|  Event Description | ALBERTA
AVOICE | BOTLESTREET | CENTRAL
MCDOODALL | CROHOLLE | DONNTOWN | MCCALEST | FRANZULE | ENERGY
ASSOCIATION | RIVERDALE | SINGLE
AVENUE | GRAND
TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH PERSON | 2 | 25 | 30 | -7 | 59 | 59 | 42 | 1 | 9 | 23 | 243  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH PERSON AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLER | -5 | 6 | 13 | 3 | -15 | -2 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES INTIMATE PARTNER | 5 | 38 | -10 | 2 | 14 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 4 | -2 | 77  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES VIOLENCE | -6 | 15 | 13 | 5 | 5 | -5 | -14 | 0 | -5 | 2 | 10  |
|  114 FAMILY RELATED OCCURRENCE | -13 | 40 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 17 | -8 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 59  |
|  115 IMPAIRED 24 HOUR SUSPENSION | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  115 IMPAIRED DRIVING | -5 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 12 | 14 | 0 | -2 | 8 | 46  |
|  116 DRUG RELATED COMPLAINTS | -3 | 22 | 28 | 4 | 11 | 49 | -8 | 0 | -3 | 1 | 101  |
|  118 COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY POSSESSION/
DISTRIBUTION/ PRODUCTION | -6 | 0 | -4 | 0 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -12  |
|  118 FRAUD CHEQUE | -1 | -5 | -4 | 2 | -2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 2  |
|  118 FRAUD CRESET CARD | 0 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 36  |
|  118 FRAUD FARE BY FRAUD | -1 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -2 | -2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -7  |
|  118 FRAUD MEAL BY FRAUD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12  |
|  118 FRAUD OTHER | 2 | -1 | 6 | 0 | 11 | 5 | -1 | 0 | 2 | -4 | 20  |
|  118 PERSONATE POLICE OFFICER | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2  |
|  119 EXTORTION | -2 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10  |
|  119 HARASSING PHONE CALLS | 2 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | -1 | -3 | 17  |
|  119 HARASSMENT | 2 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 33  |
|  119 INDECENT PHONE CALLS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1  |
|  119 STALKING | -2 | 2 | -1 | 0 | -4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2  |
|  119 THREAT UTTER OR THREAT BY LETTER | 13 | 11 | 6 | -1 | 6 | 8 | -9 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 32  |
|  120 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY POSSESSION/ DISTRIBUTION/
PRODUCTION | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2  |
|  120 PROCURING | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2  |
|  120 PROSTITUTION SOLICITING FEMALE | -3 | 1 | -2 | 0 | 1 | -7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -8  |
|  120 PROSTITUTION SOLICITING MALE | -7 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -7  |
|  120 PROSTITUTION UNDER AGE 18 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  120 SEXUAL OFFENCES INDECENT ACTS | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 15  |
|  121 MENTAL HEALTH ACT COMPLAINTS | -21 | 10 | 21 | -11 | 27 | 19 | -1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 47  |
|  122 CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES | -8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | -6 | 6 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | -2  |
|  122 GENERAL COMPLAINTS | 6 | 1 | -18 | 5 | -60 | -16 | 13 | -1 | 1 | 10 | -59  |
|  122 INSECURE PREMISES | -1 | -4 | 5 | -1 | -6 | -4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | -6  |
|  122 LANDLORD AND TENANT TROUBLES | -28 | 1 | -11 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 6 | 0 | -2 | 0 | -22  |
|  122 LIQUOR ACT GENERAL | 3 | -7 | 4 | -3 | 2 | -4 | -2 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -8  |
|  122 NEIGHBOR DISPUTES | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -2 | -15 | 1  |
|  122 POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY OVER $5000 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 15  |
|  122 POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY UNDER $5000 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 6 | -1 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 0 | -5 | 36  |
|  123 ELOPED JUVENILE FEMALE | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1  |
|  123 ELOPED JUVENILE MALE | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0  |
|  123 ELOPED MENTAL PATIENT | 1 | -3 | 39 | 1 | -2 | -3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 37  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS ADULT | 3 | 3 | 1 | -2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 | -2 | 6 | 19  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS CHECK LOCATION | -1 | 0 | -2 | 0 | -2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -3  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS JUVENILE FEMALE | -3 | 2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 6 | 5  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS JUVENILE MALE | -1 | 1 | -2 | -3 | -2 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -6  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS LOCATED | -1 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 4 | -8 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 2 | -1  |
|  124 OFFICER IN DISTRESS | 0 | -14 | -2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -14  |
|  124 OFFICER NEEDS ASSISTANCE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  125 CHECK ON WELFARE | 13 | 26 | 19 | 19 | 36 | 37 | 14 | -1 | -6 | 8 | 165  |
|  125 INJURED PERSONS | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -2 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1  |
|  125 PUBLIC HEALTH ACT | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2  |
|  125 SICK PERSONS | -2 | -2 | -3 | 0 | -2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -5  |
|  125 STAND BY TO PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE SBTPBP | -4 | -3 | -4 | 2 | -7 | -9 | 17 | -1 | 0 | 16 | 7  |
|  125 STRIKERS PICKETING | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  126 ROBBERY | 3 | 7 | -5 | -3 | 3 | 8 | -3 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 8  |
|  126 ROBBERY PERSONAL | 1 | 3 | 19 | -1 | 12 | 11 | -4 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 48  |
|  126 ROBBERY WITH A FIREARM | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13  |
|  126 ROBBERY WITH A WEAPON | -1 | 3 | 2 | -1 | 2 | 4 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -5 | 2  |
|  127 SUICIDE ATTEMPT | -4 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 17 | 5 | 3 | -2 | 0 | -7 | 25  |
|  128 RECOVERED STOLEN AUTO | 18 | 1 | 4 | 7 | -6 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 36  |
|  129 BREACH COURT ORDER | 10 | 21 | 8 | 3 | 27 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 91  |
|  129 ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES | 20 | 16 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | -8 | 59  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS PERSONS | -9 | 16 | -13 | -1 | 18 | -1 | -2 | -1 | 8 | 9 | 24  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLES | -7 | -5 | -1 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -12 | -9  |
|  129 UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE | 0 | -2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  129 WARRANT EXECUTION | 88 | 60 | 34 | 3 | 204 | 83 | 23 | 3 | 4 | 40 | 542  |
|  130 SHOPLIFTING CO OP POLICING TRAINED | -1 | 0 | 0 | -35 | -44 | -3 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -66 | -150  |

