Posted on: April 24th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
This is the official position statement of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council given at a public consultation on the question of a casino in the City of Kitchener. The remarks below were given by WRCPC Executive Director, Christiane Sadeler on behalf of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight on the topic of a casino in Kitchener or the Waterloo Region. I am representing the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council; I also live in downtown Kitchener.
The Crime Prevention Council opposes the opening of a casino within Waterloo Region. However, in the event that a casino should be opened here, we recommend that the development and operations of the casino must incorporate crime prevention considerations and harm reduction strategies from the very beginning.
We have provided you with a full copy of the position statement and also included some materials that we believe are relevant in this context. The position statement is also available on our website (www.preventingcrime.ca). In the interest of time I can only highlight a few aspects of the position.
There has been no dialogue that did NOT at some point mention the concern that crimes increase in the proximity of casinos. Your own city online survey mentions safety along with considerations of health, city image and so on. Fear of long term impact on our quality of life is often as detrimental as crime itself. Perceptions can become reality. Right or wrong the connection between casinos and crime is part of public discourse. And perceptions are hard to change. We know that by now.
But what does the evidence tell us?
This is where it gets a little more grey. The research findings about a connection between crime and casinos are mixed, if not inconclusive. It would not be correct to claim that casinos have a DIRECT impact on crime, at least not an impact that would differ from that of other large entertainment facilities, at first sight. Direct links between crime and any one community action are hard to come by and must always be seen in the context of decreasing crime rates in the last decade.
We therefore must look beyond the direct connections to what we know about risks. What puts us at risk of crime, victimization, and fear of crime? It is here that the public health research is compelling and worthy of your in-depth consideration. We know that over 30% of profits in gambling come from problem gamblers and those at risk for gambling addictions. We know that these individuals share characteristics that are best defined as root causes of crime. We have detailed them in our position statement along with a report about root causes. We encourage you to consult both.
Simply put, whenever we increase the vulnerability of those already at risk, the financial and human burden to them and their families are quickly matched by the community and social costs. While casinos may not directly lead to increases in street level crime, they do lead to increases in other social ills and crimes, such as, intimate partner violence, addictions, etc. From a prevention standpoint these should concern us as much as public safety and disorder issues.
Problem gambling erodes the health of individuals and those close to them and by extension, of the communities in which they live.
The Ontario Lottery Gaming Commission does not deny that gambling addictions exist and that they come at a cost. These are brochures that are provided right at the Windsor Casino entrance, alerting patrons to these risks.
So, gambling facilities come with warning label. They also come with treatment recommendations if the warning labels were not effective. This is not forward thinking. This is resigning ourselves to the fact that along with these facilities will come problems.
Prevention is cross-generational. Are we OK with a baby born in 2013 becoming the casino patron of 2033? If the answer is, even remotely, “we are not sure”, then we need to hit pause and look more deeply at the research and the rationale for considering a casino here in the first place. Will the benefits justify the costs? Are we informed by the “8-80” concept? Is it a good decision for the 8 year old in our community AND for the 80 year old in our community no matter what walks of life they come from?
Most people who gamble may not engage in criminal activities. But those at risk of gambling addictions are vulnerable to many other issues that come at a social cost, crime among them.
We believe that for the crimes committed by the offender he or she is responsible; for not dealing with the root causes of crime when these are known to us, all of us are responsible.
However, if the decision is to bring a casino to our city the Crime Prevention Council recommends that prevention and harm reduction methods are included in the development and operations from the very beginning. In the position paper, we have outlined 12 harm reduction recommendations. These include considerations about alcohol consumption, placement of ATM machines, opening hours, self exclusion programs etc. The first recommendation is to establish a region wide advisory group with expertise in problem gambling prevention to provide input from the beginning, including during the RFP process.
In conclusion, the decision that you are faced with, in the mind of the Crime Prevention Council, is not to be taken lightly. It is a decision that will affect the well being of generations beyond all of us present here tonight. Waterloo Region is one of the safest and ultimately prosperous communities in Canada. We have become known for innovation and forward thinking. There is little innovative about a casino. We are on a solid path of creating and maintaining a safe and healthy community. It is hard to imagine that we can lose by passing on the idea of a casino. It is easier to imagine what we might lose if we take this on.
Thank you for your time and we wish you well in your decision making.
Posted on: November 1st, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Being tough on crime often means talking about keeping criminals off the street, protecting the rights of victims and deterring offenders from either offending in the first place, or re-offending upon release. All of these things, however laudable, sound great on talk radio. In my very unscientific poll listening to a recent local talk radio program where the host interviewed the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada about toughening the Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) about 90% of the callers supported this tough stance that would result in more offenders going to prison. Now, these are serious offenders, not joy-riders or B+E specialists. These are the people found guilty of violent offences. Tough to argue against that. But, have these callers thought about where we are sending these offenders and at what cost, or do they give much thought at all to prison, beyond it being the destination for bad guys (and girls in increasing numbers)?
“Canadians should be interested in who is ending up behind bars. Questions about whom we incarcerate and for how long and why are important public policy issues…Visible minorities, Aboriginal people and women are entering federal penitentiaries in greater numbers than ever before. Twenty-one percent of the inmate population is of Aboriginal descent and 9% of inmates are Black Canadians. In the last five years, the number of federally incarcerated women has increased by about 40% while the number of Aboriginal women has increased by over 80% in the last decade. In fact, if not for these sub-groups, the offender population growth rate would have flat-lined some years ago.”
Think about that for a moment. Does this not seem out of whack to you? How often have we heard our politicians or talk show hosts calling attention to these stats? Not very, at least in my memory. How long can we keep sweeping this issue under the proverbial rug before we need an SUV to climb over it? Why is this not on the national radar?
Mr. Sapers goes even further to paint a picture of today’s inmate:
“More offenders are admitted to federal penitentiaries more addicted and more mentally ill that ever before. 36% have been identified at admissions as requiring some form of psychiatric care of psychological follow-up. 63% of offenders report using either alcohol or drugs on the day of their current offence…These needs often run ahead of the system’s capacity to meet them.”
Given this, would it not make sense for the government to invest some of the money it is using after the fact to house these people to invest at the front end in some form of proactive therapy that can address alcohol and substance abuse issues as these are often linked to mental health problems? We know that it currently costs the government (in reality you and me, the taxpayer) about $98,000 to incarcerate one male (female prisoners are much more expensive to house, in fact about twice the cost) for one year in a medium security federal prison. By the way, these figures come from Public Safety Canada. I am not making them up. If that money were invested in mental health and addictions counselling (and it wouldn’t even cost near that amount) for a person when symptoms first arise, it would save exponential amounts of money after the fact in costs of incarceration. This isn’t bleeding heart liberalism. It’s simple mathematics. You should know that there is a range of costs for persons incarcerated that is dependent on whether or not they are in a federal or provincial institute, whether they are male or female and the level of security and so on. I think there are more options out there that are less expensive and arguably more effective.
Look for example at InREACH, the anti-gang project running in Waterloo Region. In 2009, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council received nearly $3.8 million from the National Crime Prevention Centre (Canada) for a 45 month time period to create and implement a collaborative street gang prevention project that involved a collaboration among various community agency partners. You can read about the initiative yourself so I won’t take you through all it offers in terms of its programs like addictions counselling, mental health supports, job skills training, community mobilization and so on. Visit the site though. You will be impressed.
In a recent monitoring report of the project prepared by Karen Hayward, she notes that 210 youth have been referred to the program since 2010. If, and it’s a very big if, all of these youth would have gone on to commit crimes which would land them in a medium security federal penitentiary the cost to the taxpayer would be $20,580,000. Okay, that’s a stretch. It depends on lots of factors so I am asking you to give me some leeway here. So, let’s say only a quarter of these youth could be diverted successfully. The cost is still $5,145,000. Oh, by the way, this is per year. So, if for example we say that the program diverted 25% of these youth from a federal penitentiary over three years, at a program investment of roughly $3 million and without it, the government (again, you and me) would be on the hook for $15,435,000 – does it not look cost effective? And, interestingly enough, inREACH is scrambling for funding since the money is running out. It begs the question as to why, when simple economics tells us it makes more sense to invest upfront dollars that will save the taxpayer huge amounts later on. I know there are a lot of suppositions in my example that may fail to take various factors into consideration, but the message is still clear: pay now or pay a lot more later.
Mr. Sapers helps make my argument. “Expenditures on federal corrections totalled almost $2.5 billion in 2010-11, which represents a 43.9% increase since 2005-06.” Have we seen the same percentage increase going to mental health and addictions support? Well, it appears not. According to the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the federal government has cut mental health services at Correctional Services Canada including three doctors, 28 nurses, six psychologists, three social workers and two occupational therapists. These numbers don’t include the 18 nurses and five psychologists affected by the closure of Kingston Penitentiary who will lose their jobs.
When one considers, as Mr. Sapers’ report notes, that 4 of 5 offenders have substance abuse problems, 50% of federally incarcerated women report a history of self-harm, over half identify a current or previous addiction to drugs, 85% report a history of physical abuse and 68% experienced sexual abuse at some point in their lives, any cuts to mental health supports seem short-sighted. And I am not even touching on the story of Ashley Smith, as an example of what can happen to a person with mental health needs in our prison system.
As much as I think many callers to talk shows debating the tough on crime agenda reasonably want to protect victims, it might be time for them to think about what happens after the cell door slams. After all, at some point these people are coming out and will be standing in line with us at Tim Hortons or riding the bus with us. From a strictly selfish point of view, do we want them to come out healthier, more able to handle stress and addictive tendencies, more compassionate and remorseful, or just angrier and more damaged?
Is it time to stop pretending prison is our best option? What are we pretending not to 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.
Do politicians and a debate about policy and policy changes impact public opinion? Anthony Piscitelli asked this question at the end of the previous episode and now he reveals his answer!
Indeed, policy changes made at the political level appear to have some influence on public opinion and attitudes toward crime and the criminal justice system. Politicians have a role in leading public opinion but they also have a role in following it. When politicians float a ‘trial balloon’ policy, it is often in an attempt to test the waters of public opinion of a particular issue. Remember Bill C-30? The ‘cyber surveillance’ bill was tabled early in 2012 but was quickly pulled off the table due to a huge public outcry and several social media campaigns. It has yet to reappear….
The main message of these ‘By the Numbers’ videos is still this: the relationship between public opinion, policy and political decision makers is complex – more than complicated! Know that your opinion matters, listen carefully about issues that matter to you… and learn to read between the lines – or, the numbers.
Thanks for watching! Do you have any ‘by the numbers’ worthy topics you are curious about? If you have something you would like to see covered in an episode of ‘By the Numbers’, leave a comment below or contact us info [at] smartoncrime.ca.
A huge thank you to the staff & team at Gibson Sound & Vision, Waterloo for accommodating us at their store to record this video!
Everyone wants to know… how do political leaders make their decisions about crime policy anyway? Are they influenced by public opinion polls? Do politicians influence public attitudes?
In the first episode of this By The Numbers series, Anthony Piscitelli guided us through 40 years of historical data on public attitudes toward the criminal justice system. In general, the evidence showed some interesting trends:
more people are gravitating towards crime prevention rather than law enforcement as a means for preventing crime,
more people thinking that crime is falling,
less support for harsher sentences,
more support for the justice system
dramatic drops in support for capital punishment
But the trends are not the whole picture. In this episode, Anthony brings up some other factors that influence public opinions and the possible relationship between public attitudes and how crime policy is formed. It’s complicated… to say the least!!
So, what do you think? Is this overly complicated? Is there a connection between public attitudes and crime policy? Does a debate about crime policy influence pubic opinions? Looking forward to hearing what you have to say!
You probably already know this about the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council, but it bears repeating…. When a wicked question1 comes our way, we’re not satisfied until we get an answer, even if it means tons of research and pounds of data!
Our wicked question began to take shape with the introduction of the Safe Streets and Communities Act in Canada (Bill C-10). This omnibus crime legislation was ushered in with a ‘tough on crime’ message that seemed to resonate with some of the voting public and certainly elicited an emotional reaction. True to our investigative nature here at the WRCPC, it got us thinking… and a wicked question was born. We wanted to know, “Does the tough on crime message work?” And if so, for what purpose? We were also curious to know, “Is there another message that captures prevention, addressing root cause issues and being ‘smart on crime that would resonate as much as tough on crime”?
We know… these are massive questions and we can only begin to scratch the surface of this topic! Here’s our attempt. We started with 40 years of public opinion data on the criminal justice system to determine if there are any particular trends over time. We found some interesting ones which Anthony Piscitelli starts to uncover in this first video of a three-part series looking at the relationship between public opinion of the criminal justice system and crime policy in Canada.
So, what do you think? Does this raise any wicked questions for you? Does public opinion influence political decision making? Or do politicians influence public attitudes?
Footnote: “Wicked questions do not have an obvious answer. They are used to expose the assumptions which shape our actions and choices. They are questions that articulate the embedded and often contradictory assumptions we hold about an issue, context or organization. A question is ‘wicked’ if there is an embedded paradox or tension in the question.” From: Tamarack Learning Centre
