The police-reported Crime Severity Index (CSI), which measures the volume and severity of crime, declined 9% in 2013 compared with 2012. This was the 10th consecutive decline in the index. The CSI was 36% lower than 10 years earlier.
The traditional crime rate also declined in 2013 compared with 2012, falling 8%. It continued its long-term downward trend that began in the early 1990s, reaching its lowest level since 1969. Since 1962, the traditional crime rate has measured the volume of crime, but does not take into account the severity of crimes.
Canadian police services reported just over 1.8 million criminal incidents (Criminal Code offences excluding traffic) in 2013, down approximately 132,000 from the previous year.
Most offences were down in 2013. The decline in the CSI was specifically attributable to declines in breaking and entering and robbery. Decreases in some of the less serious but very frequent offences, such as theft of $5,000 or under and mischief, also contributed to the drop in the CSI.
However, some offences were up in 2013. In particular, police services reported more incidents of extortion, child pornography, aggravated sexual assault (level 3), sexual violations against children and identity fraud.
Crime Severity Index down in most provinces and territories
In 2013, most provinces and territories recorded a decrease in their CSI compared with 2012. However, the CSI increased in Yukon (+6%) and Newfoundland and Labrador (+1%).
Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba (-12% each) recorded the largest declines among the provinces and territories.
In most provinces, the decline in the CSI was largely due to fewer breaking and entering incidents. However, in British Columbia, robberies were behind the decline in the CSI. In the Northwest Territories, a decrease in homicides resulted in the drop in the CSI, whereas the decline in Nunavut was due to a large decrease in incidents of mischief.
As in previous years, each territory had a higher CSI than any province. Saskatchewan had the highest CSI among the provinces, while Ontario had the lowest.
Crime Severity Index down in almost all census metropolitan areas
For the first time since 1998, the first year for which the CSI was calculated, none of Canada’s census metropolitan areas (CMAs) recorded an increase in its CSI. The CSI was unchanged in Edmonton, while it declined in all other CMAs. The largest decrease compared with 2012 was in Victoria (-17%).
Despite a 7% drop in its CSI, Regina had the highest CSI of any CMA, while Barrie and Guelph had the lowest.
Violent Crime Severity Index continues to decline
The violent CSI fell 10% in 2013 compared with 2012, marking the seventh consecutive decrease.
Canadian police services reported approximately 384,000 violent incidents in 2013, down about 32,000 from the previous year. The decline in the violent CSI was mainly due to a decrease in robberies and, to a lesser extent, fewer assaults with a weapon or causing bodily harm (level 2), common assaults (level 1) and uttering threats.
Police reported 505 homicides in 2013, down 38 from 2012. The homicide rate was 1.44 victims per 100,000 population, the lowest rate since 1966. Police also reported 642 attempted murders in 2013, down 23 from the previous year.
Every province and territory except Newfoundland and Labrador saw a decrease in their violent CSI compared with 2012. Similarly, every CMA saw their violent CSI decline except Trois-Rivières, St. John’s, Brantford and Calgary, which recorded increases.
Increase in police-reported “sexual violations against children”
In 2013, the police reported 4,232 incidents in the “sexual violations against children” category, 279 more than in 2012. This was one of the only violent crime categories to increase in 2013.
The “sexual violations against children” category includes five specific offences under the Criminal Code: luring a child via a computer, sexual exploitation, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and making sexually explicit material available to a child. However, this category excludes sexual assaults against children, which are classified with all other sexual assaults, including those against adults.
Of the sexual violations against children, luring a child via a computer showed the greatest increase, rising 30% in 2013, followed by sexual exploitation (+11%). In contrast, invitation to sexual touching decreased 5%.
Non-violent Crime Severity Index is down
Most crimes reported by the police are non-violent. Police reported just over 1.4 million non-violent incidents in 2013, or nearly four crimes in five, of which 1.1 million were property crimes. The non-violent CSI decreased 8% compared with 2012, the 10th consecutive decrease in this index. The non-violent CSI was 40% lower than a decade earlier.
While most non-violent offences declined in 2013, the decrease in the non-violent CSI was mainly due to a large drop in the number of incidents of breaking and entering, theft of $5,000 or under and mischief. However, some offences in the non-violent category rose in 2013, specifically counterfeiting, child pornography and identity fraud.
Almost every province and territory saw their non-violent CSI decline in 2013. The largest decreases were in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, while the non-violent CSI was stable in Newfoundland and Labrador and increased in Yukon.
Most CMAs also saw a decrease in their non-violent CSI except Edmonton, where the index rose in 2013 as a result of more motor vehicle thefts and theft of $5,000 or under.
Youth Crime Severity Index down for the fourth consecutive year
The youth CSI fell by 16% in 2013 compared with 2012, the fourth consecutive decline. The youth CSI measures the volume and severity of crimes for which an accused aged 12 to 17 was identified.
The decline in the youth CSI was mainly due to fewer youths accused of robbery, breaking and entering or theft of $5,000 or under.
Every province and territory except Yukon saw their youth CSI decline compared with 2012. Among the provinces, Saskatchewan recorded the highest youth CSI, while British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec had the lowest.
With the release of the Statistics Canada report also comes analysis and critique of the statistics. Here’s a few that we read:
We all agree that both the direct and indirect victims of crime deserve society’s help and support. Victims want services to help them come to terms with their trauma, loss, and grief so they can move on. Government supported services, compensation for their injuries, and measures to prevent both the occurrence and reoccurrence of crime are important to victims of illegal action. Recently, the Victims Bill of Rights has proposed to provide this support not by establishing government programs for victims’ assistance but instead by giving victims legal rights and a role at the heart of the justice system. But this role for victims represents a departure from the principles of criminal justice embedded in our legal tradition and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Progress in the development of criminal law was marked by an evolution away from private disputes between victims and alleged wrongdoers and toward the administration of justice by the state. As mentioned in October 27, 2013 opinion piece in the Star:
“one of the greatest innovations of the criminal justice system was the realization that the wrongful injuries people inflict are primarily offences against the public moral order represented by the Queen, not just particular harms to individuals in a given situation.”
While individuals could sue in civil cases to recover for losses resulting from wrongdoing, it was the state that ensured that punishments for wrongdoing responded to criminal harm as an injury to the values of a stable, secure society. In this role, the duty of the state was to punish the criminal harm to the victim while still respecting the basic humanity of the criminal. This second branch of the state’s duty secured the rights to fair trial and appropriate punishment on conviction for the accused, which are the hallmark of the just society. The era of the blood feud and the personal vendetta was over.
The extent to which the present Victims Bill’s ‘rights’ will in fact put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system may be illusory. Bill C-32 is clear that the only parties in the criminal justice system will continue to be the accused and the Queen. The Bill also provides that the rights of victims will be applied in a reasonable manner so as not to disrupt the “proper administration of justice” by causing delay or interfering with the discretion of the criminal justice system decision makers. Victims are expressly not made parties, interveners, or even observers in any criminal justice proceedings. No right to seek a judicial remedy, no claim for damages, and no appeal arises if victims’ rights are infringed. Expectations by victims about their entitlements from the justice and corrections system may well exceed what already over-burdened justice and correction officials are able to provide and victims may well feel disappointed by their newly acquired rights. The only remedy provided in the Bill for that disappointment is the capacity to file a complaint. In view of all these limitations, victims may well come to question whether they received a Bill of Rights or a Bill of Goods.
Definition of Victim
‘Victim’ is defined broadly in the Bill as an “individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as a result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence”. The offender is expressly excluded but his or her family members who may have incurred harm or damage as a result of the crime are not. If the victim is deceased or incapacitated, the Bill specifies the next of kin or care provider who may exercise the victim’s rights. While the definition of victims refers to ‘individuals’, ‘communities’ are also authorized to make victim impact statements. It is unclear what collection of interests will constitute a ‘community’ and whether community victim impact statements will be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process or just at sentencing.
Rights for Victims
Bill C-32 includes four categories of rights for victims relating to information, protection, participation, and restitution. Generally, providing information about the criminal justice and corrections system and ensuring adequate protection for victims in the criminal justice system is desirable as long as they do not infringe the accused’s ability to make full answer and defense or privacy rights. Since it is the proposed rights to participation and to restitution that pose the most significant challenges to maintaining a fair and effective justice and corrections system, we will concentrate on those.
Participation Rights
The victim’s participation rights include the right to convey and have considered his or her views about decisions to be made relating to the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of the alleged offence and also regarding the corrections and conditional release process. As written, this appears to include the right to provide victim impact statements at each stage which will have to be taken into account.
