• Prevention Pays. Crime prevention, especially those efforts aimed at reducing violence among children and youth, have been shown to have significant lifelong impacts on individuals and society as a whole. Focussing on community safety as a quality of life issue can have a significant impact on the business location of individuals and firms.

In response to concerns about crime and fear, the new City of Toronto created a Task Force on Community Safety at its first City Council meeting in January 1998.

The Task Force has been co-chaired by Councillors Rob Davis (York Eglinton) and Brad Duguid (Scarborough City Centre). The Task Force also had representatives from:

• Police
• School Boards
• Neighbourhood Crime Prevention Groups
• Business
• Agencies working to prevent family violence, including violence against women
• Ethnospecific/Multicultural agencies
• Organizations working with "at risk" children and youth
• Youth-led organizations
• Organizations serving people with disabilities

Members of the Task Force are described in Appendix A.

[Sidebar]

Recommendation 40 of the Toronto Transition Team:

"A Task Force on Community Safety, reporting to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, should be established by Council to develop a comprehensive, coordinated community safety strategy to promote a 'Safe City'".]

[end of sidebar]

Community Consultation: the Key to the Safety Strategy

The Task Force's final report is based on extensive consultation with individuals and community organizations.

The Task Force's consultations included:

• A community safety survey in May, sent out to over 6,500 individuals and community organizations throughout Toronto, including social agencies, parent/school councils, residents and tenants' associations, childcare centres, and business groups (Appendix B);
• Staff interviews with 20 City Councillors in June and July (Appendix C);
• Attendance by Task Force members and staff at 20 public meetings on safety issues between June and September (Appendix D);
• An interim report in September, sent out to all those who had participated so far in the survey and public meetings;

• Toronto citizens' top concerns, especially the concerns of those who are working to prevent crime and promote community safety (the "experts");
• Existing and potential community safety resources;
• Ideas and priorities for action;
• Possible partnerships.

We discovered:

• The Toronto Council of Rotary Clubs' Urban Peace Conference on April 17-18, which attracted equal numbers of young people, business leaders, and agencies to brainstorm solutions to youth violence;

Fear of Crime and Its Impact on the Economy:

• There are few studies on the economic cost of fear to neighbourhoods and city centres. A 1989 study by Peat Marwick looked at the costs of fear of crime to the city centre of Nottingham England (a city of 300,000 - the size of London Ontario). They concluded that the following was lost annually due to people avoiding the city centre because of fear of crime (in Canadian dollars):
• $24 million and 219 jobs in lost retail income;
• $24 million and 442 jobs in lost leisure income;
• in addition to the $10-20 million in losses through theft to the retail sector.

[end of sidebar]

[sidebar]

Costs of Crime and Fear in Toronto:

• The 1998 Police gross operating budget is $520.7 million, 9.3% of the amalgamated City's gross operating budget
• The Toronto Transit Commission spent $1,276,056 as a result of vandalism in 1997, which includes replacing glass and seats and removing graffiti; this is a very conservative estimate, since the cost of janitor's labour and repair shop overhead is not included.

[end of sidebar]

[sidebar]

Safety and Savings

The Economic Analysis Committee of the National Crime Prevention Council Canada recently completed a summary of research on Safety and Savings. Among the findings:

• Family support, parent training and early intervention programs are estimated to reduce child abuse by as much as 50% and thereby reduce also the life-long consequences and costs of living with abuse. Similar programs can prevent the highly aggressive behaviour among young children that is often associated with failure in school, and later, with delinquency and criminality.

• In Ottawa, the PALS (Participate and Learn Skills) community project offered young people a range of activities. An evaluation concluded that the savings in reduced vandalism, police time and fire costs greatly exceeded the program's cost even in the short term.

• Almost 30 years of follow-up with the participants in the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan clearly indicates how home visits and family support create major cost savings by reducing criminal behaviour. The program also yielded a host of other benefits for the participants: they were more likely than those in a control group to be literate, employed and attending college or vocational school; less likely to become parents while still teenagers; and less likely to be dependent on social assistance. There is an estimated net benefit of $27,000 per participant to society, taxpayers and potential crime victims.

[end of sidebar]

1. What We Know About Crime and Fear in Toronto

[The charts that follow can appear anywhere in this section. Originals are available from Alan Meisner in Urban Planning and Development Services.

[chart to appear in section 2: what we know]

Violent crime in Toronto 1993 to 1997**

Type of crime	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	% change 1993-1997
Homicide	58	64	58	57	61	5%
Sexual Assault	2 729	2 647	2 399	2 142	2 302	-16%
Other Assault	26 513	25 964	25 949	23 833	25 568	-4%
Total	29 300	28 675	28 406	26 032	27 931	-5%

** Figures revised for some previous years]

The Task Force set priorities for action, by analysing the top community safety issues identified by citizens and community groups.

The community survey undertaken by the Task Force asked : "What are the three most important community safety/ crime prevention issues in your community?".

The number one community safety concern expressed in the survey is violence and fear of violence, especially safety on the street and violence against children and young people.

Violent Crime

Police statistics tell us that criminal offences, after increasing in the early 1990s, have now returned to roughly the same level as the late 1980s. Most non-traffic criminal offences are property crimes. Violent crimes have decreased 5% from 1993 to 1997. But the proportion of violent crimes as a percentage of total reported crimes has shown a steady increase in the last decade, from 10.6% of all reported crimes in 1987, to 13.5% in 1993 and to 15% in 1997.

The majority of violent crimes reported to the police are non-sexual assaults (73.8% of all reported crimes), followed by robberies (16.1%), many of which occur in public places. These assaults and robberies in public places form the visible face of "street crime". But there is also too much violence occurring within homes and families.

Some parts of Toronto are more vulnerable to violent crime. Violent offences are concentrated in downtown Toronto, with the east part of downtown, west central Toronto and the Junction/York area also showing higher than average levels of violent crime.

Police statistics do not tell us about all violent crimes occurring in Toronto. Sexual assault and family violence are still largely "hidden crimes", committed by offenders who are known to the victim, in the home of the victim and/or the assailant, and rarely reported to the police. Violence against women is under-reported: only 14% of violent incidents reported by women in the 1993 national Violence Against Women Survey had been reported to the police, and of the incidents reported to the police, only one-third resulted in charges being laid.

Fear of Violence

Up to date Toronto figures for fear of crime are difficult to obtain. Toronto Police Services used to commission a public opinion poll as part of its annual Environmental Scan, but this practice was discontinued in the early 1990s due to funding cuts. A 1997 Angus Reid national poll found that 21% of Canadians had either a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of fear of being a crime victim in their community. Women, Canadians aged 55 years and older, and low income earners were more concerned that the amount of crime in communities had increased.

While we fear violence from strangers, most violence is committed by an offender known to the victim. Of crimes committed in 1997 where the offender is known, four times as many murder victims were murdered by people they knew as by strangers, three and a half times as many sexual assault victims were sexually assaulted by people they know as by strangers, and two and a half times as many non-sexual assault victims were assaulted by people they know as by strangers.

As the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics points out:

"In general, people are more fearful of being victims of violence at the hands of a stranger than of someone they know. Media coverage of murders perpetrated by strangers tends to reinforce this fear in the minds of the public.".

A study of women homicide victims in Ontario between 1991 and 1994 showed that 70% of the victims were killed by their male intimate partners, an increase of 61% over the previous two decades.

Violence against Children and Young People

Reported violence against children and young people has increased, and remains the most common form of violence. Since 1990, those aged 10 to 19 and 20 to 29 were more likely to be victims of violent crimes than any other age group. In 1997, young people 19 years and under represented 23.3% of all physical assault victims and 60.5% of all sexual assault victims. Females accounted for 82.5% of all child/youth sexual assault victims, while males accounted for 55.7% of all child/youth physical assault victims. The number of suspected child abuse occurrences reported to police has increased 32% between 1993 and 1997. Newborns and infants are more at risk of becoming victims of homicide than adults.

Property crime

Property crime is the second priority concern identified in the community survey, especially home break-ins and auto theft.

There are many more property crimes than violent crimes in Toronto. Property crimes accounted for 58% of all reported non-traffic offences in Toronto in 1997, while violent crimes accounted for 15% of offences (the remainder of reported crimes include drug-related offences, discussed below).

Property crimes are decreasing in Toronto. The most common property crimes are common theft (ie., not of a motor vehicle), motor vehicle theft, and home break-ins.

Breaking and Entering (B&E) continued to drop for the second year in 1997, when a total of 23,084 B&Es occurred: a 6.2% drop from 1996 and a 9% drop from 1993. In fact, the number of Break and Enters decreased steadily for each of the years since the record number of 26,892 occurrences in 1991 (with the exception of 1995, when there was a slight increase [2%]).

In contrast, the number of auto thefts is increasing. A trend of increase in motor vehicle thefts started in 1988, with large increases between 1991 and 1994, and in 1996, when a record 19,682 occurrences were reported. In 1997, a total of 16,793 vehicle thefts were reported, which was a 14.7% drop from 1996, but a 10.7% increase over 1993.

Property crime rates are even more concentrated in downtown Toronto than are violent crimes. East Downtown, east and west central Toronto, and North Etobicoke also have property crime rates that are higher than the average.

Incivilities or Public Order Offences

The third priority identified by the community safety survey was offences against public order, minor crimes that have an impact on how people feel about their city. These concerns include vandalism and street prostitution.

Street prostitution is estimated to constitute only 20% of all prostitution activity (and as low as 5% in winter in Toronto). Public opinion polls conducted by the Fraser Commission on Pornography and Street Prostitution found that while 45% of Canadians found "prostitution in private" acceptable, only 11% are prepared to tolerate street prostitution.

The incidence of vandalism and other "mischief" offences tend to be lost within a large category of "other criminal code offences" in police statistics, which include drug-related offences. "Other criminal code offences" have declined 18% in the years 1993-1997, a greater decrease than violent or property crimes. The majority of persons arrested and charged with these offences are males between the ages of 12 and 24.

Drug-related Offences

Drug offences and persons arrested/charged in Toronto 1993-1997

	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997
No. of drug offences	8 015	7 702	6 438	5 985	6 300
No. of persons arrested/ charged	3 852	3 623	2 658	2 448	2 622

Drug-related offences were mentioned as a priority in 11% of the responses to the community safety survey.

The detection of drug offences and the number of drug arrests made are very often determined by the level of police pro-active enforcement. The changes in these numbers should, therefore, not be construed as adequate indications of the extent of drug problems in Toronto.

In 1997, the number of both drug offences and arrests increased for the first time after a trend of decrease since 1990. The number of drug offences increased 5.3% from the previous year, while drug arrests increased 7.1%.

Economic and Social Inequalities

Economic and social inequalities, such as homelessness and cuts to social services, were seen as a top community priority in 10% of the responses.

There are an increasing number of homeless people in Toronto, and homeless people are extremely vulnerable to crime and violence. A 1992 survey of Toronto homeless persons found that 40.4% of all respondents had reported being assaulted in the past year. One half of those had been assaulted more than once during the same period. A higher proportion of women (46%) had been assaulted in the past year. Five point eight per cent of all respondents and 21.2% of female respondents had been raped in the year prior to the survey.

In 1995 and 1996, 54 social service agencies in Toronto closed outright, as compared to the years 1992 to 1994, when an average of seven agencies closed per year. Of the agencies that closed during 1995-96, 17 focussed on community development, nine offered immigration and settlement services, five specialized in shelter programs, and three provided programs for children. The remaining agencies that closed provided programs in community health, legal services, counselling, education and training, food and clothing, information and referral, and multiple services.

The impact of these cuts to social services include a decrease in services available to people facing violence in their lives, and a decrease in preventive services to children, youth and families. The Assaulted Women's Helpline's 1998 annual report included a Bell Business Services' study, showing that while the Helpline received 26,380 calls in 1997, the line may have missed an additional 50,000 calls because there was not enough staff to answer the phone. In peak periods, there is a 91% chance that women will get a busy signal. Funding for the Helpline's AT&T language line, which can provide response in up to 150 languages, has recently expired.

Traffic safety

Traffic safety was a concern mentioned in both the survey and the public meetings, especially for seniors' organizations, childcare centres, and organizations for people with disabilities.

The number of persons killed in collisions in recent years has ranged from a low of 70 in 1994 to a high of 84 in 1995. In every year since 1993, the number of persons killed in collisions in Toronto was greater than the number of reported homicides. As of February 1998, 17 traffic deaths had been recorded by Toronto Police, 13 of which were pedestrians; 9 of the 13 pedestrians killed were seniors.

Youth Crime

Youth crime, especially gangs, was mentioned in 5% of the responses to the community survey, and also came up as a priority concern in a number of public meetings.

It is important to stress that there are more young victims of crime than offenders, and that young people are victimized by adults as well as by peers. In 1997, there were 5,156 offences against persons aged 0 to 17 years reported to Toronto police. In the same year, 2,308 persons aged 12 to 17 years were charged for offences.

The number of young offenders as a proportion of total offenders is increasing, and young persons are increasingly charged with violent crimes. Between 1993 and 1997, the number of young persons (aged 12 to 17) charged for all types of Criminal Code offences decreased 11.8%, compared with a 24.6% drop for adults. The number of young persons charged for violent crimes increased 5.6%, compared to a 13.7% decrease for adults. An increase in female youths involved in violent crimes has also been noted. There was also an indication that young offenders were increasingly younger in age. Some of the increase in numbers is due to more stringent reporting requirements for assaults in schools.

Toronto Police estimate a total of 80 gangs operating in Toronto with approximately 2,000 youths involved at various levels. Only a small percentage of these gang members are described as "hard core" by the police.

1. What We Know about the Root Causes of Crime in Toronto

The Task Force developed policies and programs that address the root causes of crime, as identified by Toronto citizens and reinforced in international studies.

The Community Safety Survey asked: "What do you think are the three most important underlying causes of the issues mentioned above?" Economic root causes, especially poverty, cuts to community resources to children, youth, and families, and unemployment; and social root causes, especially, ineffective parenting, intolerance and lack of respect for others, and lack of connectedness to neighbours; were the most common responses.

Economic Root Causes of Crime

Poverty is a growing concern for children, youth and families. In Toronto, the average family income fell by 10% between 1990 and 1995. It has been estimated that one in three children in Toronto lives in poverty, and that lone-parent families, 86% of which are led by mothers, are more likely to live in poverty. The average income of lone-parent families in 1995 was half that of husband-wife families.

The link between poverty and crime is controversial and complex. A recent study by the Canadian Council on Social Development found that income was the key factor in determining outcomes and living conditions for children. Children aged 4 to 11 years, in poor families, were in worse health, more hyperactive, had poorer vocabulary and math scores, participated in few sports, and had more friends who got in trouble. These factors, in turn, create high risk for future unemployment, poverty, and the stresses associated with these conditions.

Cuts to community resources for children, youth and families are adding to the problem. A recent survey of community agencies conducted by the City of Toronto and the Social Planning Council found that services to children and youth, especially child care, were considered priorities in terms of their clients' unmet needs. People with disabilities were considered the client group most hit by cuts from all levels of government, followed by substance addicts, preschoolers, youth, ethnic groups, and women. Client groups most in need of services include people with disabilities, youth, seniors, preschoolers, homeless people, school-aged children, and low income families. Youth and the unemployed in general were considered priorities for skills training.

Young people are increasingly the losers in the employment race. While overall employment has increased in recent years (8% of Toronto citizens were unemployed in 1998, as opposed to 11% in 1996), younger workers continue to experience unemployment rates nearly double that of the labour force as a whole.

Social Root Causes of Crime

As mentioned above, ineffective parenting and socialization issues are seen as key contributing factors to crime. The most extreme example of ineffective parenting is child abuse, and reported violence against children and youth is on the increase, with much of this violence committed by parents and caregivers. Child abuse falls under the category of relatively "hidden crime"; only 23% of Children's Aid Societies' investigations in Ontario involved police agencies, and criminal charges were laid in only 6% of investigations.

A 1997 child abuse study conducted by McMaster University, the Clarke Institute for Psychiatry, and the Ontario Mental Health Association found 31% of males and 21% of females reporting suffering physical abuse (not including spanking or slapping), while growing up, and 4% of males and 13% of females reporting sexual abuse. The research suggested that child abuse was a strong contributing factor to future criminality, as does a recent study in Sacramento California, which found that children who were the subject of a child abuse or neglect investigation were 67 times more likely to be arrested than children not known to child welfare authorities

Hate crimes are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to intolerance and lack of respect for others. Since 1993, when Toronto Police Services began recording hate crimes as a category, the number of hate crimes reported to the police has been low, ranging from 155 in 1993 to a peak of 302 crimes in 1995 to 187 crimes in 1997. But many cases of racist or homophobic assault and harassment are not reported to the police. A survey of lesbians and gay men conducted by the 519 Church Street Community Centre Victim Assistance Program found that 78% of respondents reported experiencing verbal assaults, 38% reported being chased or followed, and 21 % reported being punched, kicked or beaten because someone assumed them to be gay.

Toronto citizens are generally quite connected to their neighbourhoods and communities, which adds to their safety and security. According to a 1998 survey, every week, Toronto citizens make an average of 2.2 trips to neighbourhood grocery stores, and 1.4 trips to other neighbourhood stores. Each month, Toronto citizens go to a restaurant or club in their neighbourhood an average of 2.8 times, make 6.8 visits to neighbourhood parks, take 12.3 pleasure walks (in the summer), and have 13.1 talks with their neighbours. One in five Toronto citizens belong to a neighbourhood or community organization, such as a residents association or a community watch. There are, however, area-based and income-based differences in Toronto citizens' ability to participate in neighbourhood life.

Policing and Justice Root Causes of Crime

Policing and justice root causes of crime, such as not enough community policing or police on the streets, and non-accountable sentencing, were identified in 16% of the responses to the community safety survey.

While international studies suggest that problem-oriented policing is effective in reducing crime, effective policing is not necessarily more expensive policing. It is difficult to make a comparison between Toronto and other Canadian cities on either progress on community policing, or number of police who are "on the street" at any given time. The City of Toronto has 4,679 police officers, with 523 officers per 100,000 population. Toronto has more officers per capita than Montreal (469/100,000) and Vancouver (507/100,000), but fewer officers per capita than Ottawa (696/100,000) and Calgary (711/100,000). Toronto has considerably less officers per capita than other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area: Peel Regional Police has 814 officers per 100,000 population, York Region 898/100,000, and Durham 828/100,000.

The cost of Toronto Police Services is $216 for every citizen. The Ottawa-Carleton and Calgary Police Services have more officers, but lower per capita costs ($182 and $146 respectively). Peel, York and Durham Regions combine very low per capita costs ($142, $97, $110) with very high levels of service. This may be related to costs of living in various places, since Vancouver has fewer officers than Toronto and a higher per capita cost ($217). There is no discernable relation between per capita cost for the police service and number of police officers employed.

There is also no linear relationship discernable between number of police officers per capita and crime: Toronto, as mentioned earlier, has a lower crime rate than every other large Canadian city, with the exception of Calgary, and while the City's crime rate is higher than surrounding GTA municipalities, the difference is less than might be expected (Durham, for instance, has 58% more police officers per capita than Toronto, but only 23% less crime).

A recent report of the views of Ontario residents shows that those who fear becoming victims of crime are more likely to support harsher sentences for convicted offenders. However, the large majority of Ontario residents want to help ex-prisoners get back into society, favour community sanctions for young offenders, and would prefer to spend money on alternatives to prison. Furthermore, about half Ontario residents surveyed are "very interested" or "somewhat interested" in becoming involved in decisions about how to deal with offenders.

Urban Planning/ Maintenance and Crime

Urban Planning and Maintenance issues, such as bad traffic planning, poor lighting, and abandoned buildings, accounted for 16% of responses to the question of root causes of crime. Research indicates that while bad design does not create crime, bad design can increase the possibilities of a crime being committed successfully. Conversely, the application of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles has been proven to decrease crime, especially property crime.

Public spaces can be avoided because of safety concerns, which in turn reduces "eyes on the street" and creates a less safe environment. Toronto Police Services notes in its most recent environmental scan that CPTED principles, which inform planning guidelines in the former Cities of Toronto and Scarborough, need to be expanded throughout the new City.

Substance Abuse and Crime

Health-related root causes of crime, primarily substance abuse, were identified in 8% of responses to the Community Safety Survey.

Substance abuse is known to be a cause of harm to both the users of the substances and those victimized by substance abusers. While alcohol is more commonly used than illicit drugs, illicit drugs are of particular concern, because of the violence and crime associated with their use.

From October 1996 to September 1997, there were 1,937 calls regarding treatment placement to the Drug Abuse Prevention Centre operated by the Public Health Development. A 1998 study on Drug Use in Toronto estimates that cocaine is used by less than 1% of adults and just under 2% of students; the percentage of those using heroin use is similar to cocaine; and cannabis is used by approximately 11% of the adult population and 19% of students. Use of all illicit drugs is on the decrease, and deaths related to drug use in Toronto is also decreasing. Ninety-six individuals died from drug-related causes in Toronto in 1996, which is the lowest annual total of deaths in this category since monitoring began in 1986. However, the number of Toronto newborns diagnosed with conditions related to prenatal drug exposure (76 babies for the most recent reporting period) is significantly higher than totals observed in previous years.

Referral and assessment agencies continue to emphasize the need for more services to treat addiction in youth, and the need for employment opportunities for people recovering from addictions.

1. A Vision of a Safer City

Based on the views of Toronto citizens, as reflected in the consultations carried out by the Task Force on Community Safety, a vision of a safer Toronto emerged.

We know that a sense of personal safety, on the street, at home, and in the workplace, is one of the most important factors when people determine the quality of their lives. Crime and fear of crime have tremendous health and social impacts on individuals, families, neighbourhoods, and the city as a whole.

We also know that a city's reputation for being a safe place is one of the key factors that businesses look at when they decide to locate or invest. A safe city attracts tourists, conventions, and residents.

The cost of promoting community safety is low, especially when compared with the cost of ignoring crime and fear. Community organizations have been key to creating and maintaining a safer city. It is the job of local government to support citizens who want to get involved in making Toronto a safer place.

Toronto is a relatively safe city, according to police statistics. But we know that many crimes are not reported to the police, especially "hidden crimes" like violence against women, children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

The first goal of Toronto's Community Safety Strategy is to see reported and unreported crimes, both to people and to property, decline over time.

Fear of crime has little relation to reported crime rates, and can be as harmful in its effects as crime itself, especially when people fear crime in their own homes and neighbourhoods.

The second goal of Toronto's Community Safety Strategy is to see fear of crime decline over time.

We want people to feel that they can do something to promote safety in their community.

The third goal of Toronto's Community Safety Strategy is to increase people's knowledge of and involvement in community organizations working to promote a safer Toronto.

Community organizations have helped to create a safe city, and they know best what is needed to maintain a safe city.

The Importance of Focussing on Vulnerable Groups

Crimes require a victim, a perpetrator, and a place where the offense takes place. Perpetrators are a relatively small proportion of the population: several international studies have demonstrated that fewer than 5% of males account for as many as 70% of offences.

The following factors are identified by the International Centre for the Prevention of crime as most likely to lead to violence around the world:

• abuse in families (one-quarter of abused children grow up to abuse their own children)
• a society that glorifies violence (for instance, in sport)
• economic inequalities
• gender inequalities
• cultural disintegration
• substance abuse

Also, persistent offenders have often dropped out of school, and tend to come from families who experienced:

• social and economic deprivation, poor housing, and disorganized inner-city communities;
• poor child-rearing techniques and parental conflict

A recent British crime survey found that 4% of victims accounted for 38-44% of all reported crimes. Factors associated with an increased risk of victimization include:

• violent offences at the hands of a family member or close acquaintance is far more likely than violent crime at the hands of a stranger, especially for homicide and rape;
• offences involving alcohol and firearms increase with the availability of alcohol and firearms;
• property offences increase with the ease of accessing goods that are easy to transport and sell, including cars, bicycles, and computers;
• burglaries increase with the ease of entering unsuspected, and with length of time the residence is empty;
• victims of a particular crime are more likely to suffer revictimization.

Even places where crime takes place are quite concentrated. The Community Safety Strategy recognizes that some neighbourhoods are more vulnerable to crime and fear. All crimes, but especially property crimes, are at higher levels in the centre city, where so many people live, work and play. Ironically, 80% of the residents in the former City of Toronto say they would feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods after 11 p.m., while only 71% of residents in the former City of Scarborough say they would feel safe in the same situation.

Toronto Police Services is in the process of automating its information of where particular offences occur at the sub-divisional level. It will have computer mapping capacity in place by March 1999, at which point, particular crimes in particular neighbourhoods can be identified and responded to by City staff, including Police, in a problem-solving manner.

Being a victim predisposes you to become a victim again. Being an offender predisposes you to offend again. Being the site of a crime predisposes a place to being the site of another crime. The key is to "break the cycle": to intervene relatively early before things get worse.

The Community Safety Strategy focusses on groups that are especially vulnerable to crime and fear. As international studies make clear, focussing on those most likely to be victims and/or offenders and focussing on places where crimes are most likely to take place is a good way to use scarce resources.

As the earlier section on problems make clear, violence and fear are priority concerns of Toronto citizens. Children and youth are the most likely Toronto citizens to become victims of violence. Family violence is one of the most important contributing factors for future violence. Women, children, and low income people are more likely to fear crime.

Since certain "root cause" factors are known to lead to crime and violence (abuse in families, societal sanctioning of violence, economic and social inequalities, cultural disintegration and substance abuse), it makes fiscal and organizational sense for local government to deal with these risk factors. Since revictimization is common, it makes sense to help victims of crime (especially violent crime) and focus on properties where crimes have occurred. Since women, children, and people in lower income neighbourhoods fear crime more, campaigns to reduce fear should focus on these groups, and be judged by their effectiveness with these groups. Similarly, programs to make neighbourhoods safer should focus on at-risk neighbourhoods, and be measured by effectiveness in reducing victimization in those neighbourhoods.

The Importance of Recognizing Diversity

[sidebar]

Community Safety Projects Supported by the City of Toronto

The following is a sample of the more than 50 community grants supported by the Breaking the Cycle of Violence Grants Program in 1998:

• Abrigo, a Portuguese-language family service agency, is providing workshops to 1,000 students in 12 schools, aged 12 to 14, on prevention of violence in dating relationships
• The Boys and Girls Club is training 36 parents to provide peer education to other parents on non-violent discipline for children
• Chinese Family Life Services is working with shelters to enhance their accessibility by Chinese Canadian women victims of violence
• The Harriet Tubman Community Organization is working with African-Canadian youth to develop "positive rap" responses to violence and racism
• Native Child and Family Services is providing a community-based program on the prevention of family violence
• Parkdale Focus Community Project is working with local businesses to provide help to children who travel alone from home to school
• St. Christopher House is working with seniors to provide public education on elder abuse
• Youthlink will train peer educators who have overcome violent pasts to work with other youth at risk of becoming violent

[end of sidebar]

The recommendations also recognize that Toronto is a diverse city. There are several recent studies which confirm that "diversity is viewed as contributing to the quality of life in Toronto". But diversity in Toronto raises challenges related to cultural and linguistic access to services that help keep Toronto safe.

Half of the population in the City of Toronto now consists of first generation Canadians. Before 1980, 60% of immigrants to the Toronto region came from Europe. Since 1980, the majority of new arrivals originate in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Italy comprised the largest immigrant place of origin overall, followed by the United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Jamaica. From 1991 to 1996, the City saw the arrival of over 300,000 new immigrants; the most numerous groups were people from Sri Lanka, the People's Republic of China, the Phillippines, Hong Kong and India.

Forty two percent of Toronto citizens have a mother tongue other than English. Chinese is the most frequently reported non-English mother tongue, followed by Italian, Portuguese, Tamil, Spanish, Polish and Tagalog. Providing information and services in languages other than English, and addressing cultural experiences that may include torture or oppression in a native land, is a growing concern for all social services.

Although 78% of Toronto citizens believe that the police are doing a good job, only 38% believe that the police treat all groups fairly. The groups thought most likely to benefit from positive treatment by police were Whites and the rich. The major recipients of negative treatment were thought to be Blacks and other non-Whites. Only 27% of Toronto citizens believe that city politicians treat all groups fairly; the most frequently mentioned groups seen as receiving better treatment are the rich and Whites. Responding to perceptions about unequal treatment is a challenge for all aspects of local government.

Knowing What Works: The Importance of Evaluation

[sidebar]

Crime Prevention: what works, what doesn't, what is promising

A recent report for the United States Congress evaluated hundreds of crime prevention initiatives funded by the National Institute of Justice over the past 20 years. The International Centre for the Prevention of Crime has also recently published a compendium of evaluated crime prevention initiatives. Both reports use a scale that evaluates the quality of evaluation to decide what works and what is promising. Excerpts from these lists:

What Works

• Long-term frequent home visitation combined with pre-school programs prevent later delinquency with at-risk children and families
• Infant weekly home visitation reduces child abuse
• Family Therapy by clinical staff for delinquent and pre-delinquent youth reduces later delinquency
• School-based programs that reinforce norms through board-wide campaigns (eg., anti-bullying campaigns or ceremonies for "peace-makers") and programs that teach social competency skills such as problem-solving and stress management work to reduce delinquency and substance abuse among youths
• Coordinated action between schools and social services related to at-risk youths reduces later delinquency
• Intensive community based treatment for drug addicts reduces drug abuse
• Nuisance abatement campaigns (eg., coordinated crackdown on problem properties) work to prevent crime in high crime neighbourhoods
• Housing design standards and supervision by caretakers reduces crime in public housing
• Burglary reduction programs that target already victimized houses and businesses reduces victimization
• Increased directed patrols in street-corner hot spots reduces crime in those places

What is Promising

• Volunteer mentoring of 10 to 14 year olds is promising for the reduction of substance abuse
• Restorative justice programs that send non-violent offenders to carry out community services orders is promising to reduce repeat offences
• Shelters with appropriate counselling for abused women (eg., housing and employment referral) and protection orders are promising to reduce repeat victimization
• Youth employment initiatives that target at-risk youth (eg., Job Corps in the US and "civic guards" in Europe) are promising to reduce delinquency and crimes in public places
• Drug courts combining rehabilitation and criminal justice control is promising to reduce repeat offences
• Server training in bars and taverns is promising to reduce alcohol-related offences
• Problem-oriented policing is generally promising

What Does Not Work

• Existing US programs that mobilize communities around crime in high-crime neighbourhoods, including neighbourhood watch, fails to make these communities safer
• Gun buy-back programs operated without geographic limitations on gun sources fail to reduce gun related crime
• Home visits by police after a domestic violence incident fails to prevent repeat victimization
• Offering youths alternative activities such as recreation and community service in the absence of more potent prevention programming does not reduce substance abuse among youth
• Instructional programs that focus on information dissemination, fear arousal, moral appeal and affective education in schools does not reduce substance abuse among youth
• Arresting juveniles for minor offences does not reduce repeat offending
• Community policing with no clear crime-risk factor focus does not reduce crime
• Deterrence sentencing such as shock probation, Scared Straight, boot camps and juvenile wilderness programs, does not reduce repeat offending
• Community residential programs, intensive supervised probation or parole, and home confinement, unless combined with rehabilitation programs, does not reduce repeat offending

[end of sidebar]

The City needs to build on programs that work to promote safety with those most at risk. A summary of community resources reported in the Community Safety Survey is provided in Appendix G. A summary of programs supported by local government staff, including police, is provided in Appendix H.

Presently, there is some program evaluation of City-run and City-supported programs, but these evaluations are often anecdotal or not directly relevant to the problem being addressed. A summary of international research on programs that work to prevent fear, crime, and violence is provided in Appendix I. All recommendations in this report include proposed "impact" measures, that should be evaluated within 3 years.

The City also needs to develop city-wide outcome measures, that can evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy as a whole. This is difficult over a large complex city like Toronto, where there are many factors beyond the City's direct control: youth unemployment, affordable housing, and senior levels of governments' support for community services, to name three. But some assumptions about what a Safe City looks like can be measured using quality of life data.

• In a Safe City, crime - as measured by reports to Police and victimization surveys - is on the decline
• In a Safe City, the number of people who feel safe in their neighbourhoods and downtown is on the increase
• In a Safe City, people know their neighbours and use neighbourhood services.
• In a Safe City, people have confidence in their municipal services, such as police, maintenance of public spaces, public transit, and City Councillors
• In a Safe City, people are tolerant of diversity and feel that all people are treated fairly.
• In a Safe City, people are optimistic about the future of the city.

The recommendations will address both performance and outcome indicators, so that the City of Toronto can measure over time whether it is achieving progress towards a safe city.

5.Recommendations

The Task Force's recommendations were based on the following criteria:

• Mandate:
• Is it appropriate that local government be responsible for this recommendation?
• Does the recommendation fit in with the Task Force on Community Safety's mandate?
• Does it reflect the views of Toronto citizens?
• Does it build on programs and policies that have worked in Toronto or elsewhere?
• Does it develop partnerships between the City of Toronto and other partners?
• Does it address the root causes of crime for most effective interventions?

• Impact:
• Does the recommendation address the needs of those most vulnerable to crime, fear, and violence?
• Is the recommendation fair to all citizens? Does it "buy" safety for one group at the expense of another group?
• Can the impact of this recommendation be measured?

• Resources:
• Does the recommendation build on existing resources?
• Is there no significant money or personnel shift in the short term?
• If a long term shift or addition to City resources is indicated, will the recommendation increase service to the public?

The Task Force has grouped its recommendations into five directions for action:

1. Strengthening Neighbourhoods

B.Investing in Children and Youth

C.Policing and Justice

1. Information and Coordination
2. Making it Happen
3. Strengthening Neighbourhoods

[sidebar]

Safety Audit Success Stories:

Safety Audits were developed by METRAC, a Toronto community organization, in 1989. Since then, many Canadian cities, including Calgary, Ottawa, and Kitchener, have trained staff to assist communities in identifying safe and unsafe places, and have established protocols to respond to safety audit recommendations. In Toronto, Parkdale Community Watch has done 38 safety audits in their neighbourhood, with the cooperation of residents, police, councillors, and local businesses. Results of some of these initiatives include:

• lighting upgrades
• over 15 self-enclosed telephone booths were changed to open, walk-up style booths to discourage excessive use by drug dealers and prostitutes
• community members have easy access and better communication with police, and how, when, and what to report
• Parkdale Community Watch's safety hotline receives 200 calls per month from people who want to know how they can make their community safer or report suspicious activities
• more people are participating in safety audits and in other community events such as school meetings and Christmas carolling
• overall perception of Parkdale is becoming more positive

[end of sidebar]

1.A Safety Audit in Every Neighbourhood: Safety audits are an effective way for community groups to identify unsafe neighbourhoods and how they can be improved. A safety audit involves a small group of residents who take a walk through a neighbourhood, park or facility, identifying features which may contribute to crime or make them feel unsafe. More neighbourhoods need to know about safety audits, and the City of Toronto needs to ensure consistent and rapid responses to recommendations arising from safety audits. This should be accomplished by:

• training appropriate staff from City Planning, Police, Public Health, councillors' offices, Parks and Recreation, Licensing and Municipal Standards, Housing, and the TTC to help communities do safety audits;
• developing a staff lead from each ward who would coordinate and track responses to recommendations arising from audits;
• promoting safety audits, especially in high crime neighbourhoods;
• publishing a City of Toronto safety audit guide and putting it online so that councillors, community centres, libraries, and community agencies can access it;
• developing a computer program that tracks all safety audits conducted, and the status of recommendations;
• developing a protocol which ensures that recommendations from safety audits are responded to on a high priority basis.

LEAD:City Planning, working with the divisions named above and with appropriate community groups.

IMPACT:An increase in number of safety audits and decrease in response time to recommendations arising from safety audits, with a goal of all residential neighbourhoods to have conducted a community led safety audit by the end of 2001. There should be an independent evaluation at the end of 2001 as to the effectiveness of the program in decreasing fear and crime.

2.Making Public Buildings and Spaces Safer: The City of Toronto should ensure that City-owned buildings and open spaces are models for the integration of safety in planning by:

• conducting safety audits, with service users, in city-owned libraries, housing, TTC, parks, recreation centres, and parking garages;
• ensuring that safety and design guidelines are used when renovating and constructing City buildings;
• ensuring that these spaces have adequate lighting, landscaping, and maintenance;
• ensuring that major new developments, such as Yonge-Dundas Square, have safety as a priority criteria in design

LEAD:City Planning, with Libraries, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Parking Authority, TTC, Works and Emergency Services and Police.

IMPACT:All City owned public space to be audited by 2001, with improvements to city-owned spaces as a result of safety audits.

3.Putting Pedestrians First: The City of Toronto should investigate the following mechanisms for improving pedestrian safety, especially for seniors, children, and people with disabilities, by:

• examining best practice approaches to pedestrian safety issues, in conjunction with the Toronto Pedestrian Committee and Transportation Services;
• increasing the time for pedestrian crosswalks, especially in downtown areas;
• supporting initiatives that promote safety for pedestrians, including the Walking School Bus Program;
• working with Police and private charities to expand the number of Children's Safety Villages;
• continuing to support the work of the Cycling Committee and the Bike Ambassadors in teaching bicyclists traffic safety.

LEAD:Transportation Services, working with the Cycling and Pedestrian Committees.

IMPACT:Decrease in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries by the end of 2001, as a result of increased public education and improved planning. An increase in pedestrian traffic by children, seniors, and people with disabilities in neighbourhoods.

4.Maintenance and Community Safety: The City of Toronto should encourage property owners and landlords to manage and maintain their buildings in a manner which promotes community safety by:

• providing training and materials to property owners, landlords, tenants and BIAs (business improvement areas), on maintenance issues;
• promoting safety audits to property owners, landlords and tenants in high-crime areas;
• implementing a "Porch Lights On" campaign that would encourage neighbourhood residents to leave their front lights on, which would increase the amount of lighting on streets without significant cost to homeowners
• enacting a bylaw ensuring that all unsolicited graffiti be removed from buildings upon discovery, failing which the City would be within its right to enter onto the property and remove the graffiti at the owners expense.

LEAD:Buildings to work with Legal, Municipal Standards, Police, and community organizations representing landlords, tenants, residents, and BIAs.

IMPACT:Increase in maintenance standards across the City, especially in high-crime areas, leading to a decrease in property crime.

5.Problem Properties: The City of Toronto should ensure a consistent approach to "problem properties" where drug dealing, after-hours clubs and other anti-social activities are taking place by a coordinated crackdown on these properties as they are identified, including the establishment of interdepartmental committees for every community council, similar to successful models in the former cities of York and Toronto.

LEAD:Licensing and Municipal Standards to bring together Police, Public Health, Legal, Buildings, City Councillors, in consultation with community organizations such as BIAs.

IMPACT:Decrease in number of identified "problem properties", increase in response time to complaints by citizens and police, decrease in crimes related to these properties.

6.By-Law Enforcement and Community Safety: The City of Toronto should enhance bylaw enforcement by:

• establishing a database on "problem properties" available to all relevant authorities for monitoring by-law compliance
• improving training procedures for by-law inspectors
• improving communications with the public regarding complaint tracking, assigning of files and follow-up measures
• re-investing all fines, where possible and appropriate, collected from by-law infractions into the communities in which they were collected
• ensure public participation in the process by which licenses are granted to licensed establishments in close proximity to residential neighbourhoods.

LEAD: Buildings, and Licensing and Municipal Standards, in consultation with community organizations, including BIAs.

IMPACT: Increase in by-law enforcement across the City, especially in high-crime areas, leading to a decrease in property crime.

1. Promoting Neighbourhood Small Business: The City should continue to support and expand initiatives that work with small businesses to improve amenity and safety and provide local employment opportunities, such as Commercial Facade Improvement Programs, Festival and Special Events Programs, and Community Improvement Committees.

LEAD:Economic Development