By Sean Meyer/London Community News

The London Police Service is fighting back against accusations its cutbacks to the Block Parent Program were meant as a warning to city politicians.

During the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting last week (Jan. 17), officials from the Block Parent Program appealed to councillors to help save the initiative after a police decision to no longer continue several important items of in-kind support. Less than a week before their appearance at committee, program officials were informed the police will no longer be conducting background checks nor will they be operating the Block Parent flagging system.

Gail McMahon, Block Parent executive director, told councillors this would constitute a “huge challenge that could have a devastating impact on the program.” McMahon said the program faced possible closer over the situation.

At that time, several councillors expressed concern the police service was attempting to send a message to council in terms of the impact of cutbacks being demanded from their budget.

A statement released by the police the next day suggested this was not the case. “It is important to note that the budgetary implications were secondary to the primary issue of liability and this was the determining factor in the decision.”

The removal of in-kind support, McMahon estimated, would save the police $15,000, but cost Block Parent approximately $106,000 to replace.

According to the statement, London police conducted a review of its relationship with Block Parent this past fall and identified what it considered “significant  concerns” related to these supports.

The included:

1. Block Parent is an independent community program and not controlled or managed by police.

2. Persons are flagged, not the address, as checks are completed on individuals.  When people move, unless they report their whereabouts, the location of the Block Parent sign is not known.

3. Currently only an initial background check is completed on persons over the age of 12 in the residence.  It provides a single-point-in-time determination on these individuals.

4. Should there be persons under the age of 12, there is no process that ensures these persons are checked in future years.

5. Flagging does not provide the police with any knowledge of persons who may have been charged with an offence in another city that would negatively impact their ability to serve as a Block Parent.

6. Flagging does not eliminate the possibility that new residents to the household or visitors who may have inappropriate backgrounds for a Block Parent location, reside in the premise.

7. Collectively, the reliance on flagging as the premise to consider the location a safe haven is flawed.  This creates a significant risk for the users of the program and liability for the police service.

In addition, due to the financial impact of providing background checks, the police service is entering into a third party agreement that will “enhance the efficiency of obtaining a Record Screening Check, reducing the requirement to attend at police headquarters for most checks, and providing a quicker outcome for persons seeking these checks.”

As a result of the move to this arrangement, the police service has ceased the provision of no-charge background checks for all agencies, including Block Parent, Children’s Aid Society, the Boys and Girls Club, Scouts and Girl Guides, and sports teams that use volunteers to run their programs.

Following her appearance before the committee, McMahon said she was hopeful further negotiations could still take place.

“Hopefully this isn’t a done deal. We feel we can work with them to find a solution that is amicable to them,” McMahon said. “We will work with them to figure out whatever it takes to keep our program safe and is financially feasible for them.”

The police service, as revealed in the statement, has agreed to continue their involvement with Block Parent until March 31 “to allow the program time to research and determine their future direction.”