Commentary

Part 3: Does C-­10 diminish the community involvement in prevention that is needed to keep Canada safe?

This is section three of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:

• Introduction
• Part One
• Part Two

Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.

The Government of Canada is attempting to solve a problem that is already on the decline and this decline is in no small part due to the efforts of many individuals, groups and local communities across the country. Canada has seen a largely consistent decline in the rates of crime. Police-­reported crime  rates, which measure the overall volume of crime, also continued to decline in 2010 reaching the lowest level since 1973. With falling crime rates across the country C-­‐10 makes a promise to develop greater safety in streets and communities by relying on the law alone. Inevitably this promise will be broken, likely leading to a call for even tougher measures in the future. Community engagement is critical to ensure that crime prevention remains the responsibility of all Canadians: parents, teachers, community leaders and many others. It is smart to continue to find ways to increase that engagement beyond the formal system of justice. The law is too blunt an instrument to deal with the complexity of public safety and security home by home, street by street, and community by community. All citizens need to be engaged in all facets of the prevention and justice continuum. It has taken Canadians well over two decades to see such increases in community engagement for crime prevention. It was challenging to get beyond the passivity of leaving it to the government of the day. C-­‐10 is going “back to the future” who meaningfully engage in keeping their communities safe.

Similar laws are dismissed in other countries as expensive, ineffective and overly reliant on government because they ignored the capacities for pro-social measures and viable alternative approaches such as restorative justice. Measures that address the roots of crime are not only cost effective but they provide the significant savings in human suffering. Police services across the country have long recognized this potential and engage with it. Communities cannot accomplish their task by means of charity. A strategic investment at all orders of government is needed.

What do you think? Does C-­10 diminish the community involvement in prevention that is needed to keep Canada safe?

You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.

Part 2: Does C-10 signal the end of the Canadian Government’s commitment to crime prevention through social development?

This is section two of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). You can read section one here and the introduction here. Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.

C-10, once enacted, will lead to higher incarceration of disadvantaged populations such as people growing up and living in poverty, those with addiction and mental health issues, and Aboriginal peoples. These populations are at higher risk of being affected by multiple root causes of crime and are already overrepresented in the current justice system. C-10 tips the balance between retribution/restitution and prevention such that this situation is likely to worsen.
As far back as in 1993 the federal government appointed a commission to investigate how to deal with the rising costs of crime. The recommendation of the commission chaired by Dr. Bob Horner (MP) was that “all levels of government are responsible for crime and they must work together to prevent its occurrence”.    Since that time many municipalities have worked tirelessly across the country to augment the efforts of federal and provincial governments with crime prevention through social development. They have often done so on severely limited resources and yet show significant positive outcomes.
Increases in incarceration will lead to increases in spending and those inevitably will impact the federal and provincial governments’ capacities to advance new and support existing prevention strategies. Prevention may well be left to local communities and municipalities who are already struggling to meet multiple quality of life issues.

What do you think? Does C-10 signal the end of the Canadian Government’s commitment to crime prevention through social development?

You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.

Part 1: Does Bill C-10 lead us away from good common sense?

This is section one of the Bill C-10 position released by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC). Over the next week we will post one position paper section each day for discussion and dialogue. Our position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.

The reactions to C-10, including those presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST), have been nothing short of overwhelming. Based on a review of these reactions and a vibrant community dialogue within our community we respectfully posed the following questions about C-10 as part of our position paper:

Does C-10 lead us away from good common sense?

By failing to look at crime as an issue that is broader than the crime itself, C-10 narrows the spectrum of thinking and action to mostly moral considerations which are inevitably volatile to subjective judgments. The Canadian public is intelligent! Canadian laws should match our collective ability to understand the complexities of problems. And crime is a complex problem. Taxpayers should not be asked to pay for a strategy that defies good common sense. C-10 is based on little, if any, evidence with regards to tangible benefits, least of all benefits for victims of crime that deserve our compassion and commitment to change.

Nobody knows this better than our neighbors to the South. The United States has more than 30 years of experience pursuing a similar strategy that increased incarceration rates 600% over this period (with an equivalent increase in cost). By now 25% percent of the world’s prison population is housed in the United States.

Will Canada be on a course to match or beat that record with no substantial benefit to communities?

The U.S. has the highest documented rate of incarceration in the Western world, and yet 60% of Americans feel less safe in their own neighborhoods than they did a year ago. Canadians on the other hand report feeling safer than they did one year ago. The imbalance between intent and outcome in  the US situation comes at a staggering cost of $68 billion every year,  not including the loss in productivity. And yet, for all the money spent, there has been no reduction in crime that can be attributed to the higher rates in incarceration.

Nor is the recidivism rate lower.  In fact, mandatory minimum sentences reduce prisoners’ incentives for good behaviour, including participation in counseling for substance abuse, domestic violence issues, etc.  — and this in turn increases our overall vulnerabilities to crime upon their release. The Bureau of U.S. Justice Statistics states that half of the prisoners released in any one year in the US are expected to be back in prison within three years.

Additionally, three-quarters of new admissions to state prisons are for non-violent crimes, with the single greatest cause of prison population growth in the U.S. attributable to people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses.  WRCPC submitted its concerns about mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences as proposed in C-15 to the Senate in July 2009.

Many Americans are urging Canadians not to repeat their mistakes, including Republican governors and state legislators in such states as Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio which are now repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing community supervision, and funding drug treatment because it is seen as a better mechanism for improving public safety and reducing taxpayers’ costs.

If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies in a direction that defies good common sense not only based on research but also based on experiences in the US and elsewhere.

Legislation has to be examined on its merits not sentiments.

Regrettably, C-10 puts us on a course of more crime, less justice, less safety, less protection for the victims, and less protection for society overall at a greater cost than we currently have or are likely to be able to afford in the future.

What do you think? Does Bill C-10 lead us away from good common sense?

You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion on the remaining sections of the position paper.

The Omnibus Crime Bill: A Call for Sober Second Thought

Bill C-10. The Safe Streets and Communities Act. Proposed crime legislation that has prompted discussion, dialogue and deliberation around the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC) table and within the community like never before. Based on input from meetings, phone calls, emails, media scans, and social media, WRCPC presents a position paper that outlines our review of and reactions to Bill C-10, our understanding of the evidence base, and our recommendations.

Over the next 5 days, we will post daily, a section of the position paper. Since Bill C10 was introduced in the House of Commons in September 2011, WRCPC members, staff and the community have been engaged in a process to better understand the legislation itself, the related evidence base, and the potential impacts of the proposed changes. And we want to hear your feedback about what we’ve said.

By way of a summary we recommend:

• That the Omnibus Bill C-10 be disaggregated and reviewed bill by bill because of the vastly divergent nature of the proposed legislation
• That all mandatory minimum sentences be evaluated in light of evidence and expenses. Given the current economic times and the potential for cost to be downloaded, directly or indirectly, to already financially stretched provincial and local governments, a common sense approach to any allocation of limited resources is needed
• That the Government of Canada be asked to balance any investment in correction and enforcement with strategic investments in prevention, and that specifically the Government of Canada implement a National Crime Reduction Board with the mandate to advance social development efforts that have a proven track record in preventing and reducing crime, victimization and fear of crime. The role of this Crime Reduction Board would be to augment changes in legislation, enforcement and corrections with prevention

How did we get here?

The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC) has worked in partnership with many community organizations, all orders of government, grassroots groups and individuals to prevent crime, victimization and fear of crime since its inception in 1993.  Efforts to enhance public safety and security are highly valued by us.  Our mandate is to support and engage in activities of social and community development that can positively impact the roots of crime.

In this role the Council closely monitors the impact of legislation and policies at all orders of government on the safety and security of people living, working and growing up in our community. To accomplish this complex task we pay close attention to research, conduct independent and community-based research, and combine this knowledge with the wisdom and experiences of multiple disciplines in the design of evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies.

The position paper on Bill C-10 must be seen in this light.

WRCPC’s position paper was sent to all Members of the Senate as well as our local Members of Parliament in December 2011.

