Community Action Policing Activities for 1999/2000

(City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings held on October 6, 2000, October 10 and 11, 2000, and October 12, 2000, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Policy and Finance Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Task Force on Community Safety, embodied in the following communication (September 18, 2000) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Task Force on Community Safety, at its meeting on September 12, 2000, recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee the adoption of the report (July 31, 2000) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services summarizing the Community Action Policing (CAP) activities undertaken by Community and Neighbourhood Services in 1999/2000.

______

(Report dated July 31, 2000, addressed to the Task Force o n Community Safety from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services Department)

Purpose:

This report summarizes the Community Action Policing (CAP) activities undertaken by Community and Neighbourhood Services (CNS) in 1999 - 2000.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications with respect to this report

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the report on the Perceptions of Safety amongst Homeless People in Toronto as contained in Appendix 2 of this report, be referred to Police Services and to the relevant City of Toronto Departments for appropriate action; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary steps to give effect thereto. Background:

At its July 1999 meeting, Toronto Council adopted Policy and Finance report no. 2, Clause No. 1, entitled Community Action Policing (CAP) – All Wards. The report recommended $1.8 million for targeted community policing to reduce criminal activities. Council also approved $90,000.00 for CNS to conduct community safety audits and for public education/community outreach for the year 1999. A portion of that money was identified in the Mayor’s report to undertake community outreach to homeless people to identify safety issues for this vulnerable population. At the July 11, 2000 meeting of the Task Force on Community Safety, the Task Force requested that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report on CAP activities in 1999. This report provides an overview of CNS activities and findings.

Comments:

Community and Neighbourhood Services activities related to CAP funding earmarked for community outreach and safety audits were closely tied to the implementation of the recommendations arising out of the City’s Community Safety Task Force report, Toronto. My City: A Safety City. The Task Force report identified, first and foremost, the need to conduct community safety audits across Toronto’s neighbourhoods and to ensure that training regarding community safety audits be provided to appropriate staff who would work with communities in undertaking these audits.

To facilitate these activities, CNS directed dedicated resources in the form of a Community Development Officer to work in, originally, ten neighbourhood sites identified by police. This eventually grew to approximately twenty communities. CNS staff worked in partnership with Parks and Recreation and Economic Development staff of Economic, Development, Culture and Tourism. Staff also worked with key community agents/stakeholders to conduct broader community safety audits and to assess community perceptions of neighbourhood safety. Results of these audits are articulated in Appendix 1.

In addition, CNS partnered with METRAC, a recognized community organization in the area of community safety audits, to provide training to communities interested in undertaking community safety audits. This “train the trainer” approach was chosen to allow a larger network of communities to participate and lead community safety initiatives within their neighbourhoods. Community participation, however, was limited which may be a reflection of the period in which they were offered (fall of 1999) and which may also reflect the need to provide more community-specific attention to audit activities. This latter reflection requires dedicated resources for such activities.

Community Outreach to Homeless People:

Toronto Council in approving the CAP funding also directed that CNS undertake community outreach to homeless and isolated persons on safety. Because of the difficulties in conducting random samples with homeless populations, a research strategy to gather information through several processes was devised. Several service providers across the city were contracted to carry out twelve focus group discussions. One hundred and forty-one (141) people completed a self-administered survey. In addition, safety audits were conducted in North York, Regent Park and Parkdale.

Appendix 2 contains a report entitled Perceptions of Safety amongst Homeless People in Toronto, which provides the findings of the study. The report describes criminal victimization and homelessness, fear of victimization, reporting victimization and safety strategies employed by people who are homeless. The report also contains a number of recommendations for further action with regard to safety for people who are homeless.

Through the focus groups and surveys, individuals raised a number of concerns with regard to their access to the criminal justice system, including Police Services and the Court system. There were also a number of issues identified with community services such as the need for secure places to store personal possessions.

Conclusion:

The monies allocated to CNS for safety audit activities and public education/community outreach presented unique opportunities for cross-departmental partnerships and co-ordination, as well as dedicated resources to a community development approach in addressing community safety. This approach attempted to bring all key stakeholders together to address community safety by integrating the urban, social and economic developmental perspectives related to community perceptions of safety. CAP monies funded these activities for 1999, but were removed through the 2000 budget process. With the removal of CAP dollars, CNS is not able to sustain such activities.

The research undertaken and articulated within the report Perceptions of Safety amongst Homeless People in Toronto, also provided the City with the unique opportunity of undertaking original research in a review of community safety from the perspective of people who are homeless. The work from this study has already generated interest in the community and from academia for possible follow-up. It is recommended that the study be referred to Police Services and to the relevant City of Toronto Departments for appropriate action.

Contact:

Chris Brillinger, Manager, Community Resources Unit, Tel: 392-8608/fax: 392-8492; e-mail: [email protected]

Lydia Fitchko,, Policy and Development Officer, Tel: 392-5397/fax: 392-8492; e-mail: [email protected]

______Appendix 1 Community Safety Audit

A key strategy for the CNS CAP initiative has been to engage in community safety audit processes in 10 areas targeted for police action (under CAP). Our approach is to work with key community agents/stakeholders (community residents, Business Improvement Associations, community social support agencies, community/crime/drug prevention programs, community police liaison committees and other relevant individuals/groups) to engage in broader community-based crime prevention strategies from a community development perspective. That is, we begin by working with the expressed needs of the community re: safety issues. This is done in a context where the diversity of viewpoints is respected.

A community development approach to safety audits: a) strives, where possible, to ensure that a broad range of stake-holders are involved in the process, and b) takes a long term perspective that focuses on sustainable solutions. Ten sites were originally identified as locations for such activity.

(1) St. Jamestown (2) Kipling / Panorama (3) Weston Road / Lawrence (4) Chester Le (5) Jane-Finch (6) Clairlea Park (7) Thorncliffe Park (8) Cawthra Square (9) Peanut Plaza (10) Little Italy

Because of the varying history of community safety activity in each site, different levels of community capacity and interest in doing such work, the community safety process we are involved in each area is distinct, at a different stage of development, and will have different expected outcomes. Therefore, communities did not necessarily identify the physical safety audit process to be a focus of activity but considered it to be a component within a community-specific safety strategy, as appropriate. In other cases, community capacity was sufficiently weak that there was not will nor interest in conducting safety audits.

Community Safety Themes:

In terms of determining themes of community safety, a couple of points should be made. First, no two neighbourhoods identified the same themes. Second, the samples of community perceptions were inherently selective and unrepresentative (for instance, not enough young people participated). Third, in reality, within each neighbourhood there were conflicts about the key themes. Nevertheless, these are the key community safety perceptions resulting from our work:

(a) Concern with lack of organized diversions for youth; (b) Drug dealing; (c) Hate crimes; (d) Dangerous traffic patterns; (e) Breaking and Entering; (f) Concerns that their area will have a bad reputation; (g) Lack of, or inappropriate responsiveness of police; (h) Maintenance and built form issues - these are particularly important on MTHA sites; and (i) lack of parks for kids.

Summary of Activities:

Below is a summary of the community safety activities carried out across Toronto by the Community Development Officer (Community and Neighbourhood Services). These activities were carried out between November 1999 and May 2000 as part of a broader Community-Based Crime Prevention strategy carried out under the CAP funding allocated to Community and Neighbourhood Services. It should be noted that many of the initiatives to be discussed below involve cross-departmental work with Parks and Recreation, Economic Development and Planning, the Department of Public Health, the Police and other staff from the Community Resources Unit.

(1) Location: St. Jamestown Councillors: Pam McConnell, Jack Layton Police Division: 51 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

High rises towers, both public and private. The private ones appear to be maintained less well; there appears to be some difficulty in getting the building management to put in money for necessary improvements. Councillor McConnell is working with the private landlords to improve this. This is a diverse community, one of the gateway communities to Canada for new immigrants. Settlement issues are significant.

Community Capacity issues:

The neighbourhood, because it is so large, has many different groups representing interests of tenants. Some of these are organized by building, some by ethnic group or interest group, some are pan-St. Jamestown. A number of key services in the area get involved in a broader range of issues. An example of this would be Growing Together - ostensibly a program for pregnant women, young parents and children - it also plays a key role in many other community-based initiatives. There has also been continuing involvement in community development work by the Community Development Officer and the Community Health Officer of CNS.

Until recently (1997-98) there was an active safety committee. This group of residents and agencies is committed to a safety-minded community in the St. Jamestown neighbourhood through strong community involvement, special events and improved communication and awareness of safety issues. They have done a number of safety audits in the mid-1990s. Strategies resulting from the audits include building safer playgrounds using designs that deter criminal activity, and developing respectful co- operative relations amongst local residents as well as between residents and property managers. The Committee has also brought together residents from different cultural groups with local agencies to address safety issues.

This process has recently been revived (see below)

Perceptions of safety/concerns re: crime:

There are concerns typical of high rise housing areas - poor lighting, dangerous walk ways, under utilized green space, poor maintenance.

(a) Also concerned that there are not enough things for young people to do. With so many residents, it is inevitable that young people congregate in public areas, and this makes some people nervous.

(b) Concerned about drug dealing.

(d) Hate Crimes identified as a big issue, with people being subject to racial slurs and attacks.

(e) Relations with the police need to improve.

Action and Next steps:

With a grant from the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC), St. Jamestown has been able to hire a full-time community development worker to work on safety issues (one year funding). The Safety Committee and its work has been revived, new audits have been organized and a broad range of community-based crime prevention activities have been initiated. The role of the CDO has been to support to this worker through:

(a) membership on community safety steering committee

(b) member of program evaluation committee (2) Location: Broadview/Gerrard Councillors: Jack Layton / Pam McConnell Police Division: 55 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

The neighbourhood is a co-op housing project, consisting of about 300 town houses, which open right out onto the street, but they also have back yards. There is a very narrow laneway behind all of the houses, and because houses are poorly lit, this provides an access point for B and Es. There are some court yards/parks similar to other MTHA sites - courtyards that are under utilized and in poor repair.

Community Capacity issues:

The community is made up of mostly East Asian residents, many who cannot speak English. There is a resident’s association, but it is small and they report that they have historically had difficulty in getting people involved. Even around safety issues, residents are reticent at looking for collective solutions. They are focussed more on personal safety. Language-cultural issues also mean that people often forgo reporting crime to Police.

Perceptions of safety/concerns re: crime:

The Resident’s association was responding to concerns from local residents about:

(a) B and Es (people breaking in through the back windows, often after ringing the front door to confirm no one is home). Because of high (but broken down) fences, incredibly poor lighting in the rear of houses, and that there are few eyes on the street, people feel vulnerable. Many/most of the houses have bars on their front at grade windows. Police have remarked that this is a telling feature of the community - that residents are displaying their fear. Police have also indicated that there is a high perception of crime in an area when police records do not reflect high crime statistics.

(b) There was also concern about the purse snatching of elderly victims. However, after a few arrests of young people from outside the area, the number of offenses decreased dramatically. The view of the residents is that the crimes are being committed by drug addicts.

Action and Next steps:

On November 1, there was a safety audit with the residents, Councillor Layton (and staff), Police from 55 Division and the CDO responsible for community safety. The whole area was audited, with suggestions on improvements from the Safety Audit including: (a) Install new lighting in all alleyways in between backyards, courtyard and playground. Councillor Layton is working with Management and Toronto Hydro to speed up the process.

(b) Trimming of trees.

(c) Ask all residents to turn on their back light after dark. This is the key to deter break and enters from the back door.

(d) More police patrols between 6pm to 8pm on streets and alleyways, especially on bad weather days. Councillor Layton has already sent the request to 55 Division.

(e) Establish A Neighbourhood Watch, elect block captain.

(f) Community Complaint Form can be distributed to everyone so that people can report problems to 55 Division. The form will be available at the Safety Fair.

(g) Condo Board can have a newsletter monthly update to raise awareness in the community.

(h) Suggested exploring the possibility of removing the back lanes altogether.

(i) Residents to take ownership of park and courtyard. For instance, have parties in the common area.

Another follow up was a Safety Fair, that was held at the entrance of the neighbourhood on a Saturday morning in mid-November. This was staffed by the community safety CDO, Police and Councillor Layton. Information was distributed; samples of items that would make doors and windows more secure were available. Contact was made with over 50 residents passing by. This was considered a successful event.

(3) Location: Wilcox Creek (Malvern, Scarborough) Councillors: Raymond Cho, Bas Balkissoon Police Division: 42 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

This neighbourhood consists of two co-ops that back on to each other in the Malvern area. It is located adjacent to a strip mall that has been the scene of many problems. There have been four shootings there in the past year. Most troubles focus on a neighbourhood restaurant. The neighbourhood itself consists of townhouses that from the outside are fairly well kept. There is a road that goes down the middle of the co-op, and in the centre is a Community Centre. Community Capacity issues:

The board of this co-op is quite active. The manager of the co-op works relentlessly in this neighbourhood and on other broader issues in Malvern. There is a maintenance committee that is now focussed on safety issues. There is some tension between residents who are more active around safety issues and those who are not.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

(a) A local restaurant is the focus of residents’ concerns - people fear what happens there, and also feel it brings a bad reputation to the surrounding area.

(b) The lighting through much of the area is poor - bushes need to be trimmed. Some people don’t feel safe walking through the area.

(d) Traffic is considered a problem - people use the co-op as a short-cut and cut through at very high speeds. People are worried for their children.

Action and Next steps:

The CDO has worked with the board (and maintenance committee) of the co-op.

(a) Did a presentation on Community Based Crime Prevention (April 12)

(b) Did safety audit training with members of the Scarborough Safety Council, police rep. from 42 division and two public health nurses.

(d) The property owner of the plaza has agreed to NOT renew the lease of the restaurant.

(4) Location: Mt. Dennis Councillors: Frances Nunziata, Bill Saundercook Police Division: 12 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

A working class area in the Weston / Lawrence. It is a very poor area with a number of problems. The main street (Weston Road) consists of a number of stores, many of which are unoccupied, while others have been converted to apartments. Lots of youth issues - residents report that there are real gangs there. Very multi-cultural area. Community Capacity issues:

This is hard to determine based on our intervention. The audit organized out of Councillor Nunziata’s office, was widely advertized in the area, yet only a few local residents showed up - it was mostly City staff, with the City lead from Economic Development. The residents who did show up were clearly committed people. There needs to be greater outreach to other stakeholders in the neighbourhood. This would require a much more focused and extensive community development effort in order to engage the broader community in community-based crime prevention activities.

Perceptions of safety/concerns re: crime:

For this safety audit, we met at the local Legion hall, and from there did an extensive walk-about along Weston Road. In attendance were Economic Development staff, a representative from the Black Creek BIA, a uniformed officer from 12 Division, three residents, a City employee from Works, Councillor Nunziata and two staff from her and CNS staff. Most of the focus was on the streetscape and the issues were:

(a) poor garbage pick-up and lack of garbage cans

(b) economically depressed business area (much of the local business disappeared when the factories in the neighbourhood reduced their lunch hours to ½ hours from 2 hours)

(d) Grafitti

(e) Stores breaking local rules (e.g. displaying materials onto sidewalks, obstructing safe walking).

Action and Next steps:

One of the main objectives of this audit was to support the BIA process, which apparently requires a safety audit and / or a strong community group to initiate it. This is based on the sound idea that if businesses can be encouraged to set up shop in this economically depressed area, the streets will take on a different character, and will become more safe. This audit was focused on an urban developmental/physical environment approach, using CEPTED principles.

Conclusions:

At this time, there doesn’t appear to be a direct need to follow up on this issue. It is possible that there may be a need to do more community development work. (5) Location: Alexandra Park Councillors: Olivia Chow, Kyle Rae Police Division: 52 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Townhouse MTHA site located south of Dundas, between Bathurst and Spadina. Almost 500 units. They have been in the process of co-op conversion for the last several years. No services - public or private - on site, though there is a community centre on the periphery. Used to be a community health centre bordering on the neighbourhood. Residents from many different backgrounds. People are concerned that this area not be stereotyped as an impoverished, crime ridden area.

Community Capacity issues:

There is a resident’s association that is steering the co-op conversion project and is in charge of the community centre. Due to the death of a key local community figure a couple of years ago, and much turnover on the local residents’ association in recent years, the association has been going through a process of rejuvenation. It is now governed by some new people who are very keen, but who also acknowledge that they need more experience/expertise to achieve their goals. The community centre has also been neglected, but in the last several months, with our assistance, it is being brought back into the picture. They will need some support over the coming years to bring them up to speed to take on the conversion. There will also need to be work done with the residents.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

There are concerns about drug dealers in the area, though it is not as bad as it used to be. Because the neighbourhood is an enclave similar to other MTHA sites (like Yorkwoods-Grand Ravine), it is somewhat isolated from surrounding communities.

The people in Alexander Park also feel there is need for more programming for youth, but at the same time are very concerned about anything that will negatively impact on the public image of the area.

Action and Next steps:

We have been involved in supporting the revival of the community centre. This has included providing support for a process to hire a community development worker, and later, a program coordinator for the centre. We have also been supporting their efforts to do a needs assessment and consultations re: the centre.

The Board is interested in exploring safety issues (once the weather warms up), but more importantly sees the need to improve community capacity - will mean a stronger capacity to deal with safety, co-op conversion and the revitalization of the community centre. Some of the things that the community safety CDO and other CDO in the area are exploring with the Board include:

(a) Resourcing the Recreation Centre

(b) Board structure: governance of the Residents Association (Co-op conversion) and the Recreation Centre intertwined.

(d) Community Support

(e) Scan of Stakeholders

Jane Finch area:

The work done on the following seven sites (6 through 12) in the Jane-Finch area are part of a pilot project headed by the City’s planning department in North York. This pilot involves a partnership between the City of Toronto, MTHA, and the communities involved. Several site visits, community consultations and walk-abouts took place in all seven areas, and were augmented by other research. An “Opportunities Matrix” was developed to assess community needs. In the future there will be more work re: social services infrastructure. A certain outcome of the pilot project will be the application of community-based crime prevention strategies in the future.

(6) Location: Yorkwoods-Grand Ravine (MTHA site at Jane Finch) Councillors: Maria Augimeri, Peter Li Preti - Ward 7 Police Division: 31 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

This is a town-house style MTHA site that has a north and a south side. There are over 1500 residents living in 303 units. One of the highest turnover rates amongst MTHA sites in Jane-Finch. Connection to the surrounding areas is not good - on one side, private residences, on another, a school, another a field (w/community centre). Shopping is not close by - residents have to walk a long way. There are no significant services (public or private) or public spaces that seem obvious draws for public interaction and community building. In Edgeley, another Jane/Finch MTHA site, there is the shopping strip mall in the middle, as well as a day care, but here there is nothing much. It is important to consider that the layout creates two separate sites – it is not clear how they relate to each other. Overall, the layout is very confusing and hard to navigate. They have a new playground built from funding from the Raptors Foundation. However, the other more dispersed playgrounds have been removed (for Health and Safety reasons, most playgrounds in the Jane/Finch MTHA sites have been removed). Community Capacity issues:

Community capacity is very weak here. A large community, no recent (or visible) history of community activism. A few residents showed up for our walk about who had lived here a long time and suggested that there were not safety issues. At the same time these residents mentioned that many people in the area are socially isolated. They have hired a CD worker from a National Crime Prevention Council grant (similar to that described above in St. Jamestown) - this will be a key person in the role of community building.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

Not all residents have fears for safety, despite “expert” opinions on the design. Long term residents feel safer, but also remark that many of the residents are socially isolated. Certain design features do mitigate against natural surveillance, and reduce opportunities for neighbours to meet. For instance, doors and windows are at grade and open directly onto the walkway. People keep drapes closed, and this reduces the eyes on the streets. It seems unlikely that people feel they can take possession of the space directly in front of their houses. Not all the houses have back gardens. Signage is clearly inadequate, and should be spread throughout the project. Parking is raised above grade - makes for safety issues because you can’t see what’s going on from the streets or pathways.

Action and Next steps:

The plan has been to do some work to support the new community development worker. The community capacity is really weak, and will need to be addressed before any other community based crime prevention strategies can be implemented. Potential physical design changes:

(1) New community centre (located outside the neighbourhood) is too small and is underutilized by Yorkwoods residents. It needs to be turned into more effective community space.

(2) Need for adult public space:

(a) e.g. benches and chess tables at Raptors basketball court

(b) residents would also like a public gathering place with flowers and landscaping, either near the corner of Grandravine/Driftwood, or near the basketball court to allow parents to interact and also supervise their children.

(3) Signage and mapping should be improved. - Even residents cannot locate addresses.

(4) Basic services are absent: no deliveries or municipal services. (5) Problems with access and poor street organization.

(6) No maps at parking lots or foot paths; need readable, accurate maps throughout site.

(7) Coloured lines and pathways may help, similar to a hospital, which direct to general areas, but problem of snow covering in winter.

(8) Creation of gateways and street-like footpaths.

(7) Location: Edgeley (MTHA site at Jane Finch) Councillors: Maria Augimeri, Peter Li Preti - Ward 7 Police Division: 31 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

This site has 568 dwellings, and 3340 residents. Of all the Jane-Finch sites, this one has, on average, the highest number of persons per household (5.9 - compare to 2999 Jane, with 2.9 people per household). This is a spatially complex site. It is really like four different communities which are all architecturally distinct - a southern one, a single high rise, Edgeley and Shoreham. These four communities are all separated by roads, schools, fields, etc. They also relate to the surrounding areas in fundamentally different ways. Considering how significant boundaries are to inward-looking MTHA sites, it is not clear the degree to which residents see themselves as one community, and the degree to which we can assume all needs are identical.

The shopping plaza in the middle is a positive design feature and unique to all the sites and means that shopping is accessible. Also a childcare facility is attached.

Community Capacity issues:

They have a residents association that seems to draw people from all the different sites in the area. It is not clear what activities they are involved in, or to what degree they are representative, and they do remark that they are somewhat exhausted and discouraged. However, the residents from the townhouses seem to be more engaged in the process than do the people in the highrise. It is unclear if there is any community development/organizational support (compared to Tobermory). There is active MTHA staff - the improvements made here appear to be due to the active property manager and tenant capacity. There is some tension between residents and the MTHA administration, typical of most landlord/residents relationships where the landlord is seen to be a position of control as well as service provider. Barriers related to the functioning of a typical neighbourhood exist: issues of civic engagement and citizenship.

In terms of safety, it is important to note that 10-15 years ago this was an area with an active safety committee, neighbourhood watch (as reported by Crime Concern). They even managed to bridge the gap with the surrounding areas - having residents from the private residential areas sit on their safety committee. The committee is no longer active.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

People are very concerned about drug dealers - because our walk-abouts occurred during the day, it is hard to really appreciate what this feels like or looks like to residents. Some of the built form issues relating to this include:

(a) Squares in the sites are run down.

(b) Relationship to the ravine needs to be looked at. There is currently a fence there - the idea being to keep drug dealers out, but it is not clear it is that effective.

(d) Two hills in the central area have served no function for 17 years - tenants want to dig them out themselves. This area presents lots of opportunities. Presently, it is seen as an eyesore and a place where drug dealers can elude the police. As well, it is currently a major (though undeveloped) access route for Edgeley residents to get to Driftwood. A public park could be created where everyone could see into it and see what their children are doing.

(e) Need replaced playgrounds. Youth need more than a basketball hoop.

Signage, as with many MTHA sites, is also an issue - they offer no assistance with orientation. The addresses are located on sides of townhouses - requires guests to enter the development and/or knock on doors to find their location (e.g. 490 Driftwood or 490 Shoreham). Tees block the signs; the maps are in awkward locations and are illegible.

As with many MTHA townhouse sites, the layout presents problems in terms of access and community safety. For instance, no deliveries are made because there is only one way in and out of the community. Residents report that “No one comes here”. Not only is pizza delivery not possible, residents report that even social workers will not enter and must be met in the community centre. Some residents feel that police only enter when there is a tragedy, like a shooting. Finally, there is no consideration of the needs of physically disabled people: no parking, paths in poor condition/worn down and damaged by tree roots. (8) Location: Firgrove (MTHA site at Jane Finch) Councillors: Maria Augimeri, Peter Li Preti - Ward 7 Police Division: 31 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Site includes high rise, town houses, but mostly three storey terraced walk-ups. 380 units and almost 2000 residents. In terms of architecture and layout, this area won a design award in the 1970s. Once inside the site, however, the chaotic nature of the general design and sprawl of the building makes it like a maze. Under the three story apartments, there are parking garages open at both ends that are full of hiding spots. The hallways through the buildings are open thoroughfares - in some cases because the locks on the doors are often broken. Kids cut through, going to and from school. Hallways and stairs are seen as places where drug dealing occurs. These spaces are also very unsanitary - this is important to consider as this is the gateway to people’s homes.

Like many MTHA sites, signage and numbering of units are confusing and not clearly marked. This makes access through the complex difficult and very confusing for police and other service providers. Orientation to Jane St. is functionable, but the surrounding schools and their massive fields tend to isolate Firgrove even further from the surrounding residential areas.

Community Capacity issues:

An active community appears to exist. The people who turned out for our walk-about were diverse in terms of age and ethno-racial background, and were very engaged in their community. Several of the things that support the strong community capacity include:

(a) the fact they have active community development workers on site; (b) they have an engaged project manager; and (c) the on-site community services and public facilities are rather well developed.

There is a swimming pool, however, it is not always used by people other than children, because it is not seen as being well-maintained.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

There are significant concerns historically with strangers coming into the area for the purposes of drug dealing. Some of the architectural features enable this. For instance:

(a) the underground garages are open access with lots of dark hiding spaces;

(b) in the three story walk ups (which are also easily accessible) the stairs present a big problem from a safety perspective, and there are often people hanging around. Problems with moving furniture in and out. Bringing groceries home (especially for parents with children), bringing strollers up stairs. Lots of hiding places behind and under the stairs. Become places for loitering - likely to increase fear and risk of crime;

(d) doors on the front of buildings not secure;

(e) lack of things for teenagers to do. Open spaces are not designed to encourage a broad range of people to use them. Teens hang out in the garages and hallways and stairwells in the colder weather, or go over to the mall. Inadequate organized youth activities.

Action and Next steps:

(a) Without a major investment in fixing some of the structural design problems (the garages, for instance) - some of the opportunities for crime will continue.

(b) Community capacity is strong, so there is some opportunity to build.

(9) Location: Jane / Milo (MTHA site at Jane Finch) Councillors: Maria Augimeri, Peter Li Preti - Ward 7 Police Division: 31 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

A single high rise tower on Jane street a couple of blocks north of Finch. 162 units, and 526 residents. From the outside, it looks nicer than most of the high rises in the area (both public and private). The balconies have been upgraded recently; currently they are doing major renovations on the underground parking garage. They want to do work on the garbage disposal area, because residents from the private housing area behind the site are constantly dropping off their large garbage (furniture, etc.). The inside of the building is well-maintained and there are a number of on-site services. Very well developed.

Community Capacity issues:

Many members of the community showed up for the meeting - they are organized. They have a strong property manager and an engaged group of residents. The on-site social services play an active role as well.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime: They have installed cameras underground in the parking garage, but overall, the residents report “no major safety issues” with regards to problems with drugs, youth or vandalism. Action and Next steps:

Residents identified the need for more youth activities, and the need to have their children’s’ playground returned.

(10) Location: Tobermorey (MTHA site at Jane Finch) Councillors: Maria Augimeri, Peter Li Preti - Ward 7 Police Division: 31 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Tobermorey is a high rise at the corner of Finch and Driftwood. It has 422 units, and over 1600 residents. It was originally built by private developers, but was purchased for public housing in the 1970s.

Community Capacity Issues:

Tobermory used to be one of the more notorious public housing sites in the Jane-Finch area. It was identified as centre for drug dealing (particularly in the lobby), and was an undesirable place to live. Since the 80s, the community capacity has been built up to the point where it is now a model for community organizing. The result is that it is no longer a major drug dealing centre. There are now a number of community services on the main floor with a high degree of community involvement, and the local tenants association is active. The community capacity is high.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

(1) Indoor Community Space:

(a) Many programs compete for limited indoor space and popular programs have exceeded the available capacity

(b) Programs need more funding and more physical space

(2) Public Space:

(a) Outdoor space is rarely used for program activities.

(b) Active outdoor space (playground, basketball court) is spoiled by strong winds, and is subject to vandalism due to its location behind the building.

(c) Access to the ravine could be improved although safety concerns may limit use. (d) Yellowstone townhouses lack indoor and outdoor public space and programs. Residents identified a basket ball court and children’s play area could replace some parking, which is in excess of what is needed.

(3) Public Facilities:

(a) Community Centre and Youth Programs: Key challenge in getting youth to use the community centre’s programs.

(b) There is “unassigned space” to “hang out”; no room for them to design their own programs and activities.

(d) Library: residents identified the library as a service that needs attention - not clear that it is meeting community needs; the design of the building does not lend itself to attracting a vibrant community.

(e) Landscaping: no trees on MTHA side of street.

Action and Next Steps:

General impression:

Tobermory is not in great need of safety interventions, relatively speaking. A great example of successful community capacity-building, a fairly decent physical environment, an involved community with high energy that has identified its needs. However, the external environment is somewhat controversial. Some reluctance on the part of staff to support improvements that would encourage loitering (ex. Benches along side of the basketball court). At the same time, external environment is important in any community - need to explore further the possibilities for encouraging residents to use outdoor space (barbecues, community gardens, better basketball facilities, benches, etc).

(11) Location: 2999 Jane (MTHA site at Jane Finch) Councillors: Maria Augimeri, Peter Li Preti - Ward 7 Police Division: 31 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

This is a high rise complex just south of Jane-Finch mall. 184 units, 526 people - the lowest ratio of people per unit of all 7 Jane-Finch sites. This used to be a seniors residence. The site is located along major transportation routes and is near to shopping. It still has the highest percentage of seniors of all the 7 Jane / Finch sites (18 percent vs, a range of 3 percent to 13 percent on other sites). However, now one third of the residents are below 20 years of age. The building is very run down, in stark contrast to Jane-Milo or Tobermorey.

Community Capacity issues:

Unrealized community capacity potential, as lots of vocal residents showed up (over 20). Not a strong history of community involvement, yet the turn out of local residents suggests opportunities to move forward. The people don’t actually have an organized tenant’s association, but they seemed organized for the meeting. They had a prepared list of issues they wished to discuss - most revolving around maintenance.

Overall, less developed community capacity here: tenants unorganized and focused on issues related to building maintenance.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

People are concerned about safety issues. The front door lock doesn’t work, so the building is essentially open to all. The building hasn’t been re-keyed in years, so there are lots of keys floating about, and some keys gain you access to many apartments. Concerned about drug dealers, and strangers getting access to the building. Issues arising from safety:

(1) MTHA maintenance issues: these issues are primary (especially locks), and seemingly a priority above other more grand improvements. Conditions in some apartments deplorable, lots of incidences of vandalism and throwing of garbage, elevator repairs, weekend security to protect elevators, underground garage security, access for the disabled, access to parking passes without compromising safety

(2) Playground No longer an all-seniors building. Need a playground for children. Nowhere else to go except pool across street. Need a basketball court. MTHA says it is replacing the playground here this year.

(3) Benches and landscaping. People would like benches located at the front of the building - this would help encourage defensible space, and would be handy for both elderly residents and young parents. Also, there is a lot of empty, underutilized space at the back of building - could use barbeque, or a gazebo, etc.

Action and Next steps:

MTHA management now aware of the issues, and will be working to make improvements, as budget permits. They are currently investing in improving the underground parking. Residents appear to be in the developmental stages of organizing. (12) Location: Sheppard/Arleta (MTHA site at Jane Finch) Councillors: Maria Augimeri, Peter Li Preti - Ward 7 Police Division: 31 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Townhouse complex along Sheppard Avenue. 42 units and 160 residents. A unique design compared to Tobermory and York Woods/Grand Ravine - two streets run parallel here: no maze effect. Removed from other sites and different from the Jane and Finch area, physically and socially. Also differs from Edgeley or Yorkwoods in that it doesn’t consist of a super block cut off from the rest of the neighbourhood. In fact, this site is more successfully integrated into the surrounding urban environment.

Community Capacity issues:

There is no organized tenant’s association here, and few people were interested in our visit. No on-site services.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

There are some concerns re: safety, particularly stemming from the passage ways underneath some of the buildings. They are poorly lit (dependent on tenants putting on their own outside lights at their own expense), and have hidden spots that people can access.

Action and Next steps:

May be appropriate to focus on the needs assessment / social infrastructure improvements in this area: perhaps something to learn from this area, for duplication in Jane-Finch proper.

(13) Location: 427 – Burnamthorpe Councillors: Doug Holyday, Dick O’Brien Ward 4 Police Division: 22 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Consists of several neighbourhoods. Includes some MTHA sites, and private single- occupancy neighbourhoods.

Community Capacity issues:

Apparently there is a degree of tension between the MTHA residents and local ratepayers. There is a very active community/residents association in the area that also has social service providers involved. Clear distancing between ratepayers and MTHA residents in community meetings. Those involved with community businesses feel overwhelmed at this time - stretched to the limit.

Perceptions of safety/concerns re: crime:

Most recent concerns of ratepayers about crime came about because of a couple events, including: (a) the return of a known paedophile to the area; and (b) a murder that happened at one of the MTHA sites. The ratepayers became active, demanding the local council get busy. Suggested cameras be installed, and that people entering and leaving the MTHA site be monitored and controlled. MTHA residents at the meeting are concerned about drug dealing and B and Es, but do not depict the crime situation as being so urgent. Residents are also concerned about how the perceptions of crime are being used to tarnish the reputation of residents of MTHA sites. Action and Next steps:

Did a presentation on community-based crime prevention, which was well received. Because of community capacity issues, people don’t feel that the time is right to move into conducting safety audits or surveys. Also concerned that such activities will exacerbate the tensions between tenants and ratepayers. May be interested in doing some sort of safety fair in the spring or summer. The CDO for the area is involved with this group, and will continue to monitor local concerns about safety issues.

(14) Location: Clairlea Park Councillors: Gerry Altobello, Brian Ashton Police Division: 41 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

The area of the audit is a park that is surrounded on three sides by single family residential housing, and on the other side by an indoor soccer facility. Across the road is a specialized technical high school that draws students not from the immediate area.

Community Capacity issues:

The neighbourhood is characterised by old (1950s) housing, and several new developments. The school as an institution does not appear to be tied into the local community. The Soccer Centre seems to be distanced from community involvement/responses.

Perceptions of safety/concerns re: crime:

The work on safety in this area has been done by Parks and Recreation, who conducted a safety audit last Fall and made several significant upgrades to the park. An audit was requested because of concerns about youth activities. Some of the concerns cited in the audit included: “Teen gang vandalism and disturbance (noise, drinking and drug use) in the park. Reports of youth demonstrating threatening behaviour by private security firm, police and neighbours. Adjacent Scarborough Soccer Centre also subject to vandalism by youth.”. Many of these problems are identified with the students who attend the nearby school. Because many of them are commuters, the problems seem to diminish in the summer months when school is out. Young people are not openly allowed to use the Soccer Centre - which is not a recreation centre, but a single use facility. As a result, there is antagonism between young people and those who operate the centre. Young people do hang out around the centre - there are lots of hiding places and large bushes around it. Because the youth are commuters, they are not recognisable to area residents.

A clear issue in terms of community based crime prevention is that youth are the subject of local concerns, but do not appear to be engaged in the evaluation of problems, nor in the development of solutions. Action and Next steps:

Parks and Recreation conducted an audit in the Clairlea Park area on Sept. 16, 1999. Improvements were made in terms of lighting, many bushes were trimmed, particularly around the Soccer Club, and a wild field was cut down and made more useable. In order to deal with local issues, Parks and Recreation staff discussed the following next steps:

(1) P and R staff will meet with the school staff in March to discuss:

(a) The possibility of some focus groups with youth (which would be supported/conducted by the community safety CDO)

(b) Opportunities for collaboration - for example: A gazebo project for the park that would involve the City supplying the materials, and the school bringing students in to build the gazebo as a project.

(2) Youth consultations, to be conducted in May. Focus on two broad groups:

(a) kids from the school

(b) the kids who hang around the park ( the ones the local residents are afraid of)

(3) Safety Audit evaluation / follow-up - The audit will be revisited to see what local residents think of the changes that have resulted. (15) Location: Little Italy Councillors: Joe Pantalone, Mario Silva - Trinity-Niagara Police Division: 14 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

This area is bound by Dovercourt in the West, Bathurst in the East, Harbord in the North and Queen in the South. The area is composed mostly of single and semi-detached housing. In recent years, the business strip along College Street has gone through a major renewal and is now an important entertainment district. However, the same can not be said for Dundas in the south. Large settlements by Italians, Portuguese, Vietnamese, and Chinese.

Community Capacity issues:

LIRA (Little Italy Residents Association) is the key community group in the area; has been around for several years. They have become involved in the local Out of the Cold program, among other things. Most of the LIRA members are homeowners. Many community residents are renters. LIRA has a good and ongoing connection with Councillor Pantalone’s office, and with the local schools.

Perceptions of safety/concerns re: crime:

Overall, people feel it is a safe area. The main concerns about College are with regard to noise issues (bars leaving their doors open until late at night to attract customers) garbage collection, and the impact of parking. The community feels that many of the local businesses are not responsive to local concerns. Because the strip is controlled for the most part by one landlord, they feel it is difficult to make changes.

In the area between Dundas and College, people feel it is safe, and are not that interested in safety audits. Along Dundas, there are a few business establishments that are causing them problems, with some concern that drug dealing and prostitution may be operating out these establishments. Ownership of these businesses changed hands several times. There is some feeling of helplessness as there has been difficulty in getting the Alcohol and Gaming Commission to revoke licenses. The City can conduct some inspections. Police have indicated they can do little.

Finally, traffic is another issue. There are no major north/south traffic routes through this part of town, which means cars rushing through side streets constantly, day and night, presenting a significant traffic safety issue.

Action and Next steps:

Presentation on Community Based Crime Prevention provided in February. The community is not interested in safety audits or in a survey on Perceptions of Crime. It looks to the Councillor’s office in taking a lead in addressing their concerns. (16) Location: Peanut Plaza Councillors: Gordon Chong, Denzil Minnan-Wong Police Division: 33 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Peanut Plaza is a peanut-shaped piece of land located in North York near Don Mills, between Sheppard and Finch. In the Peanut, there are a number of high rise apartments, a high school, and on the north end, a small shopping plaza. Also in the middle is a community centre, with sports facilities, and a number of community services. Ringing the Peanut are a number of other high rise apartments. Behind them are neighbourhoods of middle class detached housing. A neighbourhood of ethno-cultural diversity. Most seem to come from East Africa (Somalis), Middle East, India and Sri Lanka (Tamils). The area is perceived as a troubled area. The local high school - Vanier - has a bad rep with many people in spite of clear improvements over the years.

Community Capacity issues:

Oriole Community Services Association is a multi-service agency (city funded) - about 15 agencies serving the area work out of this site. Many of these groups are ethno-racial and work on settlement issues. Other agencies are providing outreach at the site. Does not appear to be over-arching residents groups. Many of the buildings have organized tenants groups.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

- problems with young people at the Plaza and at the high school - word is that the high school is not nearly as problematic as it once was.

Action and Next steps:

On May 2, did a Community Safety training workshop with a group of residents (ESL). Did this in partnership with Oriole Parkway Community Association, and an officer from 33 Division. Police statistics show that crime has actually dropped in recent years in the area, and there has been a dramatic drop in car thefts, for instance. This presentation was very well received.

(17) Location: Cawthra Square Councillors: Kyle Rae, Olivia Chow Police Division: 52 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Cawthra Square is a park in a built up urban area off Church and Wellesley. The area combines an active business / entertainment district, with residences of different configurations, including row houses, walk up apartments, high rise apartments, etc. The area is also significant in Toronto as it is the centre of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. As a result, many people who live elsewhere in Toronto feel some degree of ownership over the area. There are a number of services in the area, most significantly (with reference to Cawthra Square) is the 519 community centre.

Community Capacity issues:

A very active area, but not one community. Many different stakeholder groups from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered communities, street youth, local residents characterized by different ethno-racial, class and sexual orientation backgrounds. A complex area because there are no single views or perspectives on the community. However, it is an area that has historically demonstrated a degree of tolerance for difference.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

An area like this, with so many (competing) stakeholders, demonstrates one of the difficulties in implementing community-based crime prevention strategies. There is not agreement on what is transgressive behaviour, and definitions of such are very much determined by the stakeholders who are able to assert their views, and by state institutions such as the Police.

Action and Next steps:

Parks and Recreation chose this area to conduct a safety audit last summer. Key players included several residents and some city staff, including CNS staff. Things to come out of the Park Audit –

(a) People didn’t like street youth. They sit at the north back end. People apparently feel intimidated. Young people are seen to use the park as a bathroom, and that young people drink back there and throw beer bottles over the walls.

(b) Dogs a problem - they chew up the whole north half. Costs $10,000.00 annually to replace. However, dog walkers are a vocal constituency here.

Community is very divided about park use. Many feel that those who were present on the walk were not representative of the broader communities.

Parks and Recreation decided:

(a) New lights (b) Dog run (will consult the community) (c) Expand children’s program (see St. Jamestown above) Decision to not pursue an aggressive crime prevention strategy in the short run. Community organizations are concerned that this might create greater tension in the community.

(18) Location: Panorama Court Councillors: Elizabeth Brown, Bruce Sinclair Police Division: 23 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Panorama Court is a Rexdale community that is off of Kipling Avenue, north of Albion Road. It borders on the grounds of Thistletown. Along the road are five high rise apartment towers, all privately owned. Residents are mixed - this is a very ethno-culturally diverse neighbourhood. Along the street there is also a school, a church, and the main road that is an entrance to Thistletown. People have to walk quite a way for shopping purposes if they don’t have a car. One of the buildings has a small convenience store at the bottom. Given the dearth of local commercial enterprises, this store is seen as a key resource by local residents.

Community Capacity issues:

There is no over arching community association. Few of the buildings have tenants associations. There would have to be a great deal of capacity building done here before any successful community-based crime prevention approaches could be put in place. This would be a long term and labour-intensive activity.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

People are aware that there are crime problems in the larger area - that some of the buildings along Kipling have problems with drugs, etc. and some shootings.

Along Panorama Court, the issues focus on those things often associated with high rises: (a) parking garages and safety; and (b) lobbies and strangers getting access to them. At this time, the residents felt that the new property manager and superintendent had made improvements in both these areas. People don’t feel that B and Es are particularly a problem.

The road leading up to the apartments is not always well-lit, and there are places where the bushes create entrapment spots. There have been some reports of muggings and purse snatching along this route, but people don’t feel that it is a huge concern. People in this neighbourhood are concerned about the reputation of the area, and don’t want it thought of as a high crime area. Action and Next steps:

Met with several residents, who were identified by Councillor Brown’s office. They are knowledgeable about their area, and are committed residents. However, they are not particularly interested in devoting their efforts to community safety in the immediate term. They might be interested in doing a safety audit or something with other residents when the weather warms up.

(19) Location: Thorncliffe Park Councillors: Case Ootes, Jane Pitfield, Michael Prue Police Division: 53 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

A large area with many high rise apartments, two shopping malls, several schools, private residential areas, etc.

Community Capacity issues:

This is a very diverse community. Many different cultural groups, including Suni Moslems from India and Pakistan, East Africans (including Somali), Filipinos, Serb-Croatian community, Tamil, Greek, Afghani, and mainstream European seniors.

There is much evidence to suggest that this is not an integrated community - history of conflict. As a result, safety activities in the future will have to be more focused and targeted - on a building by building basis, for instance.

They do have some core services in the area, though, the most significant being Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Services - a centre for social and multi-cultural development. Services are mostly focusing on settlement programs - a number of workers with different languages. Also do language instruction for newcomers, settlement work in schools, lunch program, computer access. Small food bank.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

Though the area has a reputation for being tough, and is characterized by youth problems, others feel that this is an issue of perceptions; that talk of gangs is overblown overall, and that youth problems are not so bad.

There were safety audits done three years ago, and one more recently led by Councillor Jane Pitfield. Groups of men and women went out along the main streets - looked mostly at lighting and bushes. The owners of apartment buildings were informed about the need for better lighting, and they provided it. Police from 53 were involved. The police officer involved has a good local reputation. Other results of audit work: (a) yellow tag car stickers - for people who rarely drive late - it alerts police to car theft;

(b) safety workshops for women. Wendo, whistles, safety tips, etc.

The community is active in these areas a couple of times a year.

Action and Next steps:

There doesn’t appear to be an urgent need for more safety audits. In the future, if they are required, residents have experience/systems in place to carry them out.

(20) Location: Chester Le Councillors: Sherene Shaw, Doug Mahood Police Division: 43 Division

Neighbourhood profile:

Chester Le is a neighbourhood near the north-east corner of Victoria Park and Finch. It includes an MTHA site, a school and large park, co-ops, group homes, middle class town houses, and surrounding private residential areas. The area has a diverse ethno-racial mix, and some of this is spread throughout the area.

Community Capacity issues:

Very weak community capacity. The neighbourhood is very divided. The MTHA site used to have some organization happening - this was assisted by a CHO. There is some concern that any activities may stir up divisions in the area.

Perceptions of safety / concerns re: crime:

Our discussions with the police, a public health nurse, and Councillor Sherene Shaw’s office indicate they this area is problematic, especially around the MTHA sites. Further information on the area is required to proceed.

Action and Next steps:

There were plans to conduct some sort of safety consultation this spring, which have not been carried out. However, because the area is divided and community capacity is weak, a safety audit on its own without significant community development work leading up to it may simply be divisive.

______Appendix 2

Perceptions of Safety amongst Homeless People in Toronto

Acknowledgements:

The City of Toronto Community and Neighbourhood Services would like to acknowledge:

Steve Gaetz Community Development Officer (C.A.P.) and author Harvey Low Research tool development Alan Meisner Data Analysis

Collaborating Agencies that contributed reports: Denise Aarons and Gary Craigen – The Community Mental Health Centre, North York East Josie Ricciardi and Calvin Henschel – Regent Park Community Health Centre Darien Taylor – Parkdale Community Health Centre Michele Heath and Reuven Jhirad – Shout Clinic

Sites of focus groups Family Residence – Scarborough Inn on the Creek Newtonbrook Taiwanese United Church (Out Of the Cold Program) Parkdale Community Health Centre Parkdale F.U.N. Group Regent Park Community Health Centre Shout Clinic Sistering 60 Richmond Winter Facility Youthlink Inner City

Many thanks to the hundreds of people who participated in focus groups, street walks and surveys. Without their courage to engage in a discussion of their safety issues, this report could not have been written.

Table of Contents

(I) Introduction (II) Methodology (III) Profile of the Survey Population (IV) Results

(1) Criminal Victimization and Homelessness Criminal Victimization in Canada Homelessness and Criminal Victimization Experience of victimization by marginalized Subgroups within the homeless population (2) Fear of Victimization Homelessness and Fear of Crime (3) Reporting Victimization (4) Safety Strategies and Crime Prevention Homeless People and Safety Strategies

(V) Making Sense of Homelessness and Criminal Victimization

(1) Lack of Adequate Shelter (2) Life history of Victimization (3) Subsistence Strategies (4) Homeless People as a Risk Factor (5) Homeless People Lack Protection

(VI) Conclusions

Bibliography

Notes

______

(I) Introduction:

Since the release of the report, Toronto My City A Safe City, by the Task Force on Community Safety (February 1999), there has been a renewed focus on efforts to improve the safety of all citizens in Toronto. Following from this, as part of the Community Action Policing initiative, City Council requested that community consultations with homeless people re: community safety be conducted:

“Individuals and families who are homeless and use the City’s drop-ins and shelters are often the victims of street crimes. The Department (CNS) will undertake special outreach to the homeless to engage them in community safety discussions and will continue to assist them in accessing shelter and housing as alternatives to street life” (July 6, 1999, Policy and Finance Committee - report from Safer City Task Force re: Community Action Policing (CAP)).

This report summarizes the findings of our consultations with homeless people in Toronto regarding their experiences as victims of crime and concerns about safety. Through 12 focus groups, 4 Safety Audits and 141 surveys, we gauged the perceptions of safety of homeless people in Toronto, whether they were shelter users in downtown Toronto, families in Scarborough, aboriginal people, socially isolated homeless people in North York, or street youth living in squats.

The term criminal victimization here refers to both property crime (theft, robbery) and assault (threats of violence, assault, sexual assault) that homeless people have experienced. The results show that homeless people are much more likely to be victims of such crimes than the general public - by a wide margin. While victimization surveys in Canada generally show that around 25 percent of Canadians report being a victim of a crime in a given year (half of these offences are automobile related), over 85.6 percent of our homeless sample report criminal victimization in the previous six months. Their level of fear and concern for safety is not diminished by such regular episodes of theft and assault. In fact, it evident that high levels of fear of potential victimization has a negative impact on the self-esteem, health and day-to-day lives of homeless people, and in some ways impairs their ability to access services they are entitled to and require in order to move off the streets.

As will become evident, safety is a problem for homeless people for many reasons. First, because homeless people lack the privacy and security of their own homes, their very public lives make them much more vulnerable to assault and theft of personal property. Second, because many homeless people come from backgrounds where they have experienced personal violence (physical, sexual abuse, parental neglect, domestic violence, etc.), it is argued that they are at higher risk for becoming victims as homeless adults. Third, the subsistence strategies homeless people employ in order to survive carry with them great risks for assault, theft and other forms of victimization. Fourth, in some cases homeless people are at increased risk for victimization by other homeless people. Finally, and of great significance here, because of their marginalized status, people who are homeless generally find themselves vulnerable because they are not able to make use of safety practices and strategies, or rely on police and protection services that other Canadians have access to.

This report presents a summary of findings from consultations with homeless people. Through identifying the risks they are exposed to, and their concerns with regards to safety, there is an opportunity to put into place actions that will enhance the safety of homeless people.

(II) Methodology:

In consulting with homeless people about safety, our approach has been to do what is possible to reflect the diversity of the homeless population. That is, because homeless people are not a ‘community’, but in fact are a diverse group of people united by their poverty, it is important to understand that there may be significant differences between street youth vs. older homeless population, for instance, or amongst different ethno-racial groups (including aboriginal Canadians), men and women, lesbian, gay and bisexual persons, those living in different parts of the city, socially isolated persons and homeless families.

Because of the difficulties in conducting random samples with homeless populations, we devised a research strategy to gather information through several processes. In order to capture a sample that was broadly representative of the homeless population, the City of Toronto contracted with several service providers to carry out this work, including Parkdale Community Health Centre, Regent Park Community Health Centre, Shout Clinic, and the Community Mental Health Centre - North York East Centre. These organizations were selected because of their capacity to conduct research and because of their broad-based involvement in working with homeless people. They participated through the following consultative methods: (a) Focus Groups - 12 focus groups were held with 156 participants at locations throughout the City of Toronto. Two were held at an Out of the Cold program in North York (Newtonbrook Taiwanese United Church). In downtown Toronto, focus groups were held at Regent Park CHC, Parkdale CHC, 60 Richmond Winter Shelter, and for street youth, Youthlink Inner City and Shout Clinic. Two focus groups were held with homeless families living at motels along Kingston Road in Scarborough, and were conducted by City of Toronto staff (community resources unit) in partnership with Family Residence.

(b) Surveys - A self-administered survey was designed by City of Toronto staff and was completed by 147 focus group participants. A sample of 141 has been used for statistical analysis (6 were eliminated because they were duplicates or were not complete). The data from the surveys was entered at the City of Toronto, with each survey being numbered sequentially to assure client confidentiality. Data were subsequently ‘cleaned’ and then analyzed using uni-variate and bivariate procedures.

(c) Safety Audit Street Walks - Four safety audits were conducted, in North York, the Regent Park area and Parkdale. In total, 20 homeless people participated.

All agencies participating in this consultation process used standardized questionnaires for focus groups. The content of the consultations focused on homeless people’s: a) experience of victimization, b) their perspectives on safety, c) their responses to victimization, and d) the safety strategies they employ. The homeless people who participated in this research were paid $10, and every effort has been made to ensure their confidentiality. Final reports that summarized the findings of research at each site were prepared by the participating agencies, and information from these documents has been integrated into this report.

The key limitations in this methodology are that, first, those who are extremely socially isolated (who do not come in to agencies) are under-represented, and second, we lacked measures to identify people with mental health issues. Finally, while an examination of criminal offenses committed by the homeless is a significant area of concern, it was deemed to be beyond the scope of this consultation.

(III) Profile of the Survey Population:

Estimates of the size of the homeless population vary. What we do know is that over 25,000 different individuals used hostels in Toronto in 1996, and that the number has been growing since that time. In estimating the size of the homeless population, one must also take account of the fact that there are many homeless people who do not access shelter services, and who are therefore not counted. For our purposes, the definition of homeless people includes those who are: “absolutely, periodically or temporarily without shelter, as well as those who are at substantial risk of being in the street in the immediate future” (Daly, 1996).

From our survey, the profile of the homeless population - in terms of gender, sexual orientation and ethno-racial backgrounds - differs from that of the general population in Toronto in many significant ways. In terms of gender, 57.4 percent of the sample were male, and 42.6 percent were female. When compared to other research on the homeless that generally shows a 2/1 split in favour of males, it is evident that our sample slightly over-represents women. It is often argued that a higher than average percentage of homeless people identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual. In our survey, 77.8 percent defined themselves as heterosexual, and 11.4 percent defined themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while an additional 10.7 percent defined themselves as ‘other’.

In identifying an ethno-racial background for survey participants, we utilized the standard Census categories of Statistics Canada, being aware of their limitations. As seen in Table 1 below, certain minority groups are over-represented in the homeless population, and others are under represented. For instance, while only 0.42 percent of Torontonians identify themselves as Aboriginal Canadians, over 12 percent of our survey sample identified themselves as such.

Table 1: Homeless Sample by Ethno-Racial Background

Ethno-Racial Background No. Percentage

White 74 54.81% Black 24 17.78% Aboriginal 17 12.59% South Asian 8 5.93% Asian 4 2.96% Middle Eastern 3 2.22% OTHER 5 3.70%

N-136 Missing Cases – 5

In our survey, we tried to capture a representation of different age groups. Street youth - 37 percent of the sample - are commonly considered to fall between the ages of 15 and 24. An additional 52 percent of the sample were between the ages of 25 and 49, and 10 percent of the population was 50 or older. The distinguishing feature of the street youth population that we surveyed is that they are less likely to be black or of an aboriginal background, than is the older population.

It is now broadly recognized that families represent an ever-growing percentage of the homeless population. In order to sample this population, we conducted two focus groups through Family Residence in Scarborough, where homeless families are housed in motels. 26 persons participated in the focus groups. However, due to language barriers (many of the families were new Canadians), only 15 participants were able to fill out surveys.

(IV) Results:

In this section, the results of this consultation process with homeless people will be presented. The quantitative measures from the 141 surveys, and the qualitative information from the focus groups contribute to this discussion. In order to gauge the relative level of victimization of homeless people, statistical information culled from our surveys will be compared, where possible, with surveys on victimization, crime and perceptions of safety conducted with the broader general public in Canada. Because the types of victimization experienced by the homeless are not always congruent with those experienced by the average Canadian (automobile related offences, for example), the focus will be on comparing experiences of physical assault and theft of personal property.

We will begin with a general profile of criminal victimization in Canada, and then move to a discussion of victimization of the homeless population. This will include a report on: (a) the level of criminal offences experienced by the homeless, (b) their fear of victimization, (c) reporting of offences, and finally, (d) strategies for keeping safe. An effort will be made to identify where factors such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and social isolation have a bearing on victimization and safety. Because of difficulties measuring mental health, we have not included this factor in our statistical analysis, but must alert the reader to well established research indicating that mentally ill homeless people are particularly vulnerable to victimization (Szadkowski, 1998).

(1) Criminal Victimization and Homelessness:

Criminal Victimization in Canada:

When measuring criminal victimization - that is, the percentage of Canadians who are victims of a crime - one must necessarily move beyond police-recorded crime statistics. This is because police statistics, while a valuable indicator, do NOT measure victimization but rather offending behaviour, and in fact tend to under-represent the level of victimization experienced by Canadians. A major limitation, then, is that not all crimes that occur are reported to the Police - particularly crimes of violence such as sexual assault and domestic assault.

As a result, it can be argued that more accurate measures of victimization involve random surveys of individual citizens about their own experiences as victims, as well as their opinions about public safety, policing and the justice system. Such surveys have been done on several occasions since the 1980s, are widely accepted for their accuracy, and allow us to compare rates of victimization in Canada to international examples, as well as to smaller sub-populations in Canada such as the homeless.

In Table 2 below, a summary of victimization within in Canada by offence category is presented. The results of the 1996 International Crime Victimization Survey show that 25 percent of Canadians reported being victimized in the year preceding the survey (the international average was 31percent). This rate is relatively unchanged from two previous surveys conducted in 1993 and 19887 (Statistics Canada – General Social Survey) and in fact, police recorded crime statistics indicate that through much of the 1990s, offending has decreased in most categories except minor violent assaults.

______Table 2: Reports of Victimization by Offence Category in Canada – 19968

Offence Grouping ICVS Offences % Reporting Victimization 1. Violent Offences a) Robbery/Attempted Robbery 6% b) Sexual Assault c) Assaults/threats 2. Theft of Personal Property Theft other than robbery 6% 3. Household Burglaries a) Burglary (residence) 5% b) Attempted burglary 4. Motor Vehicle Offences a) Theft of car/van/truck/motorcycle 12% b) theft from Car c) Vandalism to vehicle 5. Theft of Bicycle Bicycle theft 3% TOTAL: 25%

Victimization studies are in most cases able to demonstrate that not all citizens experience victimization in the same way, or are equally vulnerable. For instance, it is clear that young people are overwhelmingly the victims of crime, in spite of the popular (if true) perception that young people are largely the perpetrators of offences. In addition, women experience crime differently than men, and their perceptions of risk differ, focusing more on the threat of physical and sexual assault rather than on property crime.

It is important to note that these statistics reflect the perceptions of people across Canada, and may vary with levels of victimization in Toronto. What we do know from police statistics is that when Toronto is compared to other cities in Canada (Census Metropolitan Areas, of which there are 25), Toronto is the second safest city in the country, behind Quebec City (Leonard, 1997). This may suggest that levels of actual victimization in Toronto are lower than the 25 percent annual rate as identified in victimization surveys.

Homelessness and Criminal Victimization:

When compared to the rest of the Canadian public, it is apparent that homeless persons demonstrate much higher rates of victimization. In conducting our survey we did not focus on the categories of the ICVS, but rather, tried to develop ones more relevant to the lives of people who are homeless. That is, we eliminated the category of "motor vehicle offences", "Bicycle theft" and "household burglaries", for instance, and focused on "violent offences" and "theft of personal property".

Overall, 85.6 percent of our sample reported being a victim of crime in the last six months, compared to 25 percent of Canadians who reported being a victim in the previous year. If one compares the rates of "violent offences" (69.6 percent) and "theft of personal property"(64.8 percent) that occurred against homeless persons, to the rates of victimization amongst the general population - 6 percent and 19 percent (including motor vehicle offences) respectively - the degree of victimization of homeless people becomes even more evident. In Table 3 below, a more detailed summary of the types of offenses against homeless people is presented. It should be noted that while in all categories it is evident that homeless people experience substantially higher levels of criminal victimization than the general population, for violent offenses, the level of victimization is exponentially greater.

Table 3: Reports of Victimization by Offense Category - Homeless Persons

Q: “How many times in the past 6 months has Total Never Once More than Anyone ever …” once % victims Property Crimes a) …stolen money from you or a possession of yours worth 63 22 40 62 under $50? (n-125) (50.4%) (16.6%) (32.0%) (49.6%) b) …stolen money or a possession of yours worth more 78 21 26 47 than $50? (n-125) (62.4%) (16.8%) (20.8%) (37.6%) c) …deliberately damaged something of yours like your 71 26 28 54 clothing, shoes or other personal things? (n-125) (56.8%) (20.8%) (22.4%) (43.2%) Violent Crimes d) …ever threatened to hurt or injure you? (n-125) 57 29 39 68 (45.6%) (23.2%) (31.2%) (54.4%) e) …hit or assaulted you? (n-109) 68 18 23 41 (62.4%) (16.5%) (21.1%) (37.6%) f) …attacked you with a weapon. 94 18 12 30 For example, has anyone attacked you with a baseball (75.8%) (14.5%) (9.7%) (24.2%) bat, a knife, or a gun? (n-124) g) …forced you or attempted to force you into any sexual 106 11 6 17 activity when you did not want to by threatening you, (86.1%) (8.9%) (4.9%) (13.8%) holding you or hurting you? (n-125)

While these figures do present a picture of the degree of victimization experienced by homeless people, such statistics do not tell the whole story. In the focus groups, homeless persons reported that criminal victimization was a very common occurrence for them, and was part of life on the streets. This is not to suggest simply that people normalize or tolerate such victimization; rather they perceive it to be an intolerable consequence of their marginalized lives. As can be seen above, property crime is quite common amongst homeless people, who lack the security of a home to safely store their possessions. People spoke of regularly having personal possessions such as shoes, sleeping bags and clothing taken from them, and that this happens in shelters, drop-ins and on the streets. Even when people take special precautions to “hide” things or store their belongings in lockers or at drop-ins, things disappear. In many cases, personal items are stolen in plain view, or taken by force through aggressive robbery. One focus group participant spoke of having his boots taken right from his feet during an attack.

The loss and theft of identification is a key concern, and has a direct impact on the ability of homeless people to obtain benefits and services they are entitled to as citizens, including health care and social services, not to mention housing and employment. In several focus groups, homeless people reported that this is a major problem for them, and that in some cases in their interactions with police, their identification is confiscated and not returned. The high probability of being a victim of property crime affects how homeless people conduct their lives. Said a focus group participant at a Regent Park focus group, “Theft of your things happens to everyone, and if you are homeless you understand that this is a natural part of being homeless”. Because of the risk of theft, people are particularly careful about publicly displaying anything of value they might have, including jewelry, CD players, or money. As a result, people are forced to carry their belongings with them as much as possible, and are on the alert for potential threat or robbery, even in ‘safe’ spaces such as shelters, or when they are asleep. In addition, people feel that because they must carry their possessions with them at all times, they are easily identified by security guards at malls, bus stations and other facilities open to the public, and are then subject to harassment and charges of loitering that would not otherwise be levied against other people who visit these semi-public places. As will be seen below, and perhaps not surprisingly, the experience of being robbed has in fact heightened the fear homeless people have of being victimized in the future.

While property crimes are significant in the lives of homeless people, it is the high levels of violence that they experience that demonstrate most dramatically the nature of their victimization. Many people in focus groups commented on the fact that they face the potential of violent or abusive behaviour on a daily basis which makes their day to day lives incredibly stressful, and weakens their sense of control over what happens to them. A woman in Parkdale commented, “Violence happens spontaneously - it comes out of the blue, anything goes, and it can happen in broad daylight”, and she added, “it can come from strangers or people you know”.

People suggested that because they are identifiable as being homeless, they are easy targets for whom they referred to as “career criminals” - drug dealers and people selling stolen property - who harass and assault them. At a focus group, one person said that the general public should “ blame the right criminals, the dealers from the suburbs who come downtown to deal drugs and create violence”. People also spoke of many incidents where total strangers have attacked them - often in broad daylight. They felt that because they were homeless, bystanders are discouraged from intervening on their behalf.

It is important to note that in terms of identifying potential offenders, other homeless people are identified as a threat as well - that people often act aggressively towards each other because they are only too aware of the vulnerability of being homeless. Said one person, “the down-and-outers - they pick on the weak. There are guys out there who sense your vulnerability and will take advantage of it”. In particular, people identified other homeless people who have substance abuse issues, and those with violent personalities, as being the cause of many assaults.

In terms of harassment and attacks, homeless people feel that it is by virtue of being homeless that they are identified and targeted for a level of abuse that most people do not experience. They spoke of strangers passing by who often, unprovoked, make aggressive and threatening comments to them, and in fact over 53 percent of the survey sample said they experience verbal abuse because they were homeless. They feel victimized by store owners and security guards on a continual basis, and do not feel they have the freedom of movement in these semi-public spaces that they should be entitled to. One person spoke of being chased from a store by a store owner brandishing a crow bar because he was panhandling. A key feature of the lives of homeless people that is connected to their victimization is the range of subsistence strategies that homeless people must engage in, in order to survive. People spoke of their experiences of being victimized while panhandling, squeegeeing, being involved in the sex trade, and a broad range of other activities that are illegal or quasi-legal. Prostitution in particular puts people at risk for violent attacks, robbery, rape by johns, and verbal (and sometimes physical) abuse by passers by in cars or on foot. Panhandlers speak of constant abuse, and attacks by strangers. Squeegee kids speak of aggressive drivers who feel empowered to drive their vehicles at them to the point of making contact. Both physical assaults and threats of attack have a detrimental effect on the physical and mental health of homeless people, who in general lack access to appropriate health services.

In part because many of these same subsistence strategies are illegal or quasi-legal, people who are homeless do come into contact with the police on a regular basis, and these interactions are described by homeless people as anything but cordial. In almost every focus group, participants (usually many) described how these exchanges regularly involve aggressive, intimidating and disrespectful behaviour on the part of the police. For example, people spoke about police constantly “arresting them for petty crimes, or making up charges against them”. In Regent Park. participants argued that the police “made it clear that their job was to protect society against them”. Many spoke that the alleged harassment by the police happened most often when they were by themselves, or when they were minding their own business and were clearly not engaging in any illegal activities. In the two North York focus groups, where virtually every participant had a complaint about the police, people spoke of being caught in a bind; if they hung out in the ‘rougher’ areas of town, they were suspected by the police of being drug dealers. If they hung out in wealthier areas, they were easily identifiable and singled out as being potential robbery suspects. A general theme of these consultations, then, is that because homeless people have no homes, their lives necessarily get lived out in public, and they are at risk for harassment by police, whether they are resting or relaxing in parks, sitting in doorways, drinking a cup of coffee in a mall or simply walking down the street. Said one focus group participant: “It is hard to avoid loitering when you have no home to go to”.

Experience of victimization by marginalized subgroups within the homeless population

Not all homeless people experience criminal victimization in the same way. Just as with the general population, factors such as age, gender, sexual orientation and ethno-racial background do have an impact on experiences of violence and/or theft, and these factors have been separated out for statistical analysis, as summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Victimization by Marginal Subgroups

Reported NO Reported at least Reported at least Reported at least property or one violent crime one Property one Violent violent crime and/or property Crime offense1. Crime offense offenses. crime offense Average (total n-125) 87 (69.6%) 81 (64.8%) 18 (14.4%) 107 (85.6%) AGE: 14 - 24 (n-47) 35 (74.5%) 37 (78.7%) 6 (12.8%) 41 (89.1%) 25 - 39 (n-40) 26 (65.0%) 25 (62.5%) 5 (15.4%) 35 (87.5%) 40 – 49 (n-64) 21 (19.3%) 13 (56.5%) 1 (4.3%) 22 (95.7%) 50 and above (n-14) 5 (35.7%) 5 (35.7%) 6 (42.9%) 8 (57.1%) Gender Male (n-69) 50 (72.5%) 44 (63.8%) 7 (10.1%) 62 (89.9%) Female (n-56) 37 (66.1%) 37 (66.1%) 11 (19.6%) 46 (82.1%) Sexual Orientation Straight (n-90) 60 (66.7%) 56 (62.2%) 14 (15.6%) 76 (84.4%) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual (n-15) 12 (80.0%) 13 (86.7%) 1 (6.7%) 14 (93.3%) Other (n-12) 10 (83.3%) 8 (66.7%) 1 (8.3%) 11 (91.7%) Ethnicity White (n-69) 53 (76.8%) 46 (66.7%) 6 (8.7%) 63 (91.3%) Black (n-20) 11 (55.0%) 10 (50.0%) 5 (25.0%) 15 (75.0%) Aboriginal (n-16) 12 (75.0%) 13 (81.3%) 1 (6.3%) 15 (93.8%) South Asian (n-5) 1 (20.0%) 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 2 (40.0%) Other (n-10) 8 (80.0%) 8 (80.0%) 2 (20.0%) 9 (90.0%)

(1) It is important to note that many people who report being victims of at least one property crime offense may have also experienced at least one violent crime offense and vice versa.

In terms of age, there appears to be a clear relationship between the aging process and victimization. The elderly homeless (over 50) are the least likely of all age groups to report being victims of crime of any kind, and street youth are the most likely to. For instance, over three quarters of those under 25 were victims of violent crime. The fact that young people are more likely than the elderly to be victims of crime is consistent with the results of other victimization surveys of the Canadian public. However, for the general public, the gap between the experiences of young and old respondents is much greater, with people aged 15-24 being three times as likely to report victimization (Gartner, et al., 1994).

In terms of gender, males are more likely than females to report being victims of property crime, and females are more likely to be victims of violent crime. Of significance here is the risk of sexual assault, which women spoke of frequently in focus groups. Our survey data confirms that these fears are not unfounded; that in fact over 8 percent reported forced sexual activity 9.

Sexual orientation is clearly a significant risk factor for the homeless. Amongst the most vulnerable of the homeless population are those who identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, of whom over 93 percent report some experience of victimization in the past six months. They report higher levels of victimization for both property crimes and assault. Previous research on lesbian, gay and bisexual youth has indicated the level of risk such youth face in the hostel system (O’Brien, et al., 1994). In terms of ethno-racial background, Aboriginal people report the highest rates of victimization (93.8 percent) and in particular, they experience high levels of assault. While homeless people who are black are less likely than average to report criminal victimization, both they and Aboriginal people suggest that they experience racially motivated verbal abuse regularly (71 percent and 92 percent respectively). In addition, 28 percent of aboriginal and 25 percent of black homeless people report they have been assaulted for racial reasons.

It becomes clear, then, that while homeless people are in general at much greater risk of being victimized than the average Canadian, and that this risk is not spread evenly. Those who are Aboriginal, Lesbian Gay or Bisexual, and young people, in particular, face greater risk of assault and property crimes while on the streets.

(2) Fear of Victimization:

Despite declining crime rates across Canada throughout the 1990s, Canadians show a high level of fear of crime, as reported in victimization surveys (Sacco, 1995; Besserer, 1998). Fear can be defined as a ‘perception or attitude’ about the potential for harm, and is not necessarily related to real risk factors. In surveys about perceptions of safety in Canada, the question that is generally used as an indicator of fear is “How safe would you feel walking alone in your area after dark?” The data from the 1993 General Social Survey showed that 27 percent of Canadians felt somewhat or very unsafe doing this (Gartner, R. et al., 1994).10 However, a higher percentage recorded that they felt very safe in such circumstances.

It is important to point out that when we speak of the ‘public fear of crime’, we must also take note of significant differences that are based on gender and age. Typically, women have a higher fear of violent crime due to the increased risk of sexual assault. This is then reflected in the fact that while only 10 percent of males fear walking alone at night, 42 percent of women do. With respect to age, it is interesting to note that those between the ages of 15 and 65 have similar levels of fear (25 percent), but seniors have a heightened sense of fear (41 percent). This is in spite of considerable evidence that youth are much more likely to be the victims of assault and property crime than any other age category.

A final, and significant, characteristic of the Canadian public with regards to fear of crime is that those who have actually been victims of crime are much more likely to fear walking alone after dark. Fear is highest amongst victims of sexual assault (46 percent) followed by robbery (33 percent) and break and enter (32 percent).

Homelessness and Fear of Crime:

Given the generally high level of victimization experienced by homeless people, one might expect that the degree to which they fear victimization might also be higher than average. In order to assess the nature of their fears of victimization, we asked two sets of questions in this regard. The first question seeks to identify the contexts in which people feel more or less safe (walking alone at night, sleeping in parks, etc). The second question identifies the specific type of victimization that homeless people tend to fear the most (assault, robbery, etc.). As presented in Table 5, and perhaps not surprisingly, homeless people demonstrate a higher level of fear about walking alone at night (37 percