Mackenzie BengtssonIncreasing police presence in Edmonton’s high-crime areas may improve short-term safety, but without addressing the conditions that contribute to crime, the city risks simply moving the problem from one neighbourhood to another.
Another day in downtown Edmonton, and police cruisers are parked near transit stations, officers patrol Churchill Square, and increased enforcement in areas identified as “crime hotspots.” But what does this really accomplish? A little less than nothing.
The latest initiative by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) aims to increase police presence in such areas and address crimes and public disorder with “a less lenient approach.” At first glance, this may seem to be a logical approach — more police should mean less crime. The issue, however, is that it focuses on deterring crime in the moment rather than preventing the conditions that create it in the first place.
Hotspot policing is a necessary and viable approach to maximize the effectiveness of the city’s police force and ensure safety and a sense of protection in public spaces, transit, and business centres. While this strategy may improve safety in the short-term, it may risk diffusing the crime and criminals to other neighbourhoods rather than reducing it. Edmonton should be balancing targeted policing with efforts to address the conditions that contribute to crime and investing in prevention strategies such as housing, mental health support, and substance use recovery services.
Areas such as Churchill and parts of downtown Edmonton have experienced repeated crimes such as theft, violence, vandalism, and public disorder. Increased visible police presence discourages opportunistic crime, reduces unmonitored spaces, and enables a faster response time during emergencies. This increases the sense of safety among residents, commuters, and local businesses. Edmonton has identified many locations as persistent crime hotspots over the years — downtown, Chinatown, and McCauley. This suggests that policing suppresses crime in the short-term, but doesn’t necessarily remove its causal factors.
A major concern with hotspot policing is that it leads to crime displacement rather than true deterrence. Concentrating police resources in high-incidence areas may reduce visible crimes, but it may also incentivize offenders to shift their “bases” to nearby neighbourhoods or less-policed areas of the city. This leads to what is often referred to as a “cat-and-mouse” cycle, in which crime is suppressed in one area only to reappear elsewhere, questioning if the overall crime is actually reducing or simply redistributed.
Long-term crime deterrence is a multi-layered process, and policing is just one piece of the puzzle. Factors such as substance use homelessness, untreated mental illness, and unemployment all contribute to repeat offences, and addressing them solely through policing efforts does little to resolve the driving factors. Reducing the number of people at risk of offending should be an equal part of the focus on crime prevention. This includes expanding access to substance use recovery centres, increasing the availability of supportive and affordable housing, and strengthening mental health services and outreach programs. In situations where officers are interacting with individuals primarily to deter or warn them, they could also help direct them toward appropriate support services.
Measuring crime reduction solely by incidents prevented is a step in the wrong direction. A big part of this should be in how effectively the system has been at reducing those at risk of committing crimes in the first place. Relying exclusively on policing to curb lawlessness risks focusing resources on short-term success while limiting long-term impact. It may also weaken public trust if visible crimes persist despite the continued police presence. Lasting safety requires addressing both immediate incidents and the factors that contribute to them.
If Edmonton continues to prioritize targeted policing, it risks cycling through the same problem in different locations rather than actually reducing crime citywide. Increased policing may shift the crime away, but it does not necessarily change why it occurs in the first place.
A safer Edmonton will not come from more visible enforcement alone, but from a system that addresses both the immediate incidents and the conditions that motivates them.