You can download the full position paper here and be sure to visit the Smart on Crime blog each day over the next week to participate in the discussion – we absolutely want to hear what you have to say.

The Omnibus Crime Bill: What’s the Rush?

Fulfilling an election promise, the Government of Canada recently introduced the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” or Bill C-10. If passed, Bill C-10 would significantly amend the Canadian Criminal Code and related legislation. C-10 is an omnibus bill that includes nine pieces of proposed legislation covering changes from mandatory minimum sentences to tougher penalties for selected crimes. The government has promised to pass this Bill in the first 100 days of Parliament.

What’s the rush?

The government is well aware a 30-year obsession with “law and order” in the United States has been politically popular but has actually failed to reduce crime. Facts are facts and the failure of the US “tough on crime” approach (among others) is well documented. Unfortunately, Canadians are debating crime more than the weather these days, blissfully unaware of how much they will pay to implement a law whose major components have been proven failures in other lands.

From a crime prevention perspective such public interest in building safer communities is always a positive development. Everyone has a role to play and we can’t and shouldn’t leave the work up to any one order of government and its institutions. It’s a teachable moment.

That’s why the time frame of 100 days to discuss a major overhaul of the Canadian justice system is completely inadequate. Of course, everyone wants “safe streets and communities”, but in a classic American move this Bill lumps in everything from sexual abuse of children to possession of marijuana. If you disagree with the pot provision God help you because then you must also be “soft’ on sexual abuse of kids. The populist needs of a government should not stop Canadians from assessing how each specific piece of legislation tossed into this soup will affect the balance between prevention, rehabilitation, restitution and denunciation.

Some of the measures (such as Serious Time for Serious Crime Bill and the Abolition of Early Parole Act) will increase the number of inmates in an already over-crowded prison system from 13,000 to more than 17,000. Such huge increases come with huge costs. Adding more than 4,000 more inmates will mean spending an additional $1.8 billion over five years. And that is the just the federal cost. The provinces already pay to incarcerate more than 20,000 inmates at the current status. During a time of vast fiscal restraint such needless pressure on taxpayers to solve a problem that doesn’t exist is excessive and irresponsible.

In the end, the main question must be whether C-10 will in fact accomplish what the government says it will do: increase public safety. Unfortunately the answer is a resounding NO. Substantial research shows that “tough on crime” strategies have neither reduced crime nor assisted victims. And all of this is happening at a time when crime has been at its lowest in decades across the country.

So, let’s recap: during one of the lowest crime rates in history and in the midst of a crippling recession where people are losing jobs in droves the federal government is implementing a scheme that has failed elsewhere at a cost that will more than double Canada’s current public safety budgets.

This is not OK, and Canadians deserve a full and proper debate on each and every component of the omnibus bill.

Author: John Shewchuk, Chair, Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council

Crime. Time. Dime. An Omnibus Poem

With a zang and a zing
The bells of parliament did ring
To signal the new season
Of parliamentary reason

The message was clear
To all who could hear
“Changes in law are coming this fall
Our omnibus is big, our orders are tall
We’ll do what we said, we have the right and the votes,
The cost and the outcomes…. We’ll get to that footnote”

“We’ve got plans for these thugs, these thugs and their drugs
We’ve got a majority – no time for soft hugs
If you can’t do the time
Then don’t do the crime
Please, don’t waste our citizens’ dime
With all your prime time crime”

It’s a puzzle, yes, a puzzle, said the people
Who gathered in places with town halls & tall steeples
And online in real time, they talked about crime
About tougher and smarter, ways to spend dimes

The people said, I don’t understand, you see
Why the big rush for an omnibus accompli?
The people said, I find it so curious
These facts and these claims, all looking so spurious

Curious why…
A fortune is spent for prison invention
When just scraps are left in the name of prevention

Curious that…
There is not time for ‘wasting’ on research and cost
Really? The moment must be seized before the moment is lost?

Curious why…
Evidence, history, stats experts, unheeded
All of whom know that a smart way is needed

Curious why…
We can’t learn from the change that now sweeps the US
Where 30 years of ‘law and order’ caused such a mess
With crime rates at the lowest in history
The toughness of Bill C-10, well, it’s a bit of a mystery

The people, they called and they wrote
They said, hey, we don’t need this omniboat
No omniboat, no omnibus
And we’re prepared to cause a big fuss

They said to the Bill, this is just NOT for us
Where is the prevention in your big omnibus?
We won’t stand by to see budgets flagrantly tossed
As a tough brand of justice is royally embossed

Let’s get smart, smart on crime, said the people
Who all got busy in places with town halls and tall steeples
Working smarter on crime
Seems more worth our time
And easier on the citizens’ dime

So, let’s build a movement, a movement for change
Let’s get creative, a few things to rearrange
We’ve got plans too, for the way things get done
This community is smarter, second to none

Here we go, watch us go
Collaborate
Evaluate
Anticipate
Animate
Invigorate
Validate
Captivate
Authenticate
Participate
Negotiate
Coordinate
Concentrate
Elaborate
Generate
Recreate
Advocate
Integrate
Cultivate
Accentuate
The smarter way to go

London Riots 2011: Looking Deeper

My heart goes out to the people of London and other cities in England. Having lived there from 1979 to 1984, England remains one of those countries for which I have a personal soft spot. Many of my friends remain there, I recently visited London, and I still have a good sense of its culture and its people. Naturally I have been following the tragic events of rioting that have unfolded within a very short time and the immense impact it has had on those victimized, but also those who are hopelessly watching as they see a country formerly mostly safe and secure slip into fear. Police and the justice systems are clearly overburdened by the task at hand, stories of individuals supporting them best as they can rain in daily along with stories of devastation.

Against this backdrop, I was keen to read Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech to parliament. When a country is in crisis, what leaders do and say is critical for setting a tone for the future and for aiding understanding. Safety is an essential mandate of all orders of government. When insecurity sets in, people look for calm to be restored, reason to prevail and explanations to make sense. Unfortunately Mr. Cameron’s analysis is too confused to accomplish that. One reason for the confusion may be the lack of evidence for what he sees as the roots of the problem.

Yes, England had not seen this type of rioting in decades. But why have we not learned from the last time?

It is hard to look deeper. Mostly, we humans prefer to stick with answers that comfort us and sustain our world view. Simple is more palatable than complex. One year ahead of the summer Olympics it is also more opportune to condemn the criminality of a few than to ask the public to engage in a dialogue about broader social issues. In Mr Cameron’s analysis, that would be a waste because there is no “justifiable causal link” when it comes to crime.

The opportunities contained in any situation where we are struggle to react let alone think of how to prevent such issues in the future are immense. We owe it to future generations to not wait for another few decades to pass and then return to the same old answers that answered nothing in the past.

But there is more to the speech than at first meets the eye. It is clearly a statement that says: nothing is broken in our society, just a few people within it. And yet Mr. Cameron then goes on to propose measures that will indeed impact society as a whole. He proposes to extend the punishments beyond the courts to other services where those who are caught for rioting may well be cut off from social assistance and forced to leave their social housing. While that might satisfy the need for an immediate emotional release, (a “Take THAT” variety), it can only serve to make those who act in anger more disengaged and even angrier. In fact, Mr. Cameron’s answers are textbook avoidance of evidence. In his world view criminality has no connection to social and other conditions. Criminality is about “culture” and, more specifically, the culture of families that raise their young as if there were only rights and no responsibilities. This culture, I can only assume, floats in an ethereal distance above the community and is unaffected by its institutions and developments. Meanwhile, in the rights debate, Mr. Cameron is prepared to put sweeping powers in place and not get tangled in the questions of “phony human rights”. Phoney!? When our response to injustice starts to undermine the very basic principles of justice such as human rights, I don’t feel reassured at all.

As for victims, there is little that is reassuring even there. Business compensation is “possible”. But there is nothing mentioned of post trauma supports and other victims services. At the end of the speech I was left confused and disappointed at the level of analysis. The only glimmer of hope I saw was in the demand for a national gang policy. But a policy is a long way of from a national action plan that can get back to the business of being tough on causes.

