Posted on: July 16th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Over the next ten weeks stay tuned here to the blog discussion on The Root Causes of Crime in Waterloo Region where community leaders, community residents and leading experts across Waterloo Region weigh in on the root causes of crime outlined in the report.
Children in Care
Children in the child welfare system tend to share histories of significant trauma. Children in the child welfare system are also at higher risk of involvement with the criminal justice system. The number of children in care within Waterloo Region therefore is a measure of the number of children with significant risk factors as well as a measure of risk for future criminal justice system involvement.
The Statistics
Source Data: Annual Report, Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2012
Story Behind the Numbers
The number of children in Waterloo Region in the residential care of Family and Children’s Service’s of the Waterloo Region increased by 19% from 2011 to 2012, while days of paid care increased by only 5%. This demonstrates a significant increase in children placed in care but only a small increase in days in care. This means most of the increase in children in care were short term stays in care. This one year increase warrants an on-going examination to see if a trend emerges or if it is a temporary impact of economic or other challenges facing the region.
Posted on: July 11th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Over the next ten weeks stay tuned here to the blog discussion on The Root Causes of Crime in Waterloo Region where community leaders, community residents and leading experts across Waterloo Region weigh in on the root causes of crime outlined in the report.
Source Data: Statistics Canada, Census (Released Every Five Years)
Story Behind the Numbers
Home ownership in the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA increased from 2001 to 2006. This increase in home ownership echoes the national trend which saw a similar increase over this time period. This is a positive trend for Waterloo Region as it indicates increased stability within the population.
Posted on: June 28th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
The data in the section of Root Causes of Crime in Waterloo Region titled Income of Low Income Families is no surprise to those of us who are familiar with poverty-related issues in our regional community. In fact, in Waterloo Region, 36 earners make more than $2.57M; 360 make more than $685K; 3,610 (the top 1%) make more than $396K. Individuals who make more than $81,200 are in the top 10%. On the other hand, the median income of the bottom 50% is $14,100!* In 2007, one third of employed individuals were earning $14.00/hour or less. This is poor – it may not be deep (or absolute) poverty, but it is precariously close to it.
Another point I’d like to make has to do with the title: ‘Income for Low Income Families’. I’m concerned that when we (government, media and community groups) use only the word ‘family’ or ‘children’ in our communications about poverty, we further stigmatize the ‘individual’. By leaving out the word ‘individual’ are we not practicing a type of exclusion even as we talk about and promote inclusion? Now, I know that the use of the word ‘individual’ in conjunction with poverty has greater stigma attached to it than the word ‘family’ or ‘children’ and most likely this is why many of us omit the ‘i’ word. But is this REALLY okay with you?
This brings me to the issue that is – in my opinion – the root of all root causes and needs the highest priority in order to significantly reduce and prevent poverty in the long term – this is the stigmatization of people living in poverty. Societal attitudes/values impact our political voting choices and influence policy decisions. It’s my belief that if enough of us TRULY believed that everyone was a valuable member of society, we’d have much better policies in place reflecting that belief.
Since 2007, as resources allow, Opportunities Waterloo Region has been working on an initiative to shift societal attitudes towards people living in poverty. As a result of the early work completed by partners from across Canada, a three-phase strategy was developed. The three steps are:
research deep-seated attitudes of Canadians towards people living in poverty,
research best practices, and
develop a comprehensive, long-term multi-faceted approach to shift these attitudes.
The research step is critical. We think we know what the attitudes are, but these might be ones that are only visible on the surface. We need to know what the deep-seated societal attitudes are and how (or if) they connect to one another, so that we can create an effective communications strategy. Lofty goal? Big job? You bet!
This project stalled because we could not find the research dollars to begin the first step. Then in 2011, as a result of Opportunities Waterloo Region’s long-term partnership with Dr. Terry Mitchell, Associate Professor, Psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University, we were able to begin a project to research deep-seated societal attitudes towards people living in poverty. Some of the data collected over the two years was analyzed, the results of which was presented at the May 28th Community Conversations Series event. You can view the presentation here. The findings were discussed and ideas for next steps considered. A fact sheet is currently being developed and will be share in our September newsletter.
