Posted on: July 25th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
For those interested in crime prevention the last couple weeks have certainly given many reasons for reflection. The recent shootings in Toronto at a neighbourhood party resulting in 2 deaths, the shootings at the Eaton Centre and those that are reported regularly in the press certainly make one think that violence and crime rates are on the rise. However, the release of the most recent crime statistics from Stats Canada show a decrease in the overall volume of crime, a decline of 6%, following a steady decrease over time. Sadly, there are increases in homicides (7%), a rise in sexual offences against children (3%) and a sharp rise in child pornography (40%), likely helped along by the ease of technology to traffic in illegal images. Still, the overall decline in crime rates has areas of concern that need be addressed. Organizations at all levels of government as well as several of those unrelated to government work each day to alleviate the common root causes of crime. Acts of unexplainable violence, heavily reported in the media cause fear and apprehension, if not confusion, for the public.
Unfortunately, into the mix come politicians like Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto who mused in a radio call in show about using immigration laws to keep criminals out of Toronto and to send them who knows where. He didn’t specify a location. I think he may have watched one too many John Wayne westerns where gun slingers were told to get out of town (no slight to the memory of the Duke intended). Aside from displaying a woeful lack of knowledge about the laws of Canada, he also seems to have a limited understanding of the powers of his office. Thank goodness our municipal leaders had the insight to create and support the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council several years ago. This body, made up of representatives from local government, the police, social agencies, community reps and volunteers, provides advice and input into policies related to social development issues regarding crime prevention in Waterloo Region. Maybe that’s something Mayor Ford might consider adopting. Instead, he rails at what he derisively terms “hug a thug” programs that deter youth from crime. Are the programs completely successful? Absolutely not. Are they helping many young people, fathers, mothers and agencies live a more productive life? You bet. Much has been written in the news media critical of Mayor Ford’s linking the recent shootings to immigration and his demand for more police for Toronto, “Money Talks, BS Walks”. This bullying bravado is hardly a model of reasoned leadership. It makes a great headline but governing responsibly is beyond headlines and captions. It’s actually hard work.
You may remember 1962. Many of you probably weren’t yet born. I was 10 years old. My favourite show that year was McHale’s Navy. I could buy a chocolate bar for 5 cents, I delivered the Pink Tely (Toronto Telegram) which scared me with headlines about the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister. Jann Arden was born that year. My parents bought their first house for $15,000. Great year…relevant to the debate? Perhaps, but I don’t see the connection. Many things have changed. For example, the criminal code has changed, laws have changed. The way crime statistics are reported and tracked has changed. And we didn’t have the Internet back then so electronic file sharing of child porn was impossible, it was just a very different time so to draw a comparison in regards to crime rates doesn’t seem to contribute to the debate. One of my favourite movies is “Back to the Future” but, fun as it was, even Marty McFly chose not to stay in the past.
Just this past week the horrific killings in Colorado give us further reason to reflect upon the scourge of violence in our society. There are fierce debates about gun control and the role of violence in the media as contributing factors in this tragedy. The victims all led productive lives up to this point and even the alleged perpetrator doesn’t necessarily fit our preconceived notion of a mass killer: loner, poverty-stricken, poor family attachment, uneducated and so on. It’s early days yet so we don’t know (and won’t for some time) what caused this person to take the actions he is alleged to have committed. What is certain is that there are no easy answers when it comes to crime and its prevention.
There are no “silver bullets”, just ugly copper ones that rip the hearts from people and communities. We can’t allow ourselves the luxury of trying to find the one answer, the quick fix. We can’t expect fully-funded social programs nor increased police budgets to be the one answer. It’s more of a “both and” than an “either or” approach. We can’t blame immigrants, colour, religion, economic status, educational levels or any one thing. Crime is a complex issue and its prevention therefore is equally complex. Rather than react to situations on an emotional level (which is completely understandable for victims and their families) and calling for tougher approaches to crime, as a society it’s important to look at the data provided in the most recent StatsCan report and target our interventions on closing the most obvious gaps. Working with community partners, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council acts as a advocate for responsible policies, programs and legislation in order to help our Region be a safer place to live. The answer is not only with the government, the police or social agencies. It is the collective responsibility of each of us to do our part to build a community less likely to be violent and reactive.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Walking into the prison for the first time was an experience I won’t soon forget. Heavy doors locked behind me one after the other. I got this strange feeling that there was no way out. I didn’t share the same fear as my family, who worried about my safety. And I didn’t really feel intimidated by the guards. What I did feel was worry – worry that the women inside would judge me for what I am – a (prissy) master of social work student.