Crime prevention practitioners the world over have frequently looked at England for promising practices. Now what?

Author: Christiane Sadeler
Christiane is the Executive Direcotr of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council and writes occasional commentary on current events for the Smart on Crime blog.

International Women’s Day & Violence Prevention

International Women’s Day has come and gone 100 times and still, much remains to be done to address the inequitable status experienced by women and girls in all societies. Why does this matter for crime prevention?

Well, two World Health Organization (WHO) reports outline clearly that inequality can and does lead to violence: sexual violence, physical violence and emotional violence. All forms of violence are disproportionately experienced by women and girls in all countries across the world. The WHO advocates for an approach that addresses ALL aspects of violence where inequality is manifest; at home, in our communities, and finally in society at large.

Violence prevention: the evidence

Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: Taking action and generating evidence

The WHO reports also show that in all areas, a direct connection can be made between experiences of inequality and experiences of violence. Women and girls remain less valued, less paid, less powerful than their male counterparts. When coupled with issues of problematic substance use, easy access to weapons, differential value based on gender and a family history of abuse and neglect, the consequences are all too visible in the lives of so many.

But not all is lost. And that is what makes the WHO reports so SMART. They show, through research, that as we make changes to the inequitable status of women and girls, violence decreases. School based programmes that challenge the perceptions that girls are inferior have been shown to be particularly effective. I encourage you to read the reports and look for areas where you can strive to implement more equal practices in your places of work, the community, at home and your places of faith.

Author: Christiane Sadeler, ED, Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council

What the Community has to Say about Smart on Crime

As people hear and learn about Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region, they often have a few things to say. We’re happy to share what’s been said to us since it’s helpful to know and understand the perspective of others people from the community. If you have comments to share, feel free to add them below or email us.

“Smart on Crime is just what it sounds like.  It’s having programs that work at the root causes of crime rather than using retribution and simplistic solutions.  Smart on Crime is about using taxpayers money responsibly to make our communities safer.  It fits into our Community Safety programs at Conestoga College which teach students to make evidence based decisions.”

Wayne Morris, WRCPC Member
Chair, Community Safety and Human Service Programs, Conestoga College

“The Correctional Service of Canada contributes to safer communities by addressing the factors that led to someone committing a crime. Most of our inmates will be released back into the community. Being “Smart on Crime” for us means we need to provide evidence based programs, education and training that will reduce those risks. Education and skills training make it more likely they can obtain employment. Other programs address substance abuse, anger and emotions issues and basic life skills. As a women’s institution, Grand Valley also provides programs, counselling and support for women who have been impacted by both physical and emotional trauma. While women at Grand Valley have already committed a crime, we can help them break that pattern and contribute to a safer community when they are released.”

David Dick, WRCPC Ex-Officio Member
Warden, Grand Valley Institution for Women, Correctional Service of Canada

“The staff of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council couldn’t be more pleased about Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. We are inspired, encouraged and excited. We feel fortunate to work within a context of strong local government, community and police collaboration guided by a shared vision. Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region will help us to build on the ‘made in Waterloo Region’ smart approach to crime prevention.”

Christiane Sadeler and the WRCPC Team

“The definition of “smart” is to show mental alertness and resourcefulness – so to be smart on crime means to to be mentally alert to the truth about crime, crime rates, and crime related issues and to be resourceful in the way in which we deal with crime. To be “resourceful” means to be creative in ones thinking and in the implementation of new and different approaches to an issue.  At ROOF (Reaching our Outdoor Friends), we are smart on crime because we investigate the truth about crime and we challenge the myths that surround it (mental alertness).  We are also smart on crime in terms of the way we ‘think outside the box’ (resourcefulness) regarding our programming – keeping it relevant and real for the youth we serve.”

Sandy Dietrich-Bell, WRCPC Member
Executive Director, ROOF

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is the wise old saying. How true that is when examining the costs of crime in our community. Investing in our citizens  to address the root causes of crime is smart!  Incarceration costs over $100,000 annually. If our programs keep even 5 people from entering the justice system, think of the benefits to our community!”

Kathryn McGarry
Community Representative, WRCPC