Suggested

Responses to Questions from

the Toronto Star
re: Community Engagement Phase 1 Report

Q. The report draws the conclusion there is no evidence of bias in the carding
data. How did you come to that conclusion? Given the discussions over the last
number of years, do you still believe that no bias exists? What was going on then
and what is going on now?
From the very first reports by the Toronto Star, we have adamantly opposed the papers
analysis. In order to provide a comparable context for our work, the Service used the same
methodology but came up with a very different conclusion. This coincides with the research of
various criminologists who believe the use of census-based data to identify racial profiling is
inaccurate and not well supported. Whether the methodology can prove or disprove bias is not
the point.

Our contacts with the public will never be in proportion to census figures because criminality
and victimization, and the factors that contribute to criminality and victimization (such as
poverty, unemployment, etc.), are not in proportion to census figures.

In Phase 1, we wanted to do a more thorough investigation of our data and it was the
intelligence-led analysis component that was far more important to us as a police service. We
were able to highlight a strong relationship between the locations of our carding practices and
the number of violent calls for service in those neighbourhoods.

We will use an intelligence-led process because we need our officers to be investigating those
people who have chosen to commit crime. We will not send our officers randomly into
communities because the crime rates are higher than average. My officers know that
neighbourhoods that experience higher rates of criminality and victimization are
overwhelmingly filled with hard-working, family-focused, law-abiding people. They will not be
the focus of our efforts. We will provide our officers with the information necessary to
determine why to investigate one person and not another. We will continue to train them to
understand, respect and uphold a persons rights. We will continue to provide our officers with
training on how to identify and manage implicit biases.

What we have acknowledged, and will continue to acknowledge, are the lived experiences of
those in the city of Toronto. It does not matter what the number-crunchers tell us. What
matters is there are young, black men who feel we have no reason whatsoever for picking them
over someone else. We will fix this, regardless of what the statistics tell us.

Prepared by: The PACER Team

1 | P a g e

Q. What did Deputy Sloly mean when he wrote in an email dated November 13,
2012 the section on analysis to determine whether or not the TPS racially
profiles needs significant reduction (or exclusion).
These comments were made for two reasons. It was felt the comments in the report were too
superficial and that a more thorough consideration for the issue of racial profiling was needed.
It was felt the report also required an explicit statement illustrating the Services position that
even one experience of bias-based policing is enough to justify further study of the issue. It was
felt that an analysis of the numbers might take away from the fact that the Service is
committed to a more thorough approach. This was the plan for Phase 2 and, as a result, 31
recommendations were made to further the efforts of Phase 1.


Q. What was intended by Recommendation #5? That the Service reacts to the
deliberate misinterpretation of data and subsequent misleading, inflammatory
series that have been incessantly published by the media since 2002.
We stand by those comments. We are not the only organization to make that determination.
Failure on the part of the Star to fairly represent other interpretations of the data led us to
make this recommendation. Rather than continue this debate, we believe the interests of the
public would be best served by data analysis conducted by an independent third party.


Q. What happened to Recommendation #16? The CIOR Community Engagement
Review Team endorses a receipt-based exchange between the police and the
community at the completion of all community contact carding practices.
At the direction of the Board, the Working Group moved forward with researching receipts
implemented in other jurisdictions. A recommendation was made to go forward with receipts
as part of Phase 2, giving consideration to further consultation with areas of the Service. In July
2013, to coincide with the revised Community Inquiry Report, members were directed to offer
a receipt to a person about whom they had completed a CIR. The receipt process was
unsuccessful. Even after giving consideration to the dramatic decline in the number of CIRs
issued in general, the vast majority of receipts were declined by members of the public. The
receipts were suspended as part of the ongoing review of the community engagement process.

Prepared by: The PACER Team

2 | P a g e