I’m not talking about going to prison because of a crime I committed, I’m talking about being a participant of the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program and a member of the Walls to Bridges Collective.
From the founder & director of Inside-Out, here’s what the program is NOT:
It is not research. Outside students are not going in to study inside students. Outside students are also not going inside to “help” the inside students. “That’s just not what we’re doing. We are learning together”. “
Basically the program looks like this: people in university (“outside students”) and people in custody (“inside students”), come together to take a course behind the walls of a correctional institution. The course can be anything from literature and history, to social work and criminology. So although the course content is usually pretty standard, the classroom and the students are anything but.
The purpose of Inside-Out (I-O) is to increase educational opportunities for people inside and outside of prison. In an I-O class, we emphasize dialogue and collaboration, and talk about social concern issues. We break down the walls that separate us.
Experiencing Inside-Out is often referred to as personally and professionally “transformative”. But what is it about the program that makes it so?
From my experience, it’s got a lot to do with recognizing and challenging assumptions and biases. It’s got a lot to do with questioning society and the powerful impact of oppression and privilege. It’s got a lot to do with building relationships and honoring individual lived experiences.
During our closing ceremony for the first Inside-Out course in Grand Valley Institution for Women, one of my colleagues articulated the transformation she saw and experienced:
“Pre-conceived notions. We are all guilty of harboring them. Notions of what we think things are supposed to be. Things like prison, and education. Of what and who the student is, and what and who the convict is… Today those lines are blurred. No, today they don’t exist. Today there is no distinction between student and convict and education and prison… because today, right here, we are all students. Learning. Evolving. Erasing. Celebrating”
– Inside-Out Alumni, currently incarcerated
The Inside-Out alumni group now meets bi-weekly to work on projects inside and outside of the prison walls. The “Walls to Bridges Collective” exemplifies “smart on crime” in action:
Through collaboration with people living inside and outside prison walls, we will strive to connect and build bridges by educating, informing and advocating about social justice for criminalized women and trans people.
As a passionate and engaged community, we’re being smart on crime together…. and, this is only the beginning.
To read the “Inside-Out Center Newsletter”, where the Walls to Bridges Collective is featured, click here.
Today the Inside-Out Program exists in 25 American states and growing fast. In September 2010, the Lyle S. Hallman Faculty of Social Work at Wilfrid Laurier University, and Grand Valley Institution for Women partnered to host this ground-breaking program, being one of the first ever Canadian Inside-Out Programs. The second WLU & GVI course just finished in April 2012 and two more will be starting in September 2012. We have also begun developing an Inside-Out Canadian Instructor Training Institute where all Canadian instructors interested in teaching Inside-Out courses will come to get trained in the Inside-Out pedagogy.
Author: Kayla Follet – Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Kayla studied at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick where she completed an honours degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Upon graduation she travelled and worked in different community settings. She is now working toward her Master of Social Work degree from Wilfrid Laurier University and happily fulfilling her Practicum Placement at the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: May 31st, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
This week, I joined KidsLINK and community leaders from across Waterloo Region and the child and youth services sector in Ontario to talk about trauma – really, a conversation of hope and change, challenge and change…. and of course, prevention.
This was my first experience hearing from Dr. Ann Jennings – an advocate for changing our social and human service systems to be equipped to deal with early childhood trauma. Dr. Jennings used the 15 year Adverse Childhood Experiences study to outline the impacts of childhood trauma and the long term consequences of unaddressed trauma. The parallels to “root causes” of crime and “risk factors” for crime that informs the work of the Waterlo Region Crime Prevention Council were not lost on me! I felt like Dr. Jennings was speaking our language!!
What spoke volumes was Dr. Jennings’ story of her daughter Anna.
“Anna Jennings was sexually abused when she was less than three years old. This was the first of several abuses that occurred over her lifetime, and put a confused, frightened child into a mental health system that neither recognized nor treated Anna’s real problem. Diagnosed “schizophrenic”.. she was institutionalized for more than 12 years from age 15 to 32. Although she attempted to communicate the “awful things” that had happened to her, there was no one to listen, understand or help her. She took her life on October 24, 1992, on a back ward of a state mental hospital.”
(http://www.theannainstitute.org/a-bio.html)
Dr. Jennings went on to outline the “wall of missed opportunities” that took place over the course of Anna’s life. The sheer number of dates, warning signs and professional involvements could have literally filled a wall. Had these opportunities not been missed, her daughter might have been helped and might still be alive today.
Why is it that we can pinpoint – after the fact – all the places in a person’s life where change could have made a difference, yet our services, systems, families, schools and communities can’t seem break through at those critical moments?
This got me wondering – what if our entire social support systems was equipped to recognize and deal with trauma in our children and youth. Dr. Jennings, quoting a colleague, suggested that if we could effectively do that, we could reduce the size of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) to that of a pamphlet. I suspect there might also be fewer people in the criminal justice system and in prison.
Research tells us that a high percentage of people in prisons, those with addictions and many who have mental health issues have stories of trauma such as abuse, witness to abuse, neglect, and early trauma in a household environment. Now, I’ve never been to prison, but I’ve visited enough of them to know that it is not a place where one could not effectively deal with the impact of trauma in a helpful way. Trauma-informed practices are showing evidence that another way is not only possible, but also practical and cost effective.
Through the ACE Study, it is estimated that the long term consequences of unaddressed trauma (disease, disability, suicide, chronic health problems and social problems) currently stands at $103,754,017,492.00. Yes, you read that correctly. That’s over 103 BILLION (US) dollars.
Now there’s a ” wall of missed opportunity”. Taking a prevention-based approach could save billions of dollars and help people in a healthier way.
Smart on crime, indeed.
For background documents shared during this presentation, including Dr. Jennings’ PowerPoint slides, vist the KidsLINK website to access them. Please consider sharing this information with colleagues.
Posted on: April 30th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
And while we’re at it, let’s also talk about prevention, addictions and compassion.
I suppose you’re wondering, where am I going with all of this? Well, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council recently held the 34th Annual Justice Dinner, an awareness-raising event about local justice issues. Our guest was The Honourable Justice Kofi Barnes, who started the very first Drug Treatment Court in 1998 in Toronto.
I was expecting a chronology and history about the initiation and implementation of the first Drug Treatment Court. However, I found myself leaning in a bit closer when Justice Barnes told his own personal story – how he was handed the task of finding alternative ways of dealing with the revolving door of people in courts and corrections who clearly had underlying addictions or mental health issues. Admittedly, fueled, in part, by a desire to preserve his career, and in part inspired by his own father, Justice Barnes spent 4 years developing an alternative ‘problem solving court’ which, 14 years later, has grown to more than 10 drug treatment and mental health courts in Canada.
What struck me most was Justice Barnes’ insistence that we need to move beyond our narrow view of ‘justice’ as ‘the letter of the law’ in every case. Rather, ‘justice’ must find a balance for the person who has committed a crime, the victim and our community as a whole. Rightly, he claims that it serves none of these if we never deal with the root cause of a problem. Regular Smart on Crime guest blogger Frank Johnson, put it this way:
“Drug treatment and mental health treatment courts are two approaches where the particular needs of individuals that may have contributed to criminal behaviour are addressed in a supportive yet accountable environment. In these courts the emphasis is on preserving the dignity of those involved with crime by holding them accountable while providing them with the tools to make changes in their lives, where change is possible. This is a recognition that a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to justice has not and will not reduce crime or the recidivism rate. It makes social and economic sense, as the more alternatives to prison we create, the more benefit we see to taxpayers by reducing the costs of crime.”
Justice Barnes admits that he had a hard time convincing his colleagues in the courts, corrections and law enforcement communities that this approach could work. But gradually, as people from these systems had opportunities to participate in the alternative processes and saw the humanity present there, they became easy converts.
Justice Barnes’ story of personal connection and the potential for system change has stuck with me now for days. In fact, it reminded me of this Ted Talk by Bryan Stevenson “We need to talk about an injustice“. While Stevenson is a lawyer in the southern United States and daily confronts the issue of race in the U.S Criminal Justice system, the parallels between his talk and that of Justice Barnes is not lost on me.
They both believe in the need for justice that is based on hope and tied to dignity and compassion. They both believe that each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done. They both believe that each of us has a basic fundamental human dignity that must be respected by law. They both believe that our whole community is made stronger when we use smart on crime approaches that address the greatest injustices.
While it’s the more challenging place to be and to work, it will ultimately make us more human. And isn’t that what we should all be working for?
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts about the Honourable Justice Barnes’ talk at the Justice Dinner. What has stuck with you? What inspired you or challenged you? Let us know.
In the meantime, watch the talk from Bryan Stevenson.
