Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Policing and Community Safety Branch Road Safety Unit September, 2009

Transcription

1 The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit: An Evaluation Policing and Community Safety Branch Road Safety Unit September, 2009 PSSG10-002

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... 7 The purpose of the evaluation as well as an overview of both the Enhanced Traffic Safety Memorandum of Understanding and the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit's mandate, structure and jurisdictional boundaries CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY Methodology used to assess the FV IRSU's effectiveness in delivering enhanced traffic to BC's Fraser Valley Region CHAPTER 3: POLICE ACTIVITY (OUTPUT) Comparative analysis of the FV IRSU's enforcement activity as compared to the previous overtime based traffic enforcement model CHAPTER 4: IMPACT ON CRASHES (OUTCOMES) Crash analysis results and a longitudinal overview of both injury crashes and dangerous driving behaviours in the Fraser Valley Region before and after the implementation of the current model CHAPTER 5: ESTIMATING ECONOMIC BENEFIT Economic benefit analysis of the FV IRSU compared to the previous overtime model CHAPTER 6: INTERVIEWS Summary of the qualitative results stemming from 28 interviews conducted with FV IRSU members and Joint Management Team CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDATIONS

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) evaluation has three primary objectives: 1. assess whether the change in model/delivery of enhanced traffic in British Columbia has altered both police traffic enforcement activity levels in the Fraser Valley Region. It compares 2003 when ICBC directly funded enhanced traffic enforcement in the Fraser Valley though the CounterAttack program and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership with 2008 when the Integrated Road Safety Unit model was fully implemented in the region. 2. assess corresponding changes to crash volumes in that same geographical area 3. evaluate the Unit s operations, management, communications and strategic direction by interviewing all members of the FV IRSU and Joint Management Team (both current and former members). The subsequent analysis of the interviews led to 18 recommendations for improvement in 7 operational and administrative areas. The FV IRSU enforcement area covers 19 jurisdictions throughout the Fraser Valley Region of B.C. The majority of enforcement time is spent in the areas listed in Table 1 based on high population counts and high crash volumes. Collectively, this area spans 2,576 square kilometres and has seen a 9% increase in population in 2008 compared to These jurisdictions make up 23% of the province s total population (2008). The evaluation also provides an analysis of the economic benefit of the FV IRSU both in terms of social costs to the BC taxpayer and claims costs to ICBC. This was not part of the original mandate but the data collected lends itself to this type of analysis and it is also useful to demonstrate value for money wherever possible. It is, however, important to recognize that the data collected can only provide estimates given that it was beyond the scope of this study to account for other factors (weather patterns, vehicle safety requirements, demographics, etc.) that may have affected the frequency of crashes and ultimately the associated economic benefit. While there is a significant downward trend in rate of serious injuries and fatalities in the region corresponding to the establishment of the 2

4 IRSU program, the results at this point should be viewed as contributory as opposed to causal. The key performance indicators defining the effectiveness of the Fraser Valley IRSU program are: Police activity generated through the number of violation tickets and Criminal Code charges issued. The number of injury, serious injury and fatality crash victims at the Fraser Valley s top crash locations and throughout the region as a whole. The interview responses by members regarding integration, operations, data collection, equipment, communications, officer safety and overall effectiveness. The overall return on investment to the Province of B.C. and B.C. s Municipalities.. Police Activity Overall, the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008: Wrote over 30,000 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges combined. Focused enforcement efforts on speeding (49% of tickets issued), seatbelt violations (18%), intersection offences (11%), and impaired driving enforcement (3%). Averaged 1 violation ticket per working hour. When comparing the 2003 CounterAttack (CA) and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP) enhanced traffic enforcement programs to the 2008 FV IRSU: The FV IRSU worked double the amount of hours, and was over 4 times more productive in police activity. In 2003, CA and TTEP worked 15,322 hours and issued a total of 7,377 violations and charges. In 2008, FV IRSU worked 35,635 hours and issued a total of 31,331 violations and charges. The FV IRSU generated approximately $2.7 million more in traffic fine revenue. In 2003 CA and TTEP generated over $600,000 in traffic fine revenue while in 2008 FV IRSU generated $3.3 million in traffic fine revenue. The FV IRSU issued 8 times more Criminal Code charges than CA and TTEP combined; in 2003 CA and TTEP issued 24 Criminal Code charges and in 2008 FV IRSU issued 192 Criminal Code charges. The FV IRSU issued double the violation tickets and Criminal Code charges per working hour from 0.48 tickets per working hour in 2003 to 0.88 tickets per working hour in The FV IRSU was 24% more cost effective in terms of cost per ticket; in 2003 the cost per ticket was $92.35 in comparison to $70.51 in

5 Impact on Crashes When comparing the 2002/2003 average to the 2007/2008 average, throughout the top 105 intersections targeted by the Fraser Valley IRSU, the results showed: 4% decrease in the number of injured and fatal victims 7% increase in the number of casualty crashes When comparing the 2002/2003 average to the 2007/2008 average, the Fraser Valley Region showed: 14% decrease in motor vehicle fatalities 17% decrease in the number of injured victims 12% decrease in the number of casualty crashes 23% decrease in the rate of injured victims per 100,000 population Interview Results 96% of respondents thought that the IRSU traffic model is an improvement compared to past non-integrated traffic units 93% felt that the integration was working well at the Fraser Valley IRSU 45% of members actively applied for positions at the Fraser Valley IRSU, whereas 41% were either involuntarily assigned or transferred into the unit 73% of members were satisfied with how the IRSU was functioning 77% responded that they had enjoyed their time working for the Fraser Valley IRSU 100% of members said they felt safe on the job Recommendations The interviews also led to 18 recommendations for improvement in seven key areas: IRSU Program That government communicate with participating police departments regarding the importance of maintaining staffing levels prior to the MOU being signed. More ongoing and regular communication between participating police departments, IRSU management, the Road Safety Advisory Committee, and Police Services Division regarding maintaining required IRSU staffing levels. Bi-weekly communication with participating police departments, following the distribution of the enforcement calendar. Follow-up with participating police departments, following each local Joint Force Operation (JFO). Staffing Policies and Procedures All members, whether coming from Independent or RCMP departments, should have to apply for positions with the IRSU. 4

6 All members should arrive at the Integrated Road Safety Unit with an experienced background in traffic enforcement. The Staff Sergeant and Sergeant of the Fraser Valley IRSU should have more influence over who is seconded into the unit. Communications The Fraser Valley IRSU should develop a formal strategic plan, including a specification of a mandate, goals, performance indicators and strategic expectations of all members. The Fraser Valley IRSU should develop an information package for all new members arriving to the unit. Data Driven Enforcement ICBC should provide the Fraser Valley IRSU with quarterly reports on the number of injured, seriously injured and fatal victims involved in motor vehicle incidents at all top crash locations throughout the jurisdictions they serve. The Fraser Valley IRSU should present this information to all members on a quarterly basis and provide a hard copy to all members. The Fraser Valley IRSU Senior Management should make it clear to members that the targeting the identified high crash locations is the primary strategic priority and the production of a violations ticket volume is secondary. Senior Management should provide direction to members on which high crash locations to target. Senior Management should regularly follow-up on that targeting. Administrative Issues Shortages of public servant staff should be addressed immediately by Senior Management. Administrative set-up processes for new members of the Fraser Valley IRSU should begin 3 months prior to their arrival in order to ensure that they can be fully operational at the beginning of their tour of duty. Equipment The Fraser Valley IRSU should budget for the purchase of 4 unconventional vehicles. Governance The Joint Management Team, Staff Sergeant and Police Services Division meet on a quarterly basis to review the unit s performance indicators (i.e. police activity and crash statistics), discuss operational challenges, public awareness efforts and/or any other pertinent issues. 5

7 Estimated Economic Benefit: The data clearly demonstrates that there is a reduction in serious injuries and fatalities between 2003 and 2008 in both Fraser Valley high crash locations as well as the region as a whole. Those reductions can be translated into dollar savings for the BC taxpayer. For instance, in terms of the high crash locations there is an estimated social cost benefit of $29,385,364. This figure does not include other positive financial benefits including the increase in traffic fine revenue, the 30% federal benefit attached to integrated initiatives or ICBC claims costs saving. Again this report was not equipped to factor out other variables which may have contributed to these savings and must remain estimates for the purposes of this document. 6

8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit evaluation has three primary objectives: 1. assess whether the change in model/delivery of enhanced traffic in British Columbia has altered both police traffic enforcement activity levels in the Fraser Valley Region It compares 2003 when ICBC directly funded enhanced traffic enforcement in the Fraser Valley though the CounterAttack program and the Targeted Enforcement Partnership with 2008 when the Integrated Road Safety Unit model was fully implemented in the region. 2. assess any corresponding changes to crash volumes in that same geographical area. 3. evaluate the Unit s operations, management, communications and strategic direction by interviewing all members of the FV IRSU and Joint Management Team (both current and former members). The subsequent analysis of the interviews led to 18 recommendations for improvement in 7 operational and administrative areas. The evaluation also provides an analysis of the economic benefit of the FV IRSU both in terms of social costs to the BC taxpayer and claims costs to ICBC. This was not part of the original mandate but the data collected lends itself to this type of analysis and it is also useful to demonstrate value for money wherever possible. It is, however, important to recognize that the data collected can only provide estimates given that it was beyond the scope of this study to account for other factors (weather patterns, vehicle safety requirements, demographics, etc.) that may have affected the frequency of crashes and ultimately the associated economic benefit. While there is a significant downward trend in rate of serious injuries and fatalities in the region corresponding to the establishment of the IRSU program, the results at this point should be viewed as contributory as opposed to causal. Background: The Enhanced Road Safety Program In partnership with the provincial government, ICBC has been involved in funding enhanced road safety and auto theft programs since From 1996 to 2002 ICBC provided funding directly to individual police agencies in support of traffic safety programs 7

9 than including CounterAttack, Photo Radar, Intersection Safety Camera Program, auto crime enforcement, Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP) and the Enhanced Road Safety Enforcement Initiative (ERSEI). In 2003, the (MPSSG) and ICBC signed a five year Memorandum of Understanding to fund the Enhanced Road Safety Program (ERSP). Through the ERSP, ICBC funds dedicated road safety police positions (including both RCMP and independent police agencies), Counterattack overtime, the IMPACT/BaitCar unit and the Integrated Intersection Safety Camera Unit. That funding is directed to Police Services Division which, through the Road Safety Administration Unit, oversees those enhanced road safety initiatives. The MOU reflects the need to direct funding for law enforcement activities through the Ministry to avoid the perception that outside agencies can influence police activities for their own interests. Additionally, the Road Safety Unit serves as the liaison between police operations and ICBC. As the funding for enhanced traffic enforcement is delivered through the Provincial Policing Contract, an additional 30 percent is invested by the Federal Government. For the term of the MOU, this has led to an addition of approximately $5 million per year in extra funding for the enhanced enforcement initiatives. The MOU also established the Road Safety Advisory Committee which provides strategic advice and direction on policy as well as the development and implementation of the program. The committee is comprised of representatives from, the police and ICBC. The Integrated Road Safety Unit Model With the new model, 110 full-time, dedicated traffic enforcement positions drawn from both the RCMP and independent police agencies were formed into Integrated Road Safety Units (IRSU s) and strategically placed throughout B.C. in the Lower Mainland, Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, North and Southeast Districts. The mandate of the IRSU program is to deliver targeted road safety enforcement through the use of crash data to decrease serious injuries and fatalities related to crashes. The program s priorities include impaired driving, aggressive driving, seatbelt compliance and intersection violations. These units are not responsible for first response calls or accident investigations which remain the responsibility of regular traffic units; IRSUs are an enhancement to baseline 8

10 policing. All local police departments and RCMP detachments are still responsible for providing baseline traffic enforcement within their municipalities. The IRSU model requires that operational decisions be based on data collection indicating the most frequent days, times and locations for vehicle related serious injury and fatality crashes. Resources are then focused on those areas to more effectively manage road safety enforcement and reduce dangerous driving behaviour and crashes. The IRSU model is strategically linked to Canada s road safety strategy, Road Safety Vision 2010 (RSV 2010).That strategy calls for a 30% decrease in the average number of road users fatally or seriously injured during the period (compared to ) as well as a 40% decrease in the number of unbelted fatally or seriously injured occupants and a 40% decrease in the percentage of road users fatally or seriously injured in crashes involving drinking drivers. B.C. s Integrated Road Safety Units incorporate the RSV 2010 targets into their strategic operational planning to more effectively target dangerous driving behaviours within their region. Road Safety Vision 2010 is officially endorsed nationwide by all Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highways. Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit was established in 2005, through a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the RCMP E Division, Abbotsford Police Department, Delta Police Department and Police Services Division, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Its mandate is to deliver targeted road safety enforcement through the use of crash data to reduce the incidence of serious injury and fatalities related to vehicle crashes. Its priorities include impaired driving, aggressive driving, low seatbelt compliance and controlled intersection violations. Under the MOU, the FV IRSU is comprised of the following Unit member authorized strength: Abbotsford Police Department 4 members Delta Police Department 2 members RCMP 15 members Total 21 members 9

11 Included in that complement are two supervisory positions: an independent Police member (Abbotsford) serves as the Staff Sergeant of the Unit assisted by a 2 nd Office in Charge from the RCMP who serves as the Unit s Sergeant. There are also two public service administrative positions; however, during this evaluation only one position was staffed. Strategic and operational direction for the FV IRSU is provided by the Joint Management Team (JMT) in conjunction with the Road Safety Advisory Committee. Road Safety Advisory Committee Joint Management Team Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge FV IRSU RCMP Financial Agent 2 nd NCO i/c FV IRSU 19 Police Officer Positions 2 Public Service Positions The JMT is tasked with: Appointing the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCO i/c) Reviewing the Unit s budget Dealing with matters of concern regarding the MOU Appointing one member as Chair for a two year term Meeting at least twice a year and meeting with the Greater Vancouver JMT at least once a year Selecting one of their Members to represent the FV IRSU on the Road Safety Advisory Committee The Joint Management Team is comprised of an RCMP Member as Chair, a member from the Abbotsford Police and a member from the Delta Police. 10

12 The FV IRSU enforcement area covers 19 jurisdictions throughout the Fraser Valley Region of B.C. The majority of enforcement time is spent in the areas listed in Table 1 based on high population counts and high crash volumes. Collectively, this area spans 2,576 square kilometres and has seen a 9% increase in population (approximately 79,000 more people) in 2008 compared to 2003 (see Table 1). These jurisdictions make up 23% of the Province s total population (2008). The map below in Figure 1, illustrates the location of the Fraser Valley Region in comparison to the Greater Vancouver Region. Figure1 11

13 Table 1. Fraser Valley Statistics (2003 and 2008) 2003* 2008** City/District Area (sq. km) Population Area (sq. km) Population Abbotsford , ,864 Chilliwack , ,217 Delta , ,723 Harrison , ,573 Hope , ,185 Kent , ,738 Langley , ,332 Maple Ridge , ,949 Mission , ,505 Pitt Meadows , ,623 Surrey , ,976 White Rock , ,755 Total FV 2, ,518 2, ,440 Total BC*** 926, ,907, , ,113,487 *2003: area and population as of December 31, 2002 from Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women s Services Statistics Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments in BC 2003; area in square kilometres and population excluding people residing on Indian Reserves. **2008: area and population as of December 31, 2006 from Ministry of Community Development Statistics Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments in BC 2008; area in square kilometres and population excluding people residing on Indian Reserves. ***BC area and population from BC Stats 2001 and 2006 Census Profiles. The Fraser Valley driver and vehicle populations have also grown considerably over the past few years. Specifically, by 2008 the number of insured vehicles in the region has increased by almost 14% since 2003 and the number of active drivers has increased by 10%. Table 2 below displays these figures. Table 2. Fraser Valley Driving Statistics (2003 and 2008) % change ( ) City/District Insured Vehicles* Active Drivers** Insured Vehicles* Active Drivers** Insured Vehicles* Active Drivers** Total FV 615, , , , % +10.4% Total BC 2,435,000 2,838,000 2,729,000 3,063, % +7.9% *Insured vehicles totals for BC and FV from ICBC Actively Insured Vehicles and Active Drivers as of December 31 each year; insured vehicle count not including trailers. **Active drivers totals for BC and FV from ICBC Actively Insured Vehicles and Active Drivers as of December 31 each year 12

14 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY The FV IRSU Evaluation is comprised of both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative methods were utilized to assess police activity in terms of enhanced traffic enforcement violations (outputs) and crash volumes in the Fraser Valley region (outcomes). The qualitative methods were utilized to assess the operational structure and efficiency of the policing unit. This chapter will provide a detailed overview of both sets of methodologies, variables examined and limitations to the overall research design. Quantitative Methods Research Design Overview A trend analysis was conducted using existing statistical data for a before-after design. This was implemented to assess two dependent variables as a function of one independent variable in this evaluation: Dependent Variables: (1) police activity (outputs) and (2) crash volumes (outcomes) Independent Variable: (1) the change in the delivery/model of enhanced traffic enforcement in the Fraser Valley. The dependent variables were assessed at the following two different points in time: Time 1 - Pre-IRSU (2003): this period of time represents the historical model of enhanced traffic enforcement delivery through CounterAttack and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership Time 2 - Post-IRSU (2008): this period of time represents the full implementation of the FV IRSU in the Fraser Valley Region through the Integrated Road Safety Unit Model The graphic below illustrates the overall research design as described above. The same two dependent variables, outputs (Y 1 ) and outcomes (Y 2 ) were assessed at two different points in time (2003 and 2008). The change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement serves as the independent variable or intervention distinguishing the pre- 13

15 IRSU time period from the post-irsu time period. The section below will detail the overall sample and units of analyses assessed in this research design. Sample A specific sample was selected for both time periods (time 1 and time 2) to examine the effects of the change in enhanced traffic enforcement on both police activity and crash volumes in the FV Region of B.C. Police Activity in the Fraser Valley (Outputs) In order to assess how the change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement (X) affected the volume and nature of police activity (Y 1 ), existing statistical data was analyzed. For time 1, the pre-irsu period of analysis, data from the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) was examined which showed the number of violation tickets written by police officers in the Fraser Valley in 2003 who participated in both CounterAttack (CA) and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP). Both these programs represented overtime traffic enforcement and the historical delivery of enhanced road safety initiatives in This sample was purposely selected to examine the amount of Motor Vehicle Act violation tickets written (ex. seatbelt tickets and speeding tickets) and Criminal Code impaired driving, driving and non-driving charges laid by this group of police officers in that specific region during time 1. For time 2, the post-irsu period of analysis, existing data from the RCMP E Division Traffic Services was assessed which showed the number of violation tickets written and 14

16 Criminal Code Impaired and Non-Driving charges laid by the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit throughout The RCMP E Division Traffic Services is the fiscal agent for the IRSU and also collects all police output data for all Integrated Road Safety Units throughout the province. Police Services Division, MPSSG, receives this disaggregate data quarterly in excel spreadsheet format. This sample was purposely selected to examine the amount of Motor Vehicle Act violation tickets written (ex. seatbelt tickets and speeding tickets) and Criminal Code impaired driving (and other) charges laid by this group of police officers in that specific region during time 2. This sample represents all enhanced traffic police output for the Fraser Valley Region and includes IRSU baseline enforcement activity, IRSU overtime enforcement activity and output in the Fraser Valley from the Enhanced Road Safety Enforcement Initiative (ERSEI). Collectively, these three sources of outputs constitute enhanced traffic enforcement activity in the Fraser Valley for time 2 (2008). Frequency of Crashes in the Fraser Valley (Outcomes) In order to assess how the change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement (X) affected the frequency of motor vehicle crashes in the Fraser Valley (Y 2 ), existing statistical data was analyzed. The sample was deliberately chosen to ensure specific crash types at specific locations were sampled and analyzed for both time 1 (2002/2003) and time 2 (2007/2008). The Insurance Corporation of B.C. receives all data for police attended and unattended motor vehicle incidents and collates this information in the Traffic Accident System (TAS) database. In B.C., police are required to complete a prescribed collision investigation form when attending/investigating a crash (i.e. the MV6020). The MV6020 requires the police officer to detail the nature of the crash, whether an injury, serious injury or fatality was involved and any contributing factors that may have led to the incident (ex. excessive speed, impairment by alcohol or drugs, etc). All MV6020 s are submitted to ICBC for data entry into the TAS database. Police Services Division specifically examined injury, serious injury and fatality crash counts from the TAS database in the Fraser Valley Region for both time 1 and time 2 in order to assess whether the change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement in this region has led to a change in the overall crash volume and types of crashes indicative of dangerous driving behaviour. 15

17 Units of Analysis This section will provide a detailed overview of how the independent variable and dependent variables were operationalized in this Evaluation. Independent Variable (X): Model of Enhanced Traffic Enforcement in the Fraser Valley Region of B.C. The purpose of the Fraser Valley IRSU Evaluation was to assess whether the change in the model/delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement in B.C. has affected police activity levels in road safety enforcement and crash volumes in the Fraser Valley Region. The independent variable of model of enhanced traffic enforcement was treated as an intervention separating time (1) and time (2). Time 1, measured during 2003, represents the period of time when the ICBC was directly funding enhanced traffic enforcement in the Fraser Valley Region in the form of CounterAttack and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership. Both road safety initiatives were conducted by police on an overtime basis throughout the calendar year and are considered the pre-irsu period prior to the Integrated Road Safety Unit model being implemented in this Region. Time 2, measured during 2008, represents the post-irsu period time during which the IRSU model had been fully established between the Abbotsford and Delta Police Departments, the RCMP E Division Traffic Services and MPSSG. The FV IRSU was provided with component of 21 full time traffic enforcement officers whose sole responsibility was to conduct traffic enforcement in the Fraser Valley Region and was exempt from responding to general duty calls, responding to motor vehicle incidents and from conducting crash investigations. Thus, the independent variable (X) was used as a qualitative unit of analysis representing a program change in the Fraser Valley in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement to that Region. Dependent Variable (Y 1 ): Police Activity in the Fraser Valley (Outputs) The first dependent variable in the evaluation was the amount and type of enhanced traffic enforcement in the Fraser Valley, or police outputs. This was applied by looking at similar types of traffic enforcement activity by police in the FV Region at both time (1) and time (2). Specifically, the number of Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets written and 16

18 Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) charges laid were added and compared between both groups of police officers. Main Categories of MVA offences analyzed at both time (1) and time (2): Speeding Seatbelts Intersections Impaired Driving Commercial Vehicles Criminal Interdiction Other (vehicle impoundments, wanted persons, seizure of liquor, etc) Main Categories of CCC offences analyzed at both time (1) and time (2): Impaired Driving Driving Offences Non-Driving Offences It is important to note that the total counts of both MVA and CCC charges for both groups of police officers from time (1) and time (2) included both traffic and non-traffic related police activity. Despite the fact that enhanced traffic enforcement is designed to target traffic and road safety issues; the reality often involves various other types of enforcement that are required of those who work in traffic. It was important that all types of enforcement conducted by both groups of police were captured and included as a representative total of cumulative enforcement efforts. These results are discussed in Chapter 3. Dependent Variable (Y 2 ): Frequency of Crashes in the Fraser Valley (Outcomes) The second dependent variable in the evaluation was the frequency of crashes in the Fraser Valley Region or outcomes. This was operationalized by looking at the volume of crashes and specific crash types between both time (1) and time (2). This unit of analysis was a quantitative variable. The crash data was obtained through ICBC s Traffic Accident System (TAS) database comprised of police reported motor vehicle incidents. Specifically, 17

19 the unit of analysis for crash outcomes were the following for both time periods in this Evaluation: Number of injury crashes and injured victims Number of serious injury crashes and seriously injured victims Number of fatality crashes and fatal victims The above unit of analysis were observed for two sets of crash outcomes in both time (1) and time (2). The first set of crash frequencies came from a set of 105 intersections targeted by the FV IRSU. Police Services Division obtained a list of these top injury crash intersections that the unit targeted operationally, which are spread throughout 10 jurisdictions: Abbotsford Delta Chilliwack Langley Mission White Rock Hope Maple Ridge Surrey Pitt Meadows These 10 jurisdictions represent the vast majority of the FV IRSU s enforcement efforts. Police Services Division (PSD) requested the injury, serious injury and fatality crash counts at these 105 intersections from from police reported motor vehicle incidents in the TAS database. It was decided that an average of would constitute time (1) for this particular analysis and an average of would constitute time (2). The second set of victim and crash frequencies came from the entire Fraser Valley Region as a whole. PSD requested the injury, serious injury and fatality victim and crash counts for the entire region from from police reported motor vehicle incidents in the 18

