Building safer communities: lessons learned from Canada's national strategy.

• Author: Leonard, Lucie
• Position: Includes text in French

Cet article se veut une reflexion sur les tendances qui se font jour en matiere d'action locale pour la prevention du crime et la securite communautaire au Canada. Cette reflexion est centree sur les resultats de l'analyse et de l'evaluation de projets communautaires parraines dans le cadre de la Strategie nationale de prevention du crime. Certains de ces projets ont des effets benefiques: baisse des taux de criminalite, amelioration de la frequentation scolaire et du rendement scolaire, diminution de la violence, amelioration des conduites prosociales, amelioration de la securite communautaire. Malgre ces progres considerables, il reste encore bien des defis a relever en matiere d'action individuelle et collective pour la securite.

Emergence of a national strategy on crime prevention

Over the past decade, international bodies as well as national and local governments have been paying greater attention to crime and community safety and have directed more resources to understanding and addressing the risk factors related to crime, victimization, and the feelings of fear and insecurity. Canada is no exception. Since the 1980s, several provinces have initiated crime prevention strategies with a focus on community and social development (Canadian Criminal Justice Association 1989: 369). During this period, a balanced approach to crime prevention also began to emerge: support for a key role for policing and law enforcement is maintained while a place for social and developmental prevention is also promoted.

In the 1990s, reports by two parliamentary committees established the need for a more concerted, national approach to crime prevention (Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General 1993). Emphasis was placed on national, provincial, and territorial governments in the creation of crime prevention and community safety councils at the local or municipal level, and a reallocation of criminal justice resources in this direction was recommended (Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs 1997).

In 1994, the government of Canada established the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention. A national council was created to develop a plan for national efforts in support of community safety and crime prevention (Canada, NCPC 1997). The broader vision was to encourage federal, provincial, and territorial cooperation and emphasize the mobilization of citizens to take action at the local level to work toward safer communities.

Since its establishment in 1998, the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) has been mandated to promote integrated action between governmental and non-governmental partners, assist communities in developing and implementing community-based solutions, and increase public awareness of and support for effective approaches to crime prevention. The federal branch now responsible for crime prevention is Community Safety and Partnership, located in the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The NCPS emphasizes social development as a central element in its strategic direction. As a result, the development and implementation of local and community-based prevention programs involves a commitment to working in collaborative partnerships. The methods and models of delivery differ widely across the regions, but there is broad convergence on what constitutes the necessary elements that most crime prevention efforts should include: local partnership, community participation, and knowledge development and dissemination.

Development and implementation of effective practice

In Canada, the national crime rate increased by 6% in 2003, the first substantial increase in more than a decade (Wallace 2004). The crime rate had fallen steadily from 1991 to 1999 and had been relatively stable from 2000 to 2002. The declining crime rate in North America during the 1990s has been the subject of extensive debate, both in Canada and in the United States. Explanations for the downward trend in the United States have centred on changing social, demographic, and economic factors as well as on the impacts of new initiatives such as changes in legislation, policing, or enforcement practices. In Canada, Ouimet (2004) argues that a very large cohort of young people born in Canada in the 1960s had higher levels of criminal involvement due to more serious difficulties integrating into the job market during the recession of the early 1980s. Changes in these social and economic conditions since the early 1990s might explain the associated decline in crime rates. Although there is a lack of consensus on what caused the decline in crime rates, it has been suggested that prevention and anticrime initiatives directed at youth with substance abuse problems, violence, and bullying have contributed in a positive way (Schuck 2005).

Major developments and trends have been identified from research on crime control strategies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. These can be summarized under two themes. First, community safety is a key element of sustainable governance, and crime prevention policies and strategies are one of its tools. Second, the new and emerging local governance of crime prevention and community safety signifies a belief that local governments, cities, and communities are well positioned to directly and effectively address crime and its related problems (Hope 2001; Cherney 2004; Crawford 1998). A key aspect of successful crime prevention, from this viewpoint, is to develop and implement sustainable solutions to crime and safety issues through local partnership action and coordination.

Experiences from many countries illustrate the mainstreaming of local governance and partnership in crime prevention and community safety. It is argued that local councils or partnership structures need to be broadly based and to include local justice agencies, governments, welfare agencies, school boards, and victims' associations as well as a cross-section of the community (Cherney 2004; Crawford 1998).

There is growing evidence that crime prevention can have an impact on reducing crime and victimization (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, and Bushway 1997; Farrington, Gottfredson, Sherman, and Welsh 2002; United Nations 2002; Akpokodje, Bowles, and Tigere 2002). In this context, the evidence about "what works," and for whom, is a vital component in the development and implementation of effective crime prevention practice. For instance, the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime (2002), supported by Canada and 46 other countries, urge governments and civil society to use knowledge and evidence about what reduces crime to develop local solutions and build on strategies that foster knowledge and encourage effective action. Identification of the costs and benefits associated with crime prevention reflects the growing demand for "proof and evidence" in this field (Farrington et al. 2002).

Such evidence is not systematically applied in the implementation of crime prevention programs in Canada. Support for evidence-based crime prevention is growing as part of a broader interest in evidence-based policy and practice in public services generally and crime prevention specifically (Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, and Mackenzie 2002; Welsh and Farrington 2001). There is a growing concern to make this evidence available to policy makers and practitioners and to encourage them to put it into practice (Welsh and Farrington 2005).

To be or not to be evaluated

Without evaluation, crime prevention cannot be improved and, without hard evidence about effectiveness, reliable...