|  Event Description | ALBERTA
AVENUE | BOPLE STREET | CENTRAL
MCDOODALL | CROMOALE | DOWNTOWN | MCCALEST | PARADALE | RIVER HALLIT
KRANARD | RIVERDALE | SPRUCE
AVENUE | GRAND
TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  130 SHOPLIFTING OVER $5000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0  |
|  130 SHOPLIFTING UNDER $5000 | 7 | 0 | -10 | -25 | 117 | -9 | -8 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 101  |
|  130 THEFT FROM VEHICLE OVER $5000 | -2 | -2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  130 THEFT FROM VEHICLE UNDER $5000 | 14 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 41 | -6 | 11 | 0 | -1 | -5 | 79  |
|  130 THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLE | -5 | 17 | 6 | 8 | -2 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 1 | -5 | 37  |
|  130 THEFT OVER $5000 | 6 | -2 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 2 | -3 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 11  |
|  130 THEFT UNDER $5000 | -12 | -1 | 59 | 6 | 127 | -14 | -1 | 1 | -3 | -79 | 83  |
|  131 COLLISION FATAL | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2  |
|  131 COLLISION HIT AND RUN | 26 | 19 | 9 | -1 | 2 | -6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 56  |
|  131 COLLISION INJURY | 3 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 1 | -2 | 33  |
|  131 COLLISION PROPERTY DAMAGE | 8 | 7 | -5 | 0 | 17 | 25 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 65  |
|  132 ABANDONED AUTO VEHICLE | -4 | -19 | -13 | -4 | -3 | -7 | 5 | 3 | -7 | -7 | -56  |
|  132 BYLAW COMPLAINTS | 0 | -3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1  |
|  132 BYLAW COMPLAINTS PARKING | -4 | -6 | 55 | -18 | -84 | -4 | -9 | -2 | 11 | -19 | -80  |
|  132 TRAFFIC COMPLAINTS GENERAL | 4 | -5 | -3 | 1 | -11 | 6 | 0 | 2 | -3 | -1 | -10  |
|  132 TRAFFIC OFFENCES | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 14  |
|  133 TRESPASS BY NIGHT | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  133 TRESPASSING | 1 | 13 | -11 | -2 | -201 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 14 | -177  |
|  134 TROUBLE NOT KNOWN | -49 | -15 | 21 | -17 | 88 | -17 | 16 | 2 | 4 | -10 | 23  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT GUN | 6 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 21 | 20 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 15 | 87  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT KNIFE | 0 | -3 | 5 | -1 | 14 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 2 | -3 | 29  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT OTHER | 2 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 46  |
|  FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION | 64 | 238 | 110 | 59 | 40 | 57 | 106 | 1 | 9 | 41 | 725  |
|  MISC DISPATCH CODE | 0 | -1 | -3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0  |
|  Grand Total | 214 | 604 | 520 | 109 | 643 | 419 | 412 | 10 | 43 | 14 | 2988  |
|  PERCENT CHANGE (%) | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.3 | 10.0 | 5.6 | 7.0 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 10.0 | 0.6 | 7.1  |

Data Table 4: Change in Officer-Initiated Events (2014-2015) by Neighbourhood

|  Event Description | ALBERTA
AVENUE | BOPLE STREET | CENTRAL
MCDOODALL | CROMOALE | DOWNTOWN | MCCALEST | PARADALE | RIVER HALLIT
KRANARD | RIVERDALE | SPRUCE
AVENUE | GRAND
TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  115 IMPAIRED CHECKSTOP OPERATION | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  CATCH UP MODE | -1 | -15 | 3 | -1 | -9 | 13 | -1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 2  |
|  CHASE CRIMINAL FLIGHT | 0 | 1 | -3 | 0 | -4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -3  |
|  MAJOR EVENT MANAGEMENT | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | -1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1  |
|  PHOTO RADAR | 14 | -16 | 45 | 107 | 30 | 0 | 5 | -42 | -1 | 33 | 175  |
|  PROACTIVE COMMUNITY INPUT MEETING | 2 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38  |
|  PROACTIVE CRIME PREVENTION EDUCATION | 1 | 6 | -2 | 2 | 18 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 37  |
|  PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT | 256 | -170 | -87 | 16 | 507 | 69 | -65 | 23 | 1 | 89 | 639  |
|  PROACTIVE TARGET LOCATION | 58 | 15 | -21 | -4 | 24 | -17 | 31 | 3 | -1 | 20 | 108  |
|  PROACTIVE TARGET PERSON | 24 | 2 | 4 | -1 | -9 | 20 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 85  |
|  PROBLEM SOLVING | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13  |
|  TRAFFIC OR SUBJECT STOP | 260 | 144 | 196 | 5 | 284 | 429 | 53 | 37 | 37 | 7 | 1452  |
|  Grand Total | 618 | -23 | 137 | 126 | 859 | 531 | 61 | 24 | 40 | 171 | 2544  |
|  PERCENT CHANGE (%) | 26.1 | -0.8 | 5.9 | 32.5 | 17.7 | 18.6 | 3.7 | 13.3 | 29.0 | 17.5 | 13.6  |

Data Table 5: Change in Tickets Issued (2014-2015) by Neighbourhood

|  Ticket Description | ALBERTA AVENUE | BOPLE STREET | CENTRAL MCDOUGHU | CROMOALD | DONNTONN | MCCAUDY | PARROLE | BHEK VALLEY EMBAIRD | BURROLE | VIRGILA AVENUE | GRAND TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Bylaws General | 2 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 88 | 31 | 8 | $-1$ | 1 | 4 | 150  |
|  Careless Driving | $-15$ | 3 | 10 | 7 | $-7$ | $-9$ | 6 | $-1$ | 1 | 9 | 4  |
|  Certain Noises Bylaw | 1 | 3 | $-4$ | 3 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13  |
|  Consume Public Place | $-4$ | $-12$ | $-16$ | 0 | $-3$ | $-9$ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-43$  |
|  Conveying In Motor Vehicle | 3 | $-6$ | $-11$ | 6 | $-2$ | 1 | $-2$ | 3 | 0 | $-1$ | $-9$  |
|  Dog Bylaw | $-1$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-1$  |
|  Environmental Protection Act | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$  |
|  Exceed Posted Speed | $-6$ | $-109$ | 4 | $-92$ | $-23$ | 16 | 1 | 4 | 1 | $-27$ | $-231$  |
|  Fail to Stop or Remain - CC | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3  |
|  Intoxications | 6 | $-28$ | $-2$ | $-1$ | $-11$ | $-20$ | 3 | 2 | $-2$ | 17 | $-36$  |
|  License Suspension | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | 31  |
|  Liquor Act Generally | 3 | $-15$ | $-7$ | 1 | $-81$ | $-30$ | $-3$ | 0 | $-1$ | 0 | $-133$  |
|  Minor - Licensed Premise | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-2$  |
|  Minor - Obtain Liquor | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $-1$ | $-1$ | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$ | $-2$  |
|  Provincial Acts General | $-3$ | $-2$ | $-13$ | 1 | $-179$ | $-23$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-23$ | $-242$  |
|  Public Health Act | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5  |
|  Public Place Bylaw | 0 | $-14$ | $-5$ | 1 | $-16$ | $-16$ | 5 | $-2$ | $-3$ | 10 | $-40$  |
|  Red Light Going Thru | 7 | 5 | 2 | 5 | $-5$ | $-11$ | $-7$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-4$  |
|  Remain At Scene - Hit \& Run | 0 | 8 | 3 | 1 | $-3$ | $-2$ | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 16  |
|  Streets Bylaw | $-9$ | $-8$ | 12 | 1 | 17 | $-26$ | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 | $-4$  |
|  Suspended Driver | $-5$ | 0 | 9 | 3 | $-13$ | $-4$ | $-9$ | $-1$ | 0 | $-3$ | $-23$  |
|  Tamper With Auto | 2 | $-2$ | $-1$ | 1 | 4 | 4 | $-1$ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8  |
|  Traffic Complaints General | 347 | 106 | 62 | $-10$ | $-244$ | 5 | $-77$ | $-7$ | $-16$ | 34 | 200  |
|  Trespass By Night | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1  |
|  Trespassing (Provincial Act) | 22 | 17 | 5 | $-1$ | 28 | 14 | 18 | 0 | 1 | 39 | 143  |
|  Grand Total | 356 | $-47$ | 60 | $-70$ | $-426$ | $-75$ | $-40$ | $-2$ | $-18$ | 65 | $-197$  |
|  PERCENT CHANGE (\%) | 22.4 | $-4.6$ | 7.6 | $-7.8$ | $-11.7$ | $-5.7$ | $-7.0$ | $-4.9$ | $-27.7$ | 12.2 | $-1.9$  |

Data Table 6: Change in Police Events (2014-2015) by Project Evaluation Zones

|  Event Description | Buffer
Zone | Displacement
Zone | Target
Zone | Total | Other | GRAND
TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  101 ABDUCTION | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1  |
|  101 ABDUCTION OF YOUNG PERSONS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  101 KIDNAPPING | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  102 CHILD ABUSE PHYSICAL | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -6 | -6  |
|  102 CHILD LEFT UNATTENDED | -2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6  |
|  102 CHILD WELFARE ACT COMPLAINTS | 0 | 2 | -5 | -3 | 6 | 3  |
|  103 DOCUMENT SERVICE | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -5 | -3  |
|  103 ESCORTS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5  |
|  103 ESCORTS CELLS EYOC ETC | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -44 | -45  |
|  103 ESCORTS FUNERAL | 0 | -2 | 0 | -2 | -6 | -8  |
|  103 ESCORTS JUVENILES | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -7 | -7  |
|  103 FOUND BICYCLES | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | -3 | -5  |
|  103 FOUND PROPERTY | 1 | -4 | -1 | -4 | 25 | 21  |
|  103 LOST PROPERTY | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -6 | -7  |
|  104 ALARMS COMMERCIAL INTRUSION | 1 | 2 | -6 | -3 | 22 | 19  |
|  104 ALARMS HOLD UP ROBBERY | 0 | -3 | 1 | -2 | -5 | -7  |
|  104 ALARMS OTHER | 0 | 2 | -1 | 1 | -6 | -5  |
|  104 ALARMS RESIDENTIAL INTRUSION | 1 | -2 | 0 | -1 | 18 | 17  |
|  105 BYLAW ANIMAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3 | -3  |
|  105 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -9 | -10  |
|  105 WILDLIFE | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 0  |
|  106 ASSAULT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | 14 | 12  |
|  106 ASSAULT BODILY HARM NO WEAPON | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 18 | 24  |
|  106 ASSAULT BODILY HARM WEAPON | 0 | 17 | 7 | 24 | 55 | 79  |
|  106 ASSAULT COMMON | -1 | 28 | 10 | 37 | 201 | 238  |
|  106 ASSAULT ELDERLY PERSON | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1  |
|  106 CHILD ABUSE SEXUAL | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 | -2 | 2  |
|  106 SEXUAL ASSAULT | -1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 12  |
|  106 SEXUAL ASSAULT AGGRAVATED | 0 | 0 | -2 | -2 | 0 | -2  |
|  106 SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -4  |
|  106 SEXUAL OFFENCES | 0 | -7 | 2 | -5 | -1 | -6  |
|  107 ASSIST EMS | -4 | -5 | 8 | -1 | -127 | -128  |
|  107 ASSIST FIRE DEPARTMENT | 1 | 6 | -3 | 4 | -3 | 1  |
|  107 ASSIST OTHER AGENCY | -6 | 7 | 4 | 5 | -103 | -98  |
|  107 ASSIST RCMP | -1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | -2 | 3  |
|  107 ASSIST TO LOCATE PERSONS | 0 | -2 | 0 | -2 | -12 | -14  |
|  107 ASSIST TO LOCATE VEHICLE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  107 CHILD APPREHENSION PCHAD | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -3 | -4  |
|  107 EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER EPO | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6  |
|  108 BOMB EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0  |
|  108 BOMB SUSPICIOUS PACKAGE | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 6 | 5  |
|  109 BOMB THREATS | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 7  |
|  110 B \& E APT. OR SUITE | -1 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 44 | 60  |
|  110 B \& E HOUSE | -2 | 12 | 5 | 15 | 91 | 106  |
|  110 B \& E INSTITUTION BUILDING | 1 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 15  |

|  Event Description | Buffer
Zone | Displacement
Zone | Target
Zone | Total | Other | GRAND
TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  110 B \& E OFFICE BUILDING | 0 | 0 | $-2$ | $-2$ | $-9$ | $-11$  |
|  110 B \& E OTHER | $-1$ | $-7$ | 10 | 2 | 76 | 78  |
|  110 B \& E PRIVATE GARAGE | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 40 | 44  |
|  110 B \& E SCHOOL | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1  |
|  110 B \& E SHOP | 0 | $-1$ | 0 | $-1$ | 0 | $-1$  |
|  111 ARSON FIRES | 0 | $-1$ | 0 | $-1$ | $-5$ | $-6$  |
|  111 ARSON FIRES MOTOR VEHICLES | $-1$ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4  |
|  111 MISCHIEF GRAFFITI | 1 | $-7$ | 1 | $-5$ | $-15$ | $-20$  |
|  111 MISCHIEF TO VEHICLE | 1 | 5 | 15 | 21 | 57 | 78  |
|  111 MISCHIEF UNDER \$5000 | 3 | $-9$ | 13 | 7 | 41 | 48  |
|  112 DEATHS CRIMINAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  112 DEATHS SUDDEN | 1 | $-11$ | $-3$ | $-13$ | 12 | $-1$  |
|  112 DEATHS SUICIDE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  113 DISTURBANCE | $-9$ | 4 | 8 | 3 | 72 | 75  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT BYLAW | $-1$ | 9 | 15 | 23 | 1 | 24  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT NOISY PARTY | 1 | $-7$ | $-4$ | $-10$ | $-56$ | $-66$  |
|  113 NOISE COMPLAINT TRAFFIC GENERAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  113 NUISANCES | $-1$ | $-4$ | $-1$ | $-6$ | 6 | 0  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH INTOXICATED PERSONS | $-19$ | $-18$ | 18 | $-19$ | $-159$ | $-178$  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH PERSON | 9 | $-29$ | 15 | $-5$ | 248 | 243  |
|  113 TROUBLE WITH PERSON AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLER | $-1$ | $-1$ | 2 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES INTIMATE PARTNER | 0 | 34 | 13 | 47 | 30 | 77  |
|  114 FAMILY DISPUTES VIOLENCE | $-2$ | 12 | 5 | 15 | $-5$ | 10  |
|  114 FAMILY RELATED OCCURRENCE | 3 | 15 | 29 | 47 | 12 | 59  |
|  115 IMPAIRED 24 HOUR SUSPENSION | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$  |
|  115 IMPAIRED DRIVING | $-1$ | 8 | 2 | 9 | 37 | 46  |
|  116 DRUG RELATED COMPLAINTS | 3 | 35 | 13 | 51 | 50 | 101  |
|  118 COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY POSSESSION/ DISTRIBUTION/ PRODUCTION | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-12$ | $-12$  |
|  118 FRAUD CHEQUE | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 | $-3$ | 2  |
|  118 FRAUD CREDIT CARD | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 32 | 36  |
|  118 FRAUD FARE BY FRAUD | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$ | $-6$ | $-7$  |
|  118 FRAUD MEAL BY FRAUD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12  |
|  118 FRAUD OTHER | 2 | 4 | $-3$ | 3 | 17 | 20  |
|  118 PERSONATE POLICE OFFICER | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  119 EXTORTION | 0 | $-1$ | 3 | 2 | 8 | 10  |
|  119 HARASSING PHONE CALLS | 0 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 8 | 17  |
|  119 HARASSMENT | 1 | 2 | $-1$ | 2 | 31 | 33  |
|  119 INDECENT PHONE CALLS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  119 STALKING | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | $-3$ | $-2$  |
|  119 THREAT UTTER OR THREAT BY LETTER | $-1$ | $-3$ | 1 | $-3$ | 35 | 32  |
|  120 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY POSSESSION/ DISTRIBUTION/ PRODUCTION | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  120 PROCURING | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $-3$ | $-2$  |
|  120 PROSTITUTION SOLICITING FEMALE | 0 | $-6$ | 0 | $-6$ | $-2$ | $-8$  |
|  120 PROSTITUTION SOLICITING MALE | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $-8$ | $-7$  |
|  120 PROSTITUTION UNDER AGE 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$  |

