Posts Tagged ‘current events’

Through the eyes of Crime Prevention: Ontario 2013 Budget

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:

• 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:
  • Ontario Child Benefit, full-day kindergarten, tax relief
• 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.
• NO mention of Ontario Crime Prevention Framework – the Ontario Crime Prevention Framework: A Framework for Action is a booklet intended to:
  • 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.

What are the odds? The vulnerable child of today as the problem gambler of tomorrow?

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.

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.

© 2013 Waterloo Region Criime Prevention Council – Over 40 brochures available at the entrance of the Casino in Windsor, Ontario. Problem gambling treatment services to bereavement, mental health and addictions to information targeted to youth, seniors and newcomers. One brochure is provided in multiple languages.

© 2013 Waterloo Region Criime Prevention Council

© 2013 Waterloo Region Criime Prevention Council – A 1^1/4” stack of brochures offering problem gambling treatment services to bereavement, mental health and addictions to information targeted to youth, seniors and newcomers.

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.

Christiane Sadeler is the Executive Director of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. 

When Will We Ever Learn

Last night I put together a “Grocery Store Stand” for my four-year old granddaughter. I had difficulty, not because I hadn’t been engaged in a similar activity for about 25 years, reading with weary eyes “Easy to Follow” directions written for MIT grads. No, I had a hard time because I would have tears in my eyes thinking of the parents in Newtown, Connecticut who would not be prying open boxes, assembling bikes and bridges and stores and castles, assembling what would be the joyous shouts of discovery, of Christmas.

As most Americans, I wept for them and for this nation, this wonderful nation, this giving nation with nimble democracy, a nation that can change when it wishes, a nation that banned slavery, gave women the right to vote, passed civil rights and anti-gay discrimination laws, and, overcoming deep prejudices, elected its first Roman Catholic President and then its first African American President. A friend and colleague from Montreal, with whom I worked when I served as a board member of the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime called me when Obama was first elected four years ago. He said, “I get mad at your country so often, your violence, your disparity of wealth.”  “And then you do something like this. You are so flexible. You do terrible things, then you change. And when you do, you give us all hope.”  His words were choked. He thanked me. He thanked America “as a beacon for what nations can be.”

Will we have this courage? Will we then, overcoming deep prejudices, passionately held views, agree to aim the diagnosis beyond the individual , to us, our social values?  We protect what we value:  if a car is defective, it is recalled, the driver not blamed for a broken axle; the FDA tests and retests drugs, and if one is proven harmful, as Thalidomide, it is banned; if tainted spinach poisons a handful of individuals as it did recently, the government stops growers from growing, not eaters from their menu selections. Recall that spinach was removed from grocery store shelves across the nation. Toys are recalled because the paint, if licked, can cause stomach aches, and large warnings emblazon plastic bags that can suffocate children.

But not so a weapon, a weapon once banned, a weapon of war, a weapon raised high in Syria, and Libya, a weapon designed for U.S. troops in Vietnam, a weapon that kills a roomful of children in minutes, a legal weapon, a weapon, a toxin in our civic stream that remains while spinach is pulled.

The ironies are almost too painful to recount. A sudden “international newsbreak” on one of the TV channels I was watching interrupted the agonizing, incomprehensible Newtown story to report on a disaster in Syria in which 20 civilians, mainly women and children, were killed. Syria, a nation at war. 20 dead. America, a nation not at war, 28 (this does not include others who were killed that day by guns across the U.S).

On December 15 the New York Times reported on a deranged Chinese man who stormed into a classroom of kids brandishing a knife, intent on killing. 22 received knife wounds, and 22 survived.

My life’s calling has been to serve and help improve the lives of children and families and the neighborhoods in which they live. I have served on the state and federal levels and as President and CEO of the National Crime Prevention Council. More recently I have been working with 24 cities across America helping these cities craft and then implement gang and violence prevention plans blending prevention, intervention, enforcement and reentry (returning offenders). Those I’ve had the pleasure to meet and work with are the most committed, professional and courageous individuals I’ve ever met – among them law enforcement, educators, mayors, faith and community leaders, recreation officials,  the philanthropic sector, public health and hospitals to name only a few . Yet their delicate and complicated work, work that tries to change a social norm to one that does not tolerate violence, one that supports, nurtures and protects, can be shattered by a shooting. “We are outgunned,” one law enforcement officer told me. Yet in the face of this fire, they continue.

And so do those living in war zones. I was asked to run a “listening session” of parents living in a high crime area of Philadelphia. One woman told me that her goals in life is to get her kids “to and from school without being shot.”  She escorts her kids to school and back, sometimes walking on pavements “with dried blood on them,”  and always by “little memorials, a cross, flowers for kids who have been shot and killed.” Just across the river in Camden, New Jersey on the City Hall’s front lawn, 55 crosses bear stark and public witness to the killings in that city . Not Syria: Philadelphia, Camden and sections of all large cities across the nation.

We hear “loner” this, loner that. Perhaps it is a trait among the shooters in Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech and Newtown, but most loners don’t kill. Do we screen for lonerism? Are we more violent than other nations? We are not a different species, but guns make the difference: anger and depression, however mild, have probably touched most everyone who has lived. In the face of a divorce, loss of job, death of a spouse, death of a child, loss of a girl friend, a few “normal” people can break. Spouses shoot spouses, rejected lovers shoot those who spurned them and disgruntled employees shoot employers. It matters enormously whether what is at hand for those who break is a knife or an assault weapon. E.J. Dionne points out in his Washington Post Editorial on December 17, that we should improve our “treatment of those who may be prone to violence,” but that this is “too often part of a strategy to evade any action on guns themselves.”

We must, at a minimum, ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines (and consider rewards on existing weapons and magazines that are turned in), perform rigorous background checks on all who would purchase a weapon, disqualifying those have committed a felony and those with  history of mental health problems, and close gun show loopholes. We must also support jurisdiction-wide planning and implementation of comprehensive violence prevention plans that interweave prevention, intervention, enforcement, rehabilitation and reentry thus making every effort to change a culture of violence.
Bob Dylan’s haunting “Blowin’ In the Wind” asks “How many times must the cannon balls fly before they’re forever banned?” He continues:  “How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry?  How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?”  Perhaps this time we will have seen enough, heard enough, been, finally, ashamed enough to acknowledge that the front line soldiers in this debate were little children who were slaughtered by a hail of bullets.
Business Week, hardly a liberal journal in its August 16, 1999 issue said, “It is vital to crack down on the handful of gun dealers who time and again provide weapons to criminals… There is no rational reason of any individual to possess an assault weapon. There is no reason for most people, especially those with children, to own handguns. There is no reason why extremists should determine government gun policies that threaten the lives of innocent people. It is time for serious gun control.”

The Greeks have two words for time, chronos time, as in 9:15 p.m., the time I’m writing this blog; and chiros time as in “wasn’t that a time,”  an epochal “time” in history. Let’s commit at this time in our history to stop the cannon balls from flying, each of us pledging that this is the time to change: Time that this nation again rose to greatness by having the courage to change.

Jack Calhoun, December 20,2012
Director, California Cities Gang Prevention Network
Former CEO and Director, National Crime Prevention Council
Former U.S. Commissioner of the Administration for Children, Youth and Families

Jack Calhoun was a keynote speaker at the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council Annual Justice Dinner in April 2010. Reprinted with permission from Jack Calhoun and Hope Matters.

Where, Oh Where, Has Civility Gone?

Has the Internet and its anonymity ruined civility? Let me be more precise. Has our ability to instantaneously respond to issues that we see reported in the media given rise to intemperate thoughts, comments or attitudes? What makes me ask the question is reading the reader comments to articles in any given newspaper, on any given day, on almost any topic.

One would have thought the comments are moderated but maybe this would be seen as a violation of free speech. Doesn’t free speech have some limits in the newspaper? I just don’t get why readers who respond to articles in the online version of newspapers have to demonize people with whom they disagree. I’ve contacted our own local newspaper numerous times on this issue but nothing has changed.

Whether the issue of education or health care funding, bullying, the air show or almost any other endeavour covered by the local paper, there is almost a guarantee that someone will either see a conspiracy, a government rip-off or some other nefarious plot to impose something on themselves or others. Is it the anonymity allowed that allows them to berate politicians, newsmakers, civil servants, immigrants and others they have a problem with without identifying themselves? Whatever happened to civil discourse where one can disagree without being disagreeable? If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at the comments on almost any issue covered in the local paper. Now, maybe it’s not a big issue because the people who write their missives tend to do so in response to those written by others. One tends to see the same usernames over and over again and they often battle with each other. I think it’s great that they like to be involved with the news of the day. More power to them. What bothers me is the vitriol that is spread and the assumptions that are made. You may know about the theory of attribution where we tend to ascribe the worst possible motives to others who may have offended us while diminishing any role we may have played. In this theory we don’t give others the benefit of the doubt that we may allow ourselves. If people want to comment in this fashion and fight with each other, maybe the newspapers can create a separate page where commenters can talk to themselves and not attach comments to the bottom of the online article.

I am not alone in noticing this issue. Rosie DiManno, a long-time columnist with The Toronto Star recently wrote a column decrying the anonymity allowed commenters noting that much of what is written can be considered libelous. She made the point that her editors would refuse her columns if they contained the same kinds of unproved allegations allowed in online responses. People seem to feel that the internet has given them something akin to Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak allowing them to scurry around the halls of the online commenting world unseen and free from responsibility.

Look what happened with Amanda Todd. Online bullies were able to create a world of hell for her. Only too late are we realizing the power of a few keystrokes to hurt and maim. The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council has partnered with the Waterloo Catholic District School Board on its THINK campaign that asks people to use the following screen prior to sending a text:

T – Is it True
H – Is it Hurtful
 I  – Is it Illegal
N – Is it Necessary
K – Is it Kind

These filters are being used by students who have put a blue elastic band around their phones to remind them the texting can be used to bully or defame another. Many young people are unaware that some things they text or attachments they send are covered under the Criminal Code and they could be held liable for their actions. This proactive approach will not, by itself, solve the problem of online bullying but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Maybe this simple acronym could be used by those who comment online and whose comments seem to pass unfiltered through our local newspaper’s edit process.

But it’s not just the Internet where we see a lack of civility; I was recently at a local mall handing out “Say Hi” buttons to passersby during Crime Prevention Week and to chat with them about the work of the Crime Prevention Council. It was a study in social psychology to see the effort some people went to not to make eye contact with me. Their ability to duck out of my way would make them valuable assets to any major hockey team. One would think I was asking them if they would like typhus or Ebola instead of a Say Hi button. It was actually quite comical. Many responded to my offer of a button with a curt “I don’t live in Waterloo”. I guess saying hi is prohibited by a city bylaw in their respective region.

Is there a correlation between a less civil society and increased crime? Some think so, though the definition of ‘civility’ may relate more to neighbourhood development that what might archaically be called ‘good manners’. Certainly healthy neighbourhoods that are well taken care of and where neighbours actually know each other mitigate against rampant street crime. 

So, I may be putting myself out there by suggesting that if we were simply nicer to each other, in how we speak, how we write, how we drive, how we shut off our iPhones and BlackBerries in theatres and while waiting in lines at the market (you get the picture) might we end up with a safer place to live? Isn’t that what we want?

We all have a part in this; we could all use a little more ‘THINK-ing’. And maybe, the newspapers could rethink their position on moderating comments or at least, raise the standards by which it judges comments as appropriate.

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.

What really happened when Little Red Riding Hood met the Wolf

I wish this were a fairy tale but sadly, it’s all too true. Every so often my white bread world is, to quote a British friend, “gobsmacked” (shaken, astonished, shocked) and this was the case recently when I attended a workshop on the issue of human trafficking in Canada. The event was sponsored by the Downtown East Project and hosted by the Steps to Change Diversion Program. Mill Courtland Community Association in conjunction with the Waterloo Region Police Services, the Bylaw Enforcement Division of the City of Kitchener, along with other community associations, are partners in an attempt to alert the public and various levels of government to the prevalence and severity of human trafficking. It’s an issue that largely flies under the radar of most citizens though I hope this will change in the near future as its cost in human terms is incalculable. Human trafficking is different from human smuggling. According to the RCMP, human trafficking involves the recruitment, transportation or harbouring of persons for the purpose of exploitation (typically as sex trade workers for forced construction labour) whereas human smuggling is a form of illegal migration involving the organized transport of a person across an international border for money.

Timea Nagy – Photo Credit: www.walk-with-me.org

Timea Nagy is a survivor of human trafficking and speaks to audiences in Canada and internationally about her experience. It is harrowing to listen to. Timea first became a victim of trafficking when she lived in Hungary. She was looking for a way to make money to help pay debts and was approached by a woman who offered her an opportunity to come to Canada where she could work as a baby sitter. The woman seemed sincere and offered Timea a contract written entirely in English. Timea neither spoke nor read English but trusted the woman. Upon arrival in Canada she was kept at Customs and questioned by officers who were seeing many Eastern European women entering the country under false pretenses. The officers, through an interpreter, explained the contract to her. She was expected to work as an exotic dancer and Timea, disoriented, exhausted and confused was just beginning a saga that would forever change her life.

She was sent back to Hungary but not before meeting up with members of the crime ring sent to meet her. They informed her of her debt incurred through the plane ticket and how she was to pay it back. That night she was taken to a strip club and raped. This was the start of the intentional dehumanization process used to control her mind and her body. Threats to her family in Hungary were made and though she was returned to Hungary, the threats continued in her home country. Feeling trapped, she returned to Canada to work to pay off her debt to the criminal organization. This world was completely foreign to her, literally and metaphorically. Timea, in her own words, was a good girl, whose mother was a police officer and Timea lived a fairly sheltered life. She was completely unprepared for the life she was to face. As she tells it, it was almost impossible to pay the debt because she was charged for ‘expenses’ such as $360.00 for an oil change or $560.00 to replace the headlight for the car used to take her to the club. If she or any of the other girls was late being picked up for their work shift (11 am to 2 am the following day) they were charged $100. 00 per minute. Girls like Timea were afraid to go to the police as some had bad experiences in their country of origin. They were broken down psychologically, almost as one in a prison camp, their dignity was stripped away and they did whatever they were told for fear of retribution but also, because many had lost the will to fight back. They were strangers in a strange land and this sense of fear was used as a form of manipulation and control.

Police forces at all levels have joined together to pursue, capture and prosecute those who traffic in human slavery. This is an international battle as criminal gangs, organized for this specific purpose, generate huge profits that cross borders every day. Many countries are moving forward with legislation and police resources but it’s not easy to get convictions if the victims are too traumatized to come forward or are kept virtual prisoners in motel rooms across the country, driven to strip bars or construction sites where few questions are asked.

Locally, the hope is to create a task force including enforcement groups and those providing recovery and support to develop a comprehensive action plan and strategic approach to help victims and also reduce the instances of this criminal activity.

We often think that slavery no longer exists but, having spent a day learning about human trafficking, it’s clear this evil continues to thrive in societies around the world. If you’d like to learn more, visit some of the links listed below and help join the battle against human trafficking.

I think you’ll be gobsmacked as well. It doesn’t feel good does it?

Additional Resources

• Walk With Me – Timea Nagy
• I’m Not For Sale – Human Trafficking National Coordination Centre, Canada
• An Overview of Trafficking in Persons – Canada

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.

Who decides? Supporting community led grassroots solutions to youth violence

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.

Penny for your thoughts… Crime is Costly

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.

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.

Crime is costly… but it doesn’t have to be.

**Additional resource: “Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice” by Irvin Waller.

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.

Smart Link of the Day: The Interrupters

The Interrupters, has been getting a LOT of press lately. That’s not why I’m writing about it here as the ‘Smart Link of the Day’. I’m writing about this film because it showcases the absolutely innovative approach of Chicago’s Ceasefire program to curb gun related shootings and killings in that city. Since being released in August 2011, The Interrupters has been screened in almost 200 locations across the United States, Canada, the UK and Australia.

This film follows three Ceasefire “violence interrupters“, Ameena Matthews, Cobe Williams and Edi Bocanegra, as they go about their daily work of literally, and physically breaking the cycle of violence in their neighbourhoods. These are some of the bravest community workers I have ever seen. You can catch the film preview below or watch the full feature film that aired on CBC’s The Passionate Eye.

When traditional approaches no longer seemed to work, Ceasefire founder, Gary Slutkin, took a public health perspective when designing the program. As an epidemiologist, he came to believe that violence mimics the spread of infectious diseases and so, could be ‘treated’ in a similar way; “go after the most infected, and stop the infection at its source“. And it appears to be working. Early research from the Department of Justice on the effectiveness of Chicago’s Ceasefire program found the program to be effective with significant and moderate to large impacts.

What does that really mean with respect to decreased shootings and killings? Let the data speak for itself.

• 41-73% drops in shootings and killings in CeaseFire zones.
• 16- 35% drop in shootings directly attributable to CeaseFire.
• 100% reductions in retaliation murders in 5 of 8 neighbourhoods.

You can read more about the program results here.

I don’t know about you, but I would say this seriously fits the bill as a ‘smart on crime’ approach. It is rooted in evidence based practice. It is built on partnership, collaboration and cooperation. Its social change orientation makes an investment in actions that create sustainable change to root causes. It adapts and responds to the needs and trends of the social community. It is widely and broadly supported by all corners of the community, from the grassroots to the highest levels of decision making.

Smart on crime, indeed. Now go watch the film, then share it with a friend or a group of youth.

Someone needs to learn their times tables

Some time ago two articles from the Globe and Mail collided with such force that it woke me from my early morning stupor. Without the clarity induced by several cups of coffee, I might not have made the connection. The first article by Margaret Wente, “ Why Alex can’t add (or subtract, multiply or divide)“, attracted my attention as a retired teacher. Ms. Wente was at her incisive best in calling into question the most recent trend in mathematics education which stresses a language-based approach to the learning of mathematics. With this, teachers have students talk and write about their solutions with an emphasis on being able to explain the rationale behind a particular answer as opposed to the more traditional rote approach of memory work, such as the multiplication tables and dividing the smaller number into the bigger number, as those from my age group remember so well. She, and a growing number of teachers and university professors are worried because these “basics” are not being taught; the result being a lack of understanding of simple mathematical processes which can harm students not only in university, but with balancing a chequebook. The other article, “Huge price tag for provinces attached to crime bill” by Kim Mackrael highlighted the hidden but expected costs of implementing Bill C-10. The Globe and Mail used information available from background papers noting the cost of full implementation of the bill could be much higher than recent estimates offered by the Minister of Justice. These papers suggest that changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act alone could cost an estimated $717 million over a five-year period whereas the Minister is pegging the bill for the entire “Safe Streets and Communities Act” at $78.6 million over five years with the expectation that the provinces will pony up half the costs. That’s quite a difference.

There seemed to be silence from some provinces about the downloading of the costs for a bill they did not support. Except for Ontario and Quebec, not much was being said. Then in an article from January 26th in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that  the Ontario government, along with most other provincial governments, have attached estimates to their already strained budgets caused by the implementation of Bill C-10. Ontario’s Minister of Correctional Services is quoted as saying the cost to the province for its implementation will be close to one billion dollars. Yes, $1B . It looks smaller when it is not spelled out but it’s still a whack of money…our money.

Now, I was never a math whiz but that works out to almost 10 times more than the Minister said it would be. Ten times. Wow! Maybe he should have spent more time on his multiplication tables. Can you imagine trying to convince a significant other that a projected purchase is one figure and then it turns out to be ten times more than the agreed upon price? Now, when I say ‘agreed upon’, that doesn’t even come close to describing the reaction of provincial governments like Ontario and Quebec which reject the notion that they should be paying costs of more people (particularly young offenders) being sent to prison because of the new mandatory minimum sentences. There really isn’t much agreement between the two levels of government on the approach evident in C-10. In fact, it flies in the face of extensive data and research on what a ‘smart on crime’ stance looks like. Mind you, the Minister has been extensively quoted as saying that his party doesn’t get hung up on statistics. So, if you don’t use an evidence-based approach to creating policy what do you use? Ideology? Polling? Intuition? The crime rate is falling and has been for more than two decades now. That is a fact. Facts should matter.

So should simple mathematics.

Maybe Bill C10 is like new math. If you can explain the rationale behind the potential costs that’s good enough for an A. But I don’t think it works that way. In this case there needs to be some accountability for the final answer – the real costs of implementing Bill C10. Have I become like Margaret Wente bemoaning the fact we don’t drill kids on their times tables any more like we did 34 years ago? Is she wrong? I don’t think she is.

If Ms Wente is right then maybe that means I might be on to something as well, don’t you think? Of course, it might just be the wistfulness of old age. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one.

Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.

The Omnibus Crime Bill: What happens now?

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.

• Major speeches in the House of Commons
• Background documents
• Speeches and discussion in the Senate

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.