Unavoidably, these new procedures will cause delays. Despite falling crime rates, the criminal justice system is already overburdened and slow. Long waiting times are not only difficult for those awaiting trial, particularly if they are in detained in remand facilities, but they can violate rights to a speedy trial resulting in an inability to bring an accused to justice. Decision makers in the justice system try to move cases toward resolution as efficiently and fairly as possible. Not only will these decision makers be required to provide information to victims who request it, but they will now be asked to consider the views of the victims about the decisions they are required to make. The decision maker will also be compelled to receive and consider a victim impact statement. While this would take time even if there were only one victim, it would become quickly unmanageable with complex cases involving multiple victims, such as a sophisticated fraud or terrorist incidents. If the stated participation rights of victims lead to costly delays or result in prosecutions having to be dropped due to violations of the Charter right to a speedy trial, is justice served?
Further, victims’ participation rights could conflict with justice officials’ obligations to make impartial decisions when exercising their discretion. For example, a prosecutor may decide whether to proceed to trial with charges based on the public interest and the likelihood of a conviction. A victim impact statement reflecting the trauma experienced by the individual may not be relevant to the determination facing the prosecutor yet he or she would be required to consider it. It is not in the public interest to proceed to trial if there is no chance of a conviction despite a prosecutor’s sympathy for the plight of the victim.
Restitution Rights
Bill C-32 provides that every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender and have it enforced as a civil court judgment. The introduction of a right to have monetary order for the victims considered by the court skews both the principles and practices of the criminal justice system. As already discussed, most modern criminal justice systems have evolved away from a system of monetary penalties paid by the criminal or the criminal’s family to the victim. Some countries still have criminal justice systems that include ‘blood money’ — a pay out to victims in satisfaction of a crime. With the proposed Victims Bill of Rights, this outdated practice could be revived in Canada.
While empowering judges to consider ‘restitution’ and even ‘compensation’ is not new, these concepts have been embedded in criminal justice principles. ‘Restitution’ historically had been based on principles of precluding unjust enrichment and benefitting from one’s crime. If a person had stolen property or had sold it, the court could order the property or proceeds of the sale be returned. Over time, the understanding of ‘restitution’ changed to include damages for harm caused to the victims. Orders for restitution or compensation became sentencing options for the judge to consider in assessing the totality of the punishment. In this way, the monetary award is limited by what was a fair and proportionate penalty for the offence. If the offender paid a monetary award, this would discharge some of all of his or her punishment for the crime. Nothing precluded the victim from seeking further damages through a civil court process.
Fines and other punishments involving monetary payment by the offender raise some profound fairness issues in the criminal justice system. Simply put, it is much less onerous for a wealthy person to pay a fine than a poor one. Unless something like a day-fine system is adopted where the fine is based on percentage of income, then this type of sentence violates the equality of punishment essential to a fair criminal justice system. Accordingly, judges have imposed fines, surcharges, restitution and compensation orders with restraint.
While normally judges are required to assure themselves that the offender is capable of paying a fine before imposing it, the Victims Bill of Rights specifically provides that the offender’s financial means or ability to pay does not prevent the court from ordering restitution. Far too many accused are poor, marginalized, battling mental health and addictions and without the lawful means to provide financial compensation to others. If a judge does not impose restitution as part of the sentence, he or she will have to explain why. Judges will likely feel more pressure to make these awards.
The preference for restitution orders also builds an undesirable incentive into the system. With the possibility of having damages covered by just filing a form with the courts, how many more people will identify themselves as victims? How many victims will forego the possibility of an easy recovery of losses to participate in restorative justice practices or other measures that might resolve the issue outside of the formal justice system?
The rights to restitution run the risk of inappropriately importing civil justice concepts into the criminal justice system and undermining core principles of fairness.
Conclusion
The Victims Bill of Rights creates a tension: If the victims’ rights as set out in the Bill are applied, they threaten to undermine principles of criminal justice by placing victims at the heart of the criminal justice. This would erode core principles by slowing down an already overburdened system and skewing it toward a tool for personal vengeance and away from objectivity. If the victims’ rights as set out in the Bill are not applied, then victims will be disappointed and their confidence in the criminal justice system will be further reduced. And there is every reason to believe that the promised rights for victims will fall short of expectations. The Bill provides victims with no standing in the proceedings, a complaint mechanism as a remedy for breached rights, and requires that the Bill be interpreted reasonably so as not to delay proceedings or interfere with the discretion of justice system officials. Rather than create a tension between justice principles and victims’ rights that will be felt by victims and justice and corrections officials at every stage of the system, it would have been better to focus on rights to victims’ services, state-guaranteed compensation, and victim prevention measures. These would have addressed some of the real needs of victims without creating likely harmful pressures and unrealistic expectations of the criminal justice system.