20 TAS database. It was decided that the same time periods would constitute time (1) for this particular analysis (an average of ) and an average of would constitute time (2). This second set of crash frequencies was observed to supplement the analysis conducted at the top 105 intersections targeted specifically by the FV IRSU. This was due to the fact that the FV IRSU has enforcement jurisdiction over the entire FV Region and provides enhanced enforcement to all policing jurisdictions throughout those areas. It was seen as beneficial to not only observe the targeted enforcement efforts of the FV IRSU through the top 105 intersections, but also to observe the crash frequency of the entire region served. Lastly, PSD requested the victim and crash counts for the entire Fraser Valley Region from ICBC for all police-attended motor vehicle incidents from the TAS database representing dangerous driving behaviours. Specifically, the frequency of crashes in the FV Region relating to alcohol impairment, seatbelt use, speed and intersections were analyzed for the same periods between time (1) and time (2). These results are discussed in Chapter 4. Qualitative Methods In order to examine the structure, function and operations of the Fraser Valley IRSU indepth, a series of interviews were conducted with all current and former members of the unit (n= 28). The interviews and the subsequent analysis of the results constitute the qualitative component of this Evaluation. Specifically, structured interviews with open-ended questions were designed to examine the following issues within the FV IRSU: IRSU Model (ex. Do you think the IRSU enforcement model is an improvement compared to past non-integrated models? Why or why not? ) IRSU Operations (ex. Does the FV IRSU have an enforcement strategy that you are aware of?) IRSU Effectiveness (ex. Do you think the FV IRSU targets the best locations to reduce serious crashes?) Enforcement (ex. How does this unit differ from the way other traffic units operate? ) Intelligence-led Enforcement (ex. Is collision data used to focus enforcement operations? ) 19

21 Data Collection and Intelligence-led policing (ex. Is the enforcement output recorded? If yes, how? ) Communication (ex. How often do you communicate with the Staff Sergeant and Sergeant?) Integration (ex. Do you think integration is working well? Why or why not? ) Perception of IRSU (ex. How do you think the IRSU is viewed by non-irsu traffic members?) Tools (ex. Are there any tools, technology or equipment that would make the IRSU more effective?) Training (ex. Do IRSU members receive any special training?) Officer Safety (ex. During the time you have served with the IRSU, has there been any officer injuries on the job?) Additional questions regarding staffing issues, budgetary issues and the MOU were also posed to Senior Officers within the IRSU and the Joint Management Team. Three groups of police officers were interviewed for the qualitative analysis. Twenty-two current and former FV IRSU Constables, Corporals and public service staff were interviewed individually during the Spring of Each interview was comprised of 37 questions and took approximately 2 hours in length. Representing the Senior police members, the current and former Staff Sergeant and current Sergeant were also interviewed. These interviews were comprised of 38 questions and also took approximately 2 hours. Finally, 3 members from the Joint Management Team and Lower Mainland District Traffic Services were interviewed, representing the oversight body of the FV IRSU. These interviews were comprised of 26 questions and took approximately 1.5 hours. All together, 28 interviews were conducted over approximately 55 hours during the Spring of 2009, and represented the population of both current and former FV IRSU members and staff. Qualitative Analysis All responses were collated and analyzed in two ways. First, each respondent was coded as responding either yes, no or not applicable. These responses were summed and are presented as summary statistics in Chapter 6. Secondly, respondent s answers to the long answer questions were analyzed to capture any patterns or themes. These results contributed to 20 recommendations for improvement, which are presented in Chapter 7. 20

22 Limitations There exist limitations towards the inference that a change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement throughout the Fraser Valley (X) has affected the crash volumes in that region over time (Y 2 ). As this evaluation was not a controlled, randomized experimental design, there are factors beyond the scope of the study that may have affected the frequency of crash volumes in the Fraser Valley aside from the presence and activity of the FV IRSU. As the selection of the unit of analysis (i.e. the intersection location and crash counts analyzed and the cities constituting the Fraser Valley Region) was not random in nature, one cannot infer that 100% of any change observed in the frequency of crash volumes is due to the introduction of the new enhanced traffic enforcement program. For example, from time (1) in to time (2) in , there may have been safety features developed in motor vehicles that decrease the likelihood that a crash may result in injuries or fatalities. Additionally, it can be assumed that changes in number of drivers, insured vehicles and population increases overall may also affect crash trends. Other factors such as weather can also affect crash frequencies, with particularly inclement weather increasing the number of overall crashes and extent of injuries at any given time. These potential threats to the internal validity of the findings were not statistically controlled for. Therefore, the effect of the independent variable on crash volumes in the Fraser Valley should be viewed as contributory as opposed to causal in nature. The change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement is, however, directly attributable to the change in police activity stemming from the FV IRSU. When measuring police activity (outputs), this evaluation included the entire population from both groups of police officers at both time (1) and time (2). As such, the affect of (X) on (Y 1 ) is causal and will not be discussed in this section. However, the following section describes the limitations of causal inference between (X) and (Y 2 ) in detail. 21

23 CHAPTER 3: POLICE ACTIVITY (OUTPUT) This chapter examines the FV IRSU s 2008 enhanced traffic enforcement activity (time 2) and compares these outputs to the previous enhanced enforcement model in the Fraser Valley the Counter Attack (CA) and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP) during 2003 (time 1). Overall, the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008: Wrote over 30,000 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges combined Generated approximately $3.3 million in traffic fine revenue Targeted the enhanced traffic enforcement priority areas of speeding, seatbelt, intersection and impaired driving offences Averaged 1 violation ticket per working hour When comparing the 2003 CA and TTEP enhanced traffic enforcement programs to the 2008 FV IRSU: The FV IRSU worked double the amount of hours, however, wrote over 4 times more Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges combined The FV IRSU generated approximately $2.7 million more in traffic fine revenue The FV IRSU issued double the VT s and CC s per working hour The FV IRSU issued 8 times more Criminal Code impaired driving charges. 22

24 2008 Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) In 2008, the FV IRSU functioned at its highest baseline member capacity since the IRSU began in On average, the unit employed 12.7 full-time officers and wrote 2,611 violation tickets and CC charges per month. The enhanced traffic enforcement program in the FV included the full-time IRSU baseline members, the overtime hours performed by these members (FV IRSU-OT) and overtime traffic enforcement performed by non-irsu officers throughout the FV region, as funded by the Enhanced Road Safety Enforcement Initiative (ERSEI). Collectively, these three categories of police activity constitute the enhanced traffic enforcement activity in the Fraser Valley during Figure 2 shows that in total, the FV IRSU wrote 31,331 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges combined, with the baseline members writing 75% of these (23,616) during regular enforcement hours or on overtime. The ERSEI program in the Fraser Valley generated 25% (7,715) of the police activity during

25 Figure 2. FV IRSU Output Activity by Unit (2008) Total FV IRSU 31,331 FV IRSU 15,240 FV IRSU_OT FV ERSEI 8,376 7, # activity The FV IRSU s enhanced traffic enforcement activity during 2008 varied by month. Specifically, police activity peaked during May, 2009 (3,671 violation tickets written) and was lowest during December, 2009 (1,474 violation tickets written). The drop in police activity during the month of December may have been due to extreme weather conditions experienced in the Southern portion of British Columbia during this time, with the Fraser Valley experiencing over 80 cm of snow. On average, FV IRSU program wrote 2,611 tickets per month. Figure 3 shows the monthly variation in police activity for all 3 components of the FV s enhanced traffic enforcement program and compares this to the monthly average. Figure 3. FV IRSU Output Activity by Month (2008) # activity January February March April May June July August September October November December average=2611 FV ERSEI FV IRSU_OT FV IRSU average Total FV IRSU 24

26 Further analysis was conducted that examined the breakdown in the types of violation tickets written by the FV IRSU as well as the breakdown in the type of impaired driving sanctions issued by the unit. This was done in order to assess whether the FV IRSU was meeting its strategic priorities as outlined in the 2007 FV IRSU Memorandum of Understanding. The results show that the top 5 categories of police activity for the FV IRSU mirror those of the enhanced traffic enforcement priorities and show a dedicated focus on dangerous driving behaviours that often lead to injury or fatality crashes. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of the top 4 enforcement categories targeted by the FV IRSU in 2008, per quarter. For the year in total, violation tickets for speeding constituted 49% of the IRSU s enforcement activity (15,565 violation tickets), with seatbelt violations generating 18% of the tickets written (5,558), intersection offences generating 11% of the violation tickets written (3,402) and impaired driving enforcement constituting 3% of the unit s overall enforcement activity (1,050). 25

27 Figure 4. Total FV IRSU Output Activity by Quarter (2008) 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 intersection seatbelt speed impaired # activity When looking at impaired driving enforcement, the FV IRSU Program issued a significant number of infractions. Specifically, during 2008, the Unit issued hour prohibitions, 192 Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges and 147 Administrative Driving Prohibitions. In total, 1,050 impaired driving infractions were issued with an average of 16 Criminal Code charges per month during Figure 5 displays the impaired driving activity generated by the Unit in Figure 5. FV IRSU, IRSU_OT, ERSEI Impaired Activity by Type (2008) FV IRSU FV IRSU_OT FV ERSEI ADP 24Hour CC Impaired # activity 26

28 The FV IRSU baseline member strength varied over 2008 with 12.7 full-time members on average per month. The Unit experienced variability in membership due to difficulty in obtaining police members from participating departments, retirements, secondments to the IRSU expiring and members returning to their primary police department and various transfers that took place. Figure 6 shows the monthly variation of the Unit s baseline membership over 2008 along with the vacancies in positions. Figure 6. FV IRSU Baseline Members by Month (2008) # members January February March average= April May June July August September October November December Vacancies Baseline Members average baseline During 2008, the FV IRSU worked a total of 35,635 hours. These were conducted by the FV IRSU and their overtime shifts as well as through other members working in the Fraser Valley Region through the Enhanced Road Safety Enforcement Initiative (ERSEI). Specifically, members of the FV IRSU performed 25,343 hours on shift and 4,698.5 hours on overtime shifts. Additional detachments participating in ERSEI in the Fraser Valley during 2008 performed 5,593.5 hours. Figure 7 below displays these results. 27

29 Figure FV IRSU member hours by unit (2008) # member hours January February March April May June July August September October November December IRSU avg=2112 ERSEI avg=466.2 IRSU_OT avg=391.5 FV IRSU FV IRSU_OT FV ERSEI average When analyzing the level of activity for each type of enhanced enforcement per hour worked (see Figure 8), the results indicate that FV IRSU members are most active during their overtime shifts. Additionally, it appears that FV IRSU members working baseline shifts display the lowest level of output compared to when working overtime or compared to other members working ERSEI. This may be explained by the fact that during baseline shifts, members are required to follow specific operational guidelines; one of which is to focus on the more serious sanctions for impaired driving. Figure 5 shows that FV IRSU members issue a larger number of overall impaired driving sanctions, and Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges compared to when they are working overtime shifts. These sanctions are particularly time consuming. They require the police officer to escort the suspected impaired driver back to the nearest detachment to administer the breathalyser test to establish whether the driver was operating the vehicle while being above the legal limit for alcohol consumption. It may that due to the lengthy amount of time that impaired driving investigations take, that FV IRSU members issue less overall violation tickets per hour than other categories of enhanced enforcement. Lastly, Figure 8 demonstrates that members performing ERSEI functions also have lower levels of productivity overall per working hour. Figure 5 shows that these members also issued the largest proportion of Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges in 2008; perhaps explaining the lower activity in other areas of traffic enforcement. 28

30 Figure 8. FV IRSU Activity/Member Hour by Unit (2008) # activity/member hour January February March April May June July August September October November December FV IRSU FV IRSU_OT FV ERSEI When looking at the level of activity funded by the FV IRSU overall, the results indicate that on average, members wrote 0.89 violation tickets per hour. This varied per month, with May and August 2009 being the months where the largest number of violation tickets were issued per hour (1.3 respectively), and February and December 2009 being the months of lowest enforcement activity per hour (0.5 violation tickets issued per hour for both months). Both May and August 2009 encompass Spring-Summertime long weekends; Victoria Day takes place in May and B.C. Day takes place in August. These long weekends traditionally see a high volume of enforcement activity and police presence, perhaps explaining why those are the most active enforcement months. (See Figure 9) 29

31 Figure 9. Total FV IRSU Activity/Member Hour (2008) # activity/member hour January February March April May June July August September October November December average= average 0.5 Total FV IRSU 30

32 2003 Fraser Valley CounterAttack and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership Prior to the Integrated Road Safety Unit operating in the Fraser Valley, enhanced traffic enforcement was conducted on an overtime basis through two primary programs, directly funded by the ICBC. These were CounterAttack (CA) and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP). During 2003, these programs operated throughout the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, Delta, Hope, Langley, Mission and in conjunction with the RCMP s Fraser Valley Traffic Services. This form of enhanced traffic enforcement was not operational throughout the entire calendar year; rather, it was performed during designated police campaigns for high visibility purposes and to emphasize the road safety message to the public during high crash times of the year. TTEP was the primary enhanced enforcement program in the FV during 2003 and resulted in over twice as many violation tickets being written compared to the CounterAttack program during the same time period. All together, police officers conducting CA and TTEP in the Fraser Valley during 2003 generated 7,377 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges combined. This generated approximately $617,528 in traffic fine revenue. Figure 10 shows the breakdown of for each enhanced road safety program during time (1). Figure 10. FV CA and TTEP Output Activity by Unit (2003) Total FV TTEP+CA 7,377 FV CA 2,243 FV TTEP 5, # activity 31

33 Figure 11 shows the monthly variation in both the CA and TTEP programs throughout One can see that there was no enhanced traffic enforcement performed in the Fraser Valley in 2003 from February to April; the majority of enforcement was conducted in the latter months of the year. This illustrates a significant advantage in the IRSU model in that full-time dedicated enhanced traffic enforcement officers are in place throughout the year in the Fraser Valley. Figure 11. # activity FV CA and TTEP Output Activity by Month (2003) January February March April May June July August September October November December average= 615 FV CA FV TTEP average Total FV CA+TTEP In 2003, officers in the Fraser Valley participating in the TTEP, conducted 10,242 hours of enforcement and generated 5,134 violation tickets. Those participating in the CA program conducted 5,080 hours and generated 2,243 violation tickets. Figure 12 shows the breakdown of hour worked in both programs during the 2003, and indicates that on average, officers participating in the TTEP conducted 853 hours of enforcement per month whereas those participating in CA conducted an average of 423 hours of enforcement per month. In total, the CA and TTEP program involved 15,322 officer hours in

34 Figure 12. # member hours FV CA and TTEP Member Hours (2003) January February March April May June July August September October November December FV CA FV TTEP Figure 13 shows the monthly level of enhanced enforcement activity generated by both the TTEP and CA programs in the Fraser Valley during 2003 as a function of the working hours performed. Enhanced enforcement officers wrote an average of 0.48 violation tickets per working hour in This represents less than half of the FV IRSU s activity level per month based on that Unit s working hours. Figure 13. # activity/hour FV CA and TTEP Output Activity/Member Hour (2003) January February March April May June July August September October November December FV CA FV TTEP Although the TTEP was the primary source of enhanced enforcement in the Fraser Valley during 2003, it was the CA program that generated the majority of the impaired driving 33

35 enforcement to that Region. During 2003, police officers participating in the CA program in the Fraser Valley issued hour prohibitions, 23 of Administrative Driving Prohibitions (ADP) and 10 of Criminal Code impaired Driving charges. This represented a much larger portion of impaired driving enforcement compared to the TTEP which issued only 12 of 24- hour prohibitions, and 14 Criminal Code impaired driving charges. All together, enhanced enforcement issued 558 impaired driving sanctions in the FV Region in 2003; 92% of which were 24-hour prohibitions, 4% were ADP s and 4% were Criminal Code impaired driving charges. Figure 14 shows this breakdown in detail. Figure 14. FV CA and TTEP Impaired Activity by Type (2003) FV CA FV TTEP ADP 24Hour CC Impaired # activity 34

36 Comparing the 2008 FV IRSU and the 2003 CA/TTEP This section will provide a comparative analysis between the levels of police activity at time (1) in 2003 when enhanced enforcement in the Fraser Valley was performed on an overtime basis through CounterAttack (CA) and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP) and time (2) in 2008 when the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) was operational, providing full-time dedicated traffic enforcement officers. Figure 15 shows the total number of Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets issued (including Criminal Code charges laid) by police officers at both time periods. The CA and TTEP programs in the Fraser Valley generated a total of 7,377 violation tickets in 2003 compared to 31,331 by the FV IRSU in The FV IRSU, providing full-time enhanced traffic enforcement throughout the entire year issued over 4 times the amount of violation tickets, representing a 325% increase in police activity over the CA and TTEP programs. If one considers that the CA and TTEP programs were functioning for only 9 months during 2003 (there was no enhanced enforcement performed during February, March or April of that year), the comparative analysis still remains significant. On average, the FV IRSU issued 2,611 violation tickets per month in 2008 (12 month time period), compared to an average of 615 violation tickets per month in 2003 (9 month time frame). Figure 15. FV Total Enhanced Enforcement Output Activity (2003 and 2008) , , # activity 35

37 Figure 16 details the monthly amounts of police activity for both groups. One can see that May and August, 2008 were the most productive for the FV IRSU, whereas July and September, 2003 were most productive for the CA and TTEP programs. Once again, the advantage of the IRSU program is evident in the significantly higher amount of traffic enforcement provided to the FV Region and secondly in the fact that the IRSU was operational throughout the entire calendar year. This is in opposite to the historical overtime model of enhanced enforcement where police activity was sporadic throughout year, with inconsistent amounts of police presence and MVA enforcement. Figure 16 also displays the average number of violation tickets issued by each group of officers as a function of the entire calendar year (2,611 for the FV IRSU compared to 615 for the CA and TTEP programs). Figure 16. FV Enhanced Enforcement Output Activity by Month (2003 and 2008) # activity January February March April May June July August September October November December avg 2008=2611 avg 2003= average The FV IRSU worked a total of 35,635 hours in 2008 which represents more than double the amount of enforcement provided to that Region compared to the 15,322 hours performed by the CA and TTEP programs in Figure 17 shows that the average number of working hours performed by the FV IRSU in 2008 was 2,970 per month compared to 1,277 hours per month by CA and TTEP in This represents over a 100% increase in the average monthly hours spent on enhanced enforcement in the Fraser Valley Region of B.C. It is notable that the number of hours worked are comparable between the two groups at both time periods in the month of December. The 36

38 significantly high levels of enhanced enforcement for the CA and TTEP programs in December of 2003 may represent traditional roadside check operations often performed during the Christmas Holiday Season which focused on impaired driving enforcement. In opposite, for the FV IRSU, December of 2008 may have been a lower activity month due to extreme and anomalous weather conditions throughout B.C., making vehicle travel extremely challenging. Figure 17 displays the monthly working hours performed by each group in time (1) and time (2). Figure 17. FV Enhanced Enforcement Member Hours by Month (2003 and 2008) # member hours January February March April May June July August September October November December 2008 avg= avg= Total Hrs 2003 Total Hrs average The FV IRSU worked a total of 35,635 hours in 2008 and wrote 31,331 violation tickets. In comparison, members working in the CA and TTEP programs in the Fraser Valley during 2003 worked a total of 15,322 hours and wrote a total of 7,377 violation tickets. Figure 18 displays these comparisons. 37

39 Figure 18. Total FV Output Activity and Member Hours (2003 and 2008) 2008 FV IRSU 31,331 35,635 member Hrs 2003 FV CA+TTEP 7,377 15,322 activity 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 When looking at the level of police activity per working hour, the FV IRSU demonstrates a significantly higher level of productivity. In 2008, the FV IRSU issued an average of 0.88 violation tickets per working hour compared to 0.48 for the 2003 CA and TTEP programs. Therefore, the IRSU program generated 2 times more violation tickets per hour compared to the historical overtime enhanced enforcement model. Figure 19 shows the significant difference between the two models of enhanced traffic enforcement activity as a function of working hours. Figure 19. Total FV Activity/Member Hour (2003 and 2008) # activty/member hour January February March April May June July August September October November December 2008 avg= avg=0.48 average

40 When looking at the vast geographic area constituting the Fraser Valley Region, it is notable that the FV IRSU appeared more productive throughout the Region compared to the historical overtime enhanced enforcement program. Specifically, Figure 20 shows that the FV IRSU issued an average 12.2 violation tickets per square kilometre throughout the FV Region in 2008, compared to 2.8 by the CA and TTEP programs in This indicates that the FV IRSU may have been better equipped to provide traffic enforcement throughout this region or that the Unit was more productive in the areas targeted compared to their historical counterpart. Figure 20. FV Total Output Activity/Square km (2003 and 2008) FV 2008 FV # activity/square km Lastly, impaired driving enforcement is a primary mandate for enhanced traffic enforcement in B.C. During the historical overtime model of enhanced enforcement, catching and sanctioning drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs was a significant priority; this remains so with the FV IRSU. When comparing the level of impaired driving enforcement activity by the CA and TTEP programs in 2003 versus that of the FV IRSU in 2008, it is notable that the IRSU model has generated a significantly higher level of enforcement overall and a greater proportion of severe sanctions for those caught driving impaired. Figure 21 shows that the FV IRSU issued 200 more 24-hour prohibitions in 2008 compared to the CA and TTEP programs in 2003, 124 more Administrative Driving 39

41 Prohibitions (ADP) and 168 more Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges compared to the 2003 enhanced enforcement program in the Fraser Valley. Specifically, the FV IRSU issued hour prohibitions, 147 ADP s and 192 Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges in 2008, whereas the 2003 enhanced enforcement program generated hour prohibitions, 23 ADP s and 24 Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges. Additionally, the FV IRSU was more likely to issue more severe sanctions to impaired drivers. Out of the total number of impaired driving sanctions issued by the FV IRSU in 2008 (1,050), 18% were Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges compared to only 4% with the 2003 CA and TTEP programs. This represents a 350% increase in the proportion of Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges issued between the two models of enhanced traffic enforcement. Figure 21. FV Impaired Output Activity by Type (2003 and 2008) ADP 24Hour CC Impaired # activity Next, the salary costs associated with the overtime traffic enforcement performed in the Fraser Valley in 2003 and IRSU salary costs in 2008 were compared based on violation ticket output. For the purpose of this evaluation, salary costs were estimated by establishing an average hourly rate and multiplying this by the number of hours worked. In 2003, the CounterAttack and TTEP program salary cost was approximately $837,812. This was for the 2002/2003 fiscal year where ICBC directly funded overtime traffic enforcement through a Memorandum of Understanding. For the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008, the approximate salary costs were $1.5 million. When examining the salary costs associated with these programs compared to the violation ticket output, in 2003 the cost 40

42 per ticket was $92.35 in comparison to $70.51per ticket in One can see that that Fraser Valley IRSU was 24% more cost efficient in terms of violation ticket output per hour worked compared to the historical overtime program. Figure 22 shows these results. Figure 22. Total Activty and Cost (2003 and 2008) ,377 violation tickets $837, ,331 violation tickets Total Activity Total Cost $1,494, ,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 FV IRSU and Joint Force Operations (JFO) The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) often works in tandem with other traffic sections/general duty patrols to conduct enhanced traffic enforcement through joint operations. These operations are strategically planned events representing a joint effort by both the FV IRSU and the participating agency to provide traffic enforcement through a highly visible and targeted approach. During 2007 and 2008, the FV IRSU conducted 29 joint force operations, which resulted in a total of 7,273 violation tickets being issued (including Criminal Code impaired driving charges). These JFO s were conducted with the Abbotsford, Langley, Port Mann, Delta, Ridge Meadows, Richmond, White Rock, Surrey and Squamish Traffic Sections, as well as with the Greater Vancouver IRSU, Fraser Valley Traffic Services (RCMP, Deas Island Freeway Patrol (RCMP), and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. Often, the JFO s involved the use of automated license plate reader technology (ALPR) and many resulted in the seizure of drugs and the issuing of driving prohibitions and impaired driving sanctions. The main focus of many JFO s conducted with the FV IRSU was aggressive driving, commercial vehicle, seatbelt and impaired driving enforcement. 41

43 For example, one JFO between the FV IRSU and the Langley RCMP Traffic Unit on March 31, 2007 resulted in 2 Criminal Code impaired driving charges and the seizure of $26,000 stemming from 2 drug investigations. Another JFO between the FV IRSU and the Fraser Valley Traffic Services (RCMP) between October 18-19, 2007 resulted in a Criminal Code impaired driving charge, 3 prohibited drivers being caught, 3 24-hour prohibitions being issued, 5 violations under the Liquor Act and 16 pounds of marijuana being seized. In October 2008, the FV IRSU conducted a JFO with the GV IRSU; within an 8 hour shift, the two units laid 2 Criminal Code impaired driving charges, 6 24-hour prohibitions, caught 4 prohibited drivers, issued 7 vehicle impoundments and laid 1 Criminal Code drug charge. The joint force operations result in high visibility traffic enforcement with almost twice as many officers in one location at any given time sending a strong message to the driving public that police are active in their area. Appendix B includes a table summarizing the FV IRSU s Joint Force Operation (JFO) activity during 2007 and

44 Enforcement Calendar 2008 The Fraser Valley IRSU generates an enforcement calendar each month showing the jurisdictions that the IRSU will be targeting for each day per shift. For example, in January 2008, the enforcement calendar shows that the IRSU was serving in Maple Ridge for the morning of January 7 th and Langley for the afternoon shift. This enforcement calendar is distributed to the participating jurisdictions in advance to allow the traffic sections time to facilitate local joint operations with the IRSU. For the purposes of this evaluation, the entire enforcement calendar for 2008 was analyzed to observe the percent of time the Fraser Valley IRSU spent in each of the jurisdictions they serve. The results showed that during 2008, the IRSU spent the majority of time (28%) in the city of Surrey, followed by 18% of time in Langley and 17% of time in Abbotsford. A significant amount of enforcement time was also spent in Mission, Chilliwack and Maple Ridge. It was explained that larger jurisdictions such as Surrey, Abbotsford and Langley receive the majority of IRSU enforcement time due to the size of their population and higher crash volumes. Below, figure 23 displays these results. Figure 23. 1% 3% 8% FV IRSU regions (2008) 3% 3% 2% 9% 8% 17% 28% 18% Surrey Langley Abbotsford Mission Chilliwack Hope Delta Maple Ridge White Rock Other GV 43

45 CHAPTER 4: IMPACT ON CRASHES (OUTCOMES) This chapter examines the number of injury and fatality crashes (Y 2 ) to determine the effect of the change in the enhanced traffic enforcement program in the Fraser Valley Region of B.C. (X). The exception is regarding the analysis of specific crash types (ex. speed related victims) where total crashes was used due to sample size. When comparing the average to the average, the FV Region showed: 14% decrease in motor vehicle fatalities 17% decrease in the number of injured victims 46% decrease in total seatbelt related victims 18% decrease in total speed related victims 20% decrease in intersection related victims 6% decrease in commercial vehicle related victims 12% decrease in casualty crashes 22% decrease in casualty crashes in Surrey 16% decrease in casualty crashes in Delta 12% decrease in casualty crashes in Chilliwack 6% decrease in casualty crashes in Abbotsford 23% decrease in the number of injured victims per 100,000 population When comparing the average to the average throughout the top 105 intersections targeted by the FV IRSU, the results showed: 4% decrease in the number of injured and fatal victims 7% increase in the number of casualty crashes In this chapter, two groups of locations were assessed: 1. The entire Fraser Valley Region 2. Key high crash locations targeted by the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) 44

46 1. Fraser Valley Region Police Services Division obtained two sets of data from the Traffic Accident System (TAS) database, specific to the Fraser Valley Region of B.C.: Total number of injury, serious injury and fatality crash and victim counts A subtotal of injury, serious injury and fatality crash and victim counts for the following contributing factors: Alcohol Impairment Speeding Offences Seatbelts Offences Intersection Offences Commercial Vehicle Offences For the purposes of this Evaluation, the Fraser Valley Region was defined as: Abbotsford Agassiz Boston Bar Cheam IR Chilliwack Cultus Lake Delta Dogwood Valley Harrison Hot Springs Hope Langley Lindell Beach Maple Ridge Mission Pitt Meadows Spuzzum Surrey White Rock Yale 45

47 Police Services Division examined the frequency of police-attended injury, serious injury and fatality crash and victim counts from through to in the Fraser Valley. The crash and victim count data was drawn from the Traffic Accident System (TAS) database. In order to examine the effect of the change in enhanced traffic enforcement in the FV Region on crashes, the following time frames were used to define time (1) and time (2): Time 1 ( pre-irsu ) = The average of 2002 and 2003 Time 2 ( post-irsu ) = The average of 2007 and 2008 Time 1 represents a period where enhanced enforcement was solely provided on an overtime basis through the CounterAttack and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnerships. This is being termed the pre-irsu period and represents a historical time prior to when the Traffic and Road Safety Law Enforcement Funding MOU was established. Time 2 represents a period where the FV IRSU was fully operational and the enhanced traffic Enforcement Partnership was delivered under the new MOU through full-time dedicated officers through the IRSU as well as through the ERSEI program in the Fraser Valley. This is being termed the post-irsu period. 2. Key High Crash Locations The Fraser Valley IRSU was given a list of top injury crash locations in their Region according to the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC). These key high crash locations formed the basis for the Unit s targeted enforcement efforts throughout In total, 105 intersections throughout the following jurisdictions represented the Unit s strategic priority locations: Abbotsford Chilliwack Delta Hope Langley Maple Ridge Mission Pitt Meadows

48 Surrey White Rock Police Services Division obtained this list of high crash locations from the FV IRSU and examined the following data drawn from the Traffic Accident System (TAS) database for the same time periods as specified in the above section: Total number of injury, serious injury and fatality crash and victim counts The FV IRSU represents an intelligence-led, targeted policing program that focuses on high crash locations in their Region to reduce dangerous driving behaviours that lead to serious crashes. As such, it was imperative to assess the crash frequency at the strategic locations saturated by the FV IRSU. This analysis represents a direct examination of the Unit s operational impact at those specific intersections during 2007 and For the purposes of Chapter 4, the term casualty crashes refers to a total of injury, serious injury and fatality crashes. The TAS database represents police-attended motor vehicle incidents and defines a serious injury crash by the police officer noting that the victim is likely to need to stay in the hospital overnight. Therefore, injury crashes are defined as non-serious injuries where the victim is injured but not requiring an overnight stay at a hospital. Fatalities are defined as motor vehicle incidents that police are able to enforce/target under the Motor Vehicle Act. As such, the following fatal crash types are excluded from the data (although small in number): Those occurring on forest-service roads, industrial roads (on or after 2004), privatedriveways, off-highway snowmobile crashes, suicides and homicides. 47

49 Crashes in the Fraser Valley Region A. Casualty Crashes and Victims This section compares the casualty crash counts and number of victims involved in motor vehicle incidents in the Fraser Valley Region between time (1) and time (2). This analysis examines whether the change in the delivery of enhanced enforcement to the Fraser Valley Region has had an impact on either the frequency of crashes overall and/or dangerous driving behaviour that leads to injury and fatality crashes (i.e. the contributing factors described in the above section). Figure 24 shows both the casualty crash counts and number of victims for years spanning 2003 to It is notable that the most significant decrease in both measures is evident during 2007 and These years represent the period of time in which the FV IRSU was fully operational. Specifically, in 2003 there was an average of 392 casualty crashes in the Fraser Valley per month. Five years later in 2008, this had decreased to an average of 296 casualty crashes per month, demonstrating a 24% decline. Similarly, in 2003, there was an average of 593 motor vehicle victims in the Fraser Valley per month and by the end of 2008; this had decreased to 423 victims per month- evidencing a 29% decrease. Figure 24. FV Region Casualty Crashes and Victims ( ) # casualties victims crashes When comparing time (1) to time (2), both measures showed significant decreases. Both casualty crash counts and the number of motor vehicle victims decreased when examining the average of versus the average of Specifically, in time (1), there 48

50 was an average 6,921 motor vehicle victims involved in an average of 4,579 casualty crashes in the Fraser Valley Region. During (time 2), there were 5,763 motor vehicle victims involved in an average of 4,054 casualty crashes in the Fraser Valley. That represents 524 fewer casualty crashes and 1,157 fewer injured victims in that Region of B.C. Figure 25 shows the difference between these measures from time (1) to time (2). Figure 25. FV Region Casualty Victims and Crashes ( avg and avg) 02/03 avg /08 avg Casualty Victims Casualty Crashes # casualties 49

51 Comparing time (1) to time (2), the data showed significant decreases in the percent of fatal, injury and total casualty victims as well as crashes. Specifically, between the average of 2002/2003 to the average of , the number of motor vehicle fatalities decreased 14%, while the number of fatal crashes decreased by 7%. Additionally, the number injured victims decreased by 17% and the number of injury crashes decreased by 12%. In total, when one examines the casualty totals for time (1) versus time (2) in the Fraser Valley Region, the data shows a 17% decrease in the number of victims injured or killed in motor vehicle incidents and a 12% decrease in the number of casualty crashes overall. Figure 26 shows these trends. It appears that since the implementation of the FV IRSU, both casualty crashes and the number of victims has decreased significantly. This is encouraging towards the Unit s mandate of decreasing serious injury crashes in the Fraser Valley. Figure 26. FV Region Percent Change in Victims and Crashes ( avg vs avg) 0% % change -5% -10% -15% -20% -7.3% -11.5% -11.5% -14.3% -16.8% -16.7% fatal injury total casualties victims crashes Next an examination of the casualty crash counts for the top 5 regions within the Fraser Valley was conducted for both time (1) and time (2). This involved looking at the number of injury, serious injury and fatality crashes occurring in Surrey, Abbotsford, Langley, Delta and Chilliwack for both and (in addition to the other jurisdictions within the Fraser Valley Region). Figure 27 shows the results of this analysis. The average number of casualty crashes decreased 22% in the city of Surrey between time (1) and time (2), 6% Abbotsford, 16% in Delta and 12% in Chilliwack. Casualty crashes in the other jurisdictions in the Fraser Valley decreased by 3% between time (1) and time (2). The city of Langley was an exception, seeing an 11% increase in casualty crashes between the two time periods. Excluding the category of other, the top 5 jurisdictions 50

52 targeted by the FV IRSU saw a 13% total decrease in the number of injury, serious injury and fatality crashes in compared to Figure 27. Similar to casualty crashes, the number of victims involved in injury, serious injury and fatality crashes also declined significantly in 4 out of the 5 jurisdictions targeted by the FV IRSU between time (1) and time (2). Figure 28 shows that the number of victims involved in casualty crashes decreased by 24% in Surrey, 13% in Abbotsford, 22% in Delta and 12% in Chilliwack. The other jurisdictions also saw a 13% decrease while the city of Langley saw a 0.89%. Collectively (excluding the other category), the FV IRSU s top 5 jurisdictions saw a 17% reduction in the number of motor vehicle victims involved in casualty crashes between versus Figure

53 In order to provide a standardized examination of both casualty crash counts and the number of victims in motor vehicle incidents, the data for both time (1) and time (2) was calculated as a rate per 100,000 population of the Fraser Valley Region of B.C. When doing this, the results continue to evidence significant decreases. Figure 29 shows that the average number of victims in the Fraser Valley per population in that Region was in time (1) and decreased to in time (2). This represents a 23% decrease. In terms of casualty crashes, there were an average of injuries, serious injury and fatality crashes in the Fraser Valley per 100,000 population in that Region during time (1) compared to during time (2). This represents a 19% decrease. Thus, the significant declines in both casualty crashes and victims in the Fraser Valley since the implementation of the IRSU remain evident when using the standardized measure of population within that Region. Figure 29. FV Region Casualty Crashes and Victims Rate by Population ( and ) 02/03 rate 07/08 rate casualty victims casualty crashes casualty rate per 100,000 population B. Specific Crash Types This section will focus on the dangerous driving behaviours that lead to specific crash types: alcohol, speeding, intersection, commercial vehicle and seatbelt related crashes. These categories represent the strategic priorities of the FV IRSU and are a key performance indicator of whether the targeted enforcement performed by the IRSU is impacting these types of crashes and victims counts for motor vehicle incidents in the Fraser Valley Region. 52

54 This data was obtained through the Traffic Accident System (TAS) database and represents all police reported motor vehicle incidents in the Fraser Valley Region. The following categories were included for both crash counts and victim counts of motor vehicle incidents to provide a total crash picture: Property Damage Only, Injury, Serious Injury and Fatalities This data focuses on total crashes unlike the other crash analysis in this Chapter due to the small numbers involved with subsets of crash types (ex. alcohol and speed related crashes). This section will present these findings in three ways: Yearly totals of victim counts and crash counts for each crash type The percent change of victim counts and crash counts for each crash type between time (1) and time (2) The total numbers for victim counts and crash counts for each crash type between time (1) and time (2) Yearly Totals For both total victim counts and total crash counts, the yearly analysis revealed a decrease in all crash types from earlier years compared to the years where the FV IRSU was operational. For example, Figure 30 shows that in 2003, alcohol related victim counts in the Fraser Valley were 817 and decreased to 732 by Similarly, speed, intersection, commercial vehicle and seatbelt related victim counts all decreased from 2003 to Particularly notable is the significant decrease in intersection victim counts from 3,464 in 2003 to 2,349 in Also, seatbelt related victim counts decreased substantially: there were 637 victims involved in seatbelt related crashes in 2003 and this decreased to 317 by

