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!
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.
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.
What would our communities look like if we consistently prioritized spending on education over spending on prisons? There are lessons to be learned from our neighbours to the south where several US states are looking long and hard at reversing the trend of prison budgets trumping education.
Posted on: February 23rd, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
As someone lucky enough to be a mere observer of the criminal justice system and not a participant, my curiosity was peaked when I heard a young offender (let’s call him Henry) speak about his experiences and the wisdom gained as a result. Henry and I met recently to give me a close-up view of the perspective of someone who has been affected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), an act that has been widely praised for the balance it strikes between compassion and consequence. Much of the rationale given by the Minister of Justice in regards to the changes to the Act, as part of Bill C-10, is in regards to what he perceives to be “out of control youth”. Now, in my time as a school principal I probably met many of the young people who, for a period of time, might fall into this category. But, isn’t anyone who commits a crime temporarily out of control?
Everyone has a different story so legislation like Bill C-10 that severely reduces the discretion judges can use knowing the story behind the youth and the crime is disturbing. Judges need this discretion because every person coming before the bench is unique and, what works for some won’t work for all. Some young offenders never come into contact with the courts or police ever again because they have benefitted from the alternative measures and diversion programs designed to do just that. Whereas others, like Henry, aren’t helped by them, not because they aren’t good programs but participation in them requires a commitment not every offender is able to give because they aren’t ready for it. Human nature is incredibly complex, requiring a nuanced approach that C-10 does not seem to offer.
Henry allowed me to hear his story one afternoon recently. In order to protect his identity I have changed some of the facts in his story. Henry was an inmate in the correctional system more than once. He has seen it up close. Not a pretty place, though it can bring structure and support to some who might need it. There are some guards who are helpful and hopeful and others who are disrespectful of inmates and abuse their authority through the arbitrary loss of points inmates can use for privileges. It’s not an easy place to maintain one’s dignity, particularly with overcrowding (which is already seen in many jails and prisons and will only worsen under C-10). Being brought to court for remands and made to wait hours in cuffs and shackles for the appearance and then to wait again for the return to jail was frustrating. Made to sit on a concrete bench for hours doesn’t help one maintain a sense of dignity. For Henry court was a frustrating experience because it seemed no one was interested in his side of the story as his lawyer did most of the interaction with the judge and court officials.
The adolescent brain is still in a stage of maturation and has not fully developed the capability to reason thoughtfully. Many young people don’t take the time to reason out the impulse to act out, whether it results in a theft, a fight, a threat or a robbery. Steven Pinker, in his book “The Better Angels of our Nature” says “The arc of crime in adolescence is the outcome of these inner forces [sensation-seeking and competitiveness] pushing and pulling in different directions (p.600-601). Young people, if Henry is an exemplar, do not always take the time to reason out the deterrence factors of the penalties associated with laws. It’s not necessarily in their biological nature during adolescence. It is evolving and not fully-formed.
As part of the program at inREACH, Henry has learned about brain development and the role it has played in his discernment process. Through the lessons learned there he has come to personify what Pinker says…”In the long run, self-control gains the upper hand when it is fortified by experience which teaches adolescents that thrill-seeking and competitiveness have costs and that self-control has rewards” (p 601).
Not only has he learned valuable lessons himself but he hopes others can too. He especially hopes police will take every opportunity to be people and not just their roles. He hopes that more can be gained by listening and offering respect than a heavy hand or preconceptions about youth. In his view, some officers think fear is better than respect. Thankfully that has not been the attitude of every officer or correctional staff member. He also learned that family is more important than friends, maybe making truth of the old saying that “blood is thicker than water”. Henry’s family has been there for him, at each court appearance and with regular visits when he was incarcerated. He has come to a deeper appreciation of them.
Henry’s is just one story and I wish I could tell it more fully but I don’t want to take the chance of anyone identifying him because of this article. There are many stories of youth who haven’t had the support of family, school or programs like inREACH. Henry has taken the support he’s been given and made himself a better person. He hopes to use his experiences to help others as a career and will likely be a positive influence in the lives of many others. He is resilient. My worry is for those for whom the harsher strictures of C-10 will turn the benefits of the YCJA into something destructive.
A wise friend once told me that when she meets with an inmate, she’ll try to picture them as a five year old.
More than any other document, inmates are often keen to share their autobiographies with me. Often, these are painstakingly written as part of a family violence program in a prison.
The mail arrives. Another bulky package. A dozen stamps on the front. It’s from someone who goes by a number.
What became of that little boy? How did he get off-track? What was missing – love, care, affirmation – when he was a child? What was present – violence, abuse, shame – that should not have been?
Another person wants me to know their story. To actually know them. To actually see them. Not in the way that everyone else does.
When we do something wrong, we want to tell a story about how it happened. When others do, we want to remove the behaviour from its context.
I could probably tell many of the stories without ever reading them. Neither comedy, nor sufficient drama, they are tragedies.
A boy beaten with electrical wire. Kindergarten-age children tied to trees in thunderstorms. Not that uncommon or even the most outrageous of what is written.
No one notices.
Actually, that’s wrong, society does notice: when they break the law as adults, we give them what they deserve.
Judah Oudshoorn is a Professor at Conestoga College in the Community and Criminal Justice Degree program, a restorative justice mediator in the Canadian federal prison system and a PhD student at the University of Toronto. More importantly, he likes chocolate chip cookies, books and lawnmowers. Most importantly, he is a proud dad and partner. Judah can be contacted at joudshoorn@conestogac.on.ca
Posted on: February 2nd, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Some time ago two articles from the Globe and Mail collided with such force that it woke me from my early morning stupor. Without the clarity induced by several cups of coffee, I might not have made the connection. The first article by Margaret Wente, “ Why Alex can’t add (or subtract, multiply or divide)“, attracted my attention as a retired teacher. Ms. Wente was at her incisive best in calling into question the most recent trend in mathematics education which stresses a language-based approach to the learning of mathematics. With this, teachers have students talk and write about their solutions with an emphasis on being able to explain the rationale behind a particular answer as opposed to the more traditional rote approach of memory work, such as the multiplication tables and dividing the smaller number into the bigger number, as those from my age group remember so well. She, and a growing number of teachers and university professors are worried because these “basics” are not being taught; the result being a lack of understanding of simple mathematical processes which can harm students not only in university, but with balancing a chequebook. The other article, “Huge price tag for provinces attached to crime bill” by Kim Mackrael highlighted the hidden but expected costs of implementing Bill C-10. The Globe and Mail used information available from background papers noting the cost of full implementation of the bill could be much higher than recent estimates offered by the Minister of Justice. These papers suggest that changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act alone could cost an estimated $717 million over a five-year period whereas the Minister is pegging the bill for the entire “Safe Streets and Communities Act” at $78.6 million over five years with the expectation that the provinces will pony up half the costs. That’s quite a difference.
There seemed to be silence from some provinces about the downloading of the costs for a bill they did not support. Except for Ontario and Quebec, not much was being said. Then in an article from January 26th in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that the Ontario government, along with most other provincial governments, have attached estimates to their already strained budgets caused by the implementation of Bill C-10. Ontario’s Minister of Correctional Services is quoted as saying the cost to the province for its implementation will be close to one billion dollars. Yes, $1B . It looks smaller when it is not spelled out but it’s still a whack of money…our money.
Now, I was never a math whiz but that works out to almost 10 times more than the Minister said it would be. Ten times. Wow! Maybe he should have spent more time on his multiplication tables. Can you imagine trying to convince a significant other that a projected purchase is one figure and then it turns out to be ten times more than the agreed upon price? Now, when I say ‘agreed upon’, that doesn’t even come close to describing the reaction of provincial governments like Ontario and Quebec which reject the notion that they should be paying costs of more people (particularly young offenders) being sent to prison because of the new mandatory minimum sentences. There really isn’t much agreement between the two levels of government on the approach evident in C-10. In fact, it flies in the face of extensive data and research on what a ‘smart on crime’ stance looks like. Mind you, the Minister has been extensively quoted as saying that his party doesn’t get hung up on statistics. So, if you don’t use an evidence-based approach to creating policy what do you use? Ideology? Polling? Intuition? The crime rate is falling and has been for more than two decades now. That is a fact. Facts should matter.
So should simple mathematics.
Maybe Bill C10 is like new math. If you can explain the rationale behind the potential costs that’s good enough for an A. But I don’t think it works that way. In this case there needs to be some accountability for the final answer – the real costs of implementing Bill C10. Have I become like Margaret Wente bemoaning the fact we don’t drill kids on their times tables any more like we did 34 years ago? Is she wrong? I don’t think she is.
If Ms Wente is right then maybe that means I might be on to something as well, don’t you think? Of course, it might just be the wistfulness of old age. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