|  Event Description | Buffer
Zone | Displacement
Zone | Target
Zone | Total | Other | GRAND
TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  120 SEXUAL OFFENCES INDECENT ACTS | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 15  |
|  121 MENTAL HEALTH ACT COMPLAINTS | $-9$ | $-1$ | 9 | $-1$ | 48 | 47  |
|  122 CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCES | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | $-7$ | $-2$  |
|  122 GENERAL COMPLAINTS | $-2$ | 3 | $-3$ | $-2$ | $-57$ | $-59$  |
|  122 INSECURE PREMISES | 0 | $-2$ | $-3$ | $-5$ | $-1$ | $-6$  |
|  122 LANDLORD AND TENANT TROUBLES | 1 | 10 | 1 | 12 | $-34$ | $-22$  |
|  122 LIQUOR ACT GENERAL | $-3$ | $-6$ | $-1$ | $-10$ | 2 | $-8$  |
|  122 NEIGHBOR DISPUTES | 1 | 6 | $-5$ | 2 | $-1$ | 1  |
|  122 POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY OVER \$5000 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 15  |
|  122 POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY UNDER \$5000 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 17 | 19 | 36  |
|  123 ELOPED JUVENILE FEMALE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  123 ELOPED JUVENILE MALE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  123 ELOPED MENTAL PATIENT | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS ADULT | 2 | $-4$ | $-1$ | $-3$ | 22 | 19  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS CHECK LOCATION | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-3$ | $-3$  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS JUVENILE FEMALE | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS JUVENILE MALE | 0 | $-2$ | 0 | $-2$ | $-4$ | $-6$  |
|  123 MISSING PERSONS LOCATED | 0 | $-5$ | 0 | $-5$ | 4 | $-1$  |
|  124 OFFICER IN DISTRESS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-14$ | $-14$  |
|  124 OFFICER NEEDS ASSISTANCE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  125 CHECK ON WELFARE | 6 | 14 | 12 | 32 | 133 | 165  |
|  125 INJURED PERSONS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$  |
|  125 PUBLIC HEALTH ACT | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2  |
|  125 SICK PERSONS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-5$ | $-5$  |
|  125 STAND BY TO PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE SBTPBP | $-2$ | 1 | $-7$ | $-8$ | 15 | 7  |
|  125 STRIKERS PICKETING | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-1$ | $-1$  |
|  126 ROBBERY | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 8  |
|  126 ROBBERY PERSONAL | 1 | 10 | $-8$ | 3 | 45 | 48  |
|  126 ROBBERY WITH A FIREARM | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 13  |
|  126 ROBBERY WITH A WEAPON | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | $-2$ | 2  |
|  127 SUICIDE ATTEMPT | 4 | $-5$ | $-4$ | $-5$ | 30 | 25  |
|  128 RECOVERED STOLEN AUTO | 0 | 20 | 4 | 24 | 12 | 36  |
|  129 BREACH COURT ORDER | $-1$ | 18 | 6 | 23 | 68 | 91  |
|  129 ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-3$ | $-3$  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES | 1 | 9 | 6 | 16 | 43 | 59  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS PERSONS | 2 | 13 | 3 | 18 | 6 | 24  |
|  129 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLES | 2 | $-1$ | $-1$ | 0 | $-9$ | $-9$  |
|  129 UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $-2$ | $-1$  |
|  129 WARRANT EXECUTION | 6 | 71 | 23 | 100 | 442 | 542  |
|  130 SHOPLIFTING CO OP POLICING TRAINED | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $-150$ | $-150$  |
|  130 SHOPLIFTING OVER \$5000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |
|  130 SHOPLIFTING UNDER \$5000 | 0 | $-10$ | 3 | $-7$ | 108 | 101  |
|  130 THEFT FROM VEHICLE OVER \$5000 | 0 | 1 | $-1$ | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  130 THEFT FROM VEHICLE UNDER \$5000 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 18 | 61 | 79  |
|  130 THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLE | 1 | 13 | 6 | 20 | 17 | 37  |
|  130 THEFT OVER \$5000 | 0 | 6 | $-1$ | 5 | 6 | 11  |

