2008 city of toronto staff report to audit committee response to ag report review of court services...

7/30/2019 2008 City of Toronto Staff Report to Audit Committee Response to AG Report Review of Court Services TPS

1/15

Staff report for information on response to review of court services 1

STAFF REPORTINFORMATION ONLY

Response to the Auditor Generals Report EntitledReview of Court Services, Toronto Police Service

Date: October 22, 2008

To: Audit Committee, City of Toronto

From: Alok Mukherjee, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide the Audit Committee with the Toronto PoliceServices response to the Auditor Generals report entitled Review of Court Services,Toronto Police Service.

Financial ImpactThere are no financial implications with regard to the receipt of this report.

ISSUE BACKGROUNDAt its meeting held on October 16, 2008, the Toronto Police Services Board was inreceipt of a report, dated September 19, 2008, from William Blair, Chief of Police,containing the Toronto Police Services response to the Auditor Generals reportregarding the review of Court Services.

COMMENTSThe Board was also in receipt of correspondence (dated October 07, 2008) from LauraMiller, Director of Operations, Office of the Premier, containing a response to theBoards correspondence regarding the uploading of court security and prisoner

transportation costs to the province. Copies of both letters are appended to this report(see Appendix A) for information.

The Board commended Chief Blair for a comprehensive response to the AuditorGenerals report. Chief Blair extended his appreciation to the Auditor General forconducting the audit at his request.


2/15


The Board received the foregoing report and the correspondence from the Office of thePremier. The Board also agreed to forward copies of this matter to the following forinformation:

the Premier of Ontario;

the Honourable Warren Winkler, Chief Justice of Ontario; and the City of Toronto Audit Committee.

A copy of Board Minute No. P282/08, in the form attached as Appendix A, regardingthis matter is provided for information

CONTACTChief of Police William BlairToronto Police ServiceTelephone No. 416-808-8000Fax No. 416-808-8002

SIGNATURE

_______________________________

Alok MukherjeeChair, Toronto Police Services Board

ATTACHMENTAppendix A Board Minute No. P282/08

A: city report court services response1.doc


3/15


APPENDIX A

THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE

TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 2008

#P282. RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERALS REPORT ENTITLEDREVIEW OF COURT SERVICES, TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

The Board was in receipt of the following report September 19, 2008 from William Blair, Chiefof Police:

Subject: RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT ENTITLED "REVIEWOF COURT SERVICES, TORONTO POLICE SERVICE"

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Board receive this report; and,(2) the Board forward a copy of this report to the City Audit Committee for information.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications relating to the recommendations contained within this report.The Auditor Generals (AGs) report identified several areas where recommended changeswould result in approximately $0.9M in annual operating budget savings. Each recommendation

has been considered carefully, and commented on in detail in this report (appendix A). Althoughaction has been taken to address the AGs concerns wherever possible, the largest potentialsavings cannot be realized, as explained in appendix A. The impact of any changes that can orhave been implemented has been taken into consideration in the development of the 2009Operating Budget request for Court Services.

Background/Purpose:

At its meeting of July 24, 2008, the Board received a presentation and report from Mr. Alan Ash,Director, AGs Office, with respect to the results of the audit of Court Services (Min. No.P194/08 refers). Following consideration of this presentation and report, the Board approved the

following Motions:

(1) THAT the Board approve the foregoing report;(2) THAT the correspondence to be sent by the Board with regard to recommendation

No. 1 in the Auditor Generals report be copied to the Minister of Finance for

information;

(3) THAT the Chief of Police prepare a response to the Auditor Generals report andprovide it to the Board; and


4/15


(4) THAT the Board request the Auditor General to conduct a follow-up audit at atime he determines is appropriate.

Discussion:

The objective of this audit was to assess and determine the extent to which resources of theToronto Police Service (TPS) were deployed efficiently and effectively in ensuring courthousesecurity and prisoner transportation, and to identify potential opportunities for cost savings.

The issues identified in the report centre around three separate but related themes. These themesrelate to the following areas:

Section A: Funding Arrangements Pertaining to Court Security and Prisoner Transportation;

Section B: Administrative and Staff Resource Issues Identified Within the Jurisdiction of theToronto Police Service; and

Section C: Administrative, Staff and Facility Resource Issues Identified Outside the Jurisdictionof the Toronto Police Service.

The review identified the need for fundamental change in the funding relationship between theCity of Toronto and the Province of Ontario in relation to court security and prisonertransportation. Currently, the TPS is in the position of having to adjust to increasing provincialdemands in court security and prisoner transportation services without any authority or controlover related funding issues.

Some of the issues raised in the report are complex and difficult to remedy because of the

various governmental jurisdictions involved in the administration of the judicial process. Whilemany opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings within the jurisdiction of the TPS wereidentified in the report, the TPS under current funding arrangements has no option but tocontinue to operate within a system over which the TPS has limited control.

During the course of their review, representatives from the AGs Office met frequently withmembers of the TPS to discuss the identified issues. A number of these issues have the potentialto reduce the operating costs of Court Services. Several of these identified issues were actedupon immediately upon notification to management. Other remaining issues are currently beingevaluated.

Attached to this report (Appendix A) is an overview of the recommendations contained withinthe Auditors Report and the TPS response to any action taken with regard to eachrecommendation.

Conclusion:

The review of Court Services identified the need for fundamental change in the fundingrelationship between the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario in relation to court security


5/15


and prisoner transportation. At the present time the TPS is in the position of having to adjust toincreasing provincial demands in court security and prisoner transportation services without anyauthority or control over related funding issues.

Some of the issues raised in the AGs report are complex and difficult to remedy because of the

various governmental jurisdictions involved in the administration of the judicial process. Whilemany opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings within the jurisdiction of the TPS wereidentified in the report, the TPS under current funding arrangements has no option but tocontinue to operate within a system over which the TPS has limited control.

For their part, Court Services is committed to working with our partners from the city and theprovince to ensure that prisoner transportation services are delivered in the most efficient, costeffective manner possible. The AGs Review of Court Services identified some areas where costsavings could be achieved through restructuring or variation in the day to day operation of theunit. Court Services is moving forward with those recommendations that can be implemented toensure that prisoner transportation costs remain in line with the operating budget of Court

Services and the TPS.

Deputy Chief A.J. (Tony) Warr, Specialized Operations Command will be in attendance toanswer any questions the Board may have.

The Board was also in receipt of correspondence (dated October 07, 2008) from Laura

Miller, Director of Operations, Office of the Premier, containing a response to the Boardscorrespondence regarding the uploading of court security and prisoner transportationcosts to the province. Copies of both letters are appended to this Minute for information.

The Board commended Chief Blair for a comprehensive response to the Auditor Generals

report. Chief Blair extended his appreciation to the Auditor General for conducting theaudit at his request.

The Board received the foregoing report and the correspondence from the Office of thePremier. The Board also agreed to forward copies of this matter to the following for

information:

the Premier of Ontario;

the Honourable Warren Winkler, Chief Justice of Ontario; and

the City of Toronto Audit Committee.


6/15


Appendix A

Response to Recommendations

Section A: Funding Arrangements Pertaining to Court Security and Prisoner Transportation

Recommendation Agree

Partially AgreeDisagree

Action Taken

Toronto City Council, the Toronto PoliceServices Board and the Chief of Police continueto petition the Ontario Government inconnection with the uploading of court securityand prisoner transportation costs to the Province.Ongoing efforts be directed to the ProvincialMunicipal Fiscal and Service Delivery reviewTeam in connection with the transfer ofresponsibility for such funding.

Agree The Toronto Police Services Board hasforwarded copies of the Auditors report tothe Premier, the Attorney General, Ministerof Community Safety and CorrectionalServices and a representative of theProvincial Municipal Fiscal Review Team asthe Audits Report recommended.

Status: complete

Section B: Administrative And Staff Resource Issues Identified Within The Jurisdiction Of The Toronto

Police ServiceThe Chief of Police evaluate the cost savingopportunities identified in this report in thefollowing areas:

i. Prisoner transportation:

The reassignment of prisonertransportation officers to court securityduties after peak transportation duties.

In conducting this evaluation, the Chief of Policereview the documentation prepared by theAuditor General supporting these cost

reductions. Where appropriate, such cost savingmeasures be implemented.

Partially Agree Court Services has an established practicewhereby prisoner transportation officersreport to the cell supervisor and assist withcontrolling prisoners at the courthouse duringtimes of reduced transportation demands.The prisoner transportation unit can be calledaway with minimal notice to move a prisonerfrom an arresting division to a central lockupfacility. This 24 hour service is provided toavoid the higher costs of having policeofficers transport prisoners. It also helps to

ensure police officers remain engaged infront line duties. Prisoner transportationofficers should not be assigned to duties orresponsibilities that cannot be easilybackfilled when they are operationallyrequired to fulfil their primary job functions.

Status: complete

Recommendation continued:

i. Prisoner transportation:

The need to make better use oftechnology in the management ofprisoner transportation

Agree Court Services is continually exploring newand innovative methods to improve technicalcapabilities within the unit.

An in house application has beenimplemented that provides a level of prisonermanagement. Support from InformationTechnology Services (ITS) is required tonetwork and improve technical capabilitieswithin the unit. We will continue to workwith ITS to improve operability in relation tomanagement of prisoner transportation.

Status: ongoing


7/15



ii. Courtroom security during weekdays,weekends and statutory holidays:

The staggering of start and finish

times of prisoner transportationofficers working midnight shifts.

In conducting this evaluation, the Chief of Policereview the documentation prepared by theAuditor General supporting these costreductions. Where appropriate, such cost savingmeasures be implemented.

Partially Agree Court Services is bound by the requirementsof the Collective Working Agreementconcerning the compressed work weekschedule; however, some of the

recommended adjustments to start times havebeen implemented. The afternoon start timehas been changed from 1400 to 1500 hoursand two of the four night wagons start at2330 instead of 2100 hours. The 1500 starttime allows for better coverage for hospitalruns and reduces overtime. The 2330 starttime extends into the day shift and allows thenight wagon to assist with regular earlymorning pickups from GTA detentioncentres. These shift changes wereimplemented in consultation with Cityauditors during the audit process and prior to

the submission of the final report.

Status: completeRecommendation continued:


The reduction of supervisory staffduring early morning shifts

Disagree The province funds the TPS fortransportation to certain detention centresoutside the City of Toronto. Included in thefunding is the salary for a number of courtofficers and one supervisor. The provincehas also provided two MCI bussesspecifically outfitted for prisonertransportation. The additional supervisor isresponsible for co-ordinating and providing

training on bus operations and procedures.This individual also monitors the out of towntransports, gathers daily statistics andmanages the processes. Reducing thissupervisory position would result in no costsavings to the TPS and would increase theworkload of the regular supervisor, whilereducing span of control.

Status: not implemented



The possibility of installingfingerprinting equipment at morelocal police stations in order toreduce prisoner transportation fromand to police stations. A businesscase should be developed insupport of any increase infingerprint equipment.

Disagree A business case could be commissioned byCommand, but would likely reveal a highcost to the TPS through the need foradditional booking room officers at eachpolice division to support the additionalresponsibilities. Any financial benefitsrealized in Court Services would be offset bycosts incurred by front line policingdivisions.



8/15




Court officer hours are 0830 to1700 hours with court hearings

scheduled to begin between 0900and 1000 hours. A number ofToronto courthouses are open tothe public as early as 0700 hours.Consequently, the presence of oneor more officers is required at thattime to manage access security.Allowing public access at 0830hours has the potential to saveapproximately $100,000 on anannual basis.

Disagree The Ministry of the Attorney Generalcontrols the operating hours of thecourthouses. The TPS cannot alter theoperating times set by the Ministry. Noalternative strategies exist for this

recommendation.




Staffing levels at each courtlocation varies depending onfactors such as variations in facilitydesign and size, and the securityposed by various cases.

Agree A detailed study of all positions within Court

Services has been conducted. The focus ofthe study was to determine the optimumdistribution of part time and full time staff inrelation to courthouse tasks. During thisstudy, a standard deployment model wasdeveloped and is being used to provide a baseto determine best practices in the area ofresource deployment. Courthouse securitydemands are dynamic and require ongoingre-evaluation throughout the day to meet thefluctuating needs of the courthouse.

Status: complete



Court Costs on Weekends andStatutory Holidays. The Old CityHall Provincial Court operates twobail and remand courts on weekendsand statutory holidays. At the sametime, prisoner transportation officersare scheduled to providetransportation services at all policecentral lock-ups and transportprisoners to the Old City Hall

Provincial Court for courtappearances. The review identifiedpossible savings in relation to thepossibility of shift changes for bothfull time and part time court officers,including the possibility of staggeredstart and finish times could saveapproximately $160,000 annually.

Partially Agree The scheduled hours of two court officerpositions were altered. The staggering ofremaining shifts has been considered butcannot be implemented without significantrisk.

A complete review of Weekend and StatutoryHoliday staffing was conducted. The reviewidentified $50,000 in annual call-back coststo replace members booking off sick or beingcalled in to provide additional security whenthe volume of prisoners was unusually high.An additional member was added to theregular weekend and statutory holiday courtroster to alleviate the workload pressures andreduce call-backs. Strict regulatory practiceswere implemented to monitor attendance.Court Services has almost eradicated the call-back costs associated with weekend andstatutory holiday court since implementingthese changes.

Status: complete


9/15



iii. Court officers working lunches.

On many occasions, prisonertransportation officers workwithout a lunch break. This has

become a common and generallyaccepted practice. Officers arecompensated either by completingtheir shift one hour early orbooking an additional hour atregular pay. Officers performingcourtroom duties may occasionallywork without lunch. Based on thereview, it is felt that bettermanagement control andsupervision in this area couldsignificantly reduce the extent ofworking lunches. A 75% reduction

in working lunches would generateannual cost savings ofapproximately $600,000.

Disagree Court Services assigns a lunch hour to eachcourt officer each day. It is not alwaysoperationally possible for officers to use theirallotted lunch break. There is an accordbetween the TPS and the Toronto Police

Association formalizing a Revised ShiftSchedule for officers assigned to PTU on thecompressed work week. Under this accord,officers may work through their lunch hourand use the credit earned to leave one hourearly. This practice improves efficiency byeliminating overlapping shifts. CourtServices attempted to implement mandatorylunch breaks and immediately beganincurring overtime. There was also a negativeimpact to Correctional Services resultingfrom the delayed return of prisoners.

Court Services closely monitors lunch creditsand has implemented additional in-housetracking programs to monitor premium paycosts, including lunch credits.


The Chief of Police review the recommendationscontained in the report entitled Review ofPolice Training, Opportunities for Improvement Toronto Police Service in order to ensure thatthe recommendations in the report which haverelevance to court officer training are properlyaddressed.

i. Court Officer Training:

In 2007, the Auditor GeneralsOffice issued a report relating toToronto police training entitledReview of Police Training,Opportunities for Improvement,Toronto Police Service. Certainof the recommendations containedin the audit report are applicable tothe training of court officers.

Agree Court Services is creating a new front linesupervisory course and a leadershipdevelopment plan.

Supervisor learning sessions have beenprovided to all front line supervisors andmanagers in the interim. Leadership

development is currently being provided tomembers interested in promotion oridentified as candidates for promotion.

Status: ongoing


10/15


11/15


The Chief of Police review the training schedulefor court officer trainers in order to ensure thatthe training time is commensurate with thetraining demands.

Disagree Based on the Auditor Generals Review ofthe course teaching schedule, each recruittrainer on average was responsible for 14days of stand-up classroom teaching indelivering three recruit courses each year.

Even with the classroom time for deliveringother courses in 2007, as well as theestimated preparation time for each class,total teaching related activities provided bythe recruit trainers accounted forapproximately 15% of available staff time.Non-teaching functions such as applicantinterviews, research, and maintaining theCourt Services intranet website do not, in theview of the Auditor Generals office, fullyaccount for remaining staff time.

Status: no further action


Based on the above, it is the view of the AuditorGenerals office that there are opportunities torealign teaching responsibilities so that they aremore in line with demands.

Partially agree The Court Services Training Unit wasresponsible for many additional unstructuredfunctions, including monitoring anddistributing officer safety and occupationalhealth/wellness information, legislativeresearch and the revision and maintenance ofunit specific policies. The audit did notcapture the full range of unstructured dutiesperformed by the Training Unit. The trainingsection is currently undergoing a completereview of processes and practices. Thereview should be complete by the fall of2008. Court Services is working closely with

Training and Education to ensure trainingschedules are accommodated in a mannerthat is effective and efficient for CourtServices. It is anticipated that an improvedstructure in the training unit will allow foreffective monitoring of workload.

Status: complete.


12/15


Section C: Administrative, Staff and Facility Resource Issues Identified Outside the Jurisdiction of theToronto Police Service

Under the current administrative structure, theToronto Police Service is one of four bodiesinvolved in administering the Ontario justice

system within Toronto. The other three bodiesare; The Judiciary; The Ontario Ministry of theAttorney General and the Ontario Ministry ofCommunity Safety and Correctional Services.

Each one of these entities has their own pre-defined roles and responsibilities in theadministration of the Ontario court system. It isclear, however, that certain of these roles andresponsibilities have a significant impact on theway the Toronto Police Services Board is able tofulfil its role in connection with court securityand prisoner transportation.

The funding of court security and prisonertransportation costs by police services is uniqueto Ontario. In all other Canadian provincesfunding for these services is a responsibility ofthe provincial government. It is anticipated thatthe ongoing Provincial-Municipal-Fiscal andService Delivery Review will address the issueof the funding relationship between the provinceand the City of Toronto.

Agree Various factors affecting court security andprisoner transportation costs are completelyoutside the control of the TPS. Until each

one of these is addressed, costs relating tocourt security and prisoner transportation willcontinue to increase. At the present time theprovince has no incentive to address theseissues as the costs relating to them have noimpact on expenditures incurred by theprovince. Until the province assumes thecosts relating to court security and prisonertransportation will there be an impetus toreduce such costs.

While the police service is not in a position toaddress any of the following issues, we are of

the view that the disclosure of such issues inthis report has some validity in the context ofidentifying the fact that cost savings to alltaxpayers are in fact possible on a provincialwide perspective.

Remedies for each one of the issuesimpacting court security and prisonertransportation costs are generally long term,likely require significant infrastructureinvestment and, as a result, short termsolutions for the most part are not possible.The province needs to address each of the

following if potential cost savings are to berealized for both the Province and the City

Status: no action required


13/15



14/15



15/15


2008 city of toronto staff report to audit committee response to ag report review of court services...

Documents