What would be the ingredients for an innovative LCO study of comprehensive approaches to community safety?

I.    INTRODUCTION

The Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) is facilitating a one-day expert forum on comprehensive approaches to community safety. The forum is intended to be an active, participatory conversation engaging a broad spectrum of sectors, perspectives and experiences.

The forum is designed to bring diverse expertise to bear on how the promotion of community safety can be better integrated across ministries, departments, levels of government, sectors, agencies, disciplines and community organizations to ensure our communities are safe, resilient, inclusive and cohesive. 

The objective of the forum is to assist the LCO in deciding the issues it might usefully consider were the LCO to undertake an innovative project on integrated approaches to community safety.

The forum is premised on the widely accepted view that neither the criminal justice system nor social service providers can, in isolation, address the root causes of crime. The individual, familial, community and structural causes of crime are multi-dimensional and complex and the responses must be equally complex and multi-layered.  

Integrated approaches are increasingly being discussed and employed in Canada and internationally. Yet there are many difficulties in implementing integrated approaches, particularly those which engage multi-sectoral partnerships.

For this reason, the LCO is asking questions about design, including relating to which government and community structure(s) in Ontario can facilitate and sustain such co-ordinated and collaborative approaches and overcome some of the barriers to their effective implementation. 

The decision to hold this one-day forum was in response to a number of recent events and public discussions relating to community safety. The LCO is a provincial entity with offices situated on the York University campus in Toronto, close to a neighbourhood that has faced challenges in relation to safety.  Just over a year ago, the Danzig Street shootings of a child and a young adult at a community party in Scarborough, struck at the heart of Toronto.  This violent incident, along with other tragic shooting deaths involving socially excluded youth in various Toronto neighbourhoods, raised questions for many organizations and public safety actors about whether these incidents could have been prevented. The LCO also asked itself whether there is a role for it to consider multi-disciplinary and integrated approaches to creating safe communities, with an emphasis on early-intervention and involvement of community leaders and organizations.

The LCO had also received a proposal from the Ontario Association of Police Services Board (OAPSB) to review the Police Services Act (PSA), including how community safety is addressed in that legislation. Discussions by the LCO’s Executive Director with the Executive Director of the OAPSB indicated that addressing community safety in a broader way than envisioned by the PSA would be of interest to the police. The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police provided information to the LCO about the initiatives already undertaken in the police context that reflect a more comprehensive approach. These and other developments in regard to law enforcement indicated that there would be value in the LCO, as an “impartial” facilitator, bringing together a range of multidisciplinary expertise in the area.  

Another impetus for this forum is the public conversation in recent years about the role of police in responding to community safety needs and issues outside of the criminal law, for example related to poverty, mental health, addictions and unsafe or inadequate housing.  In a deputation to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, in March 2012, Dale McFee, former Chief of Police of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and then President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (currently Deputy Minister for Corrections and Policing in the Province of Saskatchewan) stated, for example, that only 27% of all calls received by his force were criminal in nature, and of those only 5% led to charges.  He described the remaining 73% of calls as relating to, among other things, antisocial behaviour, disturbances, housing, mental health and addictions.  He then posed the question: 

When I think of these issues and look deeper, I have to ask myself, “How many of these issues would police be considered the experts in?”  The answer is, most often, none.

The important recognition of the role and responsibility of non-criminal justice stakeholders, both governmental and non-governmental, in achieving community safety goes hand in hand with a policy shift toward developing and implementing comprehensive approaches and solutions.

This one-day LCO discussion is thus being held at a time when other provinces (such as Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec) and other entities within Ontario, including the OAPSB and the Ministry of Correctional Services and Community Safety (“MCSCS”), are also asking questions about the role of government in promoting and facilitating integrated multi-disciplinary strategies and partnerships to address risk and protective factors for crime.

Finally, particularly following the February 2012 release of the Report of the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services (referred to as the “Drummond Report” in the name of the Chair, Don Drummond), there has been much public discussion about the cost of the criminal justice system, including the cost of policing.   Questions concerning the cost of policing are included in the MCSCS’ Future of Policing Advisory Committee discussions and are similarly included in the research being conducted by the Council of Canadian Academies’ expert panel on the Future of Canadian Policing Models.   The cost of policing and other criminal justice actors is not a focus for the LCO.  It is acknowledged, however, that increased participation in community safety by non-criminal justice actors as well as improved efficiencies (and outcomes) through integration are also part of the conversation, elsewhere, on reducing the costs associated with operating the criminal justice system.

 

II.    OVERVIEW OF THE BACKGROUND PAPER
 
This background paper:

  • sets out the guiding premises and values which underlie the LCO discussion;
  • briefly explains why the discussion is focused on municipal and provincial structures;
  • explores specific issues relating to the design and implementation of comprehensive approaches; and
  • proposes discussion questions for the forum, at which participants will be asked to consider selected questions in small groups and share their responses. 

The discussion questions are also listed in the executive summary for the forum, which can be found at http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/community-safety-event-background-paper. 

The responses to the questions will assist the LCO in determining whether or how it will undertake further research and recommendations for law and policy reform in this area.

 

III.    WHY IS THE LCO FOCUSING ON INTEGRATED APPROACHES?

A.    Basic Premises and Guiding Principles

The starting point for the LCO discussion is the view that integrated multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approaches are necessary to address the complex causes of crime, thus raising law and policy questions as to how best to operationalize these approaches.  This basic premise, described in some academic literature (Homel 2009) as having achieved “near universal” acceptance, is drawn from numerous domestic and international scholarly sources (including the Canadian Institute for the Prevention of Crime), international bodies (such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime), and provincial government platforms and documents.

The following is a chart of six basic premises on which the LCO discussion of comprehensive approaches is based, and six guiding principles for design and implementation which flow directly from these six basic premises.

Basic Premise Guiding Principle for Implementation
The root causes of crime are complex as are the solutions. Effective approaches must therefore be multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral, encompassing one or more overlapping individual, social, economic, health, environmental and structural causes of crime.
Ontario is diverse racially, culturally, economically, geographically.

Community crime prevention needs and priorities may vary widely across Ontario as do community strengths and resources.

Comprehensive approaches must be flexible and tailored to each community, respecting the diversity of cultural, political, social, economic, demographic and geographic realities.
Local authorities and community agencies and organizations are closest to the community safety problems and needs of their communities.  Local authorities and agencies play a critical leadership role.
Structural inequality and social exclusion are risk factors for offending and/or victimization. Inclusivity and substantive equality must inform any comprehensive approach, with particular attention to marginalized and excluded individuals and groups.
There are no “quick-fixes” for addressing root causes of crime or for effective targeted prevention efforts aimed at risk factors. Comprehensive crime prevention requires long-term, sustained solutions, insulated, to the extent possible, from political, economic and other change.  

Indicators for evaluating the progressive realization of defined outcomes of long-term initiatives will be an element of any comprehensive approach.

Social inclusion and cohesion are elements of a safe community.

Strengthening communities is an essential component of effective crime prevention and may include community capacity building. Civic engagement is critical. 

 

B.    Defining the Terms

What do we mean by “community”, “community safety”, “crime prevention” and “integration”?

 

1.    Community Safety

“Community” and “community safety” cannot be defined with precision. The political or geographic boundary or groups that will comprise the “community” in any community safety initiative will depend on context.  So, too, the community safety priorities identified will vary.  They may range, for example, from access to housing in one community, to alcoholism and substance abuse, inadequate health services or the prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in another. 

A core concept of “community” in any discussion of “community safety”, however, “is the involvement of civil society at the local level” (United Nations Guidelines para. 5).  

A “safe” community is not only one in which community members live free of violence and crime, but also one in which they live free from the fear of violence and crime.  It is also a community based on respect and the social, economic, cultural and political inclusion of all members. A “safe community” fundamentally concerns not only physical safety, but also quality of life, individual and community well-being and community cohesion and resilience.

The vision of a safe community, and any government structures and partnership processes which are engaged to achieve this end, is thus informed by the guiding principles of inclusivity, respect for diversity, substantive equality and civic participation. 

In the context of crime prevention, these guiding principles require particular attention to those most excluded, marginalized or disempowered, including women, children and youth, racialized persons, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and members of excluded or disadvantaged groups, recognizing that these identities often overlap. 

 

2.    Crime Prevention

“Crime prevention” is defined by the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime as comprising

strategies and measures that seek to reduce the risk of crimes occurring, and their potential harmful effects on individuals and society, including the fear of crime, by intervening to influence their multiple causes.

There are many variations to this definition, but the common theme is proactive measures to address risk factors and root causes.

Crime prevention strategies and measures have generally been grouped into four categories: 

  • crime prevention through social development
  • community or locally based crime prevention
  • situational crime prevention
  • reintegration programmes

Crime prevention through social development includes promoting the well-being of individuals and groups through social, economic, health and educational measures. 

Community or locally based crime prevention focuses on changing the conditions in neighbourhoods that influence crime (frequently where there is a high risk of criminal activity or victimization) by building the capacity and expertise of community members and responding to local priorities and initiatives.

Situational crime prevention aims to reduce opportunities for crime as well as to increase risks of apprehension and reduce any benefits of criminal behaviour.  Such measures may include, for example, urban or environmental design initiatives.   Another example in recent years is the move toward problem oriented policing, or “smart” policing, where police work closely with local authorities and community agencies and organizations to proactively identify and respond to local problems.

Reintegration refers to programs and initiatives aimed at those already involved in the criminal justice system.

As emphasized by the U.N. Handbook on the U.N. Guidelines (2010), all four approaches may work together and form aspects of an overall integrated crime strategy with longer and shorter term goals.

The terms “crime prevention” and “community safety” are sometimes used interchangeably.  For example, municipal crime prevention councils and community safety councils may have identical goals of addressing individual and structural root causes of crime, in spite of the different terminology.  While there is considerable overlap between the terms, the LCO understands the term “community safety” as encapsulating a somewhat broader set of goals which may engage a broader set of community and other actors.   For the purposes of the LCO discussion, “community safety” is understood to place somewhat greater priority and emphasis on the goal of building communities that are inclusive, cohesive and healthy than “crime prevention”, even where that term is used from a social development perspective, focused on risk and protective factors and root causes. 

Question:

Does the following definition capture an appropriate understanding of “community safety” to underpin an LCO project on integrated approaches to community safety? 

A “safe” community is one in which members live free of violence and crime and free from the fear of violence and crime.  It is also a community based on respect and the social, economic, cultural and political inclusion of all members.  A “safe community” is a community which is healthy, cohesive and resilient.


3.    Integrated Approach

An “integrated approach” to crime prevention (with an emphasis on social development) is usefully described in the 2012 Ontario Crime Prevention Framework.  An integrated approach recognizes  “that the intersection of multiple, complex, social, economic, health and environmental factors lead to criminality” and involves “long-term, sustainable, multi-agency, integrated actions that deal with the risk factors and divert people from the path of crime, and build protective factors that may mitigate those risks.”

The diverse sectors involved in integrated approaches or partnerships may include, among others, government, social service, mental health, housing and other community agencies, education, criminal justice representatives and academic institutions.  Community organizations will also play an important role, depending on capacity and context.  An integrated comprehensive approach also envisages communication and co-ordination between various levels of government – municipal, regional, provincial, federal and Aboriginal.

Integrated approaches to community safety for the purposes of the LCO discussion, therefore, are not necessarily anchored in law enforcement or criminal justice initiatives.  In fact, depending on the initiative, there may be little or no involvement with the criminal justice sector.  For example, an integrated service delivery initiative may be designed to address high school students in an area identified as populated by youth who experience social exclusion.  The initiative may pro-actively provide multi-disciplinary support for students who exhibit risk factors such as absenteeism, poor grades, possible learning disabilities or mental health issues, and low or no parental response or involvement.  Such an initiative may have multiple complementary purposes for integration, including improved health and education outcomes as well as addressing protective and risk factors for offending or victimization.

The levels at which integration can take place can be broken down as follows (Moore & Skinner, 2010):

  1. Policy (or whole-government or “joined up”) integration, involving collaboration horizontally (across departments or ministries) and vertically (across levels of government);
  2. Regional or local policy and planning integration, often involving regional or local interagency planning groups for the creation of local integrated service systems or programs;
  3. Service delivery integration; and
  4. Multi-disciplinary teamwork within multi-agency collaborations or partnerships.

The LCO discussion contemplates integration at all four levels.


C.    The Context

The active participation of key stakeholders, whether in policy planning, program development or integrated service delivery, is necessary to any comprehensive approach.

As noted above, these stakeholders may include child welfare agencies, schools, housing authorities, health authorities or service providers, social services, probation officers or criminal justice participants, and community organizations and leaders.

The LCO recognizes the diversity of stakeholders and the varied and complex legal regimes, bureaucratic and organizational structures, and sets of local relationships within which the stakeholders operate.   For example, in Ontario there are 72 school boards,   46 child welfare agencies,  120 community-governed primary health care organizations,  over 300 community mental health and/or addiction agencies,  133 First Nations communities,  444 municipalities,  58 municipal police services  and 11 First Nations police services (in addition to the Ontario Provincial Police),  29 Friendship Centres,   over 200 hospitals  and 14 local integrated health networks  (statutorily mandated to integrate health service delivery).  These various agencies, governments and public bodies may have very different capacities, resources and strengths, not only among the various kinds of institutions, but also within the same kind of institution.
How to promote integration across such a wide range of actors is one of the many challenges involved in designing and implementing comprehensive approaches to community safety in Ontario.

 

IV.    WHY A FOCUS ON STRUCTURES?

What structures need to be in place at the provincial and local/regional levels to effect a sustained integration of policy, planning and service delivery to address risk and protective factors and root causes of crime?

Over the past two decades, extensive work has been done nationally and internationally on guiding principles for effective implementation of crime prevention.  These guiding principles have generally included an emphasis on political commitment and leadership at all levels, clear and common goals, sustained funding, attention to the specificity of local problems and needs, evidence-based program and policy development, rigorous and appropriate monitoring and evaluation, sharing of information among multi-agency partners and within government, community capacity building and public engagement.

The first basic principle of the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime is government leadership: 

All levels of government should play a leadership role in developing effective and humane crime prevention strategies and in creating and maintaining institutional frameworks for their implementation and review (emphasis added).

Government structures responsible for crime prevention have been repeatedly identified as critical.

In Canada, the Institute for the Prevention of Crime  (“IPC”) Guiding Principles for Improving the Capacity of Municipalities to Implement and Sustain Crime Prevention and Community Safety Initiatives identifies the need to “establish responsibility centres at all orders of government” (emphasis added) as the first guiding principle for successful crime prevention.  The IPC recommends that municipalities “implement permanent local responsibility centres…to coordinate crime prevention and community safety initiatives with other local priorities and services” and that the provincial/territorial governments “develop permanent responsibility centres in each province and territory that would coordinate policies as well as foster networking and implementation of knowledge and best practices”.  

Internationally, a commitment to multi-agency crime prevention partnerships has frequently led to the creation of new governance structures.  In some jurisdictions these structures have been legislated.  For example, under England’s Crime and Disorder Act (initially introduced in 1998) local authorities were required to form multi-agency partnerships – Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (“CDRPs”) – to address crime and disorder and to ensure crime prevention is built into local decision making.  Homel (2009) summarizes some of these new and “complex” governance arrangements as follows:

…[T]he UK’s Crime Reduction Programme during the 1990s was managed through a series of inter-agency committees linked to a Cabinet sub-Committee at one end and regional and local committees at the other, such as the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships…In Australia, crime prevention activity in the states of New South Wales and Western Australia is managed through similar Cabinet level committees linked to an advisory council and central, regional and local inter-agency forums…Similar structures can be found in New Zealand…and are recommended in principle in the UN crime prevention guidelines….

More generally, the legislation or policies which create these multi-agency partnerships may signify a paradigm shift from an emphasis on law enforcement and punitive measures to multi-sectoral crime prevention.  The Youth Justice Board in the U.K. established under the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, for example, has a specific statutory mandate to prevent offending by children and youth (a shift from much criticized punitive policies). Pursuant to this mandate, the Youth Justice Board developed numerous multi-agency preventative initiatives, including Youth Offender Teams (“YOTs”) in every local authority in England and Wales, comprised of representatives from education, health, social services, probation and police (with a target, among other things, of reducing first-time entrants into the youth justice system).    As noted in Making Cities Safer 2008, the Youth Justice Board’s carefully targeted prevention activities for youth most at risk in areas where crime by young people was a major problem “could only happen if there were major improvements in the way different agencies worked together”.  In the case of the Youth Justice Board and the programs and structures created by the Board, therefore, the paradigm shift was not only at the legislative and policy levels, but also at the operational level.

 

A.    Municipal Structures

Municipalities are the level of government closest to the experiences of public safety and security of their residents (Horner, 1993; Making Cities Safer, 2008; Allard and Sadeler, 2010).  They are best positioned to engage community members and to work inclusively with multi-agency partners.   Most also have direct responsibility for delivering the services that must be effectively harnessed to address root causes and protective factors to prevent crime, such as housing, social services, recreation, police, zoning and public health. 

A local focus also recognizes and responds to the diverse needs and circumstances across Ontario, which include significant differences in size, location (i.e. rural or urban) and demographics (e.g. age, culture, income and similar factors). 

The Ontario Crime Prevention Framework (2012) posits “community leadership and a local approach” as the first of seven guiding principles for crime prevention in Ontario, stating:

Communities are best placed to provide the most accurate and relevant information pertaining to their crime problems and can best create responses that are applicable to the specific needs of their region.

There are a range of institutionalized structures across Ontario at the municipal level with an integrated crime prevention mandate.  These include crime prevention councils such as in the Waterloo Region and the cities of Thunder Bay and Ottawa, among many other places. These councils, which differ in their structure and their relationships with the municipal government, may fulfill the function of the “local centre of responsibility” recommended by the IPC Guidelines.   Other municipalities have a safety secretariat within the municipal government that co-ordinates stakeholder partnerships and supports integration of crime prevention across municipal policies and service provision.   The City of Toronto had such a safety secretariat until recently when the secretariat was cut and the portfolios were merged into other departments (such as Community Development).  The City of Toronto’s Community Safety Plan, for example, establishes Neighbourhood Action Teams in 13 priority neighbourhoods.  The teams include multiple city departments (social services, housing, recreation, police, children’s services and others), as well as school officials, community agencies and members (with membership varying in each neighbourhood).  A senior city staff member and a community development officer are assigned to co-ordinate integration and partnerships between “residents, governments, community agencies and businesses to create opportunities to improve communities”.

Questions:

  1. What are the foundational elements of a municipal/regional structure to best achieve comprehensive approaches to community safety?
  2. How can municipalities better facilitate and support community-based community safety initiatives?
  3. What are the benefits and disadvantages of mandating municipalities (whether by legislation or policy) to develop and implement comprehensive community safety initiatives?  

 

B.    Provincial Structure(s) and the Relationship to Municipal Structure(s)

1.    Provincial Structures

Provincially, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services in Ontario is responsible for community safety and crime prevention policies. 

The MCSCS Crime Prevention Framework (2012) envisions working across ministries, although no specific structure for doing so is identified in the Framework itself.

There are numerous examples of inter-ministerial or integrated approaches to specific priority areas in Ontario, for example the recently announced Ontario Youth Strategy, Stepping Up, which states a commitment by 18 different Ministries to a single co-ordinated agenda involving 20 shared outcomes and 52 indicators, to better serve youth, including from the perspective of violence prevention and community safety.   Similarly the Ministry of Children and Youth Services’ Policy Framework for Child and Youth Mental Health states as both a guiding principle and a goal, the fostering of a child and youth mental health sector that is “co-ordinated, collaborative and integrated at all community and government levels, creating a culture of shared responsibility” and identifies “inter-ministerial partnerships” as “key to aligning child and youth mental health policy and program priorities, roles and resources across sectors”. The Ontario Poverty Reduction Strategy and cabinet committee on poverty reduction is a further such initiative.
 
Another example of an integrated structure at the provincial level in Ontario is the Provincial Human Services and Justice Co-ordinating Committee and its regional committees, which include representatives from the relevant provincial government ministries and from the health and criminal justice sectors to improve the interactions between the criminal justice system and those who are vulnerable to being in conflict with the law, particularly persons with serious mental illness.

A number of crime prevention councils in Ontario have called for the creation of an inter-ministerial Provincial Crime Prevention Secretariat to better improve co-ordination and communication on crime prevention issues, policy development and program delivery at the provincial level. 

Such a call is supported by the various government of Ontario policy documents which acknowledge the need for “inter-ministerial partnerships”, as well as the expert literature and guidelines which call for a “permanent centre of responsibility” at all levels of government (as already discussed). It is also consistent with developments in other provinces.  

In 2007, Alberta established a Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force which made 31 recommendations for crime reduction and improved community safety in the province, including a recommendation to develop a comprehensive, long-term provincial crime prevention strategy.  In 2008, the government of Alberta responded to the Task Force report by accepting 29 of the 31 recommendations and committing approximately a half billion dollars over three years to establish an inter-ministerial Safe Communities Secretariat, mandated to implement the Task Force recommendations.  The nine ministries involved in the Secretariat are Justice and the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Public Security, Aboriginal Relations, Children and Youth Services, Culture and Community Spirit, Education, Health and Wellness, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Municipal Affairs.  The Alberta Crime Prevention Framework, developed in response to the Task Force recommendations, commits the province to collaboration and integration “among government ministries, other levels of government and community partners” and to the alignment of programs, services and funding, across provincial ministries and within communities.  There have been some recent budgeting and other changes (including returning responsibility for crime prevention largely to the Ministry of the Solicitor General rather than to the inter-ministerial Safe Communities Secretariat). However, the Framework, which is a comprehensive, evidence-based, long-term crime prevention strategy, remains provincial policy.

In Saskatchewan, following consultations between 2007 and 2009 on rates of crime and victimization and the future of policing in the province, nine human services ministries  and eight police forces, along with the Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, entered into a chartered agreement and developed a province-wide collaborative and integrated, “multi-agency mobilization” strategy to address risk factors: Building Partnerships to Reduce Crime (“BPRC”).   Like the Alberta and Ontario frameworks, the Saskatchewan policy framework is focused on broad-based prevention, including through community capacity building and mobilization and inter-sectoral integrated policy development and responses.  

As part of its commitment to building multi-agency partnerships under the BPRC, the government of Saskatchewan committed $450,000 in 2012-2013 to the Ministry of Corrections, Public Safety and Policing to support and expand the Prince Albert Community Mobilization Model.  The Community Mobilization: Prince Albert (“CMPA”) model (drawn and adapted from lessons learned in other jurisdictions, such as England and Scotland) is comprised of two components, a “Hub” and a Centre of Responsibility or “COR”.  The Hub committee is a multi-disciplinary group of front-line workers from various local agencies including police, social services, health, mental health, education, addictions and others.  These front-line workers meet twice a week to provide immediate intervention and short-term solutions in individual cases involving “elevated risk” of offending or victimization.  The COR is comprised of full-time dedicated human service professionals who collaborate on longer-term community-specific solutions to systemic issues and root causes through research, analysis (including of aggregated data from the Hub), planning, and coordination of resources.

Adaptations of the CMPA are currently being piloted in Ontario, including in Rexdale in the City of Toronto, Halton, Peel, Sudbury and North Bay.

In Saskatchewan, the data from the Hubs and CORs (of which there may eventually be three regional CORs) inform provincial policy through an inter-ministerial committee (provincial structure) called the SIMS or Senior Inter-Ministry Streering Committee.  The SIMS meets once a month and is comprised of Assistant Deputy Ministers from ten human service and other ministries.  The SIMS is governed by Terms of Reference which mandate it to implement a number of government and province-wide strategies, of which Building Partnerships to Reduce Crime is one (the other strategies which the SIMS is responsible for overseeing include the Child Welfare Transformation Strategy, First Nations and Métis Education and Employment Strategy, and the Autism Strategy and Fetal Alcohol Disorder Strategy).


2.    Relationship to Municipal Structures

A key component of provincial support for local comprehensive crime prevention is funding for developing, and more importantly sustaining, local partnerships and initiatives.

Beyond funding, the relationship between integrated crime prevention policies and programs generated at the provincial and local levels may require careful attention and balancing.  On the one hand, a comprehensive approach means that provincial and local policies should be aligned, including possibly in terms of overarching policy goals, outcomes and indicators (to define a common vision), mutual sharing of information, and collection of specified data for evidence-based research and evaluation.   Information sharing across levels of government is critical if local experiences and realities are to inform and be informed by provincial policies and plans and vice versa. 

On the other hand, in other jurisdictions, such as Australia and England (Solomon 2009), a top-down approach has been criticized as undermining crime prevention goals:  “Centrally directed targets are counterproductive and local partnerships need to be given the necessary space and authority to focus on local matters that are relevant.” 

In addition, collaboration and sharing of information with local authorities and actors in the development of provincial approaches is essential to avoid well-intentioned provincial initiatives that may inadvertently move communities backwards, rather than forwards, by being inconsistent with or otherwise detracting from successful initiatives already underway on the ground. 

Questions:

  1. What role does the province have in supporting comprehensive approaches to community safety at the local level and what is the best design for it fulfilling this role (for example, an inter-ministerial safety secretariat)?
  2. What laws, policies or structures might improve vertical integration of provincial and municipal community safety policies and initiatives?

 

C.    Federal Structures

A comprehensive approach to community safety, as stated above, involves all levels of government.

The forum, however, will not specifically consider the key elements of a federal structure or Aboriginal structures for comprehensive community safety.  These important issues are reserved for a separate discussion.   The relationship of provincial and local structures to federal and Aboriginal government policies and issues will nevertheless inform the discussion.  Accordingly, some of the federal structures with a crime prevention mandate should be mentioned.   It is noted, however, as discussed further below, that at this time there is no national integrated crime prevention or community safety strategy or structure.

In terms of improving local capacity to implement community safety initiatives, the IPC Guiding Principles recommend that the federal government

Establish an independent, national responsibility centre to provide direct support for program development and to act as a clearinghouse for disseminating tools and knowledge about what works to prevent crime.

The IPC further recommends that the federal government collaborate with provincial and municipal governments, as well as the voluntary and private sector to “develop a national framework for inter-sectoral collaboration for crime prevention and community safety”.  It also recommends that the federal government provide financial support to municipal governments (in co-operation with the province) and that it fund different forms of data collection tools and evaluation.

These recommendations by the IPC in terms of a national knowledge centre and clearinghouse and support for local program development and delivery, seem to be at least partly fulfilled by the National Centre for Crime Prevention (NCPC), which was first established in 1998 and is currently housed within Public Safety Canada.  The NCPC has been described by its senior staff as “the responsibility centre in the Canadian federal government in crime prevention” with its main role being “to develop policy knowledge and to administer funding programs under the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) which is the main prevention policy framework for the federal government” (Sansfacon and Leonard, 2009).

The NCPC’s funding and program priorities are guided by the National Crime Prevention Strategy.  Despite its name, the strategy is primarily a guide for funding, research and project allocation.  There is “no real national strategy that integrates the approaches of all orders of government into a comprehensive and sustainable approach to the governance and administration of crime prevention and community safety in Canada” (Hastings and Bania, 2009).

This federal National Crime Prevention Strategy, initially approved by the federal government in 1994, has changed significantly over time.  Originally based on a social development approach focussed on community mobilization and the underlying structural causes of crime, it is now more focused on evidence-based initiatives to reduce victimization and re-offending (Homel 2009) with an emphasis on strengthening partnerships and “integrating crime prevention with enforcement, corrections and other relevant interventions” (Blueprint for Effective Crime Prevention, 2007).  The NCPC is also a research and policy centre which, among other research, catalogues and evaluates “Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs”.
Of particular interest to the LCO forum as possible examples of government facilitated community-led initiatives, are recent community development efforts in Aboriginal communities through a community safety planning process supported or facilitated by Public Safety Canada.  Using an independent, Aboriginal-developed resource guide, Moving Toward a Stronger Future: An Aboriginal Resource Guide for Community Development, interested communities participate in a community-driven process intended to identify priorities, build on strengths and develop plans of action:

This process uses an integrated, comprehensive approach to move communities from fixing problems to building communities into a civil and sustainable society, building upon the strengths and gifts of the people in each unique community. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and the strength lies in the ability to allow communities to determine their own priorities and support them to find ways of moving forward (Evidence of Shawn Tupper, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, Public Safety Canada, to the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, June 11, 2013) (emphasis added)

The community safety priorities identified in this safety planning process have ranged from clean drinking water and safe and adequate housing to divisions within the community to gang violence.
The role of the federal government in supporting local initiatives has very recently been re-affirmed by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in its June 2013 report, In From the Margins, Part II: Reducing Barriers to Social Inclusion and Social Cohesion.  The Committee defines “social cohesion” as:

…[A] characteristic of communities that promote the principles of inclusion, belonging, participation, recognition and legitimacy. Poverty reduction, investment in social infrastructure, crime prevention and suppression, and promotion of equality are all factors that contribute to greater social cohesion.

The Committee cited the testimony of various witnesses to the effect that,

One of the most effective ways in which the federal government can advance social inclusion and social cohesion is through the support of efforts at the local level. For example, in relation to efforts to make cities safer for women… the federal government can best help by “supporting community initiatives and strengthening them.” This could well apply to all similar initiatives that are taking place at the local level.

The Committee specifically noted the testimony of Fran Klowdasky, Associate Professor at Carleton University

When it comes to coordination and delivery, the focus needs to be on facilitating how different levels and agencies work together to achieve certain goals. Here I encourage committee members to consider the positive features of such tripartite initiatives as the Homeless Partnering Strategies and their predecessors. The combination of dedicated funding, flexibility in local application and the requirement for broad stakeholder engagement in preparing a community plan might well be applicable with regard to social issues other than homelessness.

The Committee thus recommended that the Government of Canada work in partnership with other levels of government to provide support over the long term for initiatives that have, as their objective, enhanced social inclusion and social cohesion.  This objective includes initiatives aimed at enhancing community safety, particularly as understood by the LCO in terms of inclusion, equality and community well-being.


V.    COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING OR MOBILIZATION

The LCO guiding principles for this forum include responding to locally identified priorities and strengthening communities, including through community capacity building where appropriate, as critical components of a comprehensive approach.   Depending on the context and the community, capacity building or mobilization may be essential to achieving the outcome of a comprehensive approach (i.e. a safe or safer community) or to the process (i.e. creating the conditions for effective local collaborations) or both.  

The scope of this background paper does not permit in-depth discussion of the innovative work in the area of community capacity building and mobilization, whether federally or provincially (such as in the context of poverty reduction strategies or initiatives to combat homelessness in Ontario and other provinces).   

There is a difference between capacity building and mobilization, although there is no single definition of these terms.  Jamieson (2009) describes community mobilization “as a process of preparing a ’community’ for action and change” and notes that the “boundaries between community development, mobilization and capacity building are … permeable”.  The Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement offers a series of possible definitions for the terms capacity building and community building, including

Capacity building…describes activity to enhance leadership skills, group problem solving, collaborative methods, and substantive understanding of community assets, problems and opportunities among organized, participating community residents.

Community building concerns strengthening the capacity of neighbourhood residents, associations, and organizations to work, individually and collectively to foster and sustain positive neighbourhood change. … For individuals, community building focuses on both the capacity and ‘empowerment’ of neighbourhood residents to identify and access opportunities and effect change, as well as on the development of individual leadership

Numerous variables, including the local structures for community engagement, funding policies and priorities, staffing and other political or bureaucratic policies may all have a significant impact on the conditions for effective community participation and leadership in community safety initiatives.  For example, Jamieson (2009) highlights some of the structural conditions and/or barriers as follows,

Establishing the right structures and processes to enable community residents to be meaningful partners and equitably participate alongside services and agencies has proven challenging in many neighbourhood regeneration efforts.

…[G]overnment funding policies, structures and processes are not well-equipped to support or necessary aligned with, community priorities. 

…[P]rojects…have struggled with the inherent contradiction between the rhetoric of local empowerment and control and the imperative that projects meet centrally determined funding criteria and be evaluated against fixed outcomes objectives. (Jamieson, 2009)

The necessary conditions for effective community participation and leadership may differ depending on whether the community development or mobilization initiative is entirely internally driven or is facilitated externally.  For example, in a summary of a study of gang prevention efforts in three communities in the Montreal area involving community mobilization, Hastings and Bania (2009) note the key role of local liaison officers,

…a key challenge in mobilizing local communities is to overcome the suspicion and mistrust of locals about interventions from outside or about who will win (or lose) from a new initiative.  The article emphasizes the key role of local liaison officers in this process.  They are essential in establishing the credibility of an initiative and its proponents, taking on the administrative initiative, assuring conflict resolution where necessary, building partnerships and sustaining momentum.  These agents are critical to bringing communities to a point where they are willing and able to participate.

In considering questions related to municipal/regional and provincial structures, forum participants may discuss the conditions, in terms of law, policy or government institutions or structures that best support effective community capacity building or mobilization for community safety where needed or appropriate.

 

VI.    FOSTERING RELATIONSHIPS, SHIFTING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURES AND THE CHALLENGES OF COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIPS

The success of collaborative initiatives depends on many factors, including political will, funding, organizational capacity, and bureaucratic or organizational cultures where collaboration may (or may not be) valued or prioritized.  Hastings (2009) (among many others) identifies the “challenge of collaboration”, which he describes as one of three major hurdles to the implementation and sustainability of comprehensive and integrated approaches to community safety.  He notes that:

[S]uccessful partnerships require governance and administrative structures that allow participants to get the job done efficiently and effectively, and an accountability process that gives people credit when due and assigns responsibility when things don’t go as expected.

A recent American study of comprehensive community initiatives in the public health and criminal justice fields observes a “common set of conditions” which must be in place for sustained and effective partnerships (Rosenbaum and Shuck 2012).  The authors’ list of necessary conditions may be helpful for the purposes of this LCO discussion on government structures to support such partnerships, and are as follows:

  1. A supportive environment with adequate funding and a history of collaborative partnerships;
  2. A common purpose or mission that unifies all participating stakeholders;
  3. A lead agency that is respected by other agencies;
  4. Leadership that can champion the cause, stimulate problem solving, resolve conflicts, and maintain group cohesiveness;
  5. A formalized structure, including a steering committee (with appropriate community representation) that can develop strategies, make decisions and leverage resources for implementation, and a working group that can carefully execute action plans and strategies;
  6. A commitment to evidence-based practice…; and
  7. Access to training and technical assistance to build competency at the individual, organizational, programmatic and relational levels.

The challenges of multi-sectoral approaches, even in communities where there is significant capacity to work in partnership, have been usefully summarized by the Institute for Crime Prevention in Making Cities Safer (2008) as follows:

Working in partnership provides organizations with governance and accountability challenges even when communities have good capacity and people get together with the best of intentions to collaborate on shared problems…Agencies involved in the partnership may focus on their own interests and biases, and their own agency and personal perspectives, and may be unwilling to consider an approach that is not consistent with their current program of work.  They may be strongly committed to programs they are familiar with, whether or not they have been proven to be effective in reducing crime.  Community agencies and groups will often not have the flexibility to take on additional responsibilities.  Related to this is the fact that cooperation with crime reduction projects may not be readily obtained from agencies for whom crime is not a central focus of their activities…

Tensions among participating organizations may arise because of different management cultures, failure to use the skills and experiences of partner organizations effectively and to develop them to best effect, poor communication and information sharing, and uneven levels of support from partners.  A lack of partnership-specific performance measures can result in individual agencies reverting back to “silos”…Crime prevention partnerships can undermine their greatest strength when they fail to be inclusive, for example by excluding important community groups or including only government or law enforcement agencies…

A key lesson drawn from the English model of community safety (Solomon 2009) is that

Achieving partnerships requires more than passing legislation or building a structural framework – a cultural shift that breaks down silos and imposes responsibilities on various agencies for actual outcomes needs to exist.

We learn from the above research that laws and structures are not enough for effective comprehensive approaches.   Laws, policies and structures need to be in place to support or facilitate comprehensive approaches, but they are unlikely to be the ultimate driver for transformation. 

In its review of comprehensive collaborative community initiatives to reduce poverty and other complex issues in Canada, the Wellesley Institute succinctly noted that

Transforming the way things work doesn’t happen just because we all think it’s a good    idea.  There is hard organizational and process work to be done, both in transforming     organizations and working cultures, and building local community capacities. (Gardner, Lalani, Plamadeala, 2010)

The Wellesley Institute recommends devoting resources upfront to building the organizational capacity and skills of partners to collaborate as well as to developing the strategic vision and common goals.

Questions:

  1. How can laws, policies or structures (or all three) support or advance a culture of integration and embed good leadership in integrated structures?
  2. What incentives, recognition and rewards (as well as consequences) need to be in place to shift bureaucratic and political cultures?
  3. In your experience, what have been the two or three key difficulties in working in collaboration or partnership and the two or three policy or structural changes that could address those difficulties?

 

VII.    EVIDENCE-BASE, INDICATORS, OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION

In the context of its review of programs and policies to address root causes of youth violence, the Roots of Youth Violence Report (2008) observed that at the time of the writing of the report there were thousands of programs delivering services to youth in Ontario, yet there was very little work being done to determine what programs and services were effective and which weren’t.  Of a sample of 278 of these projects and programs, the Report found that 60% had not been evaluated at all and only 1.1% had been evaluated in a manner which fulfilled the best practice criteria identified by the Commissioners.

In interviews by the LCO with practitioners in preparation of this background paper, the observation was made that sometimes systems, policies or programs intended to do good may be ineffective or even counter-productive or harmful.  The challenges for comprehensive crime prevention, therefore, aren’t solely in overcoming silos or addressing the gaps between systems but sometimes in the systems themselves.  Research, evaluation and critical system reflections are essential.

There is now increasing attention to and emphasis on ensuring that policies and programs are developed and implemented in response to, and on the basis of, strong evidence. Evidence-based practice refers to policies and programs developed on the basis of solid scientific knowledge and evidence. Public Safety Canada defines Evidence Based Crime Prevention as referring to “programs and practices that are proven to be effective through sound research methodology and have produced consistently positive patterns of results” and to an approach which ensures “that the best available evidence is considered in the decision to develop and implement a program or policy designed to prevent or reduce crime”.

There also appears to be increasing recognition of the need to build research and evaluation into initiatives at the outset, rather than as an end-of project process to satisfy funding requirements.

The second guiding principle of the Ontario Crime Prevention Framework is “crime prevention through evidence and evaluation – based experience”, referring to the importance of incorporating research and evaluation into any community safety initiative.

While it may seem obvious that policies and approaches (whether for crime prevention and community safety or other social policy objectives) should be evidence-based, this may be easier said than done, particularly for multi-sectoral, multi-level, long term initiatives intended to progressively address complex inequalities.  

The challenges include divergent approaches to what counts as “evidence”, the need for some flexibility to “learn by doing”, the difficulties of developing indicators that assess multiple levels of impact over time, the need to develop innovative measures (e.g., to measure experiences of social inclusion by at-risk youth) and differing (or possibly conflicting) purposes for research and evaluation. Purposes may differ as between, for example, institutional or government funders for whom evaluation may be primarily an accountability measure, and community agencies for whom research and evaluation may be an essential tool for the further development or progressive implementation of the initiative itself.

Research on comprehensive community initiatives has explored the benefits of building evaluation into a continuous cycle of learning.  In other words, research and evaluation must be properly resourced, supported and planned, and then used, throughout the cycle of a project or initiative, to assess successes and failures (what works and what doesn’t).  The learning is then incorporated into an ongoing process of program or project adaptation and development, and is shared more widely.   In this way, evaluation is seen as “an enabler of innovation, continuous service improvement, and organizational learning” (Gardner, 2011).

Another fundamental challenge for evidence-based practice in the area of crime prevention is gaps in research and data.  In LCO discussions with practitioners and academics in preparation of this background paper, issues relating to data gaps, as well as questions relating to indicators, data and benchmarks to measure results of comprehensive initiatives, were identified as critical.  It was noted, for example, that Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey on Victimization fails to disaggregate victimization statistics by city/region or in other ways that would be helpful from a prevention and community safety perspective. Another example was the underutilization of aggregated emergency room data from a prevention perspective, particularly for gendered crimes of sexual assault and intimate partner violence, which most often go unreported.  These are but two examples.  The LCO anticipates that issues with respect to evidence gaps and evaluation will be interwoven throughout the forum discussions.


VIII.    COLLECTION AND SHARING OF INFORMATION WITHIN INTEGRATED STRUCTURES

Evidence-based practice and collection and sharing of information are inter-related.  Collection, sharing and analysis of data are essential to evidence-based research, policy development and evaluation. Information sharing has also been identified as essential to effective integration. 

Preventing crime by “increasing knowledge and sharing information among police, criminal justice and community agency partners” is one of seven guiding principles for crime prevention and community safety in Ontario.  Similarly, the Saskatchewan Building Partnerships to Reduce Crime framework identifies sharing of information as a basic principle as follows: 

Sharing relevant information, working collaboratively and implementing integrated services for high-risk individuals, families and communities is the most effective method of increasing community safety and reducing crime.

Sharing information, however, can be complicated.  Collection, sharing and analysis of information in a comprehensive model raises challenges with respect to staff competencies, training, appropriate software and data collection systems, reconciling of data systems across municipalities, ministries and sectors, and frameworks for facilitating data exchange.  Protective attitudes within government and community agencies may also prevent sharing of information and knowledge, requiring organizational or bureaucratic change.

In addition, privacy legislation in Ontario recognizes the need to balance the collection of personal information with the need to protect the privacy, dignity and equality of individuals and groups.   The protection of privacy under the various applicable statutes, such as the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Personal Health Information Protection of Privacy Act, and sector-specific legislation such as the Education Act and the Child and Family Services Act, guide the sharing of personal as well as de-identified aggregate information.

The issues with respect to collection and sharing of de-indentified and aggregated data are quite different from the sharing of personal information among direct service providers in, for example, wraparound models involving multiple disciplines and agencies.  Where personal information is being shared with the consent of the affected individual, privacy legislation will require careful attention to the substance and process in terms of what information is being shared, by whom and for what purposes.   It is important to remember, however, that it is not only the rigour of privacy law that affects information sharing in direct-service contexts.  Institutional culture can play an even more important role.

For example, one qualitative study (Gallagher-Mackay 2011) of the interaction between child welfare agencies, parents and schools noted that where school staff (whether a teacher, guidance counselor, principal or other staff member) report that they have reason to believe that a child is at risk, the school is unlikely to obtain any further information from the child welfare agency about how to support the child following the agency’s investigation.  The underlying premise of the study in asking interviewees about information sharing is that in many cases, greater information sharing between schools and child welfare agencies would result in increased and more sensitive or appropriate support for the child by and within the school.  Such support may have positive impacts on both health and education outcomes for the child.  In this one study, which is cited here by way of example only, many child welfare workers interviewed said they had not shared information because there was no consent.  Privacy concerns were identified as the barrier to sharing.  On further questioning, however, it was confirmed that these workers had not made any attempt to seek or obtain consent.  In this example, the barrier to information sharing which may have benefited a child at risk was not privacy law or parental denials of consent, but policies, institutional cultures or practices in which information sharing and integration of support between child welfare agencies and educational institutions  is not facilitated or prioritized.  

Another more systemic example of the challenge of bureaucratic culture is data systems within governments.  If the data systems or structures are closed and the internal government policies either discourage or are silent on de-identified or aggregate information sharing (as opposed to actively encouraging open data) then the default is internal silos.

In one-on-one discussions held by the LCO with various academics and governmental and non-governmental actors on the subject of comprehensive community safety, questions and concerns about collection and sharing of information and privacy laws were repeatedly raised.  Service providers express frustration at requiring vulnerable persons to repeatedly complete forms and provide sometimes embarrassing or difficult information in order to access programs and services.

Privacy laws were raised as an issue in a number of other ways, including that:

  • privacy law is sometimes used (or perceived to be used) as a reason for refusing to share information, thus impeding overcoming of silos – whether within government or between service providers or agencies;
  • misunderstandings or concerns with respect to privacy law may impede the collection and aggregation of data necessary for policy and program analysis;
  • information sharing in multi-agency partnerships which target individual intervention (such as wraparound-type programs) is both essential and challenging in terms of respecting the dignity and autonomy, as well as the personal privacy, of the individuals involved and compliance with privacy laws.

Questions:

  1. In the experience of participants, how have issues related to sharing of information (whether individual or de-identified and aggregate) affected development or implementation of integrated approaches?
  2. What innovations or approaches to information sharing and collection are being proposed to make integration easier and more effective? 

IX.    CONCLUSION

This background paper identifies many issues – more than can possibly be discussed at a one-day forum.  In order to focus the discussion at the forum, the broad range of issues related to integrated structures raised in this background paper are condensed into three themes:

  • Municipal and Provincial Structures
  • Shifting Organizational Culture – Leadership, Governance, Accountability and Incentives
  • Collecting and Sharing of Information

The structure of the forum and the discussion questions related to these themes listed in the discussion above are also summarized in the executive summary for the forum, which can be found at http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/community-safety-event-background-paper.

The community change sector uses the language of “enabling” communities to mobilize and effect change. 

This background paper, and the one-day forum, are devoted to the issue of how laws, policies and structures can enable comprehensive approaches to community safety and crime prevention. This paper starts and ends with the question directed to the ultimate objective of the one-day event: 

If the LCO were to undertake an innovative project on comprehensive approaches to community safety for the purpose of enabling these approaches, what issues should the LCO include in its review?

 

 

The sources referred to in this background paper, as well as a selected list of additional sources reviewed in preparation of this paper can be found at  http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/community-safety-event-background-paper.