Posted on: April 11th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
On this, the international Day of Pink – a day of celebrating diversity and for standing up against bullying, discrimination, homophobia and transphobia in our schools, workplaces and our communities – it’s only fitting to have reflection from someone who’s been there.
A new movie has recently debuted in theatres and has won critical acclaim. It’s called “Bully” and I plan to see it. In the meantime though, I can say that I have lived it. Likely many of you have as well. We all have our stories of how we were bullied and, maybe even how we bullied others. Those are the harder ones to come to grips with and admit. As adults, our bullying may have been done within our work organizations. Some seems to be so prevalent as to be almost institutional. It seems hypocritical to decry bullying in our schools when we allow it to exist in our work environments or homes. I’ve worked in those environments and, truth be told, probably contributed to them; climates in offices where exclusion is a norm, where gossip is an accepted practice, where co-workers are demonized for differences in beliefs, attitudes, capabilities or appearance.
Bullying isn’t confined to school hallways and classrooms or through social media, though one would be forgiven for thinking that based upon the media coverage given the horrific stories about the consequences of such behaviour. To think that young people opt to end their lives rather than face another day of torment is just so sad. As an educator and parent my heart breaks each time I learn that another child or teen has been victimized to the extent that there only hope of escape is death.
In Waterloo Region we are focused on being “smart on crime” and strive to be “smart on bullying” as well. Both school boards and the Region of Waterloo Public Health have implemented the “Imagine a School Without Bullying” program (most commonly referred to as the “Imagine” program) which focuses on teaching emotional literacy to student through approaches that are embedded into the academic program. It is based on the core values of justice, compassion, respect, inclusion and equality. School staff have been trained to work with their students and have a wealth of resources to draw upon. The Region of Waterloo Public Health has done an incredible job in its partnership with school boards in putting this program together and the program has been recognized far and wide because of the array of supports to schools in this effort. At this point the program is currently directed at elementary schools and all secondary schools have developed anti-bullying initiatives that are unique to their school environments. As a school principal for several years, I know that the effects of bullying don’t stop at the school’s boundaries. Those memories travel with victims and perpetrators, often as emotional scars that stay until they are healed through understanding, love and perhaps professional intervention.
Still, bullying exists. In his book, “The Better Angels of our Nature”, Steven Pinker noted that bullying has always existed in schools and likely will continue to do so, despite our best efforts. Though it’s been awhile since I read it, I think it has to do with the innate sense or need for some to be dominant over others, some of which is likely biological and some sociological. We see examples of bullies in movies and books and we all cheer when they get their comeuppance. Who didn’t do a fist pump when the bully was dealt with in movies such as “Bad Day at Black Rock”, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” or “Back to the Future”? Okay, I am dating myself but these are classics. Now, before you go on to Netflix in the hope of finding an answer to bullying in these movies, I need to forewarn you that, in each instance there’s a level of violence where the bullied takes on the bully. I am not suggesting that’s the preferred strategy to use; far from it. Better ones are being used locally. Restorative Justice is a process developed from the healing circles associated with Canada’s aboriginal population and religious traditions and practices from our Mennonite community. In Restorative Justice the focus is on victim rights and needs being recognized by the offender who, along with community members, works to take responsibility and ownership for his/her actions to develop a plan that make things right. Much of our legal system is retributive, not restorative. Gandhi once said that if we adopt a position of “eye for an eye” we will eventually be left with a world where everyone ends up blind.
Recently the Ontario government introduced anti-bullying legislation known as the “Accepting Schools Act” which has incited controversy because it addresses the issue of bullying related to LGBTQ youth as part of the population of students being bullied. Some Catholic school parents are upset because they feel the government is moving into areas they feel are best left in the home. Attached to this is the issue of what to call “gay-straight alliances” in Catholic schools. While I support the right of parents and students to hold divergent views, let’s not lose sight of the fact that kids are being bullied at school and on the Internet and sexual orientation is a significant factor.
My question is a larger one. Is legislation the answer? The cynic in me says that if we have to resort to legislation we may have already lost the battle against bullying. However, given all of the tragedies associated with bullying it is something the government is forced to do. Parents, victims and schools will welcome some further rules and consequences. However, it seems to me that we need to frame the issue differently. We need to start at the beginning, not at the end. I have always been a proponent of the Invitational Education approach associated with Dr William Purkey. His theory is that if schools (and I believe any business or institution where people come together for a common purpose) bases all they do on the concepts of trust, respect, intentionality, optimism and caring and that these are demonstrated in their policies, processes, programs, environments involving the people they work with and serve, they will create intentionally inviting places where all people are accepted. In this approach we will find a better answer than legislation. There is no doubt that after seeing the movie “Bully” there will be greater support for new rules, processes and sanctions. But folks, the answer is not “out there” in the realm of government. It is inside each of us. It is in our beliefs, attitudes and actions; it’s in our world view.
How do we view the people around us? Do we want them to succeed? Do we want to help them do so, even if it means the effort costs us? I am not pointing a finger at the government or the efforts of our MPP Elizabeth Witmer who are deeply concerned enough to take action. They are as frustrated with bullying as the rest of us; their responses are limited by their roles. Legislation is what they do. As Abraham Maslow has said, “If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” While legislation may well be a necessary tool in the box, it can’t be the only one. Though Waterloo Region has been smarter on bullying in its approach, there is still much to do.
There’s no simple answer to bullying. It is as complex as the humans who practise it or are victimized by it. I think what is needed is a fresh look at how we want our institutions and relationships to be. It’s a bigger issue than bullying. Bullying is symptomatic of relationships, schools and organizational structures that are not functioning at their peak. The Imagine framework and Invitational Education, along with the principles of Restorative Justice could be the starting place. It won’t be easy because these programs call for a cultural shift. They get at our thinking and even deeper; they get at how we live our lives. However, without change at this fundamental level, no legislated behaviour will take hold. We need to make bullying so socially unacceptable, so anti-cultural that it is a contravention of the way we are in our schools, places of work and our homes; it is the exception, not the norm. As Richard Rohr says, “We don’t think ourselves into a new way of living; we live ourselves into a new way of thinking.”
If we place our hopes in legislation I fear we are already lost.
Maybe you think differently. Let me know.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: March 20th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
“A Community Fit for Children Interim Update: Results of the 2010 Early Development Instrument and Kindergarten Parent Survey for Waterloo Region” was shared with members of the Alliance for Children and Youth at its most recent meeting. The introduction states, “This report paints a picture of how well Senior Kindergarten children are doing in Waterloo Region.It focuses on data gathered through the Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the Kindergarten Parent Survey (KPS), and compares the results of 2004, 2007 and 2010 data”. Later on it explains that the “EDI measures readiness to learn in five domains of child development: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development,and communication skills and general knowledge.”
The EDI is completed by teachers based upon their observations of the students in front of them. The data is gathered by school and community to paint a picture of the readiness of children across the Region with the added perspective of a neighbourhood by neighbourhood scan so that social agencies and planners can be proactive in programming to support those areas where young people are doing well, and the allow for early intervention to address areas of need.
How does this relate to being smart on crime you might ask? if we accept the premise that a key to crime prevention is in approaches tailored to the needs of a specific neighbourhood, then this information allows social agencies and schools to develop programs to counter deficits that may be exposed as a result of the surveys. For example, in the subdomain of social competence with peers “there has been a consistently smaller percentage of children who are ready in comparison to Ontario” since 2004. Social competence refers to skills related to managing behaviour in social situations. Targeted interventions that address this issue, while not discounting impulsivity related to brain development, may lead to a decreased need for behavioural consequences later in their school life or in community interactions with others that could result in poor choices leading to criminal charges. For the subdomain of aggressive behaviour (including getting into physical fights, laughing at the discomfort of others, bullying or being disobedient) the report indicates that “the percentage of children ready in this subdomain increased significantly between 2007 and 2010 and was not significantly different from the Ontario baseline”. This is good news as we know that getting to young people as soon as possible and investing in their well-being helps us create a safer community for all in later years.
Another good news story is that the EDI shows the language and cognitive development scores from the latest data indicate that in 2010 there were “significantly less children scoring low than in Ontario as a whole. Higher academic scores leads to greater school success which means increased engagement in school. Down the line this leads to higher graduation rates that allow young people a greater chance to meet career goals. Again, this leads to a safer society by addressing at least one root cause of crime, low education levels. More work needs to be done in the subdomain of communication skills and general knowledge where children in Waterloo Region are still scoring lower than in Ontario as a whole.
Knowing what we know from this snapshot of school readiness, all levels of government, community agencies and service clubs can be even more intentional about funding and placing programs in high needs neighbourhoods. For example, an asset or strength-based approach to community development can focus on certain neighbourhoods where needs are most pronounced. The use of data to inform decisions like these is critical because it allows tailored solutions. Much like a doctor might prescribe a specific drug to fight a certain infection instead of a broad-based antibiotic we too need to use the information contained in reports like “The Community Fit for Children” to design interventions that can be more readily evaluated for success.
I know some might argue that it’s quite a leap from the school readiness of kindergarten children to crime prevention initiatives or that I am implying that certain deficits in identified neighbourhoods are directly linked to crime. Let me be clear, this is not my intent. My argument is that we know early intervention is the best prevention, therefore, we need to look at all of the data available to us in order to be proactive earlier so that we prevent problems at a later age. We owe that to all children and their parents.
What are your thoughts?
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: February 23rd, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
As someone lucky enough to be a mere observer of the criminal justice system and not a participant, my curiosity was peaked when I heard a young offender (let’s call him Henry) speak about his experiences and the wisdom gained as a result. Henry and I met recently to give me a close-up view of the perspective of someone who has been affected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), an act that has been widely praised for the balance it strikes between compassion and consequence. Much of the rationale given by the Minister of Justice in regards to the changes to the Act, as part of Bill C-10, is in regards to what he perceives to be “out of control youth”. Now, in my time as a school principal I probably met many of the young people who, for a period of time, might fall into this category. But, isn’t anyone who commits a crime temporarily out of control?
Everyone has a different story so legislation like Bill C-10 that severely reduces the discretion judges can use knowing the story behind the youth and the crime is disturbing. Judges need this discretion because every person coming before the bench is unique and, what works for some won’t work for all. Some young offenders never come into contact with the courts or police ever again because they have benefitted from the alternative measures and diversion programs designed to do just that. Whereas others, like Henry, aren’t helped by them, not because they aren’t good programs but participation in them requires a commitment not every offender is able to give because they aren’t ready for it. Human nature is incredibly complex, requiring a nuanced approach that C-10 does not seem to offer.
Henry allowed me to hear his story one afternoon recently. In order to protect his identity I have changed some of the facts in his story. Henry was an inmate in the correctional system more than once. He has seen it up close. Not a pretty place, though it can bring structure and support to some who might need it. There are some guards who are helpful and hopeful and others who are disrespectful of inmates and abuse their authority through the arbitrary loss of points inmates can use for privileges. It’s not an easy place to maintain one’s dignity, particularly with overcrowding (which is already seen in many jails and prisons and will only worsen under C-10). Being brought to court for remands and made to wait hours in cuffs and shackles for the appearance and then to wait again for the return to jail was frustrating. Made to sit on a concrete bench for hours doesn’t help one maintain a sense of dignity. For Henry court was a frustrating experience because it seemed no one was interested in his side of the story as his lawyer did most of the interaction with the judge and court officials.
The adolescent brain is still in a stage of maturation and has not fully developed the capability to reason thoughtfully. Many young people don’t take the time to reason out the impulse to act out, whether it results in a theft, a fight, a threat or a robbery. Steven Pinker, in his book “The Better Angels of our Nature” says “The arc of crime in adolescence is the outcome of these inner forces [sensation-seeking and competitiveness] pushing and pulling in different directions (p.600-601). Young people, if Henry is an exemplar, do not always take the time to reason out the deterrence factors of the penalties associated with laws. It’s not necessarily in their biological nature during adolescence. It is evolving and not fully-formed.
As part of the program at inREACH, Henry has learned about brain development and the role it has played in his discernment process. Through the lessons learned there he has come to personify what Pinker says…”In the long run, self-control gains the upper hand when it is fortified by experience which teaches adolescents that thrill-seeking and competitiveness have costs and that self-control has rewards” (p 601).
Not only has he learned valuable lessons himself but he hopes others can too. He especially hopes police will take every opportunity to be people and not just their roles. He hopes that more can be gained by listening and offering respect than a heavy hand or preconceptions about youth. In his view, some officers think fear is better than respect. Thankfully that has not been the attitude of every officer or correctional staff member. He also learned that family is more important than friends, maybe making truth of the old saying that “blood is thicker than water”. Henry’s family has been there for him, at each court appearance and with regular visits when he was incarcerated. He has come to a deeper appreciation of them.
Henry’s is just one story and I wish I could tell it more fully but I don’t want to take the chance of anyone identifying him because of this article. There are many stories of youth who haven’t had the support of family, school or programs like inREACH. Henry has taken the support he’s been given and made himself a better person. He hopes to use his experiences to help others as a career and will likely be a positive influence in the lives of many others. He is resilient. My worry is for those for whom the harsher strictures of C-10 will turn the benefits of the YCJA into something destructive.
From Prison to a Place Called Home: A Forum for Federally Sentenced Women – Remarks given by Alison Pedlar at the event on Wednesday January 25, 2012.
Why is a housing forum especially necessary at this time? Not only necessary, but critical in terms of the kind of society we may become or indeed are becoming, and in terms of the wellbeing of our community, and all the members of it, including all of us here today and those we represent, ranging from criminalized women, to service providers, to ordinary Canadians everywhere.
So, again, the question, why this forum? Some background may be helpful. In a nutshell, in 1990 the government of Canada accepted the recommendations contained in a report entitled, Creating Choices, Changing Lives: The Transformation of Women’s Corrections in Canada. This landmark report was welcomed in Canada and indeed was hailed in many other parts of the world, for its insight and relevant recommendations around women’s corrections. It ushered in a major shift in how we addressed women who had come into conflict with the law, in ways that recognized gender and conditions that lead women to prison. The Creating Choices philosophy was embraced and honoured in practice in women’s corrections. It was recognized as the right thing to do, and it did indeed encompass appropriate approaches with positive outcomes.
Fast forward to 2011-12, and the advent of Omnibus Bill C-10 (the “Safe Streets and Communities Act“) which as we know has been met with lots of debate from many different perspectives, including crime prevention organizations, people with extensive knowledge in criminal justice and law, parole, correctional investigators, some police groups and others. There is widespread fear that the adoption of the Safe Streets and Communities Act very likely will dramatically reshape the Canadian criminal justice system with some pretty devastating outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable members of our society. Equally though, there have been dissenting views expressed by those who believe the government is doing the right thing in bringing in this legislation, and indeed is doing what it promised to do when elected with a majority last May.
So, at the end of the day, whatever one thinks about Bill C-10, it is pretty clear that we as a community have to deal with ensuring availability of housing as more and more women end up incarcerated for offenses that will increasingly, I fear, not be examined or dealt with at their root cause, namely poverty, abuse, and neglect.
And as more and more women end up in prisons that were never intended to house these sorts of numbers, so too more and more women will eventually, God willing, return to our communities. And this is the challenge we face now and for the indefinite future – we must find ways of supporting and accommodating women on release. Right now, as you have heard this morning, the options are not huge, in fact they are dreadfully limited. And if we want to help keep our communities safe, and part of that is helping criminalized women return to some kind of decent existence with decent and safe housing, then we have work to do.
Presumably, most if not all of us are here today because we recognize that housing is essential to a healthy environment that can foster reintegration. Housing on release ought to come in a range of shapes, forms, and sizes, such as halfway houses, such as rental apartments, such as private home placements, such as shared family homes and so on – but none of this can happen without appropriate resources and funding. Resources and funding ought to be a no-brainer when one considers that today to house a woman in prison for a year costs over $210,000 and the cost to taxpayers will inevitably increase with the anticipated increases in prison populations and staffing. I have a hunch, and in fact research likely indicates, that these dollars would go a long, long way in supporting and housing a woman in community. So it is astounding to realize that as recently as a year ago we failed to get a halfway house for women off the ground in this community because the funding available was so unrealistically low it was destined to have the initiative fail. Other options like private home placements as well as other halfway houses have had similar experiences with funding struggles, and indeed critical support and outreach services that support Aboriginal women have met insurmountable funding challenges.
However, today we have an exciting opportunity to revisit and explore possible alternatives and options that we as a community can work toward in the development of the sort of housing landscape that needs to be available for women coming out of prison. It’s time we got with the program, and as I suggested a moment ago, with the arrival of Bill C-10, we absolutely have no alternative but to move forward with housing and resource services for women who will ultimately move out of GVI into community. So that’s why we are here today.
In summary, then,
What we have heard this morning indicates to us that, with 75% of women in prison being mothers, we need to address the issues around reuniting mothers with their children;
There are women with nowhere to go, how do we end that situation?
Alternatives like halfway houses and Private Home Placement programs need to be funded realistically.
Do we need to do better around issues of addiction and mental health?
How do we ensure women have sufficient $$ to live a decent life?
How do we ensure women have access to resources and support services, including housing, that are essential aspects of healthy and safe community life?
Alison Pedlar is a Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Waterloo. Prior to retirement she conducted extensive research with federally sentenced women examining reintegration. Some of her work can be accessed at Uncertain Futures: Women Leaving Prison and Re-Entering Community. She currently serves on the Citizens Advisory Committee of Grand Valley Institution for Women.
Posted on: December 14th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
For awhile, this past weekend, I thought I was in a parallel universe. Something wasn’t making sense. I was reading an article in The Record about the drug treatment court that was launched several months ago to work with those whose addictions have led them to commit crimes. The article was about graduation day for the first group of offenders who began the alternative program back in February 2011. Dianne Wood from The Record wrote a ‘good news’ story celebrating not only the work of the offenders in turning their lives around, but also the work done by the Crown, police, social workers and various support agencies. Judge Colin Westman, who operates the court with crown prosecutors Kathleen Nolan and Lynette Fritzley had this to say, “This should be a statement to the justice system. There are ways other than punishment to help (people) turn their lives around. It’s more frequently done with love than punishment.” I had to read that more than once to ensure I hadn’t missed something.
As I read his words and other laudatory comments by the Crown attorneys I couldn’t help think about Bill C-10. This innovative drug court approach, according to Wood, receives no financial support from the federal government, unlike six other drug courts operating in Canada. Their approach, combining respect and support for the offender, while not excusing the crime nor forgoing punishment, seems to be in stark contrast to the “tough on crime” stance evident in the new Bill C-10 legislation. Their approach starts with the offender, putting the crime in the context of their lives, their struggles with addiction and their hopes and plans to turn things around. In doing so it has a better chance of matching the offender’s addiction issues with the support networks that will allow them the opportunity to get clean and stay clean. Will all succeed? No, according to one of the Crowns who helped develop the program. But, considering the cost of incarceration (approximately $75,000 annually) and the fact that it pulls people from families, homes, jobs and education, one wonders why this approach wouldn’t be the norm. Particularly at a time when we are seeing overcrowding at our local women’s prison and will no doubt see more of it as a result of C-10.
Now, there are some caveats. As Wood tells us, “the court won’t take offenders charged with violent crimes. It also won’t accept drug dealers who traffic for profit, although it will consider those who traffic to support their personal habit.” Offenders in the program are regularly monitored and must agree to live within certain conditions set by the court. Not everyone succeeds though there appears to be consensus that rehabilitation is less expensive than punishment and has a better chance of reaching the offender.
Given all of this, can you see why I am confused? With all of the negative press (and it sure seems to outweigh the positive) around C-10, why would the government want to continue with mandatory minimum sentences and other troubling features of their legislation? Is it strictly to honour their promise of getting tough on crime with legislation within the first 100 days of their mandate? Do they really think this will work? From what I can see in the program described by Woods in her article, it appears the offenders appreciated the respect shown to them and the trust placed in them to make positive changes. What’s your experience been?
I’ve found there is much more incentive to take control of your life when people believe in your ability to do just that. Respect for the individual and his or her unique circumstance is the key. Several years ago I had the privilege to work with Fr. Mike Cundari when he was the principal of the former St. Jerome’s High School. His actions and words demonstrated respect for all. I marvelled at his ability to reach even the most difficult student. As I watched and learned I saw that respecting each person and ensuring their dignity remained intact in any disciplinary action was the key to his success. That and his enormous religious faith. But faith aside, his approach is reminiscent of that shown by those who initiated the drug treatment court. Hundreds, if not thousands of young men who attended this all-boys school in Kitchener will tell you this approach helped them be the best they could be. In the years to come, if the government doesn’t kill this innovative, smart on crime court, the same will no doubt be said of it.
Maybe it’s a good time to remember the words of Jack Layton:
Love is better than anger.
Hope is better than fear.
Optimism is better than despair.
So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we will change the world.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts and comments on this. Please add them below.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: November 29th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Who could turn down an invitation to an event called “Cookies and Crime Prevention”…… ? Community events often use the lure of food and edible goodies to draw out attendees. I fell for that trap when I was asked to be a guest speaker for the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association (VPNA) AGM last week! That’s really only half the truth….
In fact, I’ve been involved with members of the VPNA for some time now in my role as Community Engagement Coordinator with the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. I could give you a long paragraph about the work we’ve been doing with residents in the neighbourhood. But that’s not nearly as interesting as hearing the story as told by of the neighbours herself.
Aimee makes the point so perfectly in her story. We all have a role to play in creating stronger neighbourhoods. Every little part makes a difference and together we are stronger. We. Can. Make. Change.
And sharing cookies doesn’t hurt either.
Additional stories about Cookies and Crime Prevention from The Record:
