The Ways to Reduce Crime in Contemporary Canadian Society

There is significant and growing evidence from the recent studies that crime, exploitation and scare of crime can be prevented. This information shows us that properly focused and well-designed prevention initiatives can reduce levels of crime and victimization and increase the safety and well-being of our communities. The problem is that Canada does not make enough use of this vital knowledge. We must do more to harness this expertise in order to build a safer Canada.

The level of crime in society is measured through two primary data sources: police statistics and crime victimization surveys. Police statistics have the advantage of being able to provide trends over time but are restricted to offences that are reported to police. Crime victimization surveys interview samples of citizens about their experiences and perceptions of crime and have the advantage of capturing crimes that were not reported to police. However, these surveys are limited by the fact that they do not include all types of crimes, do not interview children or businesses and are only conducted every five years. While both sources of data contribute to our knowledge of levels of crime, victimization and fear of crime, both are limited in their ability to capture the full picture and likely underestimate the true level of crime in Canada. Crime rates vary across the country. Rates are highest in the territories and are higher in provinces west of Ontario than in central and eastern Canada.

This involves identifying a problem and locating elements that are amenable to intervention. This stage is actually a great deal more difficult than one might imagine. For one thing, a significant portion of offences never comes to public attention. This reality is complicated by the myths and misinformation that surround crime and justice, and the lack of an accepted set of indicators to help diagnose problems and assess the impact of our interventions. We often do not have the knowledge and skills required to identify all the risk and protective factors involved in a particular problem or to select the ones most open to intervention.

The evidence base provides some guidance in this regard. However, decisions about priorities are never purely scientific. Problems and their solutions intersect with a broad range of interests. The challenge is to translate problems into priorities for action and to identify “solutions” we are willing to try and able to afford. Setting objectives is a political process and coming to an agreement about goals and targets requires compromises among competing concerns and interests.

There is considerable guidance available in the extensive evidence-based literature on crime prevention, both about the types of programs that work and the delivery mechanisms that they require. Unfortunately, prevention initiatives tend to run into three main roadblocks. The first is that much of the evidence is little known to those who are in a decision-making position or to the public. The second is that the organizations that are mandated to respond, and that have the greatest relative level of resources, usually are inclined to keep doing more of the same. It is very difficult and risky to break a new trail, and there is pressure to stay with the tried and true. Given the orientation of the criminal justice system, this usually means an emphasis on offenders, and a reluctance to extend their mandate or their activities into the types of areas where risk and protective factors can be addressed systematically. The third key factor is the reality of limited resources. All too often, we choose program options because of what we can afford rather than because they are the best possible solution. The availability of resources is often the key determinant of what is done in response to a problem.

Few areas of public policy are as impervious to impact evaluation as criminal justice. This is unfortunate given the high costs associated with both the problem of crime and the financing of the criminal justice system. Problem-solving approaches always require that initiatives should be assessed to determine whether they had the desired impact and whether there were unanticipated results (for better or for worse). This raises the issue of what the appropriate indicators of success might be—how should progress be measured? The concern for public accountability also emphasizes the question of the costs of an initiative, and an attempt to measure whether the benefits were obtained in the most efficient manner. Once again, the difficulty is that few organizations have the knowledge, skills and resources necessary to do sound evaluations. Agencies must be encouraged to become more fully engaged at this stage of the problem-solving process and they must be equipped to do so.