|  Event Description | Buffer
Zone | Displacement
Zone | Target
Zone | Total | Other | GRAND
TOTAL  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  130 THEFT UNDER \$5000 | 2 | -14 | -10 | -22 | 105 | 83  |
|  131 COLLISION FATAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2  |
|  131 COLLISION HIT AND RUN | 2 | 3 | 11 | 16 | 40 | 56  |
|  131 COLLISION INJURY | -1 | 14 | -4 | 9 | 24 | 33  |
|  131 COLLISION PROPERTY DAMAGE | 0 | 14 | 1 | 15 | 50 | 65  |
|  132 ABANDONED AUTO VEHICLE | 0 | -16 | -20 | -36 | -20 | -56  |
|  132 BYLAW COMPLAINTS | 0 | -2 | -3 | -5 | 4 | -1  |
|  132 BYLAW COMPLAINTS PARKING | -3 | -44 | -43 | -90 | 10 | -80  |
|  132 TRAFFIC COMPLAINTS GENERAL | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | -13 | -10  |
|  132 TRAFFIC OFFENCES | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 14  |
|  133 TRESPASS BY NIGHT | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -2 | -1  |
|  134 TROUBLE NOT KNOWN | 2 | -63 | 13 | -48 | 71 | 23  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT GUN | -1 | 14 | 4 | 17 | 70 | 87  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT KNIFE | 0 | -5 | -2 | -7 | 36 | 29  |
|  135 WEAPONS COMPLAINT OTHER | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 | 35 | 46  |
|  FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION | 16 | 152 | 120 | 288 | 437 | 725  |
|  MISC DISPATCH CODE | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0  |
|  Grand Total | 15 | 380 | 337 | 732 | 2256 | 2988  |
|  PERCENT CHANGE (\%) | 5.1 | 12.1 | 22.3 | 14.8 | 6.1 | 7.1  |

Data Table 7: Change in Officer-Initiated Events (2014-2015) by Project Evaluation Zones

|  Event Description | Buffer
Zone | Displacement
Zone | Target
Zone | Zone
Total | Other | Grand
Total  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  115 IMPAIRED CHECKSTOP OPERATION | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1  |
|  CATCH UP MODE | 2 | 25 | 3 | 30 | -28 | 2  |
|  CHASE CRIMINAL FLIGHT | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | -3  |
|  MAJOR EVENT MANAGEMENT | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -3 | -1  |
|  PHOTO RADAR | 0 | 4 | -62 | -58 | 233 | 175  |
|  PROACTIVE COMMUNITY INPUT MEETING | -1 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 34 | 38  |
|  PROACTIVE CRIME PREVENTION EDUCATION | 0 | 8 | 3 | 11 | 26 | 37  |
|  PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT | -25 | 214 | 101 | 290 | 349 | 639  |
|  PROACTIVE TARGET LOCATION | -4 | 62 | 6 | 64 | 44 | 108  |
|  PROACTIVE TARGET PERSON | 1 | 2 | 8 | 11 | 74 | 85  |
|  PROBLEM SOLVING | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 13  |
|  TRAFFIC OR SUBJECT STOP | 20 | 314 | 209 | 543 | 909 | 1452  |
|  Grand Total | -6 | 636 | 267 | 897 | 1647 | 2544  |
|  PERCENT CHANGE (\%) | -4.0 | 48.9 | 44.5 | 43.8 | 9.9 | 13.6  |

Data Table 8: Changes in Tickets Issued (2014-2015) by Project Evaluation Zones

|  Ticket Description | Buffer
Zone | Displacement
Zone | Target
Zone | Zone
Total | Other | Grand
Total  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Bylaws General | 0 | 24 | -1 | 23 | 127 | 150  |
|  Careless Driving | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4  |
|  Certain Noises Bylaw | 0 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 13  |
|  Consume Public Place | -1 | -6 | 1 | -6 | -37 | -43  |
|  Conveying In Motor Vehicle | 2 | -2 | 0 | 0 | -9 | -9  |
|  Dog Bylaw | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1  |
|  Environmental Protection Act | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1  |
|  Exceed Posted Speed | 0 | 35 | 8 | 43 | -274 | -231  |
|  Fail to Stop or Remain - CC | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3  |
|  Intoxications | 0 | -15 | 0 | -15 | -21 | -36  |
|  License Suspension | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 32 | 31  |
|  Liquor Act Generally | -1 | 6 | -1 | 4 | -137 | -133  |
|  Minor - Licensed Premise | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2  |
|  Minor - Obtain Liquor | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2  |
|  Provincial Acts General | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -241 | -242  |
|  Public Health Act | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5  |
|  Public Place Bylaw | -1 | -1 | -3 | -5 | -35 | -40  |
|  Red Light Going Thru | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -6 | -4  |
|  Remain At Scene - Hit \& Run | 0 | 8 | 4 | 12 | 4 | 16  |
|  Streets Bylaw | 0 | -1 | -3 | -4 | 0 | -4  |
|  Suspended Driver | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 | -31 | -23  |
|  Tamper With Auto | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8  |
|  Traffic Complaints General | -1 | 171 | 48 | 218 | -9 | 209  |
|  Trespass By Night | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1  |
|  Trespassing (Provincial Act) | 0 | 9 | -2 | 7 | 136 | 143  |
|  Grand Total | -2 | 240 | 58 | 296 | -484 | -188  |
|  PERCENT CHANGE (\%) | -40.0 | 27.8 | 34.5 | $0.0 \%$ | -5.1 | -1.8  |

# Back to text

# Appendix 10 | Back to text

Social Return on Investment Framework

|  Stakeholder | Outcome | Indicator | Financial Proxy  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Condo
Residents/
Owners | - Increased reports of crime and disorder.
- Increased appropriate use of police services.
- Improved relationships with police and other stakeholders.
- Reduced incidence of crime.
- Improved condition of condo units. | - Call volume to By-laws and EPS.
- Increased calls to EPS; reduced numbers of inappropriate calls.
- Residents report interactions with police are more positive.
- Reduced crime in the boundary area.
- Property owners report improved conditions | - [Narrative]
- Cost of victimization.
- Increased property values  |
|  Community | - Improved community cohesion.
- Increased sense of safety.
- Youth are engaged. | - Community members report feeling more connected to their community.
- Community members report feeling safer in their neighbourhood.
- Youth report they are participating in positive activities in community. | - Cost of social activities.
- Cost of security systems.
- [Narrative]  |
|  Edmonton Police, Dept. of Justice | - Reduced incidence of crime. | - Reduced crime in the boundary area. | - Cost of police investigation.
- Cost of court proceedings.
- Cost of incarceration.  |
|  N.E.T.
Initiative | - N.E.T. determines efficacy of using advanced analytical data in their work.
- Reduced lag time in responding to emerging issues. | - N.E.T. teams report the benefits of using the analytics. | - [Narrative]  |
|  City of
Edmonton | - Different City departments engage in crime prevention.
- Increased efficiency and better allocation of resources. | - City departments partner with N.E.T. and EPS to address crime and increase safety. | - [Narrative]
- Reduced costs in policing and social programming.  |

# Appendix 11 | Back to text

Financial Proxies Linked to Outcomes

|  Outcome | Financial Proxy | Cost/Value  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  Increased reports of crime and disorder. | Dispatch, monitoring, and response management | $\$ 1.77$ per call  |
|  Reduced incidence of violent crime. | Cost of victimization | $\$ 22,748.00$ per event  |
|  Improved condition of condo units. | Increase in property value | $\$ 530.00$ per unit  |
|  Improved community cohesion. | Cost of Individual registration with ESSC one Season of Slo-Pitch | $\$ 105.00$ per season  |
|   | Value of volunteer time | $\$ 23.07$ per hour  |
|  Increased sense of safety. | Cost of security system and monitoring | $\$ 300.00$ per year  |
|  Reduced incidence of violent crime (simple assault) | Average policing cost | $\$ 2,586.00$ per offense  |
|   | Court cost | $\$ 2,235.00$ per hour  |
|   | Cost of incarceration for average incarceration term of 14.7 months based on assault conviction | $\$ 135,517.56$  |
|  Increased efficiency and better allocation of resources. | Cost of N.E.T. | $\$ 326,845.00$ per year  |

# Example Calculation 

## Example Calculation:

Outcome: Increased sense of safety - Education and awareness of residents at Barbara Manor increased their engagement and likelihood of calling police to report crime and disorder. Physical improvements in the building such as repair of entry door locks, brighter lights and lighter colored walls increased the security of the building overall.

Financial proxy: Cost of home security system (\$300 per year). Installation of a home security system is a common method for individuals and families to increase the safety of their home, belongings and persons.

Since Barbara Manor consists of 48 condominium units, the financial proxy is applied to each unit or "household".

48 \times \$ 300=\$ 14,400

Deadweight: It is highly unlikely that engagement would have improved or extensive repairs would have been made without the intervention of N.E.T. and therefore deadweight was assigned $0 \%$.

Displacement: Increasing the safety of the residents does not replace other positive outcomes nor is it likely to create negative outcomes elsewhere. Displacement for this outcome was assigned $0 \%$.

Attribution: Those who contributed to increasing the sense of safety were part of the project (i.e. not an external stakeholder), therefore attribution is given a value of $0 \%$.

Outcome $\times(100 \%-$ Deadweight $) \times(100 \%-$ Displacement $) \times(100 \%-$ Attribution $)=$ Social Value

\$ 14,400 \times(100 \%-0 \%) \times(100 \%-0 \%) \times(100 \%-0 \%)=\$ 14,400

The increased sense of safety at Barbara Manor is therefore valued at \$14,400. This method of monetization gives value to the "sense of safety" although it might be argued that it doesn't capture the full value. The conservative nature of monetization ensures we don't overclaim, but still values what matter.

# Appendix 13 | Back to text 

SROI Detailed Description of Translating Outcomes to Proxies to Social Value
Outcome: Increased reports of crime and disorder. - The target zone showed increased number of events responded to police above the increase of the 10 neighbourhoods as a whole. This was used to determine the number of events (213) not attributed to general increase in crime, but rather to greater collective efficacy.

Financial Proxy: Cost of dispatch, monitoring and response management per call to 911 - \$1.77 Based on $\$ 40$ per 30 minutes of attendant time and an average call length of 74.3 seconds (average from 3 average call lengths of 3 separate 911 systems).
*Since the increase in calls adds demand for 911 service, the financial proxy in this case is an expenditure and a negative value.

213 calls $x$ ( - $\$ 1.77$ per call) $=-\$ 408.87$
0\% Deadweight, Displacement \& Attribution was assigned.
Outcome: Reduced Incidence of Violent Crime. - Although we cannot be certain of the absolute number of assaults prevented, it is highly likely that at least one incidence was prevented based in qualitative reports and EPS data. By preventing this one incident, we avoid an individual being harmed, and costs associated with legal repercussions.

Financial Proxy: Cost of victimization - \$22,748 per incidence
This value represents costs to the victim as it relates to personal injury and loss of income, in addition to costs to health care to treat the victim.

0\% Deadweight, Displacement \& Attribution was assigned.
Financial Proxy: Average policing. - \$2,586 per offense
This value represents the cost of police required to respond, investigate and document the incident.
Financial Proxy: Court costs. - \$2,235 per hour
This value represents costs associated with court staff (attorneys, legal aid, judge, security) and facility costs. This analysis accounted for a conservative estimate of 4 hours for court proceedings.

4 hours $x \$ 2,235$ per hour $=\$ 8,940$
Financial Proxy: Cost of incarceration in a federal institution - $\$ 355$ per day
Cost of incarceration for an adult in a federal prison. The analysis accounted for a $79.2 \%$ incarceration rate with assault charges and an average sentence of 441 days.
$79.2 \% \times \$ 355$ per day $x 441$ days $=\$ 123,991.56$
Total social value $=\$ 2,586+\$ 8,940+\$ 123,991.56=\$ 135,517.56$
0\% Deadweight, Displacement \& Attribution was assigned.

Outcome: Improved condition of condominium. - Barbara manor undertook efforts to improve the physical condition and security of the building. Owners and tenants alike reported significant improvements.

Financial Proxy: Increased property value. - $\$ 530$ per unit
Based on reports from CMHC, the average increase in property values for condos/townhouses between 2014 and 2015 was $4.8 \%$. This analysis estimated an increase of $0.5 \%$ in property value. An average property value of $\$ 105,945$ per condo unit at Barbara Manor was determined based on a sample of 9 (3 high, 3 mid-range and 3 low) City assessments of condo units in the building. Barbara Manor has a total of 48 units.
$0.05 \% \times \$ 105,945 \times 48=\$ 25,440$
$0 \%$ Deadweight and Displacement was assigned.
$20 \%$ Attribution was assigned to account for involvement of AHS Health Inspectors.
$\$ 25,440 \times(100 \%-20 \%)=\$ 20,352$
Outcome: Improved community cohesion. - Residents at Barbara Manor reported feeling more connected with others in the building as a result of community conversations and improvement activities. $33 \%$ of respondents in the tenant survey reported not feeling neutral or not connected with their neighbours. This third would benefit from the increased engagement in the building. One-third of 48 units is 16 .

Financial Proxy: Cost of individual registration with ESSC for two season of Slo-Pitch - \$210 This value represents what some individuals pay to engage in an activity that promotes socialization and teamwork.
$16 \times \$ 210=\$ 3,360$
Improved community cohesion was also evident as a number of individuals volunteered to be Board members for Barbara Manor's condo board, and a number of community members volunteered their time to assist the mural project at Mother Theresa Park. Based on 5 volunteers giving 10 hours each, a conservative total of 50 volunteer hours was gained.

Financial Proxy: Value of volunteerism. - $\$ 23.07$ per hour
This value recognizes the importance of volunteerism and the contributions it makes to people, organizations and society.

50 hours $\times \$ 23.07$ per hour $=\$ 1,153.50$
Total social value $=\$ 3,360+\$ 1,153.50=\$ 4,513.50$
$10 \%$ Deadweight was assigned as a small proportion of individuals might have volunteered or reached out to neighbours without N.E.T. engagement.
$0 \%$ Displacement and Attribution was assigned.
$\$ 4,513.50 \times(100 \%-10 \%)=\$ 4,062.15$

Outcome: Increased sense of safety. - The increased security of Barbara Manor translates to all 48 units in the building being safer. Tenants and owners of the condo units report feeling safer after improvements were made to the building and tenants were educated and engaging police when appropriate.

Financial Proxy: Cost of home security system and monitoring - $\$ 300$ per year
This proxy represents measures taken by individuals and families to increase the security of the home and belongings and personal safety.

48 units $x \$ 300$ per year $=\$ 14,400$
$0 \%$ Deadweight, Displacement and Attribution is assigned.
Outcome: Increased efficiency and allocation of resources. - The use of advanced analytics and way in which N.E.T. functioned during the pilot allowed an issue to be addressed more immediately and with greater flexibility.

Financial Proxy: Cost of a N.E.T. deployment. - \$326,845
The deployment of another N.E.T. was unnecessary to address emergent issues in McCauley as a result of more efficient processes and activities in the pilot project
$0 \%$ Deadweight, Displacement \& Attribution was assigned.
The social values from these outcomes were combined to total $\$ 523,515.84$
The investment of $\$ 326,845$ accounts for the salaries of the N.E.T. members (EPS Constable, City of Edmonton Social Worker and The Family Centre Youth Liaison Worker) and development of the analytical tool.

The SROI ratio was calculated as follows:

\frac{\sum \text { Social Value }}{\text { Investment }}=\frac{\$ 523,516}{\$ 326,845}=1.60

The payback period was calculated as follows:

\frac{\text { Investment }}{\sum \text { Social Value }} \times 12 \text { months }=\frac{\$ 326,845}{\$ 523,516} \times 12 \text { months }=7.5 \text { months }