Guest blog post from Fanis Juma Radstake
In response to the July Toronto shootings, it was reported that the Toronto Police Chief, the Ontario Premier and the Toronto Mayor held a meeting that resulted in a decision to continue to fund an increased police presence in Toronto neighbourhoods that are affected by youth violence. This will be done by securing ongoing funding for the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS). In March of 2012, it was reported in the Toronto Star that TAVIS, a program created by Toronto Police Chief Blair, operates by “targeting violent areas with officers who stop, question and document at a higher rate than regular officers”. The same report also revealed that “in each of the city’s 72 patrol zones, blacks are more likely than whites to be stopped and carded. The likelihood increases in areas that are predominantly white”. TAVIS will continue to receive $5 million per year for the deployment of police into the poor Toronto neighbourhoods affected by crime. While reading these reports, I can’t help but question what fraction of those dollars could be effective in providing mental health support, educational support or youth employment opportunities in urban immigrant communities. It still leaves me with a questions that lingers: Who says that what our beautiful children need is more police?
As an African immigrant mother with a young black son and community organizer working with the African Canadian Association of Waterloo Region and Area, I am concerned about the disproportionate rate of African youth incarceration that we are experiencing in our community and in neighbouring Ontario urban immigrant communities. In rural Ontario and in white suburban neighborhoods a youth is far less likely to become system involved than a visible minority youth in the city even if they commit the same crime. We know that teenagers who become involved in the correction system at an early age instead of receiving education and employment supports, addictions and/or mental health services and other tangible opportunities for success are more likely to commit a violent crime in the future. We also know that children and youth in low-income urban communities where most of our African immigrant communities reside are less likely to have access to the same educational opportunities and social supports as youth living in middle-income suburbs, and rural communities. As community leaders we are able recognize that our elected officials and public servants have weighty responsibilities while responding to incidences of youth violence in affected neighbourhoods. But we do want to see a balanced approach that recognizes the value of investing in protective factors that increase chances of wellness and success for ALL youth.
We need to support existing community-led early intervention programming that work; homework support programs, green collar summer jobs for youth, cultural-based community and family services and neighbourhood based youth centres. These efforts are often self-led by affected urban immigrant communities who are trying to support their children and youth. The Somali community is working so hard in Toronto with very little resources to engage their youth after school. The same kind of community-led efforts are being made in other Ontario urban centers including the Waterloo Region. Some of these programs can serve up to 100+ children on a school evening and run on as little as $5,000 to $10,000 dollars per year per site. Also in the Waterloo Region, the African Community Wellness Initiative has worked with community partners and on minimal resources to develop four community garden sites with the intent of creating employment opportunities for our youth.
No child is born with a propensity to commit crime. Research has shown that “the positive growth and adaptation of newcomer youth are dependent on the personal, social, and economic resources available to the individual, as well as to his or her family and community” (To Build Hope: Overcoming the Challenges Facing Newcomer Youth At-Risk in Ontario, Kilbride & Anisef, 2001). I believe that we need to invest more intentionally in the personal, social and economic well-being of young people to prevent youth crime and violence. Parents and cultural leaders from affected communities take seriously the needs of our families and youth and we are working hard to re-create the supportive networks that are interrupted during the settlement process. As community leaders, we are not asking or waiting for handouts, we seek and develop our own solutions for the protection and safety of our youth; and we almost always do so with very minimal resources. As June Jordan wrote in her 1956 Poem to South African Women; “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”!
This is a mobilizing call for the voices of Ontario mothers of immigrant youth from affected communities; we need to rally in support for wellness promoting community efforts and the protection of our youth. We also call on our allies from all sectors to join in the conversation and gain an understanding of the proven alternative approaches to preventing youth violence in our cities. If this concerns you and you want more information on how to join, support or start a local mobilization for the protection of immigrant youth in your Ontario city, connect with us.
Fanis Juma Radstake is an African born immigrant and mother living in the Waterloo Region. She is also a community organizer with the African Community Wellness Initiative that seeks to increase immigrant participation in promoting community wellness. Currently Fanis is involved in promoting urban agriculture opportunities for immigrant youth in the Waterloo Region through Young City Growers. Fanis can be contacted via the African Canadian Association of Waterloo Region.
This article reflects the writer’s own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: July 25th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
For those interested in crime prevention the last couple weeks have certainly given many reasons for reflection. The recent shootings in Toronto at a neighbourhood party resulting in 2 deaths, the shootings at the Eaton Centre and those that are reported regularly in the press certainly make one think that violence and crime rates are on the rise. However, the release of the most recent crime statistics from Stats Canada show a decrease in the overall volume of crime, a decline of 6%, following a steady decrease over time. Sadly, there are increases in homicides (7%), a rise in sexual offences against children (3%) and a sharp rise in child pornography (40%), likely helped along by the ease of technology to traffic in illegal images. Still, the overall decline in crime rates has areas of concern that need be addressed. Organizations at all levels of government as well as several of those unrelated to government work each day to alleviate the common root causes of crime. Acts of unexplainable violence, heavily reported in the media cause fear and apprehension, if not confusion, for the public.
Unfortunately, into the mix come politicians like Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto who mused in a radio call in show about using immigration laws to keep criminals out of Toronto and to send them who knows where. He didn’t specify a location. I think he may have watched one too many John Wayne westerns where gun slingers were told to get out of town (no slight to the memory of the Duke intended). Aside from displaying a woeful lack of knowledge about the laws of Canada, he also seems to have a limited understanding of the powers of his office. Thank goodness our municipal leaders had the insight to create and support the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council several years ago. This body, made up of representatives from local government, the police, social agencies, community reps and volunteers, provides advice and input into policies related to social development issues regarding crime prevention in Waterloo Region. Maybe that’s something Mayor Ford might consider adopting. Instead, he rails at what he derisively terms “hug a thug” programs that deter youth from crime. Are the programs completely successful? Absolutely not. Are they helping many young people, fathers, mothers and agencies live a more productive life? You bet. Much has been written in the news media critical of Mayor Ford’s linking the recent shootings to immigration and his demand for more police for Toronto, “Money Talks, BS Walks”. This bullying bravado is hardly a model of reasoned leadership. It makes a great headline but governing responsibly is beyond headlines and captions. It’s actually hard work.
You may remember 1962. Many of you probably weren’t yet born. I was 10 years old. My favourite show that year was McHale’s Navy. I could buy a chocolate bar for 5 cents, I delivered the Pink Tely (Toronto Telegram) which scared me with headlines about the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister. Jann Arden was born that year. My parents bought their first house for $15,000. Great year…relevant to the debate? Perhaps, but I don’t see the connection. Many things have changed. For example, the criminal code has changed, laws have changed. The way crime statistics are reported and tracked has changed. And we didn’t have the Internet back then so electronic file sharing of child porn was impossible, it was just a very different time so to draw a comparison in regards to crime rates doesn’t seem to contribute to the debate. One of my favourite movies is “Back to the Future” but, fun as it was, even Marty McFly chose not to stay in the past.
Just this past week the horrific killings in Colorado give us further reason to reflect upon the scourge of violence in our society. There are fierce debates about gun control and the role of violence in the media as contributing factors in this tragedy. The victims all led productive lives up to this point and even the alleged perpetrator doesn’t necessarily fit our preconceived notion of a mass killer: loner, poverty-stricken, poor family attachment, uneducated and so on. It’s early days yet so we don’t know (and won’t for some time) what caused this person to take the actions he is alleged to have committed. What is certain is that there are no easy answers when it comes to crime and its prevention.
There are no “silver bullets”, just ugly copper ones that rip the hearts from people and communities. We can’t allow ourselves the luxury of trying to find the one answer, the quick fix. We can’t expect fully-funded social programs nor increased police budgets to be the one answer. It’s more of a “both and” than an “either or” approach. We can’t blame immigrants, colour, religion, economic status, educational levels or any one thing. Crime is a complex issue and its prevention therefore is equally complex. Rather than react to situations on an emotional level (which is completely understandable for victims and their families) and calling for tougher approaches to crime, as a society it’s important to look at the data provided in the most recent StatsCan report and target our interventions on closing the most obvious gaps. Working with community partners, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council acts as a advocate for responsible policies, programs and legislation in order to help our Region be a safer place to live. The answer is not only with the government, the police or social agencies. It is the collective responsibility of each of us to do our part to build a community less likely to be violent and reactive.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: May 31st, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
This week, I joined KidsLINK and community leaders from across Waterloo Region and the child and youth services sector in Ontario to talk about trauma – really, a conversation of hope and change, challenge and change…. and of course, prevention.
This was my first experience hearing from Dr. Ann Jennings – an advocate for changing our social and human service systems to be equipped to deal with early childhood trauma. Dr. Jennings used the 15 year Adverse Childhood Experiences study to outline the impacts of childhood trauma and the long term consequences of unaddressed trauma. The parallels to “root causes” of crime and “risk factors” for crime that informs the work of the Waterlo Region Crime Prevention Council were not lost on me! I felt like Dr. Jennings was speaking our language!!
What spoke volumes was Dr. Jennings’ story of her daughter Anna.
“Anna Jennings was sexually abused when she was less than three years old. This was the first of several abuses that occurred over her lifetime, and put a confused, frightened child into a mental health system that neither recognized nor treated Anna’s real problem. Diagnosed “schizophrenic”.. she was institutionalized for more than 12 years from age 15 to 32. Although she attempted to communicate the “awful things” that had happened to her, there was no one to listen, understand or help her. She took her life on October 24, 1992, on a back ward of a state mental hospital.”
(http://www.theannainstitute.org/a-bio.html)
Dr. Jennings went on to outline the “wall of missed opportunities” that took place over the course of Anna’s life. The sheer number of dates, warning signs and professional involvements could have literally filled a wall. Had these opportunities not been missed, her daughter might have been helped and might still be alive today.
Why is it that we can pinpoint – after the fact – all the places in a person’s life where change could have made a difference, yet our services, systems, families, schools and communities can’t seem break through at those critical moments?
This got me wondering – what if our entire social support systems was equipped to recognize and deal with trauma in our children and youth. Dr. Jennings, quoting a colleague, suggested that if we could effectively do that, we could reduce the size of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) to that of a pamphlet. I suspect there might also be fewer people in the criminal justice system and in prison.
Research tells us that a high percentage of people in prisons, those with addictions and many who have mental health issues have stories of trauma such as abuse, witness to abuse, neglect, and early trauma in a household environment. Now, I’ve never been to prison, but I’ve visited enough of them to know that it is not a place where one could not effectively deal with the impact of trauma in a helpful way. Trauma-informed practices are showing evidence that another way is not only possible, but also practical and cost effective.
Through the ACE Study, it is estimated that the long term consequences of unaddressed trauma (disease, disability, suicide, chronic health problems and social problems) currently stands at $103,754,017,492.00. Yes, you read that correctly. That’s over 103 BILLION (US) dollars.
Now there’s a ” wall of missed opportunity”. Taking a prevention-based approach could save billions of dollars and help people in a healthier way.
Smart on crime, indeed.
For background documents shared during this presentation, including Dr. Jennings’ PowerPoint slides, vist the KidsLINK website to access them. Please consider sharing this information with colleagues.
Posted on: April 11th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
On this, the international Day of Pink – a day of celebrating diversity and for standing up against bullying, discrimination, homophobia and transphobia in our schools, workplaces and our communities – it’s only fitting to have reflection from someone who’s been there.
A new movie has recently debuted in theatres and has won critical acclaim. It’s called “Bully” and I plan to see it. In the meantime though, I can say that I have lived it. Likely many of you have as well. We all have our stories of how we were bullied and, maybe even how we bullied others. Those are the harder ones to come to grips with and admit. As adults, our bullying may have been done within our work organizations. Some seems to be so prevalent as to be almost institutional. It seems hypocritical to decry bullying in our schools when we allow it to exist in our work environments or homes. I’ve worked in those environments and, truth be told, probably contributed to them; climates in offices where exclusion is a norm, where gossip is an accepted practice, where co-workers are demonized for differences in beliefs, attitudes, capabilities or appearance.
Bullying isn’t confined to school hallways and classrooms or through social media, though one would be forgiven for thinking that based upon the media coverage given the horrific stories about the consequences of such behaviour. To think that young people opt to end their lives rather than face another day of torment is just so sad. As an educator and parent my heart breaks each time I learn that another child or teen has been victimized to the extent that there only hope of escape is death.
In Waterloo Region we are focused on being “smart on crime” and strive to be “smart on bullying” as well. Both school boards and the Region of Waterloo Public Health have implemented the “Imagine a School Without Bullying” program (most commonly referred to as the “Imagine” program) which focuses on teaching emotional literacy to student through approaches that are embedded into the academic program. It is based on the core values of justice, compassion, respect, inclusion and equality. School staff have been trained to work with their students and have a wealth of resources to draw upon. The Region of Waterloo Public Health has done an incredible job in its partnership with school boards in putting this program together and the program has been recognized far and wide because of the array of supports to schools in this effort. At this point the program is currently directed at elementary schools and all secondary schools have developed anti-bullying initiatives that are unique to their school environments. As a school principal for several years, I know that the effects of bullying don’t stop at the school’s boundaries. Those memories travel with victims and perpetrators, often as emotional scars that stay until they are healed through understanding, love and perhaps professional intervention.
Still, bullying exists. In his book, “The Better Angels of our Nature”, Steven Pinker noted that bullying has always existed in schools and likely will continue to do so, despite our best efforts. Though it’s been awhile since I read it, I think it has to do with the innate sense or need for some to be dominant over others, some of which is likely biological and some sociological. We see examples of bullies in movies and books and we all cheer when they get their comeuppance. Who didn’t do a fist pump when the bully was dealt with in movies such as “Bad Day at Black Rock”, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” or “Back to the Future”? Okay, I am dating myself but these are classics. Now, before you go on to Netflix in the hope of finding an answer to bullying in these movies, I need to forewarn you that, in each instance there’s a level of violence where the bullied takes on the bully. I am not suggesting that’s the preferred strategy to use; far from it. Better ones are being used locally. Restorative Justice is a process developed from the healing circles associated with Canada’s aboriginal population and religious traditions and practices from our Mennonite community. In Restorative Justice the focus is on victim rights and needs being recognized by the offender who, along with community members, works to take responsibility and ownership for his/her actions to develop a plan that make things right. Much of our legal system is retributive, not restorative. Gandhi once said that if we adopt a position of “eye for an eye” we will eventually be left with a world where everyone ends up blind.
Recently the Ontario government introduced anti-bullying legislation known as the “Accepting Schools Act” which has incited controversy because it addresses the issue of bullying related to LGBTQ youth as part of the population of students being bullied. Some Catholic school parents are upset because they feel the government is moving into areas they feel are best left in the home. Attached to this is the issue of what to call “gay-straight alliances” in Catholic schools. While I support the right of parents and students to hold divergent views, let’s not lose sight of the fact that kids are being bullied at school and on the Internet and sexual orientation is a significant factor.
My question is a larger one. Is legislation the answer? The cynic in me says that if we have to resort to legislation we may have already lost the battle against bullying. However, given all of the tragedies associated with bullying it is something the government is forced to do. Parents, victims and schools will welcome some further rules and consequences. However, it seems to me that we need to frame the issue differently. We need to start at the beginning, not at the end. I have always been a proponent of the Invitational Education approach associated with Dr William Purkey. His theory is that if schools (and I believe any business or institution where people come together for a common purpose) bases all they do on the concepts of trust, respect, intentionality, optimism and caring and that these are demonstrated in their policies, processes, programs, environments involving the people they work with and serve, they will create intentionally inviting places where all people are accepted. In this approach we will find a better answer than legislation. There is no doubt that after seeing the movie “Bully” there will be greater support for new rules, processes and sanctions. But folks, the answer is not “out there” in the realm of government. It is inside each of us. It is in our beliefs, attitudes and actions; it’s in our world view.
How do we view the people around us? Do we want them to succeed? Do we want to help them do so, even if it means the effort costs us? I am not pointing a finger at the government or the efforts of our MPP Elizabeth Witmer who are deeply concerned enough to take action. They are as frustrated with bullying as the rest of us; their responses are limited by their roles. Legislation is what they do. As Abraham Maslow has said, “If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” While legislation may well be a necessary tool in the box, it can’t be the only one. Though Waterloo Region has been smarter on bullying in its approach, there is still much to do.
There’s no simple answer to bullying. It is as complex as the humans who practise it or are victimized by it. I think what is needed is a fresh look at how we want our institutions and relationships to be. It’s a bigger issue than bullying. Bullying is symptomatic of relationships, schools and organizational structures that are not functioning at their peak. The Imagine framework and Invitational Education, along with the principles of Restorative Justice could be the starting place. It won’t be easy because these programs call for a cultural shift. They get at our thinking and even deeper; they get at how we live our lives. However, without change at this fundamental level, no legislated behaviour will take hold. We need to make bullying so socially unacceptable, so anti-cultural that it is a contravention of the way we are in our schools, places of work and our homes; it is the exception, not the norm. As Richard Rohr says, “We don’t think ourselves into a new way of living; we live ourselves into a new way of thinking.”
If we place our hopes in legislation I fear we are already lost.
Maybe you think differently. Let me 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.
Posted on: April 10th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
It costs a lot of money to provide treatment in a residential facility for children facing mental health issues. For a typical 6 – 8 month stay, costs can range from $20,000 to $38,400. But Social Work professors at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) found that after spending these resources, it still doesn’t seem to provide enough support to help kids transition from the treatment program back to their normal lives.
For the past three years, WLU researchers have been examining the community adaptation of over 200 youth as they left long term intensive children’s mental health programs in Ontario. They found youth leaving these treatment programs face challenges in adapting to community life after treatment. The findings are available in an executive summary, summary report, and full report.
With these issues identified the researchers set off to find a solution and they come up with the type of solution that makes policy wonks drool. They suggest youth transitioning out of residential mental health treatment should be provided programming that offers four things:
Youth and education advocates
Tutoring supports for at least 45 hours
Parent training and support groups
Youth skills development courses
You may be reading that and thinking what is to drool over in this proposal, it seems so logical? This is the beauty of the plan from a policy perspective, it’s a straightforward approach requiring minimal resources and most importantly, the program is based in good evidence.
It’s also effective from a crime prevention approach. Children leaving treatment are at greater risk for delinquent behavior. In addition, one half of the individuals in a mental health treatment program will return to the care of family and children services likely ending up in a group home placement. Criminal behaviour for youth in group homes is extremely high. Providing youth leaving mental health treatment facilities with the support they need can prevent them from being involved in the justice system.
Preventing crime does not need to be flashy, it just needs to work. It needs to be smart on crime.
Posted on: March 20th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
“A Community Fit for Children Interim Update: Results of the 2010 Early Development Instrument and Kindergarten Parent Survey for Waterloo Region” was shared with members of the Alliance for Children and Youth at its most recent meeting. The introduction states, “This report paints a picture of how well Senior Kindergarten children are doing in Waterloo Region.It focuses on data gathered through the Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the Kindergarten Parent Survey (KPS), and compares the results of 2004, 2007 and 2010 data”. Later on it explains that the “EDI measures readiness to learn in five domains of child development: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development,and communication skills and general knowledge.”
The EDI is completed by teachers based upon their observations of the students in front of them. The data is gathered by school and community to paint a picture of the readiness of children across the Region with the added perspective of a neighbourhood by neighbourhood scan so that social agencies and planners can be proactive in programming to support those areas where young people are doing well, and the allow for early intervention to address areas of need.
How does this relate to being smart on crime you might ask? if we accept the premise that a key to crime prevention is in approaches tailored to the needs of a specific neighbourhood, then this information allows social agencies and schools to develop programs to counter deficits that may be exposed as a result of the surveys. For example, in the subdomain of social competence with peers “there has been a consistently smaller percentage of children who are ready in comparison to Ontario” since 2004. Social competence refers to skills related to managing behaviour in social situations. Targeted interventions that address this issue, while not discounting impulsivity related to brain development, may lead to a decreased need for behavioural consequences later in their school life or in community interactions with others that could result in poor choices leading to criminal charges. For the subdomain of aggressive behaviour (including getting into physical fights, laughing at the discomfort of others, bullying or being disobedient) the report indicates that “the percentage of children ready in this subdomain increased significantly between 2007 and 2010 and was not significantly different from the Ontario baseline”. This is good news as we know that getting to young people as soon as possible and investing in their well-being helps us create a safer community for all in later years.
Another good news story is that the EDI shows the language and cognitive development scores from the latest data indicate that in 2010 there were “significantly less children scoring low than in Ontario as a whole. Higher academic scores leads to greater school success which means increased engagement in school. Down the line this leads to higher graduation rates that allow young people a greater chance to meet career goals. Again, this leads to a safer society by addressing at least one root cause of crime, low education levels. More work needs to be done in the subdomain of communication skills and general knowledge where children in Waterloo Region are still scoring lower than in Ontario as a whole.
Knowing what we know from this snapshot of school readiness, all levels of government, community agencies and service clubs can be even more intentional about funding and placing programs in high needs neighbourhoods. For example, an asset or strength-based approach to community development can focus on certain neighbourhoods where needs are most pronounced. The use of data to inform decisions like these is critical because it allows tailored solutions. Much like a doctor might prescribe a specific drug to fight a certain infection instead of a broad-based antibiotic we too need to use the information contained in reports like “The Community Fit for Children” to design interventions that can be more readily evaluated for success.
I know some might argue that it’s quite a leap from the school readiness of kindergarten children to crime prevention initiatives or that I am implying that certain deficits in identified neighbourhoods are directly linked to crime. Let me be clear, this is not my intent. My argument is that we know early intervention is the best prevention, therefore, we need to look at all of the data available to us in order to be proactive earlier so that we prevent problems at a later age. We owe that to all children and their parents.
What are your thoughts?
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.
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.
Posted on: February 14th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
The Interrupters, has been getting a LOT of press lately. That’s not why I’m writing about it here as the ‘Smart Link of the Day’. I’m writing about this film because it showcases the absolutely innovative approach of Chicago’s Ceasefire program to curb gun related shootings and killings in that city. Since being released in August 2011, The Interrupters has been screened in almost 200 locations across the United States, Canada, the UK and Australia.
This film follows three Ceasefire “violence interrupters“, Ameena Matthews, Cobe Williams and Edi Bocanegra, as they go about their daily work of literally, and physically breaking the cycle of violence in their neighbourhoods. These are some of the bravest community workers I have ever seen. You can catch the film preview below or watch the full feature film that aired on CBC’s The Passionate Eye.
When traditional approaches no longer seemed to work, Ceasefire founder, Gary Slutkin, took a public health perspective when designing the program. As an epidemiologist, he came to believe that violence mimics the spread of infectious diseases and so, could be ‘treated’ in a similar way; “go after the most infected, and stop the infection at its source“. And it appears to be working. Early research from the Department of Justice on the effectiveness of Chicago’s Ceasefire program found the program to be effective with significant and moderate to large impacts.
What does that really mean with respect to decreased shootings and killings? Let the data speak for itself.
41-73% drops in shootings and killings in CeaseFire zones.
16- 35% drop in shootings directly attributable to CeaseFire.
100% reductions in retaliation murders in 5 of 8 neighbourhoods.
I don’t know about you, but I would say this seriously fits the bill as a ‘smart on crime’ approach. It is rooted in evidence based practice. It is built on partnership, collaboration and cooperation. Its social change orientation makes an investment in actions that create sustainable change to root causes. It adapts and responds to the needs and trends of the social community. It is widely and broadly supported by all corners of the community, from the grassroots to the highest levels of decision making.
Smart on crime, indeed. Now go watch the film, then share it with a friend or a group of youth.
Posted on: December 21st, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Last year, I wrote about Judge Jimmie Edwards and the creative, down-to-earth work he does to reach out and catch the most vulnerable youth falling through the system in St. Louis, Missouri. He started his own school, run by his youth court, and gives youth another chance to get life back on track, and earn a high school diploma.
Judge Edwards subscribes to the ‘smart on crime’ philosophy of crime prevention that we love and know so well here at the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council: intervene early, work at the root causes, and work to increase the protective factors. In this case, Judge Edwards is able to intervene early when a youth first sets foot in his court. He is able to identify underlying issues that have brought this youth to where they are now (family dysfunction, drug and/or alcohol use, lack of supervision, low school achievement or dropout… the list goes on). It would be easy for Judge Edwards to hand out a sentence of jail time or community service – but he sees a full 27% – 30% return rate of youth back to his court. It got him to thinking about how they could do things differently in St. Louis that would reduce & prevent crime among youth, and at the same time, improve longer term opportunities for success.
Education became Judge Edwards’ focus. The Innovation Concept Academy is the only school of its kind in the United States. After opening its doors in 2009, it has recently seen it’s first graduation ceremony for eleven students. Two of those students have gone on to college. That’s eleven students who might not have made it otherwise.
By Judge Edwards own measure, he would call the school successful.
“If we save one, I’m hopeful. If we save two, it’s a blessing”.
Posted on: December 7th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Just to be upfront, I am a small ‘l’ liberal on some issues and a small ‘c’ conservative with others, a parent, a middle child with a weakness for mystery novels, Clint Eastwood movies and lots of other descriptors that aren’t that unique. I may be in the minority in society but am in the majority of those who vote. None of this is really important but it may help explain why I am struggling with the issue of youth crime after reading a series in The Star called “The Kids of 311 Jarvis”, the site of Toronto’s Youth Court. It’s probably not too dissimilar from those in other major cities. It might not be that much different from the Youth Court in Waterloo Region. More on that later.
The Star series follows a number of cases through the Youth Court, a difficult step they contend, because of the secrecy behind the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This secrecy is necessary to protect young offenders from being labelled and gives them a second (or third) chance at making positive changes in their lives outside the scrutiny of the public. But, how easy is it to make these changes when saddled by poverty, low levels of educational achievement, substance abuse, mental health issues and the many other barriers they face?
The collective story of the youth in conflict with the law portrayed in the series is horrific and, while this doesn’t justify their crimes, it goes a long way to understanding them. It also puts a face on their victims and the difficult journey to wholeness they face. Some readers might argue that “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” is a perfect remedy as it gives more voice to victims, adds more “aggravating” factors for judges to consider and restricts the ability of judges to consider attempts of some young people see the positive change it envisions.
In conversation with a youth who has been through our local Youth Court I learned things aren’t always what they seem. Dirty cells, being manacled to strangers for transfer to and from court, all freedoms taken away, subjected to strip searches, bad food, connections to families broken is the norm. Deprivations like these might seem justified, and in the minds of some, not go far enough in exacting punishment for the crime. Did this deter the young person from committing the crime? No.
Okay, would the imposition of the heavier sentences and further custodial restrictions act as a deterrent? Isn’t general deterrence a goal of this ‘tough on crime’ approach? As it turns out from conversation with this youth, those tougher sentences wouldn’t have worked either.
From my experience, few of us take the time to analyze consequences before we act impulsively. Think about times in your own life when you made an unwise comment, bought another pair of pants (hey, they were on sale) or rushed through an orange light just on impulse. Maybe you avoided consequences, maybe you didn’t. No, what worked for this youth was the support of family, some new friends, courage and newfound wisdom borne from experience. That, and the help of a local program known as inREACH.
inREACH provides support to potential or current gang members and other youth who either have, or have to potential to, commit crime. inREACH provides support with employment, education, housing, addictions, probation orders or other barriers to success. The success of inREACH is linked to its collaborative partnerships with social agencies, police, crown, probation and parole services in addition to financial support from all levels of government. Programs like this can get to youth before they fall too far into the corrections net. Various provisions of the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” will make their task of diverting youth much more challenging.
All of which brings me to my dilemma. While my heart aches for the terrible lives these youth have to deal with, I also want the victims to know some sense of justice and closure. It’s not either-or, but both-and. I think this is where the Government’s legislation and approach has failed us. It doesn’t seek the balance a person like me wants to see in our elected government. but, if I’m right in surmising that people like me make up the majority of voters, we clearly differ on how we approach this issue come election time. Since we elected a party known to be fiscally and socially conservative, gave them a majority allowing them to reshape our country for the next several years, we shouldn’t be surprised changes to the Criminal Code and Long Gun Registry will come into effect. The added cost of increasing incarceration and the abolition of the registry (despite the fact that police use it regularly for their own safety) make one wonder how fiscally conservative the current Government truly is. No argument about their social conservatism. That is clear from their actions. Adding millions of dollars to federal and provincial budgets through the after-effects of “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”, on the cusp of another recession, makes one wonder what their personal checking accounts must look like each month. I thought conservatives liked smaller budgets and less government intervention in society. In the words of Republican presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry… “oops”.
Whether we count ourselves as liberal or conservative in our values and voting patterns we still need to face the fact that ‘the kids of 311 Jarvis’ will always be with us unless we work to eradicate the fundamental causes of crime. Ultimately that will create fewer victims, lower the costs associated with crime and build a more harmonious society. Canada was founded on the notion of “peace, order and good government”. How we get there will be debated for years but it’s a good starting point for a conversation.
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.