If you’d like a copy of the fact sheet or further information about the research project, please let me know. Although we don’t have all the answers yet, progress has been made, various strategies to shift attitudes are being discussed, and we are having deeper conversations about these attitudes – all very important early steps.
Author: Since 2004, Mary MacKeigan has been the Executive Director of Opportunities Waterloo Region, a non-profit organization dedicated to the prevention and reduction of poverty. She has more than 20 years of experience in the field of poverty prevention, reduction and alleviation.
Posted on: June 27th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Over the next ten weeks stay tuned here to the blog discussion on The Root Causes of Crime in Waterloo Region where community leaders, community residents and leading experts across Waterloo Region weigh in on the root causes of crime outlined in the report.
Income of Low Income Families
Neighbourhoods that are at an economic disadvantage when compared to other areas report higher crime rates. In addition, societies where wealth is concentrated amongst a small group of individuals report higher crime rates. The graph below shows the average income of individuals in the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA and compares it to the average income of low income individuals in this area. This chart tracks the gap between low income individuals and those with significantly better economic means.
The gap between low income families and the middle income families is growing in the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA. This gap is largely the by-product of stagnant incomes for low income individuals. This growth disparity in the distribution of income suggests low income families in Waterloo Region are not benefiting equally from economic growth.
Posted on: June 25th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Our Waterloo Region community has a lot to say about most any topic you can think of, but, we are particularly passionate when it comes to talking about making change for a healthier and stronger community. We’re pretty good at moving to action too, not just talking about it!
The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council believes monitoring the root causes of crime can aid the community in addressing crime, victimization and fear of crime through awareness, discussion, leadership and action. Once the root causes are understood more clearly, resources can be applied to areas where the community is doing poorly. A Snapshot in Time: The Root Causes of Crime in Waterloo Region identifies the root causes of crime right here in Waterloo Region and provides a tool to aid local policy makers in targeting interventions to where they are most needed and where they can have the greatest impact.
In addition to being a monitoring tool the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council is using this report to aid members of the public in comprehending the complex connection between social and economic circumstances and crime. The report was written in a straightforward manner with each of the root causes containing an explanation of why it was included, a graph showing the statistics for Waterloo Region and a short story giving details on what is going on behind the numbers. Additionally, Wade McAdam created the following information graphic to help tell the story of the root causes in an easily accessible format.
A Snapshot in Time is also designed to be a catalyst for conversations in Waterloo Region about the root causes of crime. Over the next ten weeks tune in to this discussion through our blog series where community leaders, community residents and leading experts across Waterloo Region weigh in on the root causes of crime outlined in the report. Numbers only tell part of the story. It’s the human stories and context that make them come alive, create insight and move us to action.
I hope you will join us. We’re standing by… waiting to hear what you have to say!
Being a leader doesn’t necessarily mean being at the front of a rally with a megaphone. There are many components to leadership. It’s important, especially for the guys reading this, to remember that we are all leaders, whether to our brothers and sisters, our partners, our friends, or to our sons and daughters.
The sexism, misogyny, transphobia and homophobia found in the media and in our everyday interactions can be overwhelming and confronting these issues can make us feel vulnerable or powerless. At the same time, many men (and women) do not know how to confront these issues in their own lives. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of us remain silent. However, when we remain silent about violence against women we are perpetuating a rape culture – whether we intend to or not.
What does rape culture mean?
Rape culture is a term used to describe a society wherein sexual violence is normalized through behaviours, attitudes and practices that tolerate rape. Okay… what does that mean? Rape is not the only action that perpetuates rape. How we act and what we say go a long way in telling those around us what is acceptable. For example, if we laugh or remain silent when a rape joke is told by one of our co-workers while we are not condoning the behaviour described in the joke – we are allowing the attitude expressed by the person who told the joke to remain unchallenged and spread.
While sexist and misogynistic attitudes may not physically harm women we know that language structures our thoughts and behaviours. The more prevalent these attitudes become, the more they are internalized by men and used as justification for their treatment of women. Admittedly, the intent of jokes that dehumanize women is generally not to encourage men to physically harm women. However, the impact of rape jokes is the creation of a rape culture that tells the men listening that their behaviours and attitudes towards women are acceptable.
Undoubtedly, this is a societal issue — but it also needs to be addressed individually. I want to encourage men to become accountable in their own lives and understand that they can make a difference simply by working to be the best version of themselves that they can be. One way we can do this is by leading with lollipops:
To end, I would like to say that while men need to become more active, we must continue to be accountable to women and women’s organizations such as the Sexual Assault Support Centre Waterloo Region (sascwr.org) who have been doing this work for decades and who make the work we do possible. Men who become involved in ending violence against women are often romanticized while the work of women goes ignored or unnoticed. As such, it is important to remember that while the dominant construction of masculinity may not work for all men – patriarchy does.
Author: Stephen Soucie is a MAASV Public Education Facilitator for the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region. Currently, he is a Masters student in the Critical Sociology program at Brock University. His research areas include: violence against women, men and masculinities, masculinity and sport, and engaging men in anti-violence activism.
Posted on: June 12th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
The 2013 Ontario Budget was passed in the Ontario legislature on Tuesday June 11, 2013. The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council always looks to the budget through the ‘smart on crime’ lens of crime prevention. The 2013 budget presents some interesting spending and ‘non-spending’ as it relates to crime prevention. We look for information with an eye for the root causes of crime which are economic factors, social environment and family structures. The economic factors we look for include poverty, employment & educational opportunities, and housing. The social environment relates to social inequalities, support to families and neighbourhoods, accessibility to services, and children & youth well-being. The family structures may include parenting challenges & conflict, parental, spousal or children criminality, lack of communication, respect and responsibility, abuse or neglect of children, and family violence.
We have reviewed the budget and analyzed where it will directly or indirectly affect crime prevention through the root causes of crime. Here are few key highlights supporting crime prevention:
Health: Health is an important category to crime prevention because it targets the social environment which individuals live and supports family structures.
Funding growing to $93 million per year by 2013-24 for the Comprehensive Mental Health and Addiction Strategy which focuses on
Early intervention, community-based counseling, employment training, supportive housing, prevention of and treatment for substance abuse and problem gambling
Developing a narcotics monitoring system to reduce the abuse of prescription narcotics and controlled substance medication
Creating 23 health care links across the province to encourage greater collaboration and coordination by a patient’s different health care providers
Education: Education is an all around important part of crime prevention. It supports better economic factors, by increasing an individual’s chance for employment and health. It also provides a better social environment and leads to stronger family structures.
Government will work with the education sector to broaden measure of success to include higher-order skills such as:
Character, citizenship, communication, collaboration and teamwork, critical-thinking and problem-solving, creativity and innovation, entrepreneurialism, connection to postsecondary education and careers
$12.6 million over 3 years for the expansion of summer learning programs
Employment: Employment is very important for improving economic factors; it leads to a positive social environment and better family structures.
$195 million over 2 years for the Ontario Youth Employment Fund
Employment opportunities for 25,000 youth in Ontario
$200 from the first employment earnings can now be saved by recipients of Ontario Works and ODSP
Poverty: Poverty is directly linked to economic factors that may cause crime. Addressing poverty help to reduce economic factors that may lead to crime and improve the social environment in which people live.
Reduce child poverty by %25 by continuing the 5-year Poverty Reduction Strategy, which includes:
5-year extension of the Investment in Affordable Housing program announced in the 2013 federal budget, this should provide funding for:
Construction & renovation of affordable housing units, home ownership assistance, rent supplements, shelter allowances, renovation & repair of accommodation for victims of family violence
Aboriginal Peoples: Aboriginal Peoples are a large part of our population and are an important factor in preventing crime. Support and improvements to Aboriginal Peoples directly affects all the root causes of crime – economic factors, social environment and family structures.
$5 million per year to improve student achievement and explore strategies for successful transition from on-reserve schools to provincially funded schools
Develop a multi-year Aboriginal Children and Youth Strategy, which will focus on:
Building community driven, integrated and culturally appropriate supports to help Aboriginal children and young people group up healthy and reach their full potential
$4 million for 40 front-line positions for First Nation police services
Policing and Crime Prevention: policing and crime prevention are key ways to prevent crime directly. Funding and support are essential in order to create a social environment in which people feel safe and productive, improving economic factors and creating positive family structures.
$12.5 million annually for Provincial Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy and the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy which focus on:
Intervention, prevention, enforcement, and community mobilization strategies such as dedicated neighbourhood police officers
Currently 17 police services participate in PAVIS
$30 million over 3 years to Legal Aid Ontario, strengthening the capacity of Family Law Service Centres and other community legal clinics across Ontario
Children and Youth: Children and youth are the future of society and are directly related to crime prevention. In order to improve the future economic factors, social environments and family structures we need to work directly with the children and youth within our society.
Ontario Early Year Policy Framework – implement full-day kindergarten and support child care system
Youth Action Plan (& Premier’s Council on Youth Opportunities) – increase the number of Youth Outreach Workers
Areas the budget is not supporting crime prevention:
NO mention of C-10 – this is important for crime prevention as it has direct impacts economic factors, for example personal taxes and employment insurance. The fact that the budget did not mention this is concerning to crime prevention as it will continue to be part of federal legislation.
raise awareness and generate a dialogue on crime prevention in Ontario;
highlight the opportunities to move forward;
set the stage for the development of further crime prevention work with will build and enhance crime prevention partnerships, encourage the development of coordinated, multi-sectorial responses and promote community leadership and participation in crime prevention.
The fact that the budget does not mention this is noteworthy for future crime prevention as we intend to and assume the province intends to participate and follow the Ontario Crime Prevention Framework.
NO mention of how Ontario will pay for prisons – the document “Funding Requirement and Impact of the ‘Truth in Sentencing Act’” prepared by Rajakar A., and Mathilakath, R. states, “[…] the cost of new construction stemming from “Truth in Sentencing Act” will be borne in the proportion of approximately 21% to 22% by the federal GC, and 78% to 79% by the provincial governments.” The fact that our provincial budget does not discuss the costs or spending related to prison construction is noteworthy for future crime prevention. It is important to understand how the province is planning to fund the construction of new prisons and support the social environment and economic factors directly related to this.
ONLY 60% of Drummond report recommendations being implemented – The Drummond report, “‘The Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services’” was established in 2011 to provide advice to the government on how to deliver the most effective and efficient public services possible[…]” (from 2013 Ontario Budget, page 111). This is important for crime prevention because it is directly related to the root causes of crime and crime prevention.
When reviewing the budget it is important to note all the areas it will support crime prevention and the areas that are lacking in support of crime prevention. The lens of crime prevention allows us to view the budget critically to assess how and where it will directly and indirectly affect the work we are currently doing and the work we plan to do in the future to address the root causes of crime.
Author: Alexandra Kraushaar
Placement Student, Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council, is currently at University of Waterloo working towards an Honours degree in Knowledge Integration with Minors in International Development and Economics. Summer Placement Student at the Crime Prevention Council to gain valuable experience in community and social development. When I am not at school or at my placement, I can be found in St. Clements riding my horse. I am a passionate equestrian enthusiast, competing in Dressage throughout Canada and the US.
Posted on: April 24th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
This is the official position statement of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council given at a public consultation on the question of a casino in the City of Kitchener. The remarks below were given by WRCPC Executive Director, Christiane Sadeler on behalf of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight on the topic of a casino in Kitchener or the Waterloo Region. I am representing the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council; I also live in downtown Kitchener.
The Crime Prevention Council opposes the opening of a casino within Waterloo Region. However, in the event that a casino should be opened here, we recommend that the development and operations of the casino must incorporate crime prevention considerations and harm reduction strategies from the very beginning.
We have provided you with a full copy of the position statement and also included some materials that we believe are relevant in this context. The position statement is also available on our website (www.preventingcrime.ca). In the interest of time I can only highlight a few aspects of the position.
There has been no dialogue that did NOT at some point mention the concern that crimes increase in the proximity of casinos. Your own city online survey mentions safety along with considerations of health, city image and so on. Fear of long term impact on our quality of life is often as detrimental as crime itself. Perceptions can become reality. Right or wrong the connection between casinos and crime is part of public discourse. And perceptions are hard to change. We know that by now.
But what does the evidence tell us?
This is where it gets a little more grey. The research findings about a connection between crime and casinos are mixed, if not inconclusive. It would not be correct to claim that casinos have a DIRECT impact on crime, at least not an impact that would differ from that of other large entertainment facilities, at first sight. Direct links between crime and any one community action are hard to come by and must always be seen in the context of decreasing crime rates in the last decade.
We therefore must look beyond the direct connections to what we know about risks. What puts us at risk of crime, victimization, and fear of crime? It is here that the public health research is compelling and worthy of your in-depth consideration. We know that over 30% of profits in gambling come from problem gamblers and those at risk for gambling addictions. We know that these individuals share characteristics that are best defined as root causes of crime. We have detailed them in our position statement along with a report about root causes. We encourage you to consult both.
Simply put, whenever we increase the vulnerability of those already at risk, the financial and human burden to them and their families are quickly matched by the community and social costs. While casinos may not directly lead to increases in street level crime, they do lead to increases in other social ills and crimes, such as, intimate partner violence, addictions, etc. From a prevention standpoint these should concern us as much as public safety and disorder issues.
Problem gambling erodes the health of individuals and those close to them and by extension, of the communities in which they live.
The Ontario Lottery Gaming Commission does not deny that gambling addictions exist and that they come at a cost. These are brochures that are provided right at the Windsor Casino entrance, alerting patrons to these risks.
So, gambling facilities come with warning label. They also come with treatment recommendations if the warning labels were not effective. This is not forward thinking. This is resigning ourselves to the fact that along with these facilities will come problems.
Prevention is cross-generational. Are we OK with a baby born in 2013 becoming the casino patron of 2033? If the answer is, even remotely, “we are not sure”, then we need to hit pause and look more deeply at the research and the rationale for considering a casino here in the first place. Will the benefits justify the costs? Are we informed by the “8-80” concept? Is it a good decision for the 8 year old in our community AND for the 80 year old in our community no matter what walks of life they come from?
Most people who gamble may not engage in criminal activities. But those at risk of gambling addictions are vulnerable to many other issues that come at a social cost, crime among them.
We believe that for the crimes committed by the offender he or she is responsible; for not dealing with the root causes of crime when these are known to us, all of us are responsible.
However, if the decision is to bring a casino to our city the Crime Prevention Council recommends that prevention and harm reduction methods are included in the development and operations from the very beginning. In the position paper, we have outlined 12 harm reduction recommendations. These include considerations about alcohol consumption, placement of ATM machines, opening hours, self exclusion programs etc. The first recommendation is to establish a region wide advisory group with expertise in problem gambling prevention to provide input from the beginning, including during the RFP process.
In conclusion, the decision that you are faced with, in the mind of the Crime Prevention Council, is not to be taken lightly. It is a decision that will affect the well being of generations beyond all of us present here tonight. Waterloo Region is one of the safest and ultimately prosperous communities in Canada. We have become known for innovation and forward thinking. There is little innovative about a casino. We are on a solid path of creating and maintaining a safe and healthy community. It is hard to imagine that we can lose by passing on the idea of a casino. It is easier to imagine what we might lose if we take this on.
Thank you for your time and we wish you well in your decision making.
Posted on: March 18th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
I recently received a pamphlet from the federal government in my home mailbox titled “First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education Consultations” announcing an effort to seek citizen input into Aboriginal education on reserves. This is an area covered by the federal government whereas for other populations, education is a provincial matter. The hope is for proposed legislation to improve educational opportunities for Aboriginal children and youth. To quote from the brochure, “We all need to continue working together to create the structures and standards to support strong, accountable education systems on reserve that ultimately contribute to the success of individual students and their communities”. As a long-time educator I applaud efforts to increase accessibility to quality education but the brochure got me thinking about other areas the government might seek consultation about regarding Aboriginal peoples.
The Toronto Star has run an excellent, but disturbing, series called “Unequal Justice” that cites data on the rate of incarceration among Aboriginal people that should shock us. It’s worth a read. For example, Aboriginal boys make up just 2.9% of the general population, but 15% of admissions into custody. That’s 5 times higher than the rate of other young males. Black youth are incarcerated at a rate of 4 times more than the general population. For white and other ethnic youth there is no such increase. The Star series provides an excellent snapshot of current data to cause one to ask some basic questions about our justice system. It reminds me of the quote from the 60’s: Is it justice or “just us’?
The picture is even more disturbing for Aboriginal girls who have an admission and incarceration rate 10 times higher than other females in the general population. And this trend rises while the rate of crime is declining overall. Think about that for a moment…. We are putting more people in jail even though fewer crimes are being committed. And, those we incarcerate at higher rates tend to be non-whites. Are we supposed to believe that some people are genetically predisposed to committing more crime? Now, that would indeed be wacky science and we’ve been down that road too many times in our human history already. No, genetics is not the reason. The reason is rooted in society being reactive rather than proactive. Instead of allowing conditions to reach crisis proportions before we notice them we should all be engaged in fostering those conditions that support the needs of all people in Canada. Only that will lead to lower incarceration rates overall, and, specifically for populations that are over represented in our justice system.
In adult jails, the rate of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples is 6 times higher and 4 times higher for persons of colour than that of other populations. In reading this your first thought may be, “wow, that’s a lot of victims out there”. There is no victimless crime and no-one should diminish their suffering. But, would there be so many victims if the system wasn’t so broken? Shouldn’t we be looking at how we got here and how to prevent it from here?
I have never received a brochure from the government asking me for my input on why we incarcerate some members of our society more than others. I have never received a brochure asking my opinion on living conditions on reserves. I have never received a brochure seeking my views on treaty rights. I have never been asked about how we treat prisoners in regards to double-bunking, reduced educational opportunities or counselling services while incarcerated. It kind of begs the question then… why I am being asked only about educational opportunities provided to Aboriginal youth?
Sure, good education will help mitigate against one of the major root causes of crime, and I applaud that. But so will good housing, safe water, help for mental health and addictions and so on.
All of which leads me to wonder whether we are asking the right questions. By focusing only on education are we turning the light away from all of the other life issues that work against public safety? Multiple problems need multiple and integrated solutions.
If, for example, we know that it costs us between $90,000 and $230,000 to incarcerate one person, then why are we not talking about diverting at least some of those resources into programs and social development efforts that will keep people from committing crime in the first place?
I am waiting for the brochure to enter my mail box that will not piecemeal the issues but provide me with an honest to goodness comprehensive picture about the root causes that put some populations are at a social disadvantage for which we all pay dearly in reaction, and more importantly how we can go about changing that.
Now, THAT would be a consultation worth having.
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: January 28th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
How can government solve the complex issues facing society?
It may be, relatively speaking, straightforward for a government to cut taxes or make the trains run on time but alleviating poverty, reducing crime or eliminating pollution are problems too difficult for government alone to solve. In a previous video post, I discussed how politicians react to public opinion by creating public policy. I argued for a complex relationship between public opinion and policy. I’m about to contradict myself….. this is not always the case. In some instances political parties attempt to react directly to public opinion and create straightforward policy solutions.
In Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement, author Don Lenihan argues that the ‘consumer model of politics’ is the wrong approach. In the consumer model, political parties try to address the very specific concerns of voters in hopes of winning their support. Instead of addressing the big, long term, complex issues facing society, parties try and focus on simple solutions while avoiding taking positions on anything that might lose them support.
Lenihan believes this model cannot be used to deal with the difficult problems society faces because simple solutions are generally not effective at addressing complex issues. To borrow from another book, Getting to Maybe outlines a simple problem like baking a cake beside a complex problem like raising a child. A one page recipe probably will not give you the information you need to raise a child who turns into a healthy, well adjusted adult.
Simple, Complicated and Complex Problems
Simple
Complicated
Complex
Baking a Cake
Sending a Rocket to the Moon
Raising a Child
The recipe is essential
Rigid protocols or formulas are needed
Rigid protocols have a limited application or are counter-productive
Recipes are tested to assure easy replication
Sending one rocket increases the likelihood that the next will also be a success
Raising one child provides experience but is not guarantee of success with the next
No particular expertise is required, but experience increases success rate
High levels of expertise and training in a variety of fields are necessary for success
Expertise helps but only when balanced with responsiveness to the particular child
A good recipe produces nearly the same cake every time
Key elements of each rocket MUST be identical to succeed
Every child is unique and must be understood as an individual
The best recipes give good results every time
There is a high degree of certainty of outcome
Uncertainty of outcome remains
A good recipe notes the quantity and nature of the “parts” needed and specifies the order in which to combine them, but there is room for experimentation
Success depends on a blueprint that directs both the development of separate parts and specifies the exact relationship in which to assemble them
Can’t separate the parts from the whole; essence exists in the relationship between different people, different experiences, different moments in time
From “Getting to Maybe. How the World is Changed” (2006) Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman, Michael Quinn Patton
Similarly, Lenihan argues societal problems cannot be solved by a government led effort which is focused on simple solutions designed first and foremost to help win re-election. Instead Lenihan believes true collaboration between government, citizen and stakeholder groups is needed to create effective policy solutions.
Lenihan does not just criticize the current state of policy making, he also offers a solution. He recommends a model of public engagement where governments have a real dialogue with citizens. Many books and experts suggest that government needs to do a better job of listening to people but Lenihan takes this approach a step further. Instead of just asking for citizen concerns or people’s suggested solutions (i.e. consultation) he proposes that government, the public and stakeholders collectively develop an action plan with each group committing to playing a role in solving the problems identified. This is the key distinction. Most public engagement strategies stop at gathering input from citizens and then it is government’s responsibility to react to this input. Lenihan’s approach gathers input from citizens then once this input is received citizens are asked to work with government on implementing solutions.
Seeing a book defend this approach is reassuring for staff of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC).
Rescuing Policy does an excellent job of conveying the importance of shifting away from the consumer model of politics and explaining at a high level an alternative approach to consulting with the public. However, the book fails at providing the tools for practitioners to easily replicate the public engagement methods discussed in the book. Towards the end of Rescuing Policy, Lenihan touches on his plans to release a manual or textbook on designing public engagement processes. When this textbook is complete it will hopefully aid policy makers to put into practice the ideas contained in Rescuing Policy.
Rescuing Policy is available free from The Public Policy Forum. Electronic copies are available online here or you can order a copy here. If you develop public engagement processes, or want the help change the landscape for how public engagement is carried out in our communities, I encourage you to pick up a copy of this insightful book.
Author: Anthony Piscitelli is Supervisor, Planning & Research with the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. He collaborates on all research efforts published by WRCPC in addition to running the office sports pools.
Source Data: Annual Report, Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2012
Source Data: Statistics Canada, Census (Released Every Five Years)
Source Date: 
We have reviewed the budget and analyzed where it will directly or indirectly affect crime prevention through the root causes of crime. Here are few key highlights supporting crime prevention:
