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!
It used to be that summer was a time to gear down a little and take life at a slightly slower pace. Well, if you take a look at our upcoming events schedule for fall 2012, you will see that the Crime Prevention Council and many of its community partners did not gear down very much this summer! We were busy planning, organizing and coordinating a full series of events! Here’s a quick round up of what’s on offer.
Say Hi Day – Wednesday September 26, 2012 Schools across Waterloo Region participate in Say Hi Day. Building a strong, caring community is one of our most effective crime prevention tools. The “Say Hi” campaign aims to bring people together and nurture a sense of belonging and responsibility in our community. Participating schools can register for a chance to win one of two Connected School Awards.
You don’t have to be a student to participate in Say Hi Day….you can ‘Say Hi’ anytime!!
Eyes Wide Open: Overdose Awareness Day – Wednesday October 10, 2012
A full day dedicated to understanding the scale and scope of overdose and overdose related issues in Waterloo Region. The morning session is filled with speakers: an overview of overdose related issues of the past year; an attempt to understand the tracking and data collected around accidental overdoses in Waterloo Region; a major new report on the barrier to calling 9-1-1 in an overdose incident, and the story of a mother, advocate, author whose life has been affected by accidental overdose.
The afternoon session will be an Overdose Prevention Training facilitated by Preventing Overdose Waterloo Wellington (POWW).
These events are free but registration is required. Register here.
Changing Futures Prevention Summit – Thursday October 18, 2012
A one day conference uniting community members with national and international experts to discuss evidence-based approaches and practices to substance use prevention and mental health promotion with children and youth. Speakers include Dr. Kenneth Minkoff, Gabor Maté and Dr. Wayne Hammond. Registration is required. This conference is geared to Funders, policy makers, parents, healthcare professionals, early childhood and early years staff, educators, mental health and addiction service providers, police partners, child welfare workers, mentors, and community members who have an impact on child and youth development.
Trauma Informed Practice & Theory Training: Online Webinar – Thursday October 25, 2012
Trauma can lead people to experience depression, anxiety, withdrawal, difficulty eating and sleeping, emotional distress and behavioural changes. Ultimately this can damage an individual’s ability to function in society. In this training, co-sponsored by KidsLink and the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council, Laurie Robinson will begin by reviewing the science to provide an understanding of what happens when someone experiences trauma and provide practical ideas and tools for direct service workers aiding individuals experiencing trauma.
Forum: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder – Monday November 12, 2012
Join guest speaker Dan Dubovsky, FASD Specialist with the SAMHSA FASD Centre of Excellence to learn more about FASD as a disability and the challenges faced by people with this condition. People with FASD tend to have significant challenges with the criminal justice system – learn more about FASD initiatives within Waterloo Region.
In The Mind’s Eye: Issues of Substance Use in Film + Forum– Various Events throughout October & November, 2012
Unique in North America, In The Mind’s Eye is an insightful and eclectic look at issues of substance use. Free events combining films and workshops make this look at substance use real and relevant.
Film Nights: Every Wednesday throughout November at 7:00pm, Queen Street Commons, 43 Queen Street South. All events are free.
The full schedule of films and events will be posted shortly.
Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings: Online Webinar – Wednesday November 21
Geared to health care professionals in all areas who are responsible for regular patient care, this webinar will provide training in how to identify and support victims of intimate partner violence. Intimate Partner Violence is a serious public health problem and can be prevented. In this training, Dr. Robin Mason will provide background information on women abuse and tools that can be used to screen for intimate partner violence. Dr. Patricia Mousmanis will explain the physician’s role in aiding patients facing intimate partner violence.
When you have the opportunity to learn from someone who has ‘been there’… take it! This week, we had the honour of welcoming and hosting Jamie Courtorielle in Waterloo Region. Jamie is cycling across Canada in order to raise awareness about addictions and the destruction it is causing in our families, communities, and most of all, our youth. Jamie spent 3 days in our communities visiting youth programs like R.O.O.F and inREACH, meeting area politicians and spending time at the Weejeendimin Native Resource Centre. Our regular guest blogger, Frank Johnson, sat down with Jamie one afternoon to pick his brain on a few questions.
You may have been taken in by one of those urban myth emails that float around our inboxes from time to time. You might have seen the one we’re about to bust for you.
The email we’re talking about arrives with a subject heading along the lines of “Can you guess what this is? You won’t believe it!!” The email contains photos of a state of the art looking facility complete with recreation spaces and lounges.
It looks clean, comfortable and well designed. It could be a seniors facility, or maybe a community or health centre.
The photos are beautiful and believable and it looks like a pleasant place to be.
It’s the next sentence that sparks a sense of outrage and indignation! “THESE ARE PHOTOS OF A NEW PRISON FACILITY, JUST OUTSIDE OF TORONTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!” The email we received did actually include the ALL CAPS and bold for emphasis!
This is entirely false. Almost.
The first part is true. These are indeed photos of a prison facility, but not in Toronto. These photos are of the Justice Center Leoben, a minimum security prison in Austria. A combined court and prison complex dedicated to rehabilitation, Leoben is for inmates from all walks of life but they are carefully selected for their motivation to change. It runs more like a shared accommodation facility in an attempt to prepare people for the real world when they are released. Prisons are commonly not a great training ground for the world beyond their walls. It may be because we forget that, except in very rare situations, people do get out and live back in their communities. The more prepared they are to make this transition, the better their chances of not returning. As Graham Stewart (former Ed of John Howard Society Canada) once said: “You can’t teach people how to play tennis in a submarine.” Likewise, it’s hard for people to change attitudes and behaviour in an environment that doesn’t remotely resemble real life.
Prison is the withdrawal of liberties and freedoms. It is not meant to be punishing but rehabilitative. The motto of the Justice Center Leoben is “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” While this prison is only marginally more expensive than other facilities, their recidivism rate is minimal to none. The model has also been replicated in Norway’s Halden Prison with similar success.
Someone out there started floating these photos as an attempt to say that in Canada and the US (it was also said to be a jail in Chicago…. which isn’t true) prisoners receive better treatment than seniors and those in need of hospital care.
Let the myth be busted.
The story has been misrepresented and the photos are not from here. But even if they were, the idea that people are keen to go to jail for the nice facilities is as real as the idea that people are keen to go to an oncology ward because they have shiny new equipment there. It just doesn’t make sense.
Here’s hoping you think carefully about the next mythical email that wings its way into your inbox.
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: April 30th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
And while we’re at it, let’s also talk about prevention, addictions and compassion.
I suppose you’re wondering, where am I going with all of this? Well, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council recently held the 34th Annual Justice Dinner, an awareness-raising event about local justice issues. Our guest was The Honourable Justice Kofi Barnes, who started the very first Drug Treatment Court in 1998 in Toronto.
I was expecting a chronology and history about the initiation and implementation of the first Drug Treatment Court. However, I found myself leaning in a bit closer when Justice Barnes told his own personal story – how he was handed the task of finding alternative ways of dealing with the revolving door of people in courts and corrections who clearly had underlying addictions or mental health issues. Admittedly, fueled, in part, by a desire to preserve his career, and in part inspired by his own father, Justice Barnes spent 4 years developing an alternative ‘problem solving court’ which, 14 years later, has grown to more than 10 drug treatment and mental health courts in Canada.
What struck me most was Justice Barnes’ insistence that we need to move beyond our narrow view of ‘justice’ as ‘the letter of the law’ in every case. Rather, ‘justice’ must find a balance for the person who has committed a crime, the victim and our community as a whole. Rightly, he claims that it serves none of these if we never deal with the root cause of a problem. Regular Smart on Crime guest blogger Frank Johnson, put it this way:
“Drug treatment and mental health treatment courts are two approaches where the particular needs of individuals that may have contributed to criminal behaviour are addressed in a supportive yet accountable environment. In these courts the emphasis is on preserving the dignity of those involved with crime by holding them accountable while providing them with the tools to make changes in their lives, where change is possible. This is a recognition that a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to justice has not and will not reduce crime or the recidivism rate. It makes social and economic sense, as the more alternatives to prison we create, the more benefit we see to taxpayers by reducing the costs of crime.”
Justice Barnes admits that he had a hard time convincing his colleagues in the courts, corrections and law enforcement communities that this approach could work. But gradually, as people from these systems had opportunities to participate in the alternative processes and saw the humanity present there, they became easy converts.
Justice Barnes’ story of personal connection and the potential for system change has stuck with me now for days. In fact, it reminded me of this Ted Talk by Bryan Stevenson “We need to talk about an injustice“. While Stevenson is a lawyer in the southern United States and daily confronts the issue of race in the U.S Criminal Justice system, the parallels between his talk and that of Justice Barnes is not lost on me.
They both believe in the need for justice that is based on hope and tied to dignity and compassion. They both believe that each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done. They both believe that each of us has a basic fundamental human dignity that must be respected by law. They both believe that our whole community is made stronger when we use smart on crime approaches that address the greatest injustices.
While it’s the more challenging place to be and to work, it will ultimately make us more human. And isn’t that what we should all be working for?
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts about the Honourable Justice Barnes’ talk at the Justice Dinner. What has stuck with you? What inspired you or challenged you? Let us know.
In the meantime, watch the talk from Bryan Stevenson.
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.