Author: Catherine Latimer spent many years as a legal policy analyst for the federal government, both at the Privy Council Office and later as the Director General of Youth Justice Policy at the Department of Justice.
In 2011, she became the Executive Director of the John Howard Society of Canada, a charity committed to just, effective, and humane responses to crime. Ms. Latimer has a law degree from Queen’s University and a M.Phil. from the University of Cambridge.
She is also a part-time professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. Her interests are in criminal justice, youth justice, corrections laws, human rights, justice systems programs and policies, and policy and law reform.
A couple of years ago I was blessed with the opportunity to volunteer with the vulnerable sector here in Kitchener/Waterloo. Specifically, I volunteered with homeless youth under age 25. During this time I was able to get to know many of the youth and listen to their stories. My very first shift I went home an emotional wreck after having a conversation with a young girl not much older than my own daughter.
It wasn’t long before I became acutely aware of the higher incidence of drug use, mental health problems and criminal activity among this population.
Someone said to me one day, ‘they have a choice, we all have choices.’ My reply was ‘sure we all have choices but we have not all been given the same tools to make good choices. How can I compare myself, who grew up with 2 upstanding parents and all the social support a child should need to someone who was sexually abused from the time they could walk or someone who was given their first hit of crack by their own mother at the age of 16.’ Unfortunately many of our homeless population were not raised with good role models or a good set of standards. They once left the hospital as precious, innocent and adorable as any other infant. What they went home to however, is more often than not less than acceptable. Fast forward several years and we find an adult struggling with addiction, mental health issues and homelessness all leading to criminal activity.
Here we find the beginning of a two-way cycle. Those who are homeless have a higher probability of ending up in prison while those being released from prison have a higher likelihood of ending up homeless. Once someone has a criminal record it is very difficult to find a job no matter how hard they try to change their life around. Often the rejection turns them back to crime. The same goes for substance abuse where substance abuse often leads to homelessness and homelessness often leads to substance abuse. Addictions often cause someone to lose their job and housing. Using drugs or alcohol also becomes a way to cope with life on the street.
On the other side we have a society that is often quick to judge and quick to condemn often due to a lack of awareness. People feel uncomfortable with it and try to look the other way. It’s easier to make donations to charities such as to the food bank than to look in the face of a homeless person on the street.
While food banks and shelters do a great job of providing for immediate needs, they are merely band-aid solutions. They treat the immediate problem not the root of the problem. What we need is to create awareness for other fundamental necessities for tackling homelessness and the crime it brings with it.
We need a plan to create awareness of costs of providing stable housing versus the much higher costs of providing services to the homeless. (ie. Institution, shelters, healthcare, and social services) It is difficult for someone without a place to call home to receive and accept the help they need for addiction and mental health. Without this there is difficulty in reducing the crime rate. Those who seek treatment such as rehab often have nowhere else to go but back in the same street or shelter environment, making relapse highly likely. It’s a set-up for failure. When we provide those in need with stable housing we give the opportunity to live with dignity, reduce crime, reduce addiction and give the opportunity for better success. It is a win, win situation. The more people we help get into stable housing the less financial burden on society and less crime in our community. We build a system that encourages social competency. Give respect to gain respect. This is the message we need to get out. We need to put as much effort into creating awareness and fundraising for this as we do when collecting food and socks.
The diagram below shows the connection between homelessness, substance abuse, mental health, crime and unemployment. If we take homelessness out we have a better chance at battling the other problems.
Lets help society to see the person behind the face. Lets take the homeless away from the street environment and give them a place to call home and give them some dignity and a foundation in which to grow.
Author: Sheri Cartwright
In the past Sheri has volunteered with homeless youth in Kitchener at ROOF – Reaching Our Outdoor Friends. Currently she volunteers for the KW Youth Basketball Association as volunteer coordinator and coach. She also runs the Community Dialogue website and is involved in community building and creating awareness in hopes of helping to break down barriers and stereotypes to help create a healthier, safer community. She graduated from Health Studies at UW last year and recently started Dynamic Health Promotion.
Find more community responses from colleague’s in Waterloo Region who also work to reduce homelessness:
People who are homeless are far more likely to be victims of crime than are people who are housed. One Toronto study determined that 46% of homeless women and 39% of homeless men surveyed had been physically assaulted within the previous year. Homeless youth fared worst of all, with 69% reporting having been attacked. Another study found that sexual assaults against women who are homeless are both more frequent and more violent than those against women who are housed1. Preventing crimes against vulnerable people by supporting them as they move through homelessness to housing is one of the priorities of YWCA Kitchener-Waterloo.
It goes almost without saying that the overarching cause of homelessness is poverty, but not all people who are poor become homeless. Not all people who become homeless stay that way for long. Some of the factors that make it more likely that poor people will become and stay homeless include mental illness, addiction, cognitive or physical disability, family breakdown and social isolation. And social isolation is a much bigger part of the destructive cycle of homelessness than most people realize.
People who are homeless can experience social isolation because they’re separated from their families and communities, because prejudice and fears about homelessness keep others at a distance, and sometimes because their own shame about their circumstances prevents them from reaching out to others. As their social isolation increases, over time their social skills can diminish, and with the erosion of their social skills can come the loss of even more of their already depleted circle of support. The absence of social support causes problems like higher rates of mental health issues and physical illnesses, increased use and abuse of drugs and alcohol, and engagement in risky sexual behaviours. Thus, social isolation doesn’t just worsen the pain of homelessness, it perpetuates and strengths the cycle itself.
Among our other programs, YWCA Kitchener-Waterloo offers emergency and transitional and permanent, affordable housing to women and families and trans individuals who are or have been persistently homeless. We try to build housing and supports that make the people whom we serve know that they are welcome and valued members of our community, because we believe that this knowledge is critical to their mental and physical well-being and to their future housing stability. So that we could better understand and enhance their experiences of social inclusion, over the winter and spring of 2013 we asked the tenants in one of our housing programs to join us over coffee and cookies in some conversations about community.
The women who came together had all been homeless prior to coming to our program. Some had been housed with us for as few as four months, others as many as 24 years. The women told us about the things we do well to foster their sense of belonging and about some things we should do better. And they told us that it was their building’s community feeling – not its bricks and mortar – that made them feel supported and secure. They said that it was having people to turn to in times of sickness or crisis, having people to encourage them to overcome their challenges and reach their goals, to share activities and interests, simply having people to talk to, that made them feel safe. It was, in the words of one woman, ‘knowing other people care’ that made them feel that they finally had a home.
YWCA Kitchener-Waterloo is privileged to have the resources to provide the buildings and the professional, formal supports that some people who are homeless require. But for just about all homeless people, informal social supports can make the experience of homelessness more bearable and much safer. For some people, such supports can be all it takes to break the cycle of homelessness. Share a meal with a diner at St. John’s Kitchen. Play a card game with a guest at an Out of the Cold site. Teach a new skill to a youth at ROOF. Stop and listen to the story of a woman on the street. Give of yourself, emotionally and practically, for just a few minutes or a few hours, to make a critical difference in the mental and physical health, happiness, confidence, stability and safety of a vulnerable person.
1. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, Research Bulletin #37, September 2007
Author: Elizabeth Clarke is the Chief Executive Officer of YWCA Kitchener-Waterloo, an multi-service organization that provides emergency, transitional and permanent supportive housing to women, families and trans individuals who are homeless.
Find more community responses from Elizabeth’s colleague’s in Waterloo Region who also work to reduce homelessness:
Community members experiencing homelessness in Waterloo Region, as in many other communities, are often looked upon with fear – they experience stigma and exclusion on a daily basis in addition to the other challenges of being without a home – including extreme poverty, hunger, mental illness, addiction, and trauma. A significant part of this stigma has to do with the perception of crime and risk associated with homelessness. Stigma and the perception of risk are very interesting things – I do a lot of community presentations, and when asked to describe the perception of a person experiencing homelessness and their lifestyle, the responses are very telling. I often hear terms like “poor”, “unhealthy”, “vulnerable”, “hungry” etc. I also hear terms like “criminal”, “violent”, and commonly, “nothing-to-lose”. Rarely, I hear “resourceful”, “strong”, and “determined”.
The thing is, we know that if a person experiencing homelessness does commit a crime and is charged, it is most frequently with minor property theft, by-law violations, or substance related charges. Despite the perception of risk and the belief that a person may have nothing to lose, violent crime is not strongly associated with homelessness, and many people experiencing homelessness are actively engaged in supporting their families and the community.
The research on homelessness and crime supports the cause and effect perspective rather than a predisposition to criminal activity – that when any individual has little or no money, food, shelter, or safety and is excluded from the formal economy, that person may turn to quasi-legal sources of income generation (panhandling, squeegeeing, sex trade etc.) or illegal activities (theft, drug dealing) to make money and survive. This does often result in charges, but it doesn’t seem all that surprising given the context, and doesn’t support the perception of risk that surrounds the issue of homelessness.
At Supportive Housing of Waterloo (SHOW), we provide permanent and supportive housing to 33 individuals who have experienced persistent homelessness and barriers to housing. We have seen the results of housing stability and appropriate supports for many of the people who call SHOW home in the form of reduced interactions with police and the justice system, increased personal safety and stability, and improved health through housing and food stability. We, at SHOW, share the concern of our community about the minor property theft, bylaw violations, and substance related offences being committed by individuals experiencing homelessness, and believe that being accepted and engaged in a community, having food stability, support, and an affordable place to live are great ways for us as a community to address this concern.
We are also concerned with the fact that people experiencing homelessness are more likely to be victims of crime than those with homes. As we saw in the Snapshot in Time report, the numbers of people accessing emergency shelters are rising. We know that in addition to that, there are many people unstably or inappropriately housed, couch surfing, moving from short-term residence to short-term residence, and living on the streets unsheltered. From 2011 data we know that wait-lists are long (3,280 households were on the Community Housing Waiting List), vacancy rates are low (1.7% – far below the ideal of 3%), and rental costs are high, especially when compared to minimum wage and social assistance rates (average market rent for a one-bedroom was $751.00 – minimum wage was $10.25, and the monthly shelter allowance for a person on OW was $372.00 and $474.00 for ODSP)1.
That means that a lot of people in our community are particularly vulnerable to crime and victimization due to inappropriate and unaffordable housing and a lack of support. Compared to the housed, people experiencing homelessness have more often been the victims of physical and sexual abuse as children, and victims of family violence and spousal assault as adults. Those without adequate shelter are also more likely than the housed to be victims of violence and, for women, victims of sexual assault. According to an Institute for the Prevention of Crime report on homelessness and victimization, providing housing as well as appropriate social and income supports to end homelessness are the best approaches for addressing crime and victimization associated with homelessness.
At SHOW, we agree, and we look forward to continuing to work with our community to meet the housing, support, and safety needs of all of our neighbours.
1. 2011 data pulled from the HHUG Annual Report Card, 2012.
Author: Lindsay Klassen holds a BA and MSW as well as a Certificate of Leadership and Management from Wilfrid Laurier University, and is the Program Manager at Supportive Housing of Waterloo (SHOW). SHOW provides housing first and harm reduction support for individuals who have experienced persistent homelessness. Lindsay brings her personal and professional dedication to working with SHOW to provide individuals with the opportunity and supports to find a place to call home.
Find more community responses from Lindsay’s colleagues in Waterloo Region who also work to reduce homelessness:
In the past two years there has been a sharp increase in both the number of people using emergency shelters and the number of shelter bed nights, which means more people are using shelters and they are staying longer. When I look at this homelessness statistics presented by WRCPC’s Snapshot on Crime, I experience a range of reactions.
I am angry because having people homeless in Canada is just poor social policy. Studies have quantified that the costs of having people homeless are more than the cost of having people housed with adequate supports. The Real Costs of Homelessness illustrates this point exactly.
Each level of government is contributing dollars and policy toward ending homelessness. In the new Federal Budget, 5 year funding was announced for two programs- one that provides supports for people experiencing homelessness and another that provides capital funding for new affordable housing. While these announcements are gratefully received, there is not enough funding attached to get serious about ending homelessness. There is still no Federal Housing strategy. Canada is the only G8 country without such a policy.
The Ontario government now requires each municipality to have a homelessness and housing plan. They have recently amalgamated a number of funding programs which allows municipalities to create responses to local needs. This is all good. However, there was also a decrease in funding and again while all money helps, it is not enough to really solve the problem.
Locally, the Region of Waterloo has provided funding that exceeds the provincial average for supports to those who are experiencing housing issues. However, as their funding base is the smallest, realistically there are limits to their ability to pay for an end to homelessness.
I am angry because we know about the problem and we know how to fix it. What we lack is political will on the part of government and a prioritization of this issue by the general public. As a result, people in our community continue to live in substandard, unaffordable and inadequate housing.
Like many things, my personal viewpoint has been impacted over years of having conversations with people who are living the experience. For me it is no longer a theoretical issue. It is about real people in Waterloo Region who are struggling to have a place to live. As I think about all of the people I have met over the years, the increasing number of shelter users leaves me feeling sad. Canadian comedian Rick Mercer has a rant on homelessness where he talks about how no one aspires to have “homeless” be their career. When I look at some of the people with the most challenging difficulties, I think about how, at one stage, this person was someone’s child. Hopefully, someone held that child and had hopes and dreams for them. Never would the goal have been homelessness. I have seen how poverty and homelessness wears people down. Mental health and addictions start or become exacerbated. Hope and determination are often victims of this reality as well.
Dr. Samantha Nutt, founder of War Child Canada describes her experiences in international development work as going from the inexperienced naïve belief that she could really make a difference, to feeling defeated in the face of such overwhelming obstacles and situations and then beginning a journey to discover what it was she could actually do. This is not unlike my journey through working with people who are experiencing homelessness and the systems that respond to this issue. I don’t have either the financial means to pay for affordable housing or the skills to build it. However, I can talk and write about the issues. I can start conversations. I can read the research, stay up to date and keep learning. I can take the time to talk with people who are experiencing homelessness to learn more about their journey, what they want and need and to help develop a way to meet those needs.
This is not a battle that I am waging on my own. Every day dedicated, bright, compassion people work in a range of services from street outreach, shelters, housing help, specialized housing programs, legal services, support services, subsidized and supportive housing, all with the aim creating a more just and inclusive society where everyone matters. They are joined by a mountain of community volunteers who show up and share their gifts and talents.
When I look at the shelter usage stats I also feel determined. I feel part of a sector where I join in solidarity with people experiencing homelessness and many community members who together stand up to say – people who are homeless matter. We collectively are committed to ending homelessness in Waterloo Region. This is a lofty goal, which will take much persistence and hard work, but with the determination and skills of this community, I believe it is possible.
Author: Lynn Macaulay is the staff person with theHomelessness and Housing Umbrella Group (HHUG), a network of people concerned about homelessness and affordable housing in Waterloo Region. She lives in Waterloo with her two cats, Simon and Isabella and enjoys reading mystery novels.
Find more community responses from Lynn’s colleagues in Waterloo Region, who also work to reduce homelessness:
Posted on: August 18th, 2013 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Individuals facing homelessness are more likely to become victims of crime and/or engage in criminal activity than individuals with stable housing. If charged with a criminal offence homeless individuals are typically charged with minor property crimes and drug offences. It is fair to say that their vulnerability for victimization is of most concern in this context.
The number of individuals accessing emergency shelters rose 10% and the number of emergency shelter nights rose by 17% in 2011. These are significant increases after two years of relative stability. These dramatic increases are cause for concern and warrant on-going attention. Homelessness can also be seen as an extreme manifestation of poverty and form of community exclusion. These factors impact quality of life and are affecting greater numbers of people in Waterloo Region.
Being a leader doesn’t necessarily mean being at the front of a rally with a megaphone. There are many components to leadership. It’s important, especially for the guys reading this, to remember that we are all leaders, whether to our brothers and sisters, our partners, our friends, or to our sons and daughters.
The sexism, misogyny, transphobia and homophobia found in the media and in our everyday interactions can be overwhelming and confronting these issues can make us feel vulnerable or powerless. At the same time, many men (and women) do not know how to confront these issues in their own lives. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of us remain silent. However, when we remain silent about violence against women we are perpetuating a rape culture – whether we intend to or not.
What does rape culture mean?
Rape culture is a term used to describe a society wherein sexual violence is normalized through behaviours, attitudes and practices that tolerate rape. Okay… what does that mean? Rape is not the only action that perpetuates rape. How we act and what we say go a long way in telling those around us what is acceptable. For example, if we laugh or remain silent when a rape joke is told by one of our co-workers while we are not condoning the behaviour described in the joke – we are allowing the attitude expressed by the person who told the joke to remain unchallenged and spread.
While sexist and misogynistic attitudes may not physically harm women we know that language structures our thoughts and behaviours. The more prevalent these attitudes become, the more they are internalized by men and used as justification for their treatment of women. Admittedly, the intent of jokes that dehumanize women is generally not to encourage men to physically harm women. However, the impact of rape jokes is the creation of a rape culture that tells the men listening that their behaviours and attitudes towards women are acceptable.
Undoubtedly, this is a societal issue — but it also needs to be addressed individually. I want to encourage men to become accountable in their own lives and understand that they can make a difference simply by working to be the best version of themselves that they can be. One way we can do this is by leading with lollipops:
To end, I would like to say that while men need to become more active, we must continue to be accountable to women and women’s organizations such as the Sexual Assault Support Centre Waterloo Region (sascwr.org) who have been doing this work for decades and who make the work we do possible. Men who become involved in ending violence against women are often romanticized while the work of women goes ignored or unnoticed. As such, it is important to remember that while the dominant construction of masculinity may not work for all men – patriarchy does.
Author: Stephen Soucie is a MAASV Public Education Facilitator for the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region. Currently, he is a Masters student in the Critical Sociology program at Brock University. His research areas include: violence against women, men and masculinities, masculinity and sport, and engaging men in anti-violence activism.
Posted on: November 6th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
It’s Crime Prevention Week in Ontario. Every November, community agencies, organizations, police departments, municipalities and citizens come together to raise awareness of crime prevention as a building block for creating vibrant, dynamic, safe and healthy communities. “Engaged communities are safer communities” is this year’s theme! We couldn’t agree more!
Your average neighbourhood superhero can make a difference every day with actions small and large. Watch our Twitter and Facebook pages this week where we’ll be posting tips and sharing ways that you can get engaged and be a friend of crime prevention in your home, neighbourhood, workplace, faith community, school, team, youth group….. you name it.
How do you engage in your community? What do you see others doing? Do you see a gap where some one should engage?
Love to hear from you – we know you are out there doing amazing things to create safer communities.
Posted on: October 16th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
By now you’ve likely heard, read or seen the tragic story of Amanda Todd who committed suicide a few weeks after posting a video of her using flash cards to describe the torment she faced as a result of being initially cyber-bullied which then overflowed to actual violence. She made the mistake, as many young people do, of sending a picture of herself (sexting) which was then used to basically blackmail her into other unwanted activities. She trusted the wrong people who used her innocence against her. She tells her story much more eloquently than I could ever hope but be warned, it is heart-wrenching in its desperation and honesty.
Parents, schools, police and community agencies alike are deeply concerned about the issue of cyber-bullying and the often related re-posting of photos on Facebook, Twitter or other social networking sites. In many cases, this amounts to a criminal offence related to the dissemination of pornography. Many young people have no idea that forwarding such images can result in a criminal charge that may affect their lives for a very long time. Equally as important is the effect this posting has on the lives of the victimized who, like Amanda, are forced to move school and communities in the hope they can escape the cruelty and scrutiny of their peers. Even more disturbing is the news that blogs set up to honour Amanda are being used by some pretty disturbed people to further attack her in death. Though the RCMP are investigating these acts, tracing the source of anonymous online bullying is not an easy task.
The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council has started to look at how it can be of service to parents, schools, police and youth to help them think before posting anything that could be potentially harmful to themselves or others. The WRCPC has formed a working group of police, educators, researchers, community members and Council members to create an action plan and hopes to have this in place for the next school year. Ironically, the group was meeting just as the story of Amanda’s death was breaking in the media.
We don’t have to wait for the plan to be completed before taking action on our own to reduce, if not end cyber-bullying. All we need to do is think before we hit the ‘send’ button on our computer or smartphone. As parents we need to talk with our kids about what the fact that what is posted lives on the internet forever. Companies regularly go on Facebook to check the pages of prospective employees to see the types of things they post and make hiring decisions based upon what they see. Having a criminal record, particularly for possession or dissemination of child pornography will limit access to future career opportunities and can create issues in seeking entrance to other countries when travelling.
Amanda’s story is a cautionary tale not only to the perpetrators of the bullying, but to those who act as bystanders and enable it to continue. For bullying to thrive it needs a willing audience. Each time we fail to stop the cycle we become one of those thousand cuts that eventually kill.
How many more Amanda Todd’s are out there?
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.
Author: Catherine Latimer spent many years as a legal policy analyst for the federal government, both at the Privy Council Office and later as the Director General of Youth Justice Policy at the Department of Justice.
Author: Sheri Cartwright
Author: Elizabeth Clarke is the Chief Executive Officer of YWCA Kitchener-Waterloo, an multi-service organization that provides emergency, transitional and permanent supportive housing to women, families and trans individuals who are homeless.
Author: Lindsay Klassen holds a BA and MSW as well as a Certificate of Leadership and Management from Wilfrid Laurier University, and is the Program Manager at Supportive Housing of Waterloo (SHOW). SHOW provides housing first and harm reduction support for individuals who have experienced persistent homelessness. Lindsay brings her personal and professional dedication to working with SHOW to provide individuals with the opportunity and supports to find a place to call home. 
Author: Lynn Macaulay is the staff person with the 
