Front page link
Non-Emergency 416-808-2222 - Emergency 9-1-1

Scorecard

Proportion of people who feel safe in their neighbourhood
Proportion of people who are confident that Toronto Police officers do a good job
Proportion of people who are confident that Toronto Police officers treat everyone with respect
Proportion of people who are satisfied with the delivery of police service to their neighbourhoods
Proportion of people who would recommend the Toronto Police Service as a place to work
Proportion of service members who feel their work is valued
Proportion of members who feel their skills, knowledge and experience are being used effectively
Proportion of members who believe the culture of the Toronto Police has changed over the past year
Crimes Against Persons
Calls for Police Service Received



Be Where the public needs the Service the most
Focus on the complex needs of a large city
Embrace partnerships to create safer communiities




Our People

Description Full Year 2016 Mid-Year 2017
Would recommend the TPS as a place to work 59% 41%
Feel the work they do is valued by the organization 57% 51%
Are satisfied with the way they are recognized for their work 55% 46%
Receive regular formal feedback on their job performance 61% *
Have the equipment and technology they need to do their jobs well 67% *
Receive the training they need to do their jobs well 76% *
Believe they have the support of their supervisor 77% 72%
Feel their skills, knowledge and experience are being used effectively 68% 62%
Are satisfied with the way information is communicated 47% 36%
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Accountable 68% *
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Transparent 63% *
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Inclusive 73% *
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Affordable 68% *
Believe culture of the Toronto Police Service has changed over the past year 75% *
  • Based on 2016 TPS Personnel Survey and 2017 Mid-Year Personnel Survey.


  • * Question not asked in Mid-Year Survey.

Our Community

Description Full Year 2016 Mid-Year 2017
Feel safe in their neighbourhoods 93% *
Confident Toronto Police officers do a good job 94% 85%
Confident Toronto Police officers treat everyone with respect 79% *
Think the police do a good job of being visible in neighbourhoods 45% 41%
Think police do a good job of responding to calls promptly 51% 43%
Satisfied with delivery of police services to neighbourhoods 86% 70%
Feel safe on roads as a driver 69% 63%
Feel safe on roads as a pedestrian 74% 58%
Feel safe on roads as a cyclist 27% 26%
Victims of violent crime satisfied with the way police dealt with incident 78% *
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Accountable † *
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Transparent † *
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Inclusive † *
Believe Toronto Police Service is fulfilling its promise to be Affordable † *
Believe culture of the Toronto Police Service has changed † *
  • Based on 2016 Community Survey (telephone) and 2017 Mid-Year Personnel Survey (online).



  • † Data not available for 2016.


  • * Question not asked in Mid-Year Survey.

Policing Operations

Indicator Target 2016 Q1-2016 Q1-2017
Calls for Police Services Received ↓ 1,474,869 284,784 284,177
Events Attended ↓ 657,335 101,830 101,476
Crime against persons ↓ 26,797 7,649 7,508
Crime against property ↓ 73,844 16,865 17,430
Traffic collisions ↓ 69,927 11,749 15,985
Traffic fatalities ↓ 77 16 11
Number of “Persons in Crisis” calls attended ↓ 25,613 6,037 6,145
  • Data Sources: Versadex – Records Management System
     CAD database for all Calls For Service data



  • ↓ Success in these indicators will be demonstrated, at least in part, by a downward numerical trend. However, other programs and activities may adversely influence these indicators. For example, the Service will actively promote more convenient reporting mechanisms which may actually increase some of these indicators.

Policing Business Operations

Indicator Target Current
Operating budget commitment - % budget used/variance 100% Data not available
Capital budget commitment - % budget used/variance 100% Data not available
Creation or revision of policies to assist in achieving financial sustainability (e.g. acting pay, new initiatives) 7 0
Development of criteria for prioritizing allocation of funds from centralized accounts Criteria Developed Not yet started
● ON TRACK The status is on track and progressing as planned/expected.
♦ AT RISK The status is either currently or will soon be off track; however, planned mitigation strategies are expected to resolve the issue(s).
■ OFF TRACK The status is off track, escalation is required and mitigation strategies are limited or unknown.
TIMELINES Overall status of the project's planned activities (timelines) based on the anticipated end date.
BUDGET Overall status of the project's available funding and expenditures (actual and planned).
PROJECT SCOPE Overall status of the project's ability to meet its goals/deliverables.
STAKEHOLDERS Overall satisfaction and engagement of the internal and external individuals affected by the project.
PROJECT STAFFING Overall status of the number of human resources/people required to deliver the project on time, within budget and to scope.
Timelines Budget Project Scope Stakeholders Project Staffing
# Recommendation Last Period Current Period Last Period Current Period Last Period Current Period Last Period Current Period Last Period Current Period
1 Connected Officers ● ● ♦ ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ● ●
2 Improved Capabilities related to data, information, and analysis, including "big data" ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ● ●
3 Disbanding TAVIS ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
4 Risk Assessment for priority response ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
5 Alternative reporting and follow-up for non-emergencies ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ● ♦ ● ● ●
6 Improved public safety response ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
7 More efficient scheduling ♦ ■ ● ● ♦ ■ ♦ ♦ ● ●
8 More effective deployment in vehicles ♦ ■ ● ● ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ● ●
9 A risk-based response to special events ■ ■ ♦ ♦ ● ● ♦ ♦ ■ ■
10 A more efficient retail response ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
11 Disband the Transit Patrol Unit ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
12 Alternate delivery of the Lifeguard Program ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
13 Alternate delivery of the School Crossing Guard Program ■ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ●
14 Using traffic technology enforcement to improve community safety ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
15 Overhauling Paid Duty ■ ■ ♦ ♦ ● ● ♦ ♦ ■ ■
16 City-wide divisional boundary and facilities realignment ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ● ♦ ♦ ♦ ■
17 More accessible and transparent information and services ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
18 Moratorium on hiring and promotions ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ● ● ■ ♦ ● ●
19 Assessing Information Technology requirements ● ♦ ● ● ● ● ● ♦ ● ●
20 Alternative or shared delivery of Court Services ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
21 Alternate or shared delivery of Parking Enforcement ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
22 Alternate or shared delivery of background screenings ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
23 Investment in 9-1-1 ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ● ♦ ● ♦ ♦
24 Comprehensive culture change and human resources strategy ♦ ♦ ● ♦ ● ● ● ♦ ♦ ●
25 Public Engagement Strategy ♦ ♦ ● ♦ ● ♦ ● ♦ ● ♦
26 Service Engagement Strategy ● ♦ ● ♦ ● ♦ ♦ ♦ ● ♦
27 Association (TPA and SOO) Engagement Strategy ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
28 Establishing New Pathways of Accountability ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
29 Board-Appointed Change Management Advisor ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
30 People Management Strategy ● ● ♦ ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
32 Modernization Scorecard ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
33 Neighbourhood Officer ♦ ♦ ● ● ● ● ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