55 Figure 30. # casualties FV Region Total Victims by Crash Type ( ) Alcohol Speed Intersection Commercial Vehicle Seatbelt Figure 31 shows the same analysis, however, looking at total crash counts for the Fraser Valley for each crash type. Similar to the total victim count, total crashes for each crash type also showed declines from the earlier years compared to those where the FV IRSU was fully operational. The analysis shows that intersection related crashes decreased the most in 2008 (2,800) from the year 2003 (4,177) with 1,377 fewer of these crash types. Speed related crashes also decreased particularly after the FV IRSU was fully operational. In 2003, the FV saw 1,575 speed related crashes and this decreased to 1,337 by Figure 31. FV Region Total Crashes by Crash Type ( ) # casualties 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Alcohol Speed Intersection Commercial Vehicle 54

56 Percent Change from Time (1) to Time (2) This section compares the number of total victims and total crashes for each crash type between time (1) in and time (2) in This provides a comparative analysis of the same crash types (alcohol, speed, intersection, commercial vehicle and seatbelt related) from a time when enhanced traffic enforcement was performed solely on an overtime basis to when the FV IRSU was operational and providing enhanced traffic enforcement on a full-time basis to the Region. The comparisons are presented as a percent change between these two time periods. The analysis reveal that total victim counts decreased for the following crash types between time (1) and time (2): Seatbelt Related (-46%) Speed (-18%) Intersections (-20%) Commercial Vehicles (-6%) In opposite, alcohol related victim counts increased between time (1) and time (2) by 1.6%. This represented an increase in 12 victims involved in alcohol related crashes in the FV Region from to The results are displayed in Figure 32 below. Figure 32. FV Region Total Victims by Crash Type (% change vs ) % change % -5.6% -17.9% -20.4% -45.9% Alcohol Intersection Seatbelt 55

57 When looking at total crash counts for each of the above crash types between time (1) and time (2), the following showed decreases: Speed (-3%) Intersections (-18%) The following crash types showed increases in the total crash count: Alcohol (+12%) Commercial Vehicles (+11%) Figure 33 below displays these results. Figure 33. FV Region Total Crashes by Crash Type (% change vs ) % change % -3.0% +11.2% -17.7% Alcohol Speed Intersection Commercial Vehicle The increase in alcohol related crashes (and victim counts) may be related to the increase in overall alcohol consumption. The Provincial Health Officer s Report (2008) describes the following indicators of alcohol consumption: As of 2007, alcohol consumption per capita has increased by 8% throughout B.C. since 2002 Self-reported rates of drinking at hazardous levels have increased since 2003, particularly in women age and men age and Several indicators suggest that the prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving may have increased since Direct government revenue from the control and sale of alcohol has increased 4% per year from 2003 to

58 As alcohol consumption continues to increase alongside impaired driving, it may take a lengthier period time before a decrease in this dangerous driving behaviour is seen. With respect to commercial vehicle crashes, it is notable that the number of total crashes attributable to commercial vehicles has increased, yet the number of victims involved in motor vehicle incidents involving commercial vehicles decreased by 6% between time (1) and time (2). It is promising that in the Fraser Valley Region, where there exists many high volume commercial vehicle routes, that the number of victims involved in these crashes has decreased, despite more total crashes of this type. 57

59 Total Number of victims and crashes between Time (1) and Time (2) This section will discuss the total number of victims and crashes for each crash type between time (1) and time (2) in the Fraser Valley Region. Beginning with alcohol related crashes, both analyses of total victim counts and total crash counts show an increase between time (1) and time (2). Specifically, in , there were 728 victims involved in alcohol related motor vehicle incidents and this increased to 740 in In there were 1,108 alcohol related crashes in the Fraser Valley and this also increased to 1,238 by 2007/2008. Figure 34 displays these results. Alcohol related crashes and impaired driving is a particularly challenging area of enforcement. This is due to the difficulties in curbing such social behaviours and deterring people from drinking and driving. Police activity analysis in Chapter 3 of this evaluation revealed that the FV IRSU issued a total of 1,050 violation tickets and Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges in 2008 compared to 558 of the same infractions issued by the CounterAttack and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership in the Fraser Valley in Thus, despite the fact that the FV IRSU has actively targeted impaired driving, this crash type continues to be a challenge for this Region. Figure 34. FV Region: Alcohol Related MVI ( avg vs avg) 02/03 avg /08 avg victims crashes # of total victims 58

60 When looking at commercial vehicle related total victims and total crashes, the analysis reveals that the number of victims has decreased whereas the total number of crashes in the Fraser Valley has increased. Specifically, in , there were 392 victims involved in commercial vehicle related crashes and this decreased to 370 in time (2) or This translates into 22 fewer victims. However, at time (1) there were 618 commercial vehicle related total crashes which increased to 687 at time (2). This translates into 69 more commercial vehicle related total crashes in the Fraser Valley Region. Although it is very promising the victim counts for commercial vehicle incidents have decreased, the increase in the total number of crashes may be indicative of increased commercial vehicle use throughout the Fraser Valley Region overall. Figure 35 displays these results. Figure 35. FV Region: Commercial Vehicle Related MVI ( avg vs avg) 02/03 avg /08 avg victims crashes # of total victims One of the highest priorities for the FV IRSU is seatbelt related enforcement. Unrestrained drivers and passengers are far more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than those wearing their seatbelts. Analysis reveals that the number of total unrestrained victims involved in crashes in the Fraser Valley (i.e. those not wearing a seatbelt) has significantly decreased from time (1) to time (2). Specifically, in , 595 people were involved in crashes where they were not wearing a seatbelt. By , this decreased to 322 and signifies a 46% decrease. This significant decline in unrestrained victims of motor vehicle incidents is encouraging towards the public safety of road users in the Fraser Valley Region. Figure 36 displays these results. 59

61 Figure 36. FV Region: Seatbelt Related MVI ( avg vs avg) 02/03 avg /08 avg 322 victims # of total victims Another area of significant improvement is intersection related crashes both total victims involved in these types of crashes and the total number of intersection related crashes have decreased between time (1) and time (2). Specifically, in 2002/2003 there were 3,337 victims involved in intersection related crashes in the FV Region. This decreased to 2,655 (20% decrease) in 2007/2008. Similarly, the total number of intersection related crashes decreased from 4,005 in time (1) to 3,298 in time (2). Figure 37 displays the results. The FV IRSU s operational strategy involves targeting high crash intersections throughout the FV Region. The decreases in both intersection related crashes and total victims counts may be an encouraging indicator that the Unit s strategic operations are making a difference in these performance measures throughout the FV. FV Region: Intersection Related MVI ( avg vs avg) 02/03 avg 3, /08 avg 2, victims crashes Figure 37. # of total victims 60

62 Lastly, when looking at speed related crashes and victims; the analysis revealed significant decreases between time (1) and time (2). Specifically, the data shows 1,196 victims of speed related crashes in the FV Region in This declines to 983 victims of speed related crashes in Total speed related crashes also decreased by 3% between time (1) and time (2). Figure 38 displays these results. Figure 38. FV Region: Speed Related MVI ( avg vs avg) 02/03 vg 1, /08 avg victims crashes # of total victims 61

63 High Crash Locations This section examines the frequency of casualty crashes and victims of motor vehicle incidents at the top 105 intersections targeted by the FV IRSU. These locations represent top injury intersections in the FV Region that formed the Unit s strategic enforcement priorities. Figure 39 shows a steady decline in both casualty crashes and motor vehicle victims at the high crash sites, after the FV IRSU was fully implemented in It is interesting to note that in earlier years (i.e. 2003), both measures were also comparatively low, however, began to increase significantly, until a sharp decline is visible in 2007 and Figure 39. FV Top Locations Casualty Crashes and Victims ( ) # casualties victims crashes 62

64 Of particular note is the decrease seen in fatal crashes and fatalities at the high crash sites in recent years. Figure 40 shows that the fatality measures declined significantly as of 2007 and 2008, at the high crash locations targeted by the FV IRSU. Figure 40. FV Top Locations Fatal Victims and Crashes ( ) # fatalities Fatal Victims Fatal Crashes When comparing time (1) to time (2), analysis reveals that casualty crashes actually increased by 7% at the high crash locations from to ; however the average number of victims in motor vehicle incidents decreased by 4% at these sites during the same time frame. This represents 24 fewer injured victims at the locations targeted by the FV IRSU. Figure 41 displays these results. Figure 41. FV Top Locations Casualty Victims and Crashes ( avg and avg) 02/03 avg /08 avg Casualty Victims Casualty Crashes # casualties 63

65 Next, an analysis comparing the average of casualty crashes and victims to each individual year ( ) was conducted (see Figure 42). When looking at this measure on a year-to-year basis, the analysis reveals a sharp drop in both the number of casualty crashes and victims in 2007 and 2008 compared to previous years. In particular, these measures show a particular increase in the years when compared to the average. However, most notable is that during the two years when the FV IRSU had its highest staffing levels (2007 and 2008); these measures saw a sharp decrease. Despite the fact that casualty crashes during 2007 and 2008 remain higher than the average, they do show a significant decline after 2006, at a time where the FV IRSU was well organized and providing enhanced traffic enforcement on a regular basis to the FV Region. Additionally, during 2007 and 2008, the number of victims involved in motor vehicle casualty crashes is significantly lower than the average. Figure 42. FV Top Locations Casualty Crashes and Victims Compared to Average ( ) 35% 30% 25% % change 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% Casualty Victims Casualty Crashes Fraser Valley IRSU High Crash Locations : 2006 vs The FV IRSU receives a list of high injury crash locations from ICBC each year. This list is divided into jurisdictions to assist the Unit in directing strategic operations for targeted traffic enforcement. The data provides both a list of the high injury crash locations for each region targeted by the FV IRSU (Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Delta, Langley, Surrey, Mission, 64

66 Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and White Rock) as well as the crash count for that particular location and year. The data comes from ICBC s Claims Database and is based on injury crash counts. The FV IRSU concentrates on the top 10 locations specified by the data for each jurisdiction for operational planning. An analysis was conducted comparing the 2006 top 10 locations for each jurisdiction to the 2007 top 10 locations for each jurisdiction in order to assess any movement of these high injury crash sites from one year to the next. The results revealed the following patterns between the 2006 list versus the 2007 list: The number of locations that were removed off the top 10 list = 28 (31%) The number of locations that were reduced in ranking on the top 10 list = 22 (24%) The number of locations with the same in ranking on the top 10 list = 8 (8%) The number of locations increasing in ranking on the top 10 list = 12 (13%) This shows that 31% of locations that were identified by ICBC as part of the 2006 top 10 injury crash locations in the above specified jurisdictions were no longer in the 2007 top 10 list provided to the FV IRSU and that 24% were reduced in ranking. This may indicate that the FV IRSU s targeted enforcement efforts positively affected the volume of injury crashes at these sites, reducing their total number and overall ranking in the FV Region. 65

67 CHAPTER 5: ESTIMATING ECONOMIC BENEFIT This chapter discusses the estimated economic benefits to both the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) and the Province overall that are attributed in whole or in part to the operations of the Fraser Valley IRSU in Costs The total operations cost of the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008 is estimated to be $2,866, Benefits The estimated economic benefits realized by the operations of the FV IRSU in 2008 were determined by four sources: 1. Amount of Traffic Fine Revenue generated by the FV IRSU in Estimated Claims Cost Savings for the ICBC 3. Estimated Social Cost Savings for the Province of British Columbia 4. The Federal Contribution provided to the Province for the operations of the FV IRSU in 2008, under the Provincial Police Services Agreement Individual Estimated Economic Benefits A. Traffic Fine Revenue To estimate the economic benefit of the FV IRSU in 2008 to the Province through the Traffic Fine Revenue (TRF) Sharing Program, calculations included an average traffic fine amount compared to the number of violation tickets issued by the FV IRSU. According to the Ministry of Community and Rural Development, Local Government Policy and Research Branch, the Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing Program distributed $61,122,898 to B.C. Municipalities in According to ICBC, police issued a total of 566,764 violation tickets in B.C. in Therefore, to estimate an average traffic fine amount, the following calculation was conducted: 1 Provided by E Division RCMP Traffic Services. 66

68 Average Traffic Fine Amount = 2008 Traffic Fine Revenue Total ($61,122,898) / 2008 Total Violation Tickets Issued (566,764) $ Next, the total number of violation tickets issued by the FV IRSU in 2008 was multiplied by the average traffic fine amount to estimate the economic benefit of the FV IRSU to the Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing Program. Specifically, the number of violation tickets issued under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) was considered in isolation from Criminal Code Impaired Driving Charges, Administrative Driving Prohibitions and 24-hour Prohibitions, which do not have Provincial fines associated with them. Therefore the estimated economic benefit of the FV IRSU s 2008 police activity through the Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing Program was $3,265,666.97: FV IRSU TFR 2008 Total = Average traffic fine amount ($107.84) * Number of MVA violation tickets issued (30,281) $3,265, B. Federal Contribution Based on a federal-provincial cost sharing arrangement under the Provincial Police Services Agreement, the federal government provides a 30% contribution for each dollar invested in police operations in the province. During the 2008/09 fiscal year, the federal government invested an additional $866,066 (30% of the total operations and maintenance budget) into the FV IRSU. This represents a significant economic benefit realized for the Province in operating and maintaining the FV IRSU during the 2008/09 fiscal year. 67

69 C. ICBC Claims Cost Savings Claims cost savings to the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) observed between time (1) and time (2) were calculated for the FV IRSU High Crash Locations targeted by the unit and for the FV Region as a whole ICBC Claims Cost Savings with the FV IRSU High Crash Locations Table 5. Crash Statistics and Estimated Claims Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1) 2002/2003 AVERAGE TIME (2) 2007/2008 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED ICBC CLAIMS COST SAVINGS 3 Fatality $999,000 Injury $609,000 Total Benefit $1,608,000 Table 5 shows the following crash patterns and associated claims cost savings for the ICBC: 4.5 fewer motor vehicle fatalities, saving ICBC an estimated $999,000 in claims costs 21 fewer motor vehicle injuries, saving ICBC an estimated $609,000 in claims costs. In total, this amounts to $1.6 million in overall claims costs savings for the Insurance Corporation of B.C. 2 Claims costs were provided by ICBC in June, 2009 and represent the average claims cost associated with a fatal, serious injury and injury crash. 3 Average cost of a fatal crash is estimated at $222,000. Average cost of an injury crash is estimated at $29,000. All claims cost estimates provided by ICBC, June 8,

70 2. ICBC Claims Cost Savings with the Fraser Valley Region Table 6. Crash Statistics and Estimated Claims Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1) 2002/2003 AVERAGE TIME (2) 2007/2008 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED ICBC CLAIMS COST SAVINGS Fatality $3,108,000 Serious Injury $2,640,000 Injury $32,851,200 Total Benefit $38,599,200 Table 6 shows the following crash patterns and associated claims cost savings for the ICBC: 14 fewer fatalities saving ICBC an estimated $3.1 million in claims costs, 7.5 fewer serious injuries, saving ICBC an estimated $2.6 million in claims costs 1,132.8 fewer injuries in motor vehicle incidents, saving ICBC an estimated $32.8 million. An overall, savings of $38.5 million in claims costs. Social Cost Savings Social cost savings observed between time (1) and time (2) were calculated for the FV IRSU High Crash Locations targeted by the unit and for the FV Region as a whole 4. Social costs provide an inclusive picture of the effects of motor vehicle incidents to society as a whole. For example, time lost from work, health care costs and claims costs are all represented in social cost estimates. According to B.C. s Ministry of Transportation (2007), the total cost associated with a fatal crash is $6,063,419 and the total cost associated with a non-fatal injury crash is $99, Social costs were provided by B.C. s Ministry of Transportation and represent the average social cost associated with a fatal, serious injury and injury crash from

71 1. Social Cost Savings with FV IRSU High Crash Locations Table 7. Crash Statistics and Estimated Social Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1) 2002/2003 AVERAGE TIME (2) 2007/2008 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED SOCIAL COST SAVINGS Fatality $27,285,385 Injury $2,099,979 Total Benefit $29,385,364 Table 7 shows the following crash patterns and associated social cost savings for the Province of B.C.: 4.5 fewer fatalities, resulting in an estimated social cost savings of $27.3 million 21 fewer motor vehicle injuries, resulting in an estimated $2.1 million cost savings. A total of $29.4 million was saved through the observed crash reductions at these targeted intersections. 2. Social Cost Savings with the Fraser Valley Region Table 8. Crash Statistics and Estimated Social Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1) 2002/2003 AVERAGE TIME (2) 2007/2008 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED ICBC CLAIMS COST SAVINGS Fatality $84,887,866 Serious Injury $749,992.5 Injury $113,278,867 Total Benefit $198,916,725.7 Table 8 shows the following crash patterns and associated social cost savings for the Province of B.C.: 14 fewer fatalities, resulting in a social cost savings of $84.9 million 7.5 fewer serious injuries, resulting in an estimated social cost savings of $749,992 70

72 fewer motor vehicle injuries, resulting in an estimated social cost savings of $113.2 million In total, the crash reductions observed throughout the FV Region between these two time periods has reduced the social costs associated with motor vehicle incidents in B.C. by almost $200 million. 71

73 CHAPTER 6: INTERVIEWS This chapter provides a summary of the qualitative results stemming from 28 interviews conducted with all members of the FV IRSU and Joint Management Team (both current and former members). These interviews provided significant insight into the unit s operations, management, communications and strategic direction. Each interview took approximately 2 hours in length. Core questions were asked to all respondents, while other specific questions were directed at individual groups. Structured interviews with open-ended questions were asked on the following issues: IRSU Model Operations Integration Effectiveness Enforcement Data-driven/Intelligence-led policing Data Collection Tools Training Communication Perception of IRSU Officer Safety Additional questions regarding staffing issues, budgetary issues and the MOU were also posed to senior non-commissioned officers in charge (NCO i/c) within the IRSU and the Joint Management Team (JMT). Responses were coded as yes, no or not applicable and presented as summary statistics. Further patterns or themes were generated from high-level open-ended responses without identifying any individuals. A. Core Questions The following questions were asked of all respondents regardless of rank (n=28). IRSU Model Responses were quite positive towards the IRSU model. An integrated unit dedicated to traffic enforcement was found to be an improvement and have many advantages over previous models of traffic enforcement. 72

74 Figure 44. Has the approach to traffic enforcement changed in the Fraser Valley since the development of the IRSU? (n=21) Yes 19 No # responses 90% of respondents believed the approach to traffic enforcement had changed in the Fraser Valley since the development of the IRSU. The biggest changes noted were the IRSU s mandate of dedicated traffic enforcement, allowing time to focus on enforcement without having to attending calls for service or crashes. The focus on Road Safety Vision 2010 s targeted enforcement of high crash areas and road safety priorities was also seen as a beneficial component. Figure 45. Do you think the IRSU traffic enforcement model is an improvement on the past non-integrated models? (n=25) Yes 24 No # responses 96% of respondents thought the IRSU traffic enforcement model was an improvement on the past non-integrated models. 73

75 Figure 46. Does an integrated policing unit provide any advantages? (n=26) Yes 22 No # responses 85% felt an integrated policing unit provided advantages. Some of these advantages were: better relationships with agencies involved, the fact that RCMP and Municipal Police Departments learn from each other s expertise and experience, the sharing of best practices and new ideas, removal of boundaries between jurisdictions and members bringing knowledge of the community and areas they work in. Figure 47. Do you think the IRSU has an impact on motor vehicle injuries and fatalities in the Fraser Valley? (n=24) Yes 22 No # responses 92% thought the IRSU had an impact on motor vehicle injuries and fatalities in the Fraser Valley, although this was mostly based on perception. Many responded that they heard 74

76 positive feed back from people in the community or felt they must have made a difference with the significant amount of enforcement and visibility, while some referred to statistics. Operations All respondents were asked about the FV IRSU s enforcement strategy. The FV IRSU s enforcement strategy was found to be informal goals and guidelines rather than a formalized strategic plan. Figure 48. Does the FV IRSU have an enforcement strategy that you are aware of? (n=28) Yes 24 No # responses 86% of respondents were aware of the FV IRSU s enforcement strategy, although in an informal manner. The responses varied, however, the majority of the respondents described the enforcement strategy as targeting high crash areas, enforcing the traffic priorities (seatbelts, impaired driving, intersections, and speed/aggressive driving), and reducing injuries and deaths. Integration The feedback regarding integration was also positive. Some of the successes of integration noted by respondents were the larger Joint Force Operations (ex. with the Greater Vancouver IRSU), impaired driving enforcement, reducing crashes, and working well together. Some of the challenges to integration included needing more members with traffic experience and more communication. 75

77 Figure 49. Do you think integration is working well? (n=28) Yes 26 No # responses 93% of respondents thought integration was working well. Figure 50. Have there been any issues with respect to integration? (n=28) Yes 6 No # responses 79% said there had not been any issues with respect to integration. Many responded they were all police officers out there to do the same job. 76

78 Figure 51. Are you aware of any inter-agency conflicts? (n=28) Yes 11 No # responses 61% of respondents were not aware of any inter-agency conflicts. Of those who did note inter-agency conflicts some of these were: the use of municipal police resources for fingerprinting and access to the communication center s radio channels and dispatchers. Effectiveness While the majority of respondents felt the FV IRSU was effective, they also had suggestions on how the IRSU could be improved. Figure 52. Do you think the FV IRSU targets the best locations to reduce serious crashes? (n=26) Yes 21 No # responses 77

79 81% thought the FV IRSU targets the best locations to reduce serious crashes. Some respondents commented that although the unit tried to target the most dangerous locations to reduce crashes, that they relied on crash data made available to them which was a year old and some of the locations were difficult to enforce. They also needed to maintain a minimum amount violation ticket output which sometimes required going to locations not specified as high crash sites to obtain a higher volume of violation tickets. These were termed, fishing holes. Figure 53. What do you think the FV IRSU does best and why? (n=28) up to 3 responses impaired enforcement 10 enforcement (general) violation tickets 8 8 target areas 7 decrease crashes visibility/high profile equipment teamwork speed enforcement 2 2 other* # responses *other includes directing resources, mandate, revenue, JFOs, overtime, aggressive driving enforcement, seatbelt enforcement, ALPR, management, public awareness, time/dedication, no calls. When asked what the FV IRSU did best, the most respondents answered impaired driving enforcement, followed by traffic enforcement in general, issuing violation tickets, and targeting high crash areas. Some also answered decreasing crashes, visibility/high profile enforcement, equipment, team work, and speed enforcement. 78

80 Figure 54. Are there any changes you would make for IRSU to be more effective? (n=27) Yes 25 No # responses 93% of respondents listed changes they would make for IRSU to be more effective. Some of these changes were: ability to choose IRSU members with motivation and traffic experience, more administrative staff to fix backlog, more resources, filling positions, and better equipment such as unconventional unmarked police cars. B. Constable and NCO i/c Questions The following questions were asked of all 22 constables and 3 NCO i/cs (n=25). Enforcement Respondents were asked about FV IRSU s enforcement strategy and how the unit conducted enforcement. Figure 55. Are you aware of how enforcement operations/strategies are determined? (n=25) Yes 22 No # responses 79

81 88% of respondents were aware of how enforcement operations/strategies were determined. When asked how the FV IRSU targeted enforcement activities which days, what time, what sites and what types of enforcement they carried out respondents said a team meeting was held at the beginning of each shift to discuss enforcement. They needed to issue a minimum of 10 violation tickets per day, 20% of those being for seatbelts, and 12 impaired driving charges per year and focused on priorities at high crash locations and intersections. Larger joint Force Operations (JFOs) were conducted on long weekends with local detachments on an overtime basis and Friday and Saturday nights focused on impaired driving enforcement. They took turns in jurisdictions according to the enforcement calendar and attended special events in the communities. Figure 56. From your own experience, does this differ from how the other traffic units operate? (n=21) Yes 19 No # responses 90% of respondents believed the FV IRSU differed from how the other traffic units operated. Some of the reasons for the difference were the fenced funding for the program and more resources, dedicated enforcement (not tied to dispatch calls and crash investigations), more members working as a group for high visibility and greater productivity. Data-driven/Intelligence-led policing The majority of respondents were aware of how data was used by the FV IRSU to target enforcement. There were also very positive results regarding the use of larger joint force operations. 80

82 Figure 57. Is collision data used to focus enforcement operations? (n=24) Yes 22 No # responses 92% of respondents said collision data was used to focus enforcement operations. Many described the collision data as the top 10 crash locations provided from ICBC annually. Others noted that personal knowledge of the area from member s experience was also used to focus enforcement. Figure 58. Is there political pressure to go to areas that are not determined by data? (n=22) Yes 7 No # responses 68% said there was no political pressure to go to areas that were not determined by data. 81

83 Figure 59. Do you conduct joint operations with neighbouring traffic sections? (n=24) Yes 24 No # responses All respondents said they did conduct joint operations with neighbouring traffic sections. The majority of respondents described monthly larger JFOs with GV IRSU as well as various smaller JFOs with municipal traffic units when they were in the area (ex. Surrey Municipal Traffic Section). Many respondents indicated that an enforcement calendar was sent out about three months in advance to each municipal traffic section showing when they would be in the area and available for JFOs, although neither FV IRSU or other municipal traffic sections followed up on these regularly. Data Collection Results to the questions about data collection were mixed. The majority of respondents felt it was important to record enforcement output but were not trained in the proper method to do so which may have led to some issues in data collection. 82

84 Figure 60. Is the enforcement output (VTs) recorded? (n=25) Yes 24 No # responses 96% of respondents were aware that enforcement output (violation tickets) was recorded. Figure 61. Are officers aware of the above procedure? (n=25) Yes 24 No # responses 96% were aware of the procedure for recording violation ticket output. Almost all of the respondents indicated that enforcement output (the number of violation tickets issued) were recorded each day at the end of a shift on a statistics sheet and given to the Corporal for a monthly total for the team/unit. The majority of respondents felt recording enforcement output was important for accountability and demonstrating productivity, indicating that the unit was stat-driven and violation tickets were their bread and butter. 83

85 Figure 62. Have officers been trained regarding data collection? (n=24) Yes 3 No # responses 83% of respondents had not been trained regarding data collection. Many respondents stated that data collection was self explanatory and did not require training. Figure 63. Are you aware of any issues with the data collection? (n=25) Yes 16 No # responses 64% were aware of issues with the data collection process. Some of these issues were pressure to maintain statistics, lack of consistency in format, lack of training on data collection, accuracy problems, double counting tickets (ex. a speed violation at an intersection was counted as two tickets, one for speed and one for intersection, instead of a single ticket) and administrative backlog in the entering of data. 84

86 Figure 64. Do you know how this data used by the unit itself? (n=25) Yes 19 No # responses 76% of respondents knew how the data was used by the unit. The NCO i/cs were specifically asked if there had been any issues with accessing necessary data or timeliness of data and interpretation. Some responded yes; ICBC data was about one year behind and they were waiting for the Traffic System Management Information Tool (TSMIT), but there had not been any issues with interpreting the data. Tools Although many respondents indicated the FV IRSU had better tools, technology and equipment than other traffic units, they still hoped for the latest and most up to date tools and technology (ex. laser and radar equipment). Figure 65. Are there any tools, technology or equipment that would make IRSU more effective? (n=25) Yes 17 No # responses 85

87 68% of respondents indicated there were tools, technology or equipment that would make IRSU more effective. The most popular responses were: unconventional unmarked cars, more motorcycles, lasers, hand-held radars, Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR), in-car cameras, and automated speed enforcement. Training There were mixed opinions in regards to training. Many respondents felt general traffic training from previous experience was sufficient to work in the IRSU, although not all members had previous traffic experience and traffic equipment training. Figure 66. Do IRSU members receive any special training? (n=25) Yes 9 No # responses 64% of respondents said IRSU members did not receive any special training. Most responded that they did not receive training specific to the IRSU, just general traffic training and updated certification as needed. 86

88 Figure 67. Do all members receive this training? (n=24) Yes 18 No # responses 75% indicated that there was training all members received as a group. Some training received by all IRSU members included: commercial vehicle inspection impaired driving investigation and prosecution, search and seizure, advanced driver training, PRIME, and pipeline training for recognizing people and vehicles involved in criminal activity on roadways. Figure 68. Are there other areas that need to be addressed by training? (n=25) Yes 12 No # responses 87

89 52% of respondents did not believe there were other areas that need to be addressed by training. Of those who did note some additional training may be required, some of these training areas were: impaired driving, SFSD, DRE and data master training, and refresher courses on traffic skills. C: Constable Questions The following questions were asked to constables and administrative staff only (n=22). Communication Communication results were positive with some areas for improvement. Figure 69. Were you provided with any policy/procedures document for how the following would you be handled at the IRSU? (n=20) Yes 5 No # responses 75% of respondents said they were not provided with any policy/procedures document for how the following would be handled at the IRSU: pay, overtime, expenses, leave entitlements, complaints, use of force and pursuits, and other human resource issues. Most responded that the unit followed normal RCMP policy and procedures and used RCMP forms, although Independent Municipal members followed their union rules for human resource procedures. The NCO i/cs were asked specifically about how is integration is handled for these issues, and responded that RCMP policy was mainly followed by the unit. 88

90 Figure 70. Were you informed of the IRSU s strategic and enforcement plan? (n=21) Yes 16 No # responses 76% were informed of the IRSU s strategic and enforcement plan. Many respondents noted this was done informally when they first arrived at the unit regarding the FV IRSU s mandate and expectations but could have been provided with more information. Figure 71. Are you notified of decisions made by the NCOIC and 2 i/c or the JMT? (n=22) Yes 18 No # responses 82% said they were notified of decisions made by the NCO i/cs or JMT, although some did not know who they JMT were or what their function was. 89

91 Figure 72. How often do you communicate with the NCOIC and 2 i/c? (n=21) Rarely Quarterly Monthly Weekly Daily Open Door # responses When asked how often the constables and staff communicate with the NCO i/cs, many respondents answered daily and the FV IRSU had an open door policy; although others answered rarely or quarterly as well. Perception of IRSU Perception of the FV IRSU was found to be favourable and for many the unit had been a good experience. Figure 73. How did you become an IRSU member? (n=22) transfer 2 assigned 7 recruited 3 applied # responses 90

92 When asked how they became an IRSU member, responses varied. 45% of members had actively applied for the IRSU position, whereas 41% were either transferred into the IRSU or assigned the position involuntarily. Figure 74. How do you think the IRSU is viewed by non-irsu members? (n=18) other 3 same 1 boring 3 desirable 11 elite # responses When constables were asked how they thought the IRSU is viewed by non-irsu members, the majority of respondents said they thought the IRSU was viewed as a desirable position. When the NOC i/cs were asked how they thought the IRSU was viewed by non-irsu members, they believed it was viewed positively as well. Figure 75. Are you satisfied with how the IRSU is functioning? (n=22) Yes 16 No # responses 73% of respondents were satisfied with how the IRSU was functioning. 91

93 Figure 76. Have you enjoyed your time working for/with the FV IRSU? (n=22) Yes 17 No # responses 77% enjoyed working with the FV IRSU. Officer Safety Officer safety is a high priority to the Province as traffic enforcement can be dangerous. It was found that although there were some injuries and motor vehicle incidents at the FV IRSU, all members felt safe. Figure 77. Do you feel safe on the job? (n=20) Yes 20 No # responses All respondents indicated they felt safe on the job. 92

94 Both constables and NOC i/c were asked if officers received training or support regarding safety procedures. The majority of respondents answered, no. They reiterated that they all received general training at depot (or the Independent Police equivalent) and that block training provided the basic traffic safety skills. Some respondents did feel some safety training could be beneficial such as driver training, firearm training, and refresher courses and policy updates. Most respondents felt reminders on how to do traffic stops safely would also be beneficial. D. Management Questions The following questions were asked of NCO i/cs (Staff Sgts/NCO i/cs and Sgts/2ic) (n=3). Staffing When the NOC i/cs were asked if there had been any staffing issues in the FV IRSU they responded yes. They had difficulty filling vacancies from participating detachments/departments, and they also stressed the need to ensure that the unit was receiving experienced traffic members. MOU When asked if they thought the MOU provides the appropriate level of detail regarding managing/running the unit, the NCO i/cs responded no. The MOU did not mention the Sergeant position or the agreement to have one RCMP and one Independent Municipal member in supervisor positions. When asked if they thought there should be any amendments to MOU to improve the running of the IRSU, they responded it should include the length of time members should be posted in positions rather than different policies for RCMP and Independent Municipal members and supervisors should be given the option of keeping members for the third optional year. The following questions were asked of JMT members (n=3). 93

95 Roles and responsibility of JMT The JMT described their role as providing guiding principles and direction and acting as a governing body to the FV IRSU. When asked the difference between JMT and NCO i/c decisions, the JMT responded a JMT decision would be selecting personnel and setting targets for the unit such as increased enforcement of impaired driving while an NCO i/c decision would be deployment and directing the unit on how to achieve that target such as location, time, shifts etc. The JMT indicated their governance model was the MOU. The JMT described managing and overseeing the IRSU through regular meetings and s, decision making based on statistics and personnel issues, and reported no difficulties. Communication The JMT said that decisions from JMT meetings were communicated to the FV IRSU through direct communication with the Staff Sgt and Sgt. The JMT said they communicated mainly through with the Staff Sgt weekly. The FV IRSU provides the JMT with reports on progress or road safety statistics in excel spreadsheet format monthly and a power-point presentation at the JMT meeting twice a year. The JMT felt these reports were sufficient. Operations The JMT discussed the strategic direction of the FV IRSU. The FV IRSU s enforcement strategy is to target priority offences which contribute to fatal and injury collisions as determined by RSV The strategic direction of the unit has not changed since its inception. The JMT described how the FV IRSU targets enforcement activities through the units strategic framework and ICBC collision data. The FV IRSU balances the community needs within the large geographic area it enforces by identifying the percent of collisions that occur in each jurisdiction, the number of members participating from the area, and the population of that area and then provides enforcement proportional to these criteria. 94

96 The JMT does not have a role in overseeing the budget of the IRSU. When asked if they had any concerns in terms of the FV IRSU s operations, management or effectiveness, they responded that the IRSU was going well and would like to see more impaired driving enforcement, a focus on harm reduction rather than ticket production and maintaining good people in key positions. E. What the Fraser Valley IRSU does best The Fraser Valley IRSU represents a team of highly skilled police officers who are dedicated to road safety enforcement. Throughout the evaluation process, there were innumerable impressive achievements discussed and positive commentaries shared. The following section will highlight these and showcase what the Fraser Valley IRSU does best. We re good at getting impaired drivers Overwhelmingly, when asked what the Fraser Valley IRSU does best, members were proud to state that impaired driving enforcement and investigations were a strongpoint for their unit. Members discussed the high number of impaired drivers they would catch and arrest, the enforcement techniques used, and how skilled their members were at conducting such highly technical investigations. The Fraser Valley IRSU should be commended on their dedication toward this road safety priority. We write a lot of tickets Many members reiterated how productive the Fraser Valley IRSU was in issuing violation tickets to offending motorists. The unit is said to include high producers who are extremely effective in catching drivers engaged in aggressive or dangerous behaviours and administering sanctions. Due to the high volume of traffic enforcement coming from the Fraser Valley IRSU, the unit has undoubtedly played a significant role in road safety throughout the region. 95

97 Drivers who are pulled over will say, You guys are everywhere Due to the fact that IRSU members are able to concentrate on traffic enforcement without being called away to conduct crash investigations, their ability to saturate an area and provide high visibility enforcement for long periods of time is highly effective and seems to be gaining notice amongst drivers in the region. Members commented that many motorists, when pulled over, will comment that the IRSU officers are everywhere, indicating that the Fraser Valley IRSU has had a measurable impact on the community and is providing a deterrent effect. This is a significantly positive development towards road safety in the Fraser Valley region. Openness, Integration, Satisfaction and Safety Four additional areas were identified as strong points within the Fraser Valley IRSU. Open Door First, when asked how often members communicated with the Staff Sergeant or Sergeant, 67% reported either that they felt there was an open door policy with Senior Management or that they communicated daily. This is very encouraging and should be commended as it indicates the majority of IRSU members perceived the communication between themselves and the Staff Sergeant or Sergeant to be favourable. We re all the same we just wear different uniforms Second, when members were asked whether they thought integration was working well, 93% said yes. Additionally, the vast majority of members (79%) did not see any issues pertaining to the integrated aspect of the unit and many commented that all members were 96

98 the same, with the same focus; they just wear different uniforms. Many members commented on how they enjoyed working with police officers from either a different police force or a different jurisdiction as they would learn from one another and that this enhanced their ability to do the job. Satisfied with the IRSU Approximately 73% of respondents stated they were currently satisfied with how the IRSU was functioning. This is very encouraging and speaks positively to the overall issue of job satisfaction, enjoyment of the unit and being an IRSU officer. I am enjoying my time at the Fraser Valley IRSU When asked whether they had enjoyed their time working for the Fraser Valley IRSU so far, 77% of members said yes. The unit should be commended for such a positive response rate with this question as it speaks highly of the member s overall job satisfaction. Additionally, members noted that being an IRSU officer engenders job satisfaction with the absence of crash investigation work and significantly more time to conduct traffic enforcement. I feel safe on the job When asked whether they felt safe on the job, 100% of Fraser Valley IRSU officers responded yes. As police officer safety is a top priority for the Province, this result is extremely encouraging. It is imperative that the unit continues to support its members in their traffic enforcement endeavours and monitors their level of safety on the job. It would be advisable that the unit continue to ask this question of its members to ensure that officer s perception of safety remains 100% positive at all times. 97