Walking into the prison for the first time was an experience I won’t soon forget. Heavy doors locked behind me one after the other. I got this strange feeling that there was no way out. I didn’t share the same fear as my family, who worried about my safety. And I didn’t really feel intimidated by the guards. What I did feel was worry – worry that the women inside would judge me for what I am – a (prissy) master of social work student.
I’m not talking about going to prison because of a crime I committed, I’m talking about being a participant of the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program and a member of the Walls to Bridges Collective.
From the founder & director of Inside-Out, here’s what the program is NOT:
It is not research. Outside students are not going in to study inside students. Outside students are also not going inside to “help” the inside students. “That’s just not what we’re doing. We are learning together”. “
Basically the program looks like this: people in university (“outside students”) and people in custody (“inside students”), come together to take a course behind the walls of a correctional institution. The course can be anything from literature and history, to social work and criminology. So although the course content is usually pretty standard, the classroom and the students are anything but.
The purpose of Inside-Out (I-O) is to increase educational opportunities for people inside and outside of prison. In an I-O class, we emphasize dialogue and collaboration, and talk about social concern issues. We break down the walls that separate us.
Experiencing Inside-Out is often referred to as personally and professionally “transformative”. But what is it about the program that makes it so?
From my experience, it’s got a lot to do with recognizing and challenging assumptions and biases. It’s got a lot to do with questioning society and the powerful impact of oppression and privilege. It’s got a lot to do with building relationships and honoring individual lived experiences.
During our closing ceremony for the first Inside-Out course in Grand Valley Institution for Women, one of my colleagues articulated the transformation she saw and experienced:
“Pre-conceived notions. We are all guilty of harboring them. Notions of what we think things are supposed to be. Things like prison, and education. Of what and who the student is, and what and who the convict is… Today those lines are blurred. No, today they don’t exist. Today there is no distinction between student and convict and education and prison… because today, right here, we are all students. Learning. Evolving. Erasing. Celebrating”
– Inside-Out Alumni, currently incarcerated
The Inside-Out alumni group now meets bi-weekly to work on projects inside and outside of the prison walls. The “Walls to Bridges Collective” exemplifies “smart on crime” in action:
Through collaboration with people living inside and outside prison walls, we will strive to connect and build bridges by educating, informing and advocating about social justice for criminalized women and trans people.
As a passionate and engaged community, we’re being smart on crime together…. and, this is only the beginning.
To read the “Inside-Out Center Newsletter”, where the Walls to Bridges Collective is featured, click here.
Today the Inside-Out Program exists in 25 American states and growing fast. In September 2010, the Lyle S. Hallman Faculty of Social Work at Wilfrid Laurier University, and Grand Valley Institution for Women partnered to host this ground-breaking program, being one of the first ever Canadian Inside-Out Programs. The second WLU & GVI course just finished in April 2012 and two more will be starting in September 2012. We have also begun developing an Inside-Out Canadian Instructor Training Institute where all Canadian instructors interested in teaching Inside-Out courses will come to get trained in the Inside-Out pedagogy.
Author: Kayla Follet – Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Kayla studied at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick where she completed an honours degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Upon graduation she travelled and worked in different community settings. She is now working toward her Master of Social Work degree from Wilfrid Laurier University and happily fulfilling her Practicum Placement at the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: May 31st, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
This week, I joined KidsLINK and community leaders from across Waterloo Region and the child and youth services sector in Ontario to talk about trauma – really, a conversation of hope and change, challenge and change…. and of course, prevention.
This was my first experience hearing from Dr. Ann Jennings – an advocate for changing our social and human service systems to be equipped to deal with early childhood trauma. Dr. Jennings used the 15 year Adverse Childhood Experiences study to outline the impacts of childhood trauma and the long term consequences of unaddressed trauma. The parallels to “root causes” of crime and “risk factors” for crime that informs the work of the Waterlo Region Crime Prevention Council were not lost on me! I felt like Dr. Jennings was speaking our language!!
What spoke volumes was Dr. Jennings’ story of her daughter Anna.
“Anna Jennings was sexually abused when she was less than three years old. This was the first of several abuses that occurred over her lifetime, and put a confused, frightened child into a mental health system that neither recognized nor treated Anna’s real problem. Diagnosed “schizophrenic”.. she was institutionalized for more than 12 years from age 15 to 32. Although she attempted to communicate the “awful things” that had happened to her, there was no one to listen, understand or help her. She took her life on October 24, 1992, on a back ward of a state mental hospital.”
(http://www.theannainstitute.org/a-bio.html)
Dr. Jennings went on to outline the “wall of missed opportunities” that took place over the course of Anna’s life. The sheer number of dates, warning signs and professional involvements could have literally filled a wall. Had these opportunities not been missed, her daughter might have been helped and might still be alive today.
Why is it that we can pinpoint – after the fact – all the places in a person’s life where change could have made a difference, yet our services, systems, families, schools and communities can’t seem break through at those critical moments?
This got me wondering – what if our entire social support systems was equipped to recognize and deal with trauma in our children and youth. Dr. Jennings, quoting a colleague, suggested that if we could effectively do that, we could reduce the size of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) to that of a pamphlet. I suspect there might also be fewer people in the criminal justice system and in prison.
Research tells us that a high percentage of people in prisons, those with addictions and many who have mental health issues have stories of trauma such as abuse, witness to abuse, neglect, and early trauma in a household environment. Now, I’ve never been to prison, but I’ve visited enough of them to know that it is not a place where one could not effectively deal with the impact of trauma in a helpful way. Trauma-informed practices are showing evidence that another way is not only possible, but also practical and cost effective.
Through the ACE Study, it is estimated that the long term consequences of unaddressed trauma (disease, disability, suicide, chronic health problems and social problems) currently stands at $103,754,017,492.00. Yes, you read that correctly. That’s over 103 BILLION (US) dollars.
Now there’s a ” wall of missed opportunity”. Taking a prevention-based approach could save billions of dollars and help people in a healthier way.
Smart on crime, indeed.
For background documents shared during this presentation, including Dr. Jennings’ PowerPoint slides, vist the KidsLINK website to access them. Please consider sharing this information with colleagues.
Posted on: April 11th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
On this, the international Day of Pink – a day of celebrating diversity and for standing up against bullying, discrimination, homophobia and transphobia in our schools, workplaces and our communities – it’s only fitting to have reflection from someone who’s been there.
A new movie has recently debuted in theatres and has won critical acclaim. It’s called “Bully” and I plan to see it. In the meantime though, I can say that I have lived it. Likely many of you have as well. We all have our stories of how we were bullied and, maybe even how we bullied others. Those are the harder ones to come to grips with and admit. As adults, our bullying may have been done within our work organizations. Some seems to be so prevalent as to be almost institutional. It seems hypocritical to decry bullying in our schools when we allow it to exist in our work environments or homes. I’ve worked in those environments and, truth be told, probably contributed to them; climates in offices where exclusion is a norm, where gossip is an accepted practice, where co-workers are demonized for differences in beliefs, attitudes, capabilities or appearance.
Bullying isn’t confined to school hallways and classrooms or through social media, though one would be forgiven for thinking that based upon the media coverage given the horrific stories about the consequences of such behaviour. To think that young people opt to end their lives rather than face another day of torment is just so sad. As an educator and parent my heart breaks each time I learn that another child or teen has been victimized to the extent that there only hope of escape is death.
In Waterloo Region we are focused on being “smart on crime” and strive to be “smart on bullying” as well. Both school boards and the Region of Waterloo Public Health have implemented the “Imagine a School Without Bullying” program (most commonly referred to as the “Imagine” program) which focuses on teaching emotional literacy to student through approaches that are embedded into the academic program. It is based on the core values of justice, compassion, respect, inclusion and equality. School staff have been trained to work with their students and have a wealth of resources to draw upon. The Region of Waterloo Public Health has done an incredible job in its partnership with school boards in putting this program together and the program has been recognized far and wide because of the array of supports to schools in this effort. At this point the program is currently directed at elementary schools and all secondary schools have developed anti-bullying initiatives that are unique to their school environments. As a school principal for several years, I know that the effects of bullying don’t stop at the school’s boundaries. Those memories travel with victims and perpetrators, often as emotional scars that stay until they are healed through understanding, love and perhaps professional intervention.
Still, bullying exists. In his book, “The Better Angels of our Nature”, Steven Pinker noted that bullying has always existed in schools and likely will continue to do so, despite our best efforts. Though it’s been awhile since I read it, I think it has to do with the innate sense or need for some to be dominant over others, some of which is likely biological and some sociological. We see examples of bullies in movies and books and we all cheer when they get their comeuppance. Who didn’t do a fist pump when the bully was dealt with in movies such as “Bad Day at Black Rock”, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” or “Back to the Future”? Okay, I am dating myself but these are classics. Now, before you go on to Netflix in the hope of finding an answer to bullying in these movies, I need to forewarn you that, in each instance there’s a level of violence where the bullied takes on the bully. I am not suggesting that’s the preferred strategy to use; far from it. Better ones are being used locally. Restorative Justice is a process developed from the healing circles associated with Canada’s aboriginal population and religious traditions and practices from our Mennonite community. In Restorative Justice the focus is on victim rights and needs being recognized by the offender who, along with community members, works to take responsibility and ownership for his/her actions to develop a plan that make things right. Much of our legal system is retributive, not restorative. Gandhi once said that if we adopt a position of “eye for an eye” we will eventually be left with a world where everyone ends up blind.
Recently the Ontario government introduced anti-bullying legislation known as the “Accepting Schools Act” which has incited controversy because it addresses the issue of bullying related to LGBTQ youth as part of the population of students being bullied. Some Catholic school parents are upset because they feel the government is moving into areas they feel are best left in the home. Attached to this is the issue of what to call “gay-straight alliances” in Catholic schools. While I support the right of parents and students to hold divergent views, let’s not lose sight of the fact that kids are being bullied at school and on the Internet and sexual orientation is a significant factor.
My question is a larger one. Is legislation the answer? The cynic in me says that if we have to resort to legislation we may have already lost the battle against bullying. However, given all of the tragedies associated with bullying it is something the government is forced to do. Parents, victims and schools will welcome some further rules and consequences. However, it seems to me that we need to frame the issue differently. We need to start at the beginning, not at the end. I have always been a proponent of the Invitational Education approach associated with Dr William Purkey. His theory is that if schools (and I believe any business or institution where people come together for a common purpose) bases all they do on the concepts of trust, respect, intentionality, optimism and caring and that these are demonstrated in their policies, processes, programs, environments involving the people they work with and serve, they will create intentionally inviting places where all people are accepted. In this approach we will find a better answer than legislation. There is no doubt that after seeing the movie “Bully” there will be greater support for new rules, processes and sanctions. But folks, the answer is not “out there” in the realm of government. It is inside each of us. It is in our beliefs, attitudes and actions; it’s in our world view.
How do we view the people around us? Do we want them to succeed? Do we want to help them do so, even if it means the effort costs us? I am not pointing a finger at the government or the efforts of our MPP Elizabeth Witmer who are deeply concerned enough to take action. They are as frustrated with bullying as the rest of us; their responses are limited by their roles. Legislation is what they do. As Abraham Maslow has said, “If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” While legislation may well be a necessary tool in the box, it can’t be the only one. Though Waterloo Region has been smarter on bullying in its approach, there is still much to do.
There’s no simple answer to bullying. It is as complex as the humans who practise it or are victimized by it. I think what is needed is a fresh look at how we want our institutions and relationships to be. It’s a bigger issue than bullying. Bullying is symptomatic of relationships, schools and organizational structures that are not functioning at their peak. The Imagine framework and Invitational Education, along with the principles of Restorative Justice could be the starting place. It won’t be easy because these programs call for a cultural shift. They get at our thinking and even deeper; they get at how we live our lives. However, without change at this fundamental level, no legislated behaviour will take hold. We need to make bullying so socially unacceptable, so anti-cultural that it is a contravention of the way we are in our schools, places of work and our homes; it is the exception, not the norm. As Richard Rohr says, “We don’t think ourselves into a new way of living; we live ourselves into a new way of thinking.”
If we place our hopes in legislation I fear we are already lost.
Maybe you think differently. Let me know.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: April 10th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
It costs a lot of money to provide treatment in a residential facility for children facing mental health issues. For a typical 6 – 8 month stay, costs can range from $20,000 to $38,400. But Social Work professors at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) found that after spending these resources, it still doesn’t seem to provide enough support to help kids transition from the treatment program back to their normal lives.
For the past three years, WLU researchers have been examining the community adaptation of over 200 youth as they left long term intensive children’s mental health programs in Ontario. They found youth leaving these treatment programs face challenges in adapting to community life after treatment. The findings are available in an executive summary, summary report, and full report.
With these issues identified the researchers set off to find a solution and they come up with the type of solution that makes policy wonks drool. They suggest youth transitioning out of residential mental health treatment should be provided programming that offers four things:
Youth and education advocates
Tutoring supports for at least 45 hours
Parent training and support groups
Youth skills development courses
You may be reading that and thinking what is to drool over in this proposal, it seems so logical? This is the beauty of the plan from a policy perspective, it’s a straightforward approach requiring minimal resources and most importantly, the program is based in good evidence.
It’s also effective from a crime prevention approach. Children leaving treatment are at greater risk for delinquent behavior. In addition, one half of the individuals in a mental health treatment program will return to the care of family and children services likely ending up in a group home placement. Criminal behaviour for youth in group homes is extremely high. Providing youth leaving mental health treatment facilities with the support they need can prevent them from being involved in the justice system.
Preventing crime does not need to be flashy, it just needs to work. It needs to be smart on crime.
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.
Posted on: March 20th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
“A Community Fit for Children Interim Update: Results of the 2010 Early Development Instrument and Kindergarten Parent Survey for Waterloo Region” was shared with members of the Alliance for Children and Youth at its most recent meeting. The introduction states, “This report paints a picture of how well Senior Kindergarten children are doing in Waterloo Region.It focuses on data gathered through the Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the Kindergarten Parent Survey (KPS), and compares the results of 2004, 2007 and 2010 data”. Later on it explains that the “EDI measures readiness to learn in five domains of child development: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development,and communication skills and general knowledge.”
The EDI is completed by teachers based upon their observations of the students in front of them. The data is gathered by school and community to paint a picture of the readiness of children across the Region with the added perspective of a neighbourhood by neighbourhood scan so that social agencies and planners can be proactive in programming to support those areas where young people are doing well, and the allow for early intervention to address areas of need.
How does this relate to being smart on crime you might ask? if we accept the premise that a key to crime prevention is in approaches tailored to the needs of a specific neighbourhood, then this information allows social agencies and schools to develop programs to counter deficits that may be exposed as a result of the surveys. For example, in the subdomain of social competence with peers “there has been a consistently smaller percentage of children who are ready in comparison to Ontario” since 2004. Social competence refers to skills related to managing behaviour in social situations. Targeted interventions that address this issue, while not discounting impulsivity related to brain development, may lead to a decreased need for behavioural consequences later in their school life or in community interactions with others that could result in poor choices leading to criminal charges. For the subdomain of aggressive behaviour (including getting into physical fights, laughing at the discomfort of others, bullying or being disobedient) the report indicates that “the percentage of children ready in this subdomain increased significantly between 2007 and 2010 and was not significantly different from the Ontario baseline”. This is good news as we know that getting to young people as soon as possible and investing in their well-being helps us create a safer community for all in later years.
Another good news story is that the EDI shows the language and cognitive development scores from the latest data indicate that in 2010 there were “significantly less children scoring low than in Ontario as a whole. Higher academic scores leads to greater school success which means increased engagement in school. Down the line this leads to higher graduation rates that allow young people a greater chance to meet career goals. Again, this leads to a safer society by addressing at least one root cause of crime, low education levels. More work needs to be done in the subdomain of communication skills and general knowledge where children in Waterloo Region are still scoring lower than in Ontario as a whole.
Knowing what we know from this snapshot of school readiness, all levels of government, community agencies and service clubs can be even more intentional about funding and placing programs in high needs neighbourhoods. For example, an asset or strength-based approach to community development can focus on certain neighbourhoods where needs are most pronounced. The use of data to inform decisions like these is critical because it allows tailored solutions. Much like a doctor might prescribe a specific drug to fight a certain infection instead of a broad-based antibiotic we too need to use the information contained in reports like “The Community Fit for Children” to design interventions that can be more readily evaluated for success.
I know some might argue that it’s quite a leap from the school readiness of kindergarten children to crime prevention initiatives or that I am implying that certain deficits in identified neighbourhoods are directly linked to crime. Let me be clear, this is not my intent. My argument is that we know early intervention is the best prevention, therefore, we need to look at all of the data available to us in order to be proactive earlier so that we prevent problems at a later age. We owe that to all children and their parents.
What are your thoughts?
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: February 14th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
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.
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.
Fulfilling an election promise, the Government of Canada recently introduced the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” or Bill C-10. If passed, Bill C-10 would significantly amend the Canadian Criminal Code and related legislation. C-10 is an omnibus bill that includes nine pieces of proposed legislation covering changes from mandatory minimum sentences to tougher penalties for selected crimes. The government has promised to pass this Bill in the first 100 days of Parliament.
What’s the rush?
The government is well aware a 30-year obsession with “law and order” in the United States has been politically popular but has actually failed to reduce crime. Facts are facts and the failure of the US “tough on crime” approach (among others) is well documented. Unfortunately, Canadians are debating crime more than the weather these days, blissfully unaware of how much they will pay to implement a law whose major components have been proven failures in other lands.
From a crime prevention perspective such public interest in building safer communities is always a positive development. Everyone has a role to play and we can’t and shouldn’t leave the work up to any one order of government and its institutions. It’s a teachable moment.
That’s why the time frame of 100 days to discuss a major overhaul of the Canadian justice system is completely inadequate. Of course, everyone wants “safe streets and communities”, but in a classic American move this Bill lumps in everything from sexual abuse of children to possession of marijuana. If you disagree with the pot provision God help you because then you must also be “soft’ on sexual abuse of kids. The populist needs of a government should not stop Canadians from assessing how each specific piece of legislation tossed into this soup will affect the balance between prevention, rehabilitation, restitution and denunciation.
Some of the measures (such as Serious Time for Serious Crime Bill and the Abolition of Early Parole Act) will increase the number of inmates in an already over-crowded prison system from 13,000 to more than 17,000. Such huge increases come with huge costs. Adding more than 4,000 more inmates will mean spending an additional $1.8 billion over five years. And that is the just the federal cost. The provinces already pay to incarcerate more than 20,000 inmates at the current status. During a time of vast fiscal restraint such needless pressure on taxpayers to solve a problem that doesn’t exist is excessive and irresponsible.
In the end, the main question must be whether C-10 will in fact accomplish what the government says it will do: increase public safety. Unfortunately the answer is a resounding NO. Substantial research shows that “tough on crime” strategies have neither reduced crime nor assisted victims. And all of this is happening at a time when crime has been at its lowest in decades across the country.
So, let’s recap: during one of the lowest crime rates in history and in the midst of a crippling recession where people are losing jobs in droves the federal government is implementing a scheme that has failed elsewhere at a cost that will more than double Canada’s current public safety budgets.
This is not OK, and Canadians deserve a full and proper debate on each and every component of the omnibus bill.
Posted on: October 7th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
‘Placemaking’ is fast becoming a new ‘buzz word’. But what does it really mean anyway? It ends in ‘ing’ so that means it’s a verb, which means some kind of action is happening… What kind of action is required to ‘make a place’? And what does ‘making a place’ have to do with crime prevention and being smart on crime?
Well, the good folks at the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) in New York have a lot of experience with ‘placemaking’. In fact, it’s their entire philosophy. To PPS, placemaking is simply an approach for creating and/or transforming safe public spaces (e.g. civic squares, markets, streets, parks & trails, public buildings, transportation, downtown areas, etc). This approach engages community residents and decision-makers in the process and the ultimate purpose is to create spaces and places that are vibrant, dynamic, safe and healthy.
So, why does this matter to crime prevention?
We know from the work of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) that people feel uncomfortable or fearful in places and spaces that look and/or feel unsafe or dangerous. There’s a domino effect here – if people don’t feel safe in a public place, people don’t go there. If people don’t go there, most likely the space doesn’t get used for what it was intended. When ‘legitimate’ use of a space doesn’t take place, quite often, less desirable activities will take its place. Placemaking can help to turn a place around.
One of our roles as the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council (WRCPC) is keep our area municipalities engaged in the very important role they have to play in municipal-based crime prevention. Building on events we’ve done in the past, WRCPC has engaged Cynthia Nikitin from Project for Public Spaces to visit Waterloo Region on October 20 & 21, 2011. Cynthia will present a freepublic talk and workshop on community safety and crime prevention through placemaking. You can register here for both events.
So, why does this matter to municipalities?
Municipalities are the closest level of government to the places where we live, work and play. Decisions made at the municipal level have the most direct impact on the public spaces in our neighbourhoods and communities. We know that vibrant, dynamic, safe & healthy public spaces and neighbourhoods play a very important part in community life. They are effective for:
increasing social interaction and cohesion
reducing crime and fear of crime
increasing perceptions of safety
encouraging legitimate activity & discouraging less desired activity
developing a sense of ownership among community residents
improving “liveability” in neighbourhoods
While talking with many people about these events, I’ve heard the same comment several times…. “Wow, I’ve never thought about crime prevention that way before, but it makes total sense!” Smart on crime is all about using evidence-based solutions for challenges facing our communities related to crime, fear of crime and victimization. Placemaking has been proven to work. Often, the best solutions are not the most expensive or the most complicated. The solutions that work are the ones where the community is directly involved in the creating the solution and where the community takes continued ownership for making a place their own.
We’ll be posting several more articles over the next few weeks on the topics of crime prevention, placemaking, public space and community safety. Have you had experiences with placemaking? Good, bad, or otherwise? Tell us your placemaking story.
On the heels of the July 21st Statistics Canada report on crime statistics for 2010, several media outlets ran editorials over the past few days asking a similar question: If crime has been on a downward trend since 1973, why is the ‘tough of crime’ agenda so popular? These editorials appeared as music to our ‘smart on crime’ ears; because asking tough questions about evidence based practice is the smart thing to do!
Here’s a collection of the coast-to-coast reflections:
