CHAPTER 4 - CRIME PREVENTION
DEMONSTRATED NEED
Many young people in adolescence commit one or more minor offences which, if detected, could result in criminal charges. Adolescence is a time of risk-taking and experimenting with rules and boundaries, without giving a great deal of consideration to future consequences. Most young people as they become more mature, and less present-oriented, conform to the social and legal mores of their community and grow into healthy and socially responsible adults. Within the population of young offenders, however, a small proportion repetitively engage in serious offences against property and persons. Survey research indicates, not surprisingly, that these violent and repeat young offenders generate the most public anxiety.Assessments of repeat or persistent offenders highlight the importance of crime prevention measures during childhood. Many persistent young offenders and incarcerated adult offenders come from similar social and economic environments and share in common a number of early childhood experiences with respect to their families, schools and communities which are considered major risk factors for criminal behaviour.
The Committee heard that antisocial children typically come from multiproblem families characterized by financial and housing problems, unemployment, conflict and violence, parental criminality, substance abuse, and inconsistent and incompetent parenting practices. Poverty is almost always the breeding ground for these adverse conditions. Disadvantaged children living in dysfunctional homes and neighbourhoods tend to exhibit socially inappropriate, aggressive behaviour, do poorly in school, abuse drugs or alcohol and socialize with delinquent peers. Two strong predictors for later delinquency and adult criminality are early onset of behaviour problems and school failure. Halifax defence lawyer Danny Graham's summary of the profile of the youth he represents is illustrative:
For at least 80% of these kids, their profiles come straight out of a cookie cutter. They come from dysfunctional families, have little education, their parents have little education, they have self-esteem and substance abuse problems, there is substance abuse among the parents, and other poverty problems. These are the issues that are the causes of crime. These are the things that bring these kids to us in the first place. (9:7)By the time young people commit serious offences and get involved in the youth justice system, most have a long history of displaying antisocial behaviour. Attempts to instil prosocial attitudes in and modify the behaviour of delinquent adolescents, the Committee was told, require intensive, expensive remedial treatment. Clearly, protection of the public is best achieved if we can prevent youth from getting involved in crime in the first place.
As already indicated, paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Young Offenders Act declares:
crime prevention is essential to the long term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and developing multidisciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending behaviour in the future.There is not a universally accepted definition of crime prevention. Based on the evidence heard, crime prevention is conceptualized here to include three related levels of approach - primary, secondary and tertiary - each aimed at reducing youth crime and victimization.
PRIMARY CRIME PREVENTION
Primary prevention attempts to alleviate before crime occurs the known risk factors that contribute to crime. It involves early investment in programs known to reduce risks and promote healthy development and socially competent children. Research confirms that diminishing risks through supporting children is less costly in both human and financial terms than reacting after problems are manifested.The Committee learned of the results of a long-term study of a primary prevention program for high-risk children in the state of Michigan. The 1962 Perry Pre-School Project, an enriched program for preschoolers, was directed at multiproblem children and their families living in disadvantaged conditions. For two years, children aged three and four received education daily and a home visit once a week. Although the objective of the program was to fight poverty through better schooling, the early childhood intervention also had implications for the juvenile and adult justice system. An evaluation of the program found that, compared with a matched control group, the children who had participated in the intervention were more likely to finish high school, attend post-secondary school, and be employed. They also had less teenage pregnancy, drug abuse and dependence on welfare and fewer had an arrest and conviction record. Social policy commentators support this early investment initiative for reducing criminal offending and victimization and resulting in fewer demands on the social welfare, mental health and criminal justice systems.
Drawing upon research findings linking exposure to a range of adverse conditions in childhood to emotional, behavioural, social and academic problems and offending behaviour, the National Crime Prevention Council has developed a primary prevention model that targets the risk factors affecting children's development - prenatal to age six - and their families.22
The model focuses on both intervention and prevention. It identifies community development measures known to protect and promote socially healthy children, and reduce the risk factors related to poverty, impaired child development and future criminality. Interventions identified in the model include prenatal care, effective parenting courses, conflict resolution and violence prevention strategies, good quality child care/pre-school options and school-based programs. And, a national policy to lift families out of poverty is a cornerstone of the model.
This primary prevention model highlights the multiple correlates of crime and focuses on the whole life circumstances of children. It recognizes that the attitudes, values and behaviour of youth are influenced by and developed in the context of the family, day-care/school, peer/community and the broader social and economic environment. It is inspired by values that stress the importance of social and community supports and the need to strengthen these resources, rather than tinkering with the law, to reduce crime and victimization and enhance community safety. The Council, aware of current economic reality, reminds policymakers when formulating budget decisions that investments in key social sectors such as health, children, families and education are linked to the well-being and economic growth and prosperity of a nation.
In its brief, the National Crime Prevention Council recommends that:
local, provincial and federal governments develop a comprehensive crime prevention strategy involving educational, social and health services, police, courts and corrections. It is essential that this strategy address child poverty.Partnerships among governments and the various agencies responsible for delivering preventive services must be fostered, according to the Council, to ensure programs are coordinated and integrated and satisfy the needs of the individuals and families they are intended to serve.
Initiatives must offer support across major systems of influence in the child's life - family, care provider/school, and peer/community. This can be realized by different levels of government, educational, social and health agencies, and community groups working together to develop an integrated strategy for crime prevention that focuses on supporting children and families.The Committee is impressed by the model developed by the National Crime Prevention Council and believes it should serve as a blueprint for developing and implementing prevention strategies that invest in children and reducing the social and financial costs of youth crime.
SECONDARY CRIME PREVENTION
Secondary prevention measures respond to behaviour that is known to be correlated with future criminal behaviour.Studies show that at-risk children exhibit aggressive/disruptive behaviour as young as age three, long before they reach the age of criminal responsibility under the Young Offenders Act. It is possible through observation and clinical assessment to identify children who are at risk for serious and long-term social, emotional and/or behavioural problems. These children also pose future threats to community safety, threats that are likely to become progressively more serious as the youth proceeds from adolescence to adulthood.
David Day, of the Earlscourt Child and Family Service, told the Committee:
As early as 4 or 5 years old, children at risk experience serious problems with aggression. Moreover, given that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, a child who is aggressive at age 5, without intervention, is at high risk for continuing to act aggressively at age 14. (23:16)Research and the experience of those who work with young offenders challenge the viewpoint that violent crime and repetitive offending behaviour are random events. In fact, the nature and circumstances of young persons at risk for committing crime are now well known. Dr. Alan Leschied, of the London Family Court Clinic, who has extensive experience working with youth in conflict with the law, stated:
It will come as no surprise to this Committee that in the main, young persons come in conflict with their communities as a result of an inability to be socialized into prosocial attitudes and values. Research in North America, Britain and Australia suggests that the means by which children are socialized in their culture plays a primary role in understanding those children at risk for committing crime. The primary means by which children are socialized are vested within families, peers and schools. (22:48-49)Youth with learning disabilities and learning problems are overrepresented in the youth justice system. These "high-risk" learners can be identified early and with appropriate interventions can be moved off the trajectory that leads to later antisocial behaviour. Yude Henteleff, of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, told the Committee that one of the "most significant causes of children coming into conflict with the law is academic failure. This cause is also one the least understood and the least attended to." (51:27) And Sharon Bell Wilson of the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario informed it that "60% to 80% of young offenders have learning problems, whether an actual learning disability or literacy issue, an attention deficit disorder, or some other form of special need." (22:3) Children with learning problems are not inherently deviant; because of their disabilities they are often socially marginalized from the mainstream which puts them at risk for developing antisocial attitudes and behaviours.
The Committee was told of a Montreal-based early intervention program that provided grade-school boys identified as antisocial, their parents and their teachers with intensive social development and crime prevention programs. Its effectiveness was demonstrated in the results of evaluation research. Researchers at the University of Montreal, led by Professor R.E. Tremblay, conducted a longitudinal study of boys identified by their kindergarten teachers as being aggressive, disruptive and hyperactive.23 On average, from the age of seven to the age of nine, the "at risk" boys received treatment focusing on social skills to promote positive interaction with teachers, parents and peers, problem-solving and self-regulation skills. The treatment for parents, which also took place over a two-year period, emphasized close supervision of children's behaviour, positive reinforcement of prosocial behaviour, consistent, non-abusive discipline strategies, and management of family crises. Work was also carried on with the teachers of the treated boys. After treatment, the behaviour of the boys was assessed annually (from age 9 to age 12) by teachers, peers, mothers and the boys themselves. The research included a control group of untreated boys to allow for a comparison between strategies of intervention and no intervention.
The results of this longitudinal-experimental research are encouraging and have practical implications for policymakers. By the end of primary school, the behaviour of the boys in the untreated group confirmed previous research findings: physical aggressiveness and academic problems are predictors of delinquency that are identifiable early on in a child's life. The research also confirmed that positive interventions can positively affect the social development of disruptive boys. Compared with the untreated boys, the boys who received the intensive multifaceted treatment exhibited less aggression in school, performed well academically more often, experienced fewer difficulties in adjusting to school, and reported committing fewer delinquent acts up to three years after the end of treatment. This ongoing research will track the development of the boys as they grow older in order to evaluate the durability of intervention in preventing juvenile delinquency in the long term.
One key aspect of the Montreal and the Perry Pre-School Project studies is the involvement of parents in the intervention. Currently, demands are coming from some quarters that parents be held criminally responsible for the offending behaviour of their children. Professionals who work with high-risk young people told the Committee "dysfunctional kids come from dysfunctional families"; parents need to be involved and supported to socialize their children more effectively, not charged.
In his presentation, Dr. Jalal Shamsie, of the Institute for the Study of Antisocial Behaviour in Youth, spoke of the effectiveness of "multisystemic therapy" which involves dealing with the child, the family, the school and the peer group - all of the systems that have an impact on the child's life. Evaluations of this approach, he noted, have yielded positive results. Multisystemic therapy costs approximately one-sixth as much as boot camps and has a higher non-recidivism rate. (18:14) Dr. Shamsie told the Committee: "[b]oth research and my own personal experience show if we do not involve the family of the youth, our chances of success are very remote." Some witnesses proposed making parenting courses focusing on child-rearing and conflict-resolution a mandatory part of the high school curriculum, as a primary prevention measure. Such an approach deals with parenting issues in a manner that does not punish or penalize parents.
Providing intensive, proactive secondary prevention measures to at-risk youths is demonstrably more responsible than waiting until they have victimized the community. Priscilla de Villiers, president of CAVEAT, cogently described the tragic consequences of failure to intervene and interrupt early aggressive and disruptive behaviour.
Five years ago, my daughter Nina was murdered by a man who had an 11-year history of violence against women. As I had been standing at the inquest, I saw his report cards dating from the time he was 5. I think he went to over 12 schools before he was in grade 6, and in every single report he was clearly identified as having severe anger problems, severe behavioural problems, uncontrollable rages, etc. He was in the military cadets and sea cadets. He was carefully trained in the use of firearms, and yet every single one of his peers was terrified to work with him and, in fact, refused to. . . .The point is that in the whole of his 32 years of life, not one person ever intervened. As I saw the carnage he'd created - at least eight women assaulted very seriously, two women killed, one attempted abduction, and finally he shot himself, leaving four little children with a murderer for a father - I had to remember my lessons of many years ago. (79:7)In addition to the human costs, there are significant financial costs associated with failing to deal with the known causes of crime. Research has estimated that a dollar spent on prevention programs in early childhood can save up to seven dollars later in education, welfare, police, court and correction costs.
Witnesses urged governments to invest in primary and secondary intervention and prevention programs to protect children living in poverty from known risk factors that impair healthy development and foster antisocial behaviour and future criminality. The Committee agrees that investing in children and youth to improve their living conditions and well-being is sound public policy. If our collective objective is to reduce youth crime and victimization and make communities safer, we should devote resources to prevention measures and services. This response, rather than damage control after a young person has victimized the community, will ultimately contribute to the protection of society.
TERTIARY CRIME PREVENTION
Tertiary prevention involves criminal justice responses and rehabilitation measures that attempt to deter future criminal conduct by influencing the behaviour and attitudes of offenders in positive ways after the commission of a crime.Custodial sentences, in the view of most witnesses, should be reserved for the serious cases where less formal, community-based responses are inappropriate. The Committee agrees that in order to protect the public we need to bring the full force of the law to bear on youth engaging in serious and persistent offending. However, public protection will be enhanced, only if dangerous, violent youth have access to effective and appropriate treatment, education and reintegration programs while in custody, as well as aftercare services and support when they return to the community. The Committee was reminded that rehabilitation and public safety are mutually inclusive concepts; in other words, rehabilitating offenders to prevent reoffending makes us all safer.
As mentioned earlier in the Report, this notion is endorsed in one of the recent amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which added to the Act's Declaration of Principle the following statement:
the protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation, whenever possible, of young persons who commit offences, and rehabilitation is best achieved by addressing the needs and circumstances of a young person that are relevant to the young person's offending behaviour.Dr. Alan Leschied encouraged the Committee to support rehabilitation through the promotion of innovative programs in the community and in custodial facilities as a means to reduce risks to the community.
Similarly, Yude Henteleff, of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, stressed the importance of providing young offenders, particularly those with learning disabilities, who are disproportionately represented in criminal populations, with appropriate rehabilitation:
Some 10% to 15% of the population have learning disabilities. Five times this number are found amongst juvenile offenders. . . [and] three times this number are found among adult offenders. (51:19)He cited studies demonstrating that rehabilitation programs involving cognitive skills training can significantly reduce reoffending rates.
The Committee was told of the research conducted by Dr. Don Andrews of Carleton University and his colleagues on what tertiary prevention programs work, with whom and under what conditions. Dr. Andrews et al. have examined juvenile and adult correctional treatment programs to determine which interventions offer the best protection to the public from recidivistic crime. They offer the following policy advice to correctional administrators:24
- Reserve intensive intervention for high- and medium-risk offenders.
- Target and attempt to change the risk factors or conditions associated with the offending behaviour:
The most promising intermediate targets include changing antisocial attitudes, feelings, and peer associations; promoting familial affection in combination with enhanced parental monitoring and supervision; promoting identification with anticriminal role models; increasing self-control and self-management skills; replacing the skills of lying, stealing, and aggression with other, more prosocial skills; reducing chemical dependencies; and generally shifting the density of rewards and costs for criminal and non-criminal activities in familial, academic, vocational, and other behavioural settings.25
- Employ treatment modes that are appropriate for the learning styles of offenders.
The Committee believes custodial sentences should be reserved for high-risk offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of all crime and are a threat to public safety. Effective tertiary crime prevention programs should be available to these offenders in order to reduce their reoffending rates. As well, the Committee is aware that the risk factors associated with the criminality of convicted and institutionalized offenders are those identifiable in at-risk youth and potentially amenable to change through early intervention measures, before serious offending has occurred. While it supports unequivocally the delivery of effective correctional treatment, it believes that the development and implementation of crime prevention programs involving primary and secondary social development prevention measures are the best policy choice.
A number of witnesses reminded the Committee of a recommendation to allocate 1% a year of the federal budget for police, courts and corrections to crime prevention over a five-year period; the recommendation was contained in the 1993 report Crime Prevention in Canada: Toward A National Strategy, prepared by the then Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. The Committee is disappointed that a goal it believes to be achievable and necessary and which was enunciated by its predecessor in 1993 has not been achieved.
RECOMMENDATION 4
The Committee recommends that the federal government, in consultation with the provinces and territories, allocate 1.5% a year of its current budget for police, courts and corrections to crime prevention, and that by the turn of the century, it should be spending at least 5% of its current criminal justice budget on crime prevention measures. These resources should be directed wherever possible to community-based crime prevention efforts.
The Committee further recommends that the Minister of Justice undertake discussions with provincial and territorial ministers for justice to foster the creation of local crime prevention and community safety councils at the community level to work towards safer communities. Membership of the council should be broadly based to include local justice agencies (governmental and non-governmental), local governments and welfare agencies, school boards, victim groups as well as a cross section of the community. The mandate of the CPCS councils would be to co-ordinate community resources to prevent crime, to increase community alternatives to incarceration and to educate the community on the workings of the criminal justice system.
22 National Crime Prevention Council, Preventing Crime by Investing in Families, June 1996.
23 R.E. Tremblay, et al., "Parent and Child Training to Prevent Early Onset of Delinquency: The Montreal Longitudinal Study," in J. McCord and R.E. Tremblay (eds.), Preventing Antisocial Behaviour: Interventions from Birth through Adolescence, Guilford Press, New York, 1992, p. 117-138.
24 See D.A. Andrews, et al., "Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis," Criminology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1990 and P. Gendreau and D.A. Andrews, "Tertiary Prevention: What the Meta-analyses of the Offender Treatment Literature Tell Us About `What Works'," Canadian Journal of Criminology, January 1990.
25 Ibid., p. 375.