Posted on: November 6th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
It’s Crime Prevention Week in Ontario. Every November, community agencies, organizations, police departments, municipalities and citizens come together to raise awareness of crime prevention as a building block for creating vibrant, dynamic, safe and healthy communities. “Engaged communities are safer communities” is this year’s theme! We couldn’t agree more!
Your average neighbourhood superhero can make a difference every day with actions small and large. Watch our Twitter and Facebook pages this week where we’ll be posting tips and sharing ways that you can get engaged and be a friend of crime prevention in your home, neighbourhood, workplace, faith community, school, team, youth group….. you name it.
How do you engage in your community? What do you see others doing? Do you see a gap where some one should engage?
Love to hear from you – we know you are out there doing amazing things to create safer communities.
Our By the Numbers feature is back with a series of video blogs by Anthony Piscitelli, our very own Supervisor, Planning and Research with the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. In his first video post, Anthony takes a closer look at the numbers from a recent WRCPC publication about crossover children; “From One System to Another: Crossover Children in Waterloo Region.”
If you have more questions, feel free to leave a comment at the bottom of this blog post. Or, you are welcome to give Anthony a call directly. We can be reached at 519.883.2304.
Guest blog post from Fanis Juma Radstake
In response to the July Toronto shootings, it was reported that the Toronto Police Chief, the Ontario Premier and the Toronto Mayor held a meeting that resulted in a decision to continue to fund an increased police presence in Toronto neighbourhoods that are affected by youth violence. This will be done by securing ongoing funding for the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS). In March of 2012, it was reported in the Toronto Star that TAVIS, a program created by Toronto Police Chief Blair, operates by “targeting violent areas with officers who stop, question and document at a higher rate than regular officers”. The same report also revealed that “in each of the city’s 72 patrol zones, blacks are more likely than whites to be stopped and carded. The likelihood increases in areas that are predominantly white”. TAVIS will continue to receive $5 million per year for the deployment of police into the poor Toronto neighbourhoods affected by crime. While reading these reports, I can’t help but question what fraction of those dollars could be effective in providing mental health support, educational support or youth employment opportunities in urban immigrant communities. It still leaves me with a questions that lingers: Who says that what our beautiful children need is more police?
As an African immigrant mother with a young black son and community organizer working with the African Canadian Association of Waterloo Region and Area, I am concerned about the disproportionate rate of African youth incarceration that we are experiencing in our community and in neighbouring Ontario urban immigrant communities. In rural Ontario and in white suburban neighborhoods a youth is far less likely to become system involved than a visible minority youth in the city even if they commit the same crime. We know that teenagers who become involved in the correction system at an early age instead of receiving education and employment supports, addictions and/or mental health services and other tangible opportunities for success are more likely to commit a violent crime in the future. We also know that children and youth in low-income urban communities where most of our African immigrant communities reside are less likely to have access to the same educational opportunities and social supports as youth living in middle-income suburbs, and rural communities. As community leaders we are able recognize that our elected officials and public servants have weighty responsibilities while responding to incidences of youth violence in affected neighbourhoods. But we do want to see a balanced approach that recognizes the value of investing in protective factors that increase chances of wellness and success for ALL youth.
We need to support existing community-led early intervention programming that work; homework support programs, green collar summer jobs for youth, cultural-based community and family services and neighbourhood based youth centres. These efforts are often self-led by affected urban immigrant communities who are trying to support their children and youth. The Somali community is working so hard in Toronto with very little resources to engage their youth after school. The same kind of community-led efforts are being made in other Ontario urban centers including the Waterloo Region. Some of these programs can serve up to 100+ children on a school evening and run on as little as $5,000 to $10,000 dollars per year per site. Also in the Waterloo Region, the African Community Wellness Initiative has worked with community partners and on minimal resources to develop four community garden sites with the intent of creating employment opportunities for our youth.
No child is born with a propensity to commit crime. Research has shown that “the positive growth and adaptation of newcomer youth are dependent on the personal, social, and economic resources available to the individual, as well as to his or her family and community” (To Build Hope: Overcoming the Challenges Facing Newcomer Youth At-Risk in Ontario, Kilbride & Anisef, 2001). I believe that we need to invest more intentionally in the personal, social and economic well-being of young people to prevent youth crime and violence. Parents and cultural leaders from affected communities take seriously the needs of our families and youth and we are working hard to re-create the supportive networks that are interrupted during the settlement process. As community leaders, we are not asking or waiting for handouts, we seek and develop our own solutions for the protection and safety of our youth; and we almost always do so with very minimal resources. As June Jordan wrote in her 1956 Poem to South African Women; “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”!
This is a mobilizing call for the voices of Ontario mothers of immigrant youth from affected communities; we need to rally in support for wellness promoting community efforts and the protection of our youth. We also call on our allies from all sectors to join in the conversation and gain an understanding of the proven alternative approaches to preventing youth violence in our cities. If this concerns you and you want more information on how to join, support or start a local mobilization for the protection of immigrant youth in your Ontario city, connect with us.
Fanis Juma Radstake is an African born immigrant and mother living in the Waterloo Region. She is also a community organizer with the African Community Wellness Initiative that seeks to increase immigrant participation in promoting community wellness. Currently Fanis is involved in promoting urban agriculture opportunities for immigrant youth in the Waterloo Region through Young City Growers. Fanis can be contacted via the African Canadian Association of Waterloo Region.
This article reflects the writer’s own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of 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.
Crime costs Canadians. It reaches deep into our wallets and our overall quality of life. And who is doing most of this spending? Mainly victims. When we crunch the cost of policing, corrections and courts, we’re looking at $31.4 billion in 2008. For pain and suffering, we’re looking at $68.2 billion. That’s billions people (and if I could stand on top of a mountain and sing these numbers – knowing that you’d all hear me – I would).
Victims are forced to spend, spend, spend. In fact, victims carry the majority of the financial burden, spending a whooping $14.3 billion in 2008. They pay for lost wages, stolen property, medical attention, and the list goes on. Once again, that’s billions.
So why is this important you ask? It’s important because the “tougher” we get on crime, the more we spend reacting to crimes that have already happened.
The more we spend reacting, the less we spend being smart on crime, on investing in our communities, and building resilience in our kids.
“I have yet to see […]any evidence that would convince me that [Bill C-10] will actually make victims safer or society safer in the long run. I think the challenge or concern I have with the bill is that it is being promoted as a pillar of the commitment to victims of crime, when we see[…]very little that will change the day-to-day circumstances of those people who are victimized by crime.”
Steve Sullivan,
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime
Delegation on Bill C-10 to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
Judge Barry Stuart in a radio interview on The Current asked an interesting question and speaks to how we can be smart on crime, “When are we going to stop spending money on the justice system, money that needs to be spent on questions of poverty, education, health, opportunity? These are the things that are going to change the flow of people into our jails”. (Judge Barry Stuart’s interview begins at minute 4:45 in the program).
Now we know that crime and the criminal justice system are expensive to taxpayers, especially victims. But aren’t poverty reduction strategies, more effective education, and increased health care support expensive? And how are we suppose to believe people like Judge Stuart, who tell us that this will reduce the amount we spend on jails?
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy can answer that for us. As a nonpartisan group, they are well suited to develop a cutting edge-model to identify evidence-based policies that give taxpayers the best return on their investment. And it just so happens that the model has extensive experience in the criminal justice system. Their cost-benefit analysis of the criminal justice system (United States) showed that efforts redirected toward proven crime-prevention and treatment programs result in:
Reduced crime rates AND juvenile-arrest rates in comparison to the US average
Lower incarceration rates compared to the national average
Eliminated need for new prisons, closure of adult prison & juvenile-detention facility
A saving of $1.3 BILLION per two-year budget cycle (there’s that billion again)
When we invest in prevention, we invest in safer, healthier and more sustainable futures for our kids.
Author: Kayla Follet – Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Kayla Follett 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.
These words from Mr. Young struck me as particularly relevant to the discussions ongoing in Ottawa and in the media about Bill C-10 and Bill C-30, both of which have created controversy in crime prevention circles. I wasn’t an attendee for his speech so do not want to quote him out of context but, if I may, I’d like to propose what he has said as a lens through which the government could determine the need for, and the path of, legislation related to crime.
Bill C-10, “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”, is a compilation of legislation that the government was unable to enact when it was in the minority in the parliament of Canada. Having won a majority of the seats in the current House of Commons, the government is now able to put forth legislation without fear of losing a vote of confidence. In other words, they can pretty much do what they want. This political reality has led to what many consider to be a “tough on crime” approach. Bill C-10 will restrict the discretion often used by judges in imposing sentences, will create more mandatory minimum sentences, reduce house arrest options (both of which will increase incarceration rates and the budget required to pay for this), make it more difficult to secure pardons and be tougher on “out of control” youth (their words, not mine). While this will seem a litany of the deficits in the Bill, it will also make it more difficult to traffic in drugs and people and allow more rights to victims of crime, both of which are arguably good things. Bill C-30, also known as the “Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act” has been widely criticized for allowing more intrusive searches of IP addresses by police without a warrant signed by a judge. Critics fear a “Big Brother” (in the form of police and security agencies) will be able to install its own surveillance equipment on the networks of service providers in order to better track the Internet traffic of Canadian citizens. Critics have argued further that the police, by and large, already have the ability to investigate the trafficking of child porn, for example, under current legislation. To the government’s credit they are slowing down the legislative process in order to give more opportunity to improve the Bill in answer to its critics.
All of which brings me back to what many could justifiably consider my naive and idealistic world view. If the government viewed crime prevention with Mr. Young’s words in mind, might the results be different? For example, we know from data provided by the government’s own agency, StatsCan, that the crime rate continues on a downward trend, yet many citizens report a fear of crime which, on the face of the data, seems unreasonable. The root causes of crime are varied and complex but are worsened by unemployment, financial uncertainty, addictions and mental health issues. If we use Mr. Young’s words, we need to “recognize complexity”. It is not enough to create legislation to assuage fears that are not based on available data about the prevalence of crime. Instead, would we not be better to be “smart on crime” by understanding and mitigating the root causes? What if the $100,000 it costs annually to incarcerate one person in a Canadian prison was invested in anti-poverty and education approaches that allow for greater opportunities for pro-social behaviour? Would we see a corresponding decrease in crime and perhaps even in our taxes over time as more people become employable? Would be then be less fearful of crime?
What about “accepting uncertainty“? I concede that most governments don’t want to admit that they just don’t have all the answers as it won’t help garner votes. Given the increasingly technological world in which we live and the globalization of our economy that is highly influenced by the financial woes of foreign nations, things do become more uncertain. People are incredibly complex as well, they often do not respond as predicted. Therefore, if government accepted the premise that there are some things we just don’t know, perhaps we could see more resources put into pilot programs and research as opposed to incarceration and the infrastructure to support it.
With this as our approach we are “embracing possibility”. We are creating a more hopeful and intentional stance in regards to working with those on the margins who commit crime. I am seasoned enough to know that not all criminals are good people who have just made a wrong turn somewhere due to economic difficulty or because of an addiction. I accept the fact that some may in fact be evil. Prisons exist for those folks, no argument from me.
If we “trust community” we will embrace community development initiatives that prevent crime by empowering and encouraging community members to take more ownership in creating safe places in their respective neighbourhoods. Waterloo Region is blessed by its tradition of neighbourhood associations proactively working together to improve living conditions in many parts of the region, simply through the cleanup of parks, streets, and common areas. Community associations also provide support to new Canadians, new moms and dads, youth and younger kids. They work with parents, schools and police in a ‘wraparound’ concept of community development. The answer then isn’t necessarily more legislation. It’s more community development.
Lastly, if we “proceed with humanity” we demonstrate compassion and optimism. We are less reactive and more proactive. We realize that one size does not fit all. We encourage innovation and discourage degradation. Can you imagine our community if we fully enacted Eric Young’s call to action? Over time, the need for a Crime Prevention Council would be reduced because we will have learned it makes more sense, socially and economically to be ‘smart on crime’ as opposed to ‘tough on crime’.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this one. Could these be valid ‘guiding principles’ for the future?
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.
Thank you to everyone for reading, sharing and commenting on our previous 5 posts outlining the position of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council with respect to the Omnibus Crime Bill (C-10), the Safe Streets and Communities Act. One of the most common questions we received was, “So… what happens now? Has the Bill fully passed? How soon could this all start happening?”
People lamented not paying more attention in high school Civics class!
Here’s what we know.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act was passed in the House of Commons on December 5, 2011. Bill C-10 passed first and second reading in the Senate by December 16, 2011. It was then referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, where it rests until Members return to the Senate on January 31, 2012. It is expected to remain with this Senate committee for several weeks in early February and then return to the Senate for a third and final vote expected around mid-February. It is expected to pass. After that, it becomes legal reality.
We’ve also been following some of the speeches and discussion regarding Bill C-10, every word of which can be found online via the parliamentary website.
If you want to read what has been said by individual Members of Parliament about Bill C-10 in the House of Commons, the open data website, openparliament.ca, provides a quick source, along with a full record of the votes. We also took a look at the presentations made by witnesses (delegations) before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to gauge the level of support or opposition for Bill C-10.
Every justice based, crime prevention-oriented organization and community across Canada, whether in support or opposition to Bill C-10, will be waiting to see how the next steps play out. Bill C-10 could change the face of the Canadian justice system as we know it and we will all be affected, directly or indirectly, in some way.
So, now we wait….
Special thanks to Olivia Boyington (University of Waterloo) and Kayla Follet (Wilfrid Laurier University, Lyle S. Hallman School of Social Work) for preparing the summary of presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Of course! Who wouldn’t support a greater voice for victims? Who wouldn’t agree that internet sexual exploitation of children must be stopped? Who wouldn’t want to send the message that one crime is one crime too many?
WRCPC wishes for and works for safer streets and communities and we do so alongside many other municipalities. But we are deeply troubled by the wholesale nature of the proposed legislation whereby Canadians need to accept the bad with the good. The government has a mandate to invest in the prevention of crime and to bring justice. C-10 as an omnibus bill simply cannot accomplish that.
We therefore ask that the Senate of Canada do due diligence and engage in sober second thought and review C-‐10 bill by bill, step by step as the only reasonable review to deal with the complexity of the legislation at hand. We also ask that prevention be taken seriously during this review. Prevention has worked, continues to work and stands a better chance of delivering safe streets and communities than C-10 in its current form can.
We went to hear from you. What do you think about the potential for Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act?
This is the last section of the position paper from the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. Earlier sections of the position paper are available here on the Smart on Crime blog:
It costs anywhere from $70,000 to over $130,000 annually to house one person in a correctional facility. Many of these inmates have a history of low educational and employment achievements, learning disabilities, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder issues, significant mental health and addiction challenges or other mitigating factors that may have contributed to their actions. These conditions do not excuse their actions but it helps us to understand them with a view to prevention. While in the past these considerations were part of the application of the law for the purpose of rehabilitation (a key correctional mandate), providing only for aggravating circumstances in mandatory minimum sentences decontextualizes crime. This approach will without doubt create a sizeable group of prisoners with little to no chance of succeeding in society upon their release. Mandatory minimum sentences make the offender, his or her context, personality, upbringing, intellect, morality or addiction irrelevant. They fail to take into account ongoing treatment needs for addictions or mental health issues or developmental delays. Minimum sentences also adversely affect the family the perpetrator leaves behind, particularly if there are children in continued need of support. This increases the risks for children whose parents are incarcerated, extends the cycle of victimization and extends the root conditions that lead to crime to the next generation. Simply stated, the human and financial costs of pro-social measures will always be substantially lower than costs of increased incarceration. Downloading a vast share of these costs to provincial governments, that are already financially stressed, will significantly hinder our collective ability to fund and advance rehabilitation efforts.
