April 14, 1998

 TO:Toronto Emergency & Protective Services Committee

 FROM:Norman Gardner, Chairman

Toronto Police Services Board

 SUBJECT:COLLISION REPORTING CENTRES

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that the following report be received for information.

 Council Reference/Background History:

 At its meeting on March 26, 1998, the Toronto Police Services Board was in receipt of the following report MARCH 11, 1998 from Albert H. Cohen, Toronto Legal Dept.:

 ASubject:Motion by Councillor Fotinos Regarding Collision Reporting Centres

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that the Board receive this report for information.

 Background:

 At the meeting of Metropolitan Council held on December 10 and 18, 1997, Councillor Dennis Fotinos moved the following motion with respect to a report entitled AAmendments to By-law 20-85 - Accident Towing@:

 It is further recommended that Metropolitan Council recommend to the new City of Toronto Council that a Committee be appointed to evaluate the performance of the Collision Reporting Centres, and that such Committee be requested to submit a report thereon to the appropriate Standing Committee of the new City of Toronto at the same time as the accreditation program is being considered by such Standing Committee.

 Metropolitan Council referred this motion to the Police Services Board.

 At its meeting held on January 29, 1998, the Board adopted a report from former Chair Maureen Prinsloo requesting that the City Solicitor review the motion to determine whether Councillor Fotinos= Aproposed evaluation mechanism and attendant reporting structure are permissable [sic] within the existing contracts between the Board and the Collision Reporting Centres@ (Minute No. 7/98 refers).

 Discussion:

 As Board members are aware, the existing contracts respecting the Service=s participation in the collision reporting centres (CRCs) are between the Board and the three CRC operators. Consequently, those contracts are silent on the relationship of the City to the CRCs. The contracts were simply not designed for that purpose and only govern the relationship between the Board, the Service and the CRC operators.

With respect to the Board=s contractual ability to establish a committee to undertake the functions identified in Councillor Fotinos= motion, there is no provision in the current contracts that addresses the matter. The contracts do contain provisions requiring the operators to report on a quarterly basis to the Unit Commander of Traffic Services and to provide specified types of information, including the number of persons who have used the CRC and the number and type of complaints received. As well, the operators must advise the Unit Commander of complaints about the operation of the CRCs within 72 hours of receipt of a complaint.

 In the absence of any contractual provisions dealing with the concept of an evaluation committee and the provision of reports on the CRCs= evaluation to the appropriate City standing committee, neither the Board or the City is prohibited from so doing. However, since the City has had no direct involvement in establishing the CRCs, the Board may wish to consider establishing such committee and reporting to City Council on its conclusions. Given that the Board has a contractual relationship with the CRC operators, it is in a better position to engage in the evaluation process and obtain the cooperation of the CRC operators. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be noted that there is no contractual obligation on any of the CRC operators to participate in that process and assist, or provide information to, any such committee.@

 The Board was also in receipt of the following report FEBRUARY 26, 1998 from David J. Boothby, Chief of Police:

 ASUBJECT:EVALUATING PERFORMANCE - COLLISION REPORTING CENTRES

 RECOMMENDATION:THAT the Board receive this report.

 BACKGROUND:

 At its meeting on January 19, 1998, (Board Minute #7/98 refers) the Board received a report AAmendments to By-law No. 20-85 - Accident Towing@ which had been adopted by Metro Council at their meetings held on December 10, and December 18, 1997. Metro Council had referred a motion from Councillor Fotinos concerning a proposed evaluation mechanism and attendant reporting structure for Collision Reporting Centres to the Police Services Board.

 The Board further approved a recommendation that Councillor Fotinos= motion be referred to the City of Toronto Solicitor for review to determine if it was appropriate, given the existing contracts between the Board and the Collision Reporting Centres. In addition, the Board approved a recommendation that the Chief of Police submit a report outlining mechanisms currently in place to evaluate the performance of the Collision Reporting Centres.

 The following is a list of criteria used to assess the performance of the Collision Reporting Centres.

 INTERNAL

 Daily statistics are maintained on the number of people using the CRCs to report collisions and other incidents. These reports indicate a high volume usage of the Centres (more than 120,000 people per year 1996 and 1997).

 Monthly statistics, maintained by the Insurance Investigation Officers and the Hit & Run Co-ordinators, indicate a high activity level for each section.

 A Complaints file is maintained by the Officer in Charge of the CRCs. All complaints about the program are documented, investigated and concluded. Most complainants require only an explanation of the program.

 The CRC supervisors continually evaluate personnel and CRC operations, recommending and making improvements where necessary. Supervisory meetings are held regularly to discuss items of performance and implement improvements.

 Further, in 1997 (February to May), the Toronto Police Service conducted an internal audit of the Collision Reporting Centres. The report, provided to the Executive Review Committee on May 22, 1997, concluded that the CRCs were operating in accordance with Service procedures. The report also found that public satisfaction with both the program and the service provided was high.

 A recent cost benefit analysis determined that the performance of the Toronto Police Collision Reporting Centres is a cost effective system for the reporting of minor motor vehicle collisions, specifically those classified as property damage collisions.

  EXTERNAL

 The services provided by North, East and West Accident Support Services Limited (ASSL) are evaluated by the Toronto Police Service in the following manner:

 Quarterly statistical reports are received from ASSL and maintained on file by the Officer in Charge. These reports indicate the number of people using the insurance support service offered by Accident Support Services Limited.

 Customer surveys, generated through ASSL, are received and maintained on file. The customer surveys indicate a consistent 90% public satisfaction with ASSL and 95% public satisfaction with police services provided at the Centres.

 The Toronto Police Service is notified of all complaints received by ASSL. Resolution of the complaints and investigation or follow-up is also reported. ASSL responds promptly to legitimate complaints and actions taken by ASSL employees are consistent with good business practices.

 The Staff Sergeant in Charge of the CRCs has the responsibility to ensure that the conditions of the contracts between the Police Services Board and ASSL are continually met.

 Additional performance evaluations of ASSL are conducted by the Insurance Industry through a User Group Committee which meets to discuss the services provided by the Operator. The Toronto Police Service has advisor only status on this committee.

 Further, the Toronto Licencing Commission has recently been mandated, through amendments to By-law 20-85, to take an active role in monitoring the compliance of the Operator and ASSL in regard to specific on-site business conduct.

 The Toronto Police Service CRC Program is seen as a benchmark program for other CRC operations in the Province of Ontario. Several other police services have followed our example, notably London Police Service and Niagara Regional Police Service.

 Acting Superintendent Gary Grant (8-1914) and Staff Sergeant Thomas Huntley (8-1918) will be present to answer any questions.@

 Conclusions:

 Board Member Jeff Lyons declared a conflict as he represented the Independent Auto Repairer=s Association when this issue was considered by Metropolitan Toronto Council and did not participate in the discussion of this matter.

 The Board approved the following Motions:

 1.THAT a subcommittee of the Board be established pertaining to Collision Reporting Centres;

 2.THAT the Collision Reporting Centres Subcommittee be responsible for:

-evaluating the performance of Collision Reporting Centres

-hearing complaints from representatives of the towing industry and auto body repair shops regarding Collision Reporting Centres

-review on-going problems related to Collision Reporting Centres

 3.THAT the structure of the Subcommittee be composed as follows:

 -2 members of the Toronto Police Services Board

-1 City of Toronto councillor

-1 staff representative from the Toronto Police Service

-1 staff representative from the Ontario Provincial Police

 4.THAT the Chief of Police provide the Board with semi-annual statistical reports on the results of the Collision Reporting Centres and include any recommendations which he feels the Board should consider; and

 5.THAT copies of the foregoing reports be provided to the Emergency & Protective Services Committee for information.

 Contact Name and Telephone Number:

 Acting Superintendent Gary Grant, Traffic Services Unit, telephone no. 808-1914.

 Respectfully submitted,

 Norman Gardner

Chairman

 A:\COLLSION.DOC