Posted on: September 16th, 2015 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
One of the most anticipated highlights of our year happened last week. In case you happened to miss it (?!) – although, I’m not sure how you could – Howard Sapers was in town. Yes, THE Howard Sapers. Federal Correctional Investigator for Canada and ombudsman for federally sentenced offenders.
We partnered with Kitchener Public Library as part of their new 85 Queen Speaker Series to host this event and filled the auditorium with 230 people from our community. The action packed evening included a screening of the film “State of Incarceration”, a keynote address by Howard Sapers and a panel discussion with community members, including a formerly incarcerated woman from Grand Valley Institution for Women.
Howard Sapers oversees the Office of the Correctional Investigator, serving as an ombudsman for federally sentenced offenders.
Panel with (from left) Chris Cowie from Community Justice Initiatives, (off camera) Joe Mancini from the Working Centre, Howard Sapers, Julie Thompson from CJI, and Dionne, (not seen, pseudonym), a former federal inmate.
Aboriginal drummer Heather Majuary closed the event with drumming in honour of incarcerated Aboriginal lands.
Howard Sapers becomes our first honourary Friend of Crime Prevention!
Howard Sapers chats with an attendee who is currently a minimum security inmate. [Source: Kitchener Public Library]
Regional Chair Ken Seiling with former parole officer Mark Yantzi, a pioneer in the field of restorative justice and past Executive Director of Community Justice Initiatives [Source: Kitchener Public Library]
It’s true, change really does start from the inside. And that’s what Friends of Crime Prevention events are all about!
Howard Sapers chats with Aboriginal drummer Heather Majuary, who closed the event with drumming in honour of incarcerated Aboriginal lands
We have a video coming soon of Mr. Sapers’ keynote talk, but in the meantime, you can read his presentation here to catch all the incredible stats and stories he shared that night. He really does effectively paint a vivid picture about the state of Canadian prisons in 2015.
While you wait impatiently for the video, I”ll leave you with these two reflections from two currently incarcerated women from Grand Valley Institution for Women who attend the event. You’ll understand why it was such a big night.
Julie writes:
“I attended the forum for Friends of Crime Prevention, on September 10, 2015. I cannot begin to tell you how refreshing it is that discussions such as this are taking place. I was both shocked and pleasantly surprised at the amount of progressive people who attended the forum. There are faces and lives associated with the disturbing statistics Mr. Saper spoke of – mine is one of them. I was one of two currently incarcerated women at the event, with the Walls to Bridges Collective. Too often incarcerated people are treated as the rejects of society, disposable even, and let’s face it – advocating for us is not at the top of almost all priority lists. I firmly believe that many incarcerated people would not be in the criminal justice system to begin with, if they had been afforded access to and utilized stronger and earlier preventative measures through social intervention and more accessible social and health services; myself included. Sadly, I did not consider the flaws in our systems until I was directly affected. Now that I am, however, I cannot turn a blind eye to them anymore, not just for myself, but for the staggering amount of other people making up those statistics, and for those yet to come. I am relieved to know I am not alone in this quest. All human life has value – thank you for making “out of sight” not be “out of mind” anymore. The forum helped to humanize us and highlight some of the injustices of our daily reality. I left with a renewed sense of hope and purpose. I am thankful that this forum created a safe place for people to come together, ask questions, and push boundaries. To evoke much needed change will require more bridges to be built than walls. We have a long way to go, but I am hopeful that just as a storm starts with a single raindrop, so too does change start with forums such as this one.”
Denise writes:
Just as the world will always remember September 11, 2001, in a negative light, Thursday, September 10, 2015 will be etched in my mind for as long as I exist as an achievement to social awareness. You see, since my incarceration it was the only day in which I came in contact with people besides volunteers and members of the Walls to Bridges group and voice my dilemma while feeling safe to bare my soul. Mr. Howard Sapers provided statistics that were both daunting and hopeful. Information on how tax dollars are truly spent to build and house a growing prison population at a time where the crime rate for the past decade plus has been on the decline. I am part of those statistics and Canada is following the footsteps of the failed American system that ex President Bill Clinton and present sitting President Barak Obama stated ‘is not working’. The large majority of incarcerated people will be released and upon their discharge, are expected to function and contribute to the same society that deemed them as criminals. If education is at least a gateway to success, incarcerated people need more training to learn and utilize skills and tools required to help them successfully add to the fabric of society’s fast paced, ever changing existence. Prevention, Prisons & Popcorn at Kitchen Public Library was a forum that brought together a community of progressive thinking people aware of the challenges society will surely be faced with once the voiceless, faceless people are unconstrained. An awareness of prisons and the need for community inclusion upon the release of prisoners are part of an encompassing subject tax payers don’t realize every member of a community may be accountable for. After someone goes from inmate to civilian because they have paid their dues to a faulty justice system and they no longer live in the past where they made poor choices, when do they get a fair shot at being seen in a new light? There needs to be more discussions such as the one Prevention, Prisons & Popcorn opened up where communities are aware of their interconnectedness to their surroundings, even their walled surroundings.
Posted on: April 7th, 2015 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Back in February 2015, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections (CCJC), released a very promising evaluation report on the Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) program that operates across Canada. CoSA is a “community-based reintegration program, grounded in restorative justice principles, that holds sex offenders accountable for the harm they have caused while assisting with their task of re-entry into communities at the end of their sentences”.
The evaluation, the first of its kind in Canada, gives an in depth description of how the program works, documenting it’s success rate and cost savings due to reduced recidivism and reoffending. In short, the evaluation says that this program works.
CoSA Canada quickly released a statement to clarify and restate the real impacts of this program: a proven model that addresses a high risk crime against vulnerable people in a humane and accountable way and shows that it can reduce recidivism of the highest risk sexual offenders by 70 – 83%.
This is what we at the Crime Prevention Council would be inclined to call a “smart on crime” approach to reducing crime and victimization:
the program is based in good evidence,
the approach is measured and documented in similar ways across programs,
it has produced excellent results,
it is proven to reduce and prevent further crimes at a lower cost than keeping an individual incarcerated for “life”, and,
helps to reintegrate individuals into our community, which is where 95% of people exiting prison, including those convicted of sexual offenses, will return eventually at the end of their sentences
Meanwhile, this ‘made in Canada’ approach has been successfully exported to a number of jurisdictions in the U.S. and the U.K., in addition to France, The Netherlands, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Latvia and South Korea.
When programs show that they accomplish what they set out to do at comparatively low investment and provide a high return on investment to the safety of our community, their sustainability is not only vital, but smart and it makes so much more sense to support of them rather than cut them.
As such, the decision by CSC to cut funding for CoSA is tough to understand and needs further dialogue and consideration.
Posted on: December 30th, 2014 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
We’ve been in reflection mode this week at the WRCPC office. The time of year lends itself perfectly to this kind of ‘look back’ at the year that was 2014. I hope you are enjoying your own reflections. And, since we’re at it, why don’t we do some reflecting together, with the help of Smart on Crime.
Our readers are as diverse as our blog posts, which would explain the diversity of popular blogs this year. Here’s the round up of our top 14 posts from 2014.
“Since 2006 the Canadian government has focused on being tough on crime. The policy approach continues to this day but it seems the Canadian public is starting to see these changes as a policy excess. Instead of focusing on punishment, public opinion polls suggest the government focus should be on prevention through education and social development programs.”
“As a Friend of Crime Prevention, I believe that that the heart of crime prevention is through social and community development…..
Imagine neighbourhoods where everyone feels a sense of belonging, where inclusion trumps fear.
Imagine workplaces where people belong, and where respect and collaboration trump power and politics.
Imagine schools where belonging trumps bullying and streaming.”
“I do believe that many small actions will add up to a large action on the road to building a community of belonging. It can be as simple as acknowledging the presence of a homeless person in downtown Kitchener, they are part of our community, a friendly smile goes a long way in making a person feel like they belong. I challenge you to do something to make our community a community of belonging, smile at a stranger, volunteer somewhere in your community, it will make a difference, it will connect you!”
“inREACH fostered a working environment that not only allowed us, but encouraged us to work outside of the box. I’d be lying to say the task was not daunting at first. In my previous experience working as a Youth Worker I had never been given such flexibility and confidence within a position to achieve the desired outcome; an outcome that was not based on the amount of programs ran or number of program participants but the ability to engage youth in their community.”
“To usher in 2014, WRCPC hosted a learning event on ‘Neighbourhood Policing’. Naturally, Friends of Crime Prevention & WRCPC have a common interest with the police on all things related to crime prevention, community safety and well-being. Inspector Kevin Thaler from the Waterloo Regional Police Service was our guest to unveil the recent sweeping changes to their organizational structure, daily operations and dispatch methods. The results are what is now known as Neighbourhood Policing.”
“Having been with inREACH, it became quite evident, that the youth we worked with often experienced clichés in their lives. They were labeled, stereotyped, and their behaviours were often predicted by the adult world around them, yet most of the time no one knew anything about them. Outside of where they lived, or who they hung out with, or the school they went to, or perhaps what they look like, do many even know these youth? The label which is the umbrella they live under is their cliché.”
“It’s easy to assume that we should apply what we’ve learned from the inREACH project to better support marginalized youth in our community. But have you every stopped to wonder, what happens if we ignore what we’ve learned? What if we shed the rose-coloured glasses and donned the shades of pessimism to see the barriers that stand in our way? What if we tried to see the glass half empty? How can we make a problem like street gangs in Waterloo Region, worse?”
“How do we get at the root causes of crime and prevent it from happening in the first place?
This isn’t a direct, straight answer, but, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council believes part of the solution is to monitor the root causes of crime over time. Then we, as a community, can better understand and address the social, community and economic conditions associated with crime and victimization. Check out the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council’s report – A Snapshot in Time: The Root Causes of Crime in Waterloo Region to find out how we are doing in early childhood development, employment, community trust and other important indicators.”
….. and part 2 of The community weighs in on the root causes of crime: change and action
“We have worked with youth who have great dreams and aspirations for the future, but have trouble putting their vision into a workable plan. On the other side of the coin, we have worked with youth who have little to no confidence in their abilities, thus requiring a little more encouragement and a little more trial and error in determining what really gets them motivated and excited.”
“Gang Prevention Is…. a) addressing underlying issues, and, b) not about getting a kid to take off the bandana. We often heard – “we’ve got this kid, he’s in a gang – fix him.” So often in our case management and system navigation work, it wasn’t about getting this young person to take off his bandana or to stop hustling or whatever, we never approached the work in that fashion. But it was about the underlying issues and working on them. Mostly we were dealing with issues of poverty, untreated trauma, family breakdown, substance abuse, disengagement and lack of opportunities. These are the problems that young people and gang members and people in general are dealing with. We want to demystify that label of gang member that says their needs are different than any other groups. These same issues are the drivers behind the behaviours.”
So many great reads from 2014. But if you’re in the mood for something to watch, rather than read, might I suggest our newest video on Collaboration!
We look forward to bringing more great Smart on Crime blogs for you in 2015. Better yet, we love hearing your comments, reactions and responses to the posts and guest commentaries. We look forward to hearing more from you next year!
We believe in just and humane approaches to crime and its consequences. It says so right in our organizational value statements. And we love it when we can point to other examples of people and organizations walking the talk on this value.
Insight-Out shows that personal transformation can be a powerful force for rehabilitation before punishment. In the United States, “the system profits by its own failure’, remarks Jacques Verduin, Insight-Out founder & facilitator. And he vows to change that, person by person with a year long program called GRIP.
Does society really benefit if we abandon people in prison? What does ‘ just and humane approaches to crime and its consequences’ look like to you? What does it look like in Canada?
We all agree that both the direct and indirect victims of crime deserve society’s help and support. Victims want services to help them come to terms with their trauma, loss, and grief so they can move on. Government supported services, compensation for their injuries, and measures to prevent both the occurrence and reoccurrence of crime are important to victims of illegal action. Recently, the Victims Bill of Rights has proposed to provide this support not by establishing government programs for victims’ assistance but instead by giving victims legal rights and a role at the heart of the justice system. But this role for victims represents a departure from the principles of criminal justice embedded in our legal tradition and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Progress in the development of criminal law was marked by an evolution away from private disputes between victims and alleged wrongdoers and toward the administration of justice by the state. As mentioned in October 27, 2013 opinion piece in the Star:
“one of the greatest innovations of the criminal justice system was the realization that the wrongful injuries people inflict are primarily offences against the public moral order represented by the Queen, not just particular harms to individuals in a given situation.”
While individuals could sue in civil cases to recover for losses resulting from wrongdoing, it was the state that ensured that punishments for wrongdoing responded to criminal harm as an injury to the values of a stable, secure society. In this role, the duty of the state was to punish the criminal harm to the victim while still respecting the basic humanity of the criminal. This second branch of the state’s duty secured the rights to fair trial and appropriate punishment on conviction for the accused, which are the hallmark of the just society. The era of the blood feud and the personal vendetta was over.
The extent to which the present Victims Bill’s ‘rights’ will in fact put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system may be illusory. Bill C-32 is clear that the only parties in the criminal justice system will continue to be the accused and the Queen. The Bill also provides that the rights of victims will be applied in a reasonable manner so as not to disrupt the “proper administration of justice” by causing delay or interfering with the discretion of the criminal justice system decision makers. Victims are expressly not made parties, interveners, or even observers in any criminal justice proceedings. No right to seek a judicial remedy, no claim for damages, and no appeal arises if victims’ rights are infringed. Expectations by victims about their entitlements from the justice and corrections system may well exceed what already over-burdened justice and correction officials are able to provide and victims may well feel disappointed by their newly acquired rights. The only remedy provided in the Bill for that disappointment is the capacity to file a complaint. In view of all these limitations, victims may well come to question whether they received a Bill of Rights or a Bill of Goods.
Definition of Victim
‘Victim’ is defined broadly in the Bill as an “individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as a result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence”. The offender is expressly excluded but his or her family members who may have incurred harm or damage as a result of the crime are not. If the victim is deceased or incapacitated, the Bill specifies the next of kin or care provider who may exercise the victim’s rights. While the definition of victims refers to ‘individuals’, ‘communities’ are also authorized to make victim impact statements. It is unclear what collection of interests will constitute a ‘community’ and whether community victim impact statements will be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process or just at sentencing.
Rights for Victims
Bill C-32 includes four categories of rights for victims relating to information, protection, participation, and restitution. Generally, providing information about the criminal justice and corrections system and ensuring adequate protection for victims in the criminal justice system is desirable as long as they do not infringe the accused’s ability to make full answer and defense or privacy rights. Since it is the proposed rights to participation and to restitution that pose the most significant challenges to maintaining a fair and effective justice and corrections system, we will concentrate on those.
Participation Rights
The victim’s participation rights include the right to convey and have considered his or her views about decisions to be made relating to the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of the alleged offence and also regarding the corrections and conditional release process. As written, this appears to include the right to provide victim impact statements at each stage which will have to be taken into account.
Unavoidably, these new procedures will cause delays. Despite falling crime rates, the criminal justice system is already overburdened and slow. Long waiting times are not only difficult for those awaiting trial, particularly if they are in detained in remand facilities, but they can violate rights to a speedy trial resulting in an inability to bring an accused to justice. Decision makers in the justice system try to move cases toward resolution as efficiently and fairly as possible. Not only will these decision makers be required to provide information to victims who request it, but they will now be asked to consider the views of the victims about the decisions they are required to make. The decision maker will also be compelled to receive and consider a victim impact statement. While this would take time even if there were only one victim, it would become quickly unmanageable with complex cases involving multiple victims, such as a sophisticated fraud or terrorist incidents. If the stated participation rights of victims lead to costly delays or result in prosecutions having to be dropped due to violations of the Charter right to a speedy trial, is justice served?
Further, victims’ participation rights could conflict with justice officials’ obligations to make impartial decisions when exercising their discretion. For example, a prosecutor may decide whether to proceed to trial with charges based on the public interest and the likelihood of a conviction. A victim impact statement reflecting the trauma experienced by the individual may not be relevant to the determination facing the prosecutor yet he or she would be required to consider it. It is not in the public interest to proceed to trial if there is no chance of a conviction despite a prosecutor’s sympathy for the plight of the victim.
Restitution Rights
Bill C-32 provides that every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender and have it enforced as a civil court judgment. The introduction of a right to have monetary order for the victims considered by the court skews both the principles and practices of the criminal justice system. As already discussed, most modern criminal justice systems have evolved away from a system of monetary penalties paid by the criminal or the criminal’s family to the victim. Some countries still have criminal justice systems that include ‘blood money’ — a pay out to victims in satisfaction of a crime. With the proposed Victims Bill of Rights, this outdated practice could be revived in Canada.
While empowering judges to consider ‘restitution’ and even ‘compensation’ is not new, these concepts have been embedded in criminal justice principles. ‘Restitution’ historically had been based on principles of precluding unjust enrichment and benefitting from one’s crime. If a person had stolen property or had sold it, the court could order the property or proceeds of the sale be returned. Over time, the understanding of ‘restitution’ changed to include damages for harm caused to the victims. Orders for restitution or compensation became sentencing options for the judge to consider in assessing the totality of the punishment. In this way, the monetary award is limited by what was a fair and proportionate penalty for the offence. If the offender paid a monetary award, this would discharge some of all of his or her punishment for the crime. Nothing precluded the victim from seeking further damages through a civil court process.
Fines and other punishments involving monetary payment by the offender raise some profound fairness issues in the criminal justice system. Simply put, it is much less onerous for a wealthy person to pay a fine than a poor one. Unless something like a day-fine system is adopted where the fine is based on percentage of income, then this type of sentence violates the equality of punishment essential to a fair criminal justice system. Accordingly, judges have imposed fines, surcharges, restitution and compensation orders with restraint.
While normally judges are required to assure themselves that the offender is capable of paying a fine before imposing it, the Victims Bill of Rights specifically provides that the offender’s financial means or ability to pay does not prevent the court from ordering restitution. Far too many accused are poor, marginalized, battling mental health and addictions and without the lawful means to provide financial compensation to others. If a judge does not impose restitution as part of the sentence, he or she will have to explain why. Judges will likely feel more pressure to make these awards.
The preference for restitution orders also builds an undesirable incentive into the system. With the possibility of having damages covered by just filing a form with the courts, how many more people will identify themselves as victims? How many victims will forego the possibility of an easy recovery of losses to participate in restorative justice practices or other measures that might resolve the issue outside of the formal justice system?
The rights to restitution run the risk of inappropriately importing civil justice concepts into the criminal justice system and undermining core principles of fairness.
Conclusion
The Victims Bill of Rights creates a tension: If the victims’ rights as set out in the Bill are applied, they threaten to undermine principles of criminal justice by placing victims at the heart of the criminal justice. This would erode core principles by slowing down an already overburdened system and skewing it toward a tool for personal vengeance and away from objectivity. If the victims’ rights as set out in the Bill are not applied, then victims will be disappointed and their confidence in the criminal justice system will be further reduced. And there is every reason to believe that the promised rights for victims will fall short of expectations. The Bill provides victims with no standing in the proceedings, a complaint mechanism as a remedy for breached rights, and requires that the Bill be interpreted reasonably so as not to delay proceedings or interfere with the discretion of justice system officials. Rather than create a tension between justice principles and victims’ rights that will be felt by victims and justice and corrections officials at every stage of the system, it would have been better to focus on rights to victims’ services, state-guaranteed compensation, and victim prevention measures. These would have addressed some of the real needs of victims without creating likely harmful pressures and unrealistic expectations of the criminal justice system.
Author: Catherine Latimer spent many years as a legal policy analyst for the federal government, both at the Privy Council Office and later as the Director General of Youth Justice Policy at the Department of Justice.
In 2011, she became the Executive Director of the John Howard Society of Canada, a charity committed to just, effective, and humane responses to crime. Ms. Latimer has a law degree from Queen’s University and a M.Phil. from the University of Cambridge.
She is also a part-time professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. Her interests are in criminal justice, youth justice, corrections laws, human rights, justice systems programs and policies, and policy and law reform.
When United States Attorney General Eric Holder made gave his “Smart on Crime” remarks to the American Bar Association’s Annual Convention in San Francisco on August 12, 2013, it “launched a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system in order to identify reforms that would ensure federal laws are enforced more fairly and—in an era of reduced budgets—more efficiently”.
If you’ve been following the ‘smart on crime’ news from the United States since then, it appears they are leaving few stones unturned. In the case of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses, there seems to be a lot of evidenced-based research to support their justice reform directions.
As an example, take a look at these Federal Bureau of Prisons infographic charts in a recent Huffington Post article on the impact of prison overcrowding:
U.S. Prison Population As Of Jan. 25, 2014
Data is limited due to the availability of offense-specific information.
Posted on: January 21st, 2014 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Public opinion polls have been asking Canadians questions about crime policy, perceptions of crime, and attitudes towards the criminal justice system for over forty years. During this time over 700 questions about crime have been asked by Gallup, Pollara, Ipsos Reid, Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey, the Canadian Election Study and Environics Institute. LISPOP associate Dr. Steve Brown and I have assembled these questions in an archive and are using them to track changes in the public’s views about criminal justice matters over the past few decades.
For more on how public opinion towards crime in Canada has changed over time, please visit lispop.ca. Here, I will focus on how shifts in public opinion towards crime can influence policy.
The relationship between public opinion and policy is complex. In 2000, Barbara Norrander published a study examining capital punishment practices in the United States. Her research shows current death penalty policy in a state is shaped by past policy, political culture and current public opinion. Current opinion is also influenced by past policy and socio economic background. But since past policy is shaped by past opinion there is an indirect effect, where past opinion helps to shape current opinion by changing past policy. Confused yet? Despite the complicated explanation and diagram, below, it’s actually fairly straightforward; past opinion and past policy are constantly influencing one another shaping both current policy and current opinion. Okay, maybe it’s not simple, but it certainly is elegant.
Norrander, 2000 The Multi-Layered Impact of Public Opinion on Capital Punishment Implementation in the United States
This model provides a useful explanation for attitudes towards capital punishment in Canada. Support for capital punishment has been steadily falling since the 1980s. Over 80% of respondents supported capital punishment in the early 1980s, since this time support has fallen significantly. Today when respondents are asked if they support capital punishment for certain crimes support is below 55%.
Support for Capital Punishment
This drop in support can be explained, at least partially, by the abolishment of the death penalty in Canada on July 14th, 1976 (the last execution in Canada took place on December 11th, 1962). Any Canadian, who grew up after this time, grew up in a Canada without the death penalty. So a policy decision, which at the time went against public opinion, helped to shape future public opinion by normalizing a Canada without the death penalty.
Public opinion does not always work this way. Often public opinion will react in the opposite direction of policy decisions. James Stimson a researcher in the United States wrote two books, Tides of Consent and Public Opinion in America, which examine the public mood and compares it to policy decisions. What he found is that public opinion often runs in the opposite direction of the party in power. So if Democrats are in power the people start to say we need more conservative policies and if a Republicans are in power the people start to say we need more liberal policies. Stimson explains that this occurs because of policy excess. A newly elected government starts to implement policies that the public wants, but over time as they continue to create more policies the public starts to say, you’ve gone too far, we need to scale back.
This effect can be seen in Canada. Environics Institute [http://www.environicsinstitute.org/] regularly asks how Canadians would like to see crime addressed, through an emphasis on law enforcement or a focus on crime prevention. Since 2005 there has been a noticeable increase in the number of respondents saying they prefer crime prevention approaches and a decrease in respondents who prefer law enforcement approaches.
Crime Prevention vs. Law Enforcement
Since 2006 the Canadian government has focused on being tough on crime. The policy approach continues to this day but it seems the Canadian public is starting to see these changes as a policy excess. Instead of focusing on punishment, public opinion polls suggest the government focus should be on prevention through education and social development programs.
What do you think? How would you like to see crime addressed in Canada? Do you think we need changes to crime legislation? Would you like to see additional investments in social development programs?
Norrander, B. (2000). The multi-layered impact of public opinion on capital punishment implementation in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 53(4).
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.
Do politicians and a debate about policy and policy changes impact public opinion? Anthony Piscitelli asked this question at the end of the previous episode and now he reveals his answer!
Indeed, policy changes made at the political level appear to have some influence on public opinion and attitudes toward crime and the criminal justice system. Politicians have a role in leading public opinion but they also have a role in following it. When politicians float a ‘trial balloon’ policy, it is often in an attempt to test the waters of public opinion of a particular issue. Remember Bill C-30? The ‘cyber surveillance’ bill was tabled early in 2012 but was quickly pulled off the table due to a huge public outcry and several social media campaigns. It has yet to reappear….
The main message of these ‘By the Numbers’ videos is still this: the relationship between public opinion, policy and political decision makers is complex – more than complicated! Know that your opinion matters, listen carefully about issues that matter to you… and learn to read between the lines – or, the numbers.
Thanks for watching! Do you have any ‘by the numbers’ worthy topics you are curious about? If you have something you would like to see covered in an episode of ‘By the Numbers’, leave a comment below or contact us info [at] smartoncrime.ca.
A huge thank you to the staff & team at Gibson Sound & Vision, Waterloo for accommodating us at their store to record this video!
Everyone wants to know… how do political leaders make their decisions about crime policy anyway? Are they influenced by public opinion polls? Do politicians influence public attitudes?
In the first episode of this By The Numbers series, Anthony Piscitelli guided us through 40 years of historical data on public attitudes toward the criminal justice system. In general, the evidence showed some interesting trends:
more people are gravitating towards crime prevention rather than law enforcement as a means for preventing crime,
more people thinking that crime is falling,
less support for harsher sentences,
more support for the justice system
dramatic drops in support for capital punishment
But the trends are not the whole picture. In this episode, Anthony brings up some other factors that influence public opinions and the possible relationship between public attitudes and how crime policy is formed. It’s complicated… to say the least!!
So, what do you think? Is this overly complicated? Is there a connection between public attitudes and crime policy? Does a debate about crime policy influence pubic opinions? Looking forward to hearing what you have to say!
Author: Catherine Latimer spent many years as a legal policy analyst for the federal government, both at the Privy Council Office and later as the Director General of Youth Justice Policy at the Department of Justice.
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: