Our By the Numbers feature is back with a series of video blogs by Anthony Piscitelli, our very own Supervisor, Planning and Research with the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. In his first video post, Anthony takes a closer look at the numbers from a recent WRCPC publication about crossover children; “From One System to Another: Crossover Children in Waterloo Region.”
If you have more questions, feel free to leave a comment at the bottom of this blog post. Or, you are welcome to give Anthony a call directly. We can be reached at 519.883.2304.
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 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.
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.
These words from Mr. Young struck me as particularly relevant to the discussions ongoing in Ottawa and in the media about Bill C-10 and Bill C-30, both of which have created controversy in crime prevention circles. I wasn’t an attendee for his speech so do not want to quote him out of context but, if I may, I’d like to propose what he has said as a lens through which the government could determine the need for, and the path of, legislation related to crime.
Bill C-10, “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”, is a compilation of legislation that the government was unable to enact when it was in the minority in the parliament of Canada. Having won a majority of the seats in the current House of Commons, the government is now able to put forth legislation without fear of losing a vote of confidence. In other words, they can pretty much do what they want. This political reality has led to what many consider to be a “tough on crime” approach. Bill C-10 will restrict the discretion often used by judges in imposing sentences, will create more mandatory minimum sentences, reduce house arrest options (both of which will increase incarceration rates and the budget required to pay for this), make it more difficult to secure pardons and be tougher on “out of control” youth (their words, not mine). While this will seem a litany of the deficits in the Bill, it will also make it more difficult to traffic in drugs and people and allow more rights to victims of crime, both of which are arguably good things. Bill C-30, also known as the “Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act” has been widely criticized for allowing more intrusive searches of IP addresses by police without a warrant signed by a judge. Critics fear a “Big Brother” (in the form of police and security agencies) will be able to install its own surveillance equipment on the networks of service providers in order to better track the Internet traffic of Canadian citizens. Critics have argued further that the police, by and large, already have the ability to investigate the trafficking of child porn, for example, under current legislation. To the government’s credit they are slowing down the legislative process in order to give more opportunity to improve the Bill in answer to its critics.
All of which brings me back to what many could justifiably consider my naive and idealistic world view. If the government viewed crime prevention with Mr. Young’s words in mind, might the results be different? For example, we know from data provided by the government’s own agency, StatsCan, that the crime rate continues on a downward trend, yet many citizens report a fear of crime which, on the face of the data, seems unreasonable. The root causes of crime are varied and complex but are worsened by unemployment, financial uncertainty, addictions and mental health issues. If we use Mr. Young’s words, we need to “recognize complexity”. It is not enough to create legislation to assuage fears that are not based on available data about the prevalence of crime. Instead, would we not be better to be “smart on crime” by understanding and mitigating the root causes? What if the $100,000 it costs annually to incarcerate one person in a Canadian prison was invested in anti-poverty and education approaches that allow for greater opportunities for pro-social behaviour? Would we see a corresponding decrease in crime and perhaps even in our taxes over time as more people become employable? Would be then be less fearful of crime?
What about “accepting uncertainty“? I concede that most governments don’t want to admit that they just don’t have all the answers as it won’t help garner votes. Given the increasingly technological world in which we live and the globalization of our economy that is highly influenced by the financial woes of foreign nations, things do become more uncertain. People are incredibly complex as well, they often do not respond as predicted. Therefore, if government accepted the premise that there are some things we just don’t know, perhaps we could see more resources put into pilot programs and research as opposed to incarceration and the infrastructure to support it.
With this as our approach we are “embracing possibility”. We are creating a more hopeful and intentional stance in regards to working with those on the margins who commit crime. I am seasoned enough to know that not all criminals are good people who have just made a wrong turn somewhere due to economic difficulty or because of an addiction. I accept the fact that some may in fact be evil. Prisons exist for those folks, no argument from me.
If we “trust community” we will embrace community development initiatives that prevent crime by empowering and encouraging community members to take more ownership in creating safe places in their respective neighbourhoods. Waterloo Region is blessed by its tradition of neighbourhood associations proactively working together to improve living conditions in many parts of the region, simply through the cleanup of parks, streets, and common areas. Community associations also provide support to new Canadians, new moms and dads, youth and younger kids. They work with parents, schools and police in a ‘wraparound’ concept of community development. The answer then isn’t necessarily more legislation. It’s more community development.
Lastly, if we “proceed with humanity” we demonstrate compassion and optimism. We are less reactive and more proactive. We realize that one size does not fit all. We encourage innovation and discourage degradation. Can you imagine our community if we fully enacted Eric Young’s call to action? Over time, the need for a Crime Prevention Council would be reduced because we will have learned it makes more sense, socially and economically to be ‘smart on crime’ as opposed to ‘tough on crime’.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this one. Could these be valid ‘guiding principles’ for the future?
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
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.
If you are a regular reader of the Smart on Crime blog, you will know that we like to share smart on crime ideas and actions, big and small. Well, this one is BIG! In their own words, here’s the big idea and plan of action from the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime.
“In the attempt to gather information on the role and action of local authorities in crime prevention and community safety in a systematic manner, ICPC is pleased to announce the official launch of the Global Survey on Safety in Cities.
The survey is the first of its kind and seeks to collect vital information about community safety and crime prevention in cities. It will offer the first database on safety in cities around the world, which will facilitate comparative analyses of local initiatives. The survey will also be a tool available for policy makers to reflect on existing practices to improve the quality of life of their citizens.
ICPC is convinced that prevention strategies undertaken by local authorities, particularly by cities, as well as available data on these strategies are essential to the well-being of populations.
The survey is valuable for ICPC’s work as it will be a tool for analysis for the Centre and will also be used in the upcoming International Report on the prevention of crime. Therefore, ICPC is requesting for your collaboration to answer to this survey and to distribute it to your networks.
The survey is designed to be responded by individuals who are in charge or work closely within local, municipal or city programmes on crime prevention, reduction or are in charge of public safety departments. The survey will require about twenty minutes of your time.”
You can access a web version of the survey here, or download a paper copy of the survey here. The survey is also available in multiple languages and you can find links for theme on the ICPC website.
This is the final blog post in the victims of crime series. This post points you to helpful resources and links for agencies that support victims of crime in Waterloo Region.
There are many agencies within Waterloo Region working to support victims of crime, as well as many provincial and national advocacy agencies working for victim’s rights. Services to support victims of crime can be found by contacting 211 Ontario or Victim Services of Waterloo Region. Many agencies offer counselling and other support.
A few things victims need are protection, information, to be heard and believed and to be treated with dignity. With the support of those close to them, victims are more likely to seek professional support. With professional support, victims are more likely to define their own needs in overcoming the situation or dealing with the trauma.
Author: Tracie McGrath-Levis
Tracie McGrath-Levi is a completing a student placement with WRCPC and has contributed previous posts to Smart on Crime. In addition to completing her Bachelor of Social Work degree at Renison College, University of Waterloo, Tracie works full-time with the John Howard Society in Milton. In her role there Tracie works in court four days a week in an adult diversion program and in bail.
This is the third in a series of blog posts regarding victims of crime in Canada. In the second post I mentioned the importance of root causes of crime and building resiliency. This blog looks at the consequences of being a victim of crime and some of the issues they experience.
Prevention is important, but so is assisting victims to deal with the trauma they have experienced. The more likely a victim is to receive support from people close to them, the more likely they are to seek professional help. Having support from people close to victims, and seeking professional help, allows victims to deal with the consequences of being a victim of crime in a constructive way.
One of the major consequences of being a victim of crime is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD symptoms include terrifying memories, avoiding reminders of the trauma, increased anxiety and sleep disturbances. These symptoms usually begin three months after the trauma occurs, but may surface years later.
Author: Tracie McGrath-Levis
Tracie McGrath-Levi is a completing a student placement with WRCPC and has contributed previous posts to Smart on Crime. In addition to completing her Bachelor of Social Work degree at Renison College, University of Waterloo, Tracie works full-time with the John Howard Society in Milton. In her role there Tracie works in court four days a week in an adult diversion program and in bail.
This is the second in a series of four blog posts regarding victims of crime in Canada. In the first blog I mentioned that 2% of the population experienced 60% of all violent crimes. When people experience more than one violent crime this is called multiple victimization. Multiple victimization is why such a small amount of the population experiences such a high volume of the violent crime in Canada.
So what allows the 2% to experience 60% of all violent crime? Can we prevent multiple victimization for these people? Would the prevention of multiple victimization lower the crime rate? Are there characteristics that make that 2% more vulnerable to violent crime?
Research doesn’t exactly answer all of those questions, but it does acknowledge that certain risk factors are associated with becoming a victim of crime. Research also states that these same characteristics do not increase the likelihood for being the victim of multiple crimes.
If there are no characteristics to help protect that 2% of the population from experiencing multiple victimization, we need to focus on preventing crime. To prevent crime, and ultimately people becoming victims, we need to look at the root causes, something the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council stresses as important. To be smart on crime means understanding why it happens, and preventing it before it does.
Protective factors are also important to prevent people from becoming victims of crime. Some of the protective factors highlighted by the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council include problem resolution, organized recreation activities, possibilities for participation in the community, self-confidence, self-control, and a strong self-image. These protective factors encourage resiliency and autonomy.
When we encourage resiliency and autonomy, we help protect people from becoming victims of crime. This is something that will take time, so how can we deal more effectively with victims of crime in the mean time. What are the consequences of being a victim of crime?
I will take a look at these questions in the next article on the consequences and aftermath of being a victim of crime.
Author: Tracie McGrath-Levis
Tracie McGrath-Levi is a completing a student placement with WRCPC and has contributed previous posts to Smart on Crime. In addition to completing her Bachelor of Social Work degree at Renison College, University of Waterloo, Tracie works full-time with the John Howard Society in Milton. In her role there Tracie works in court four days a week in an adult diversion program and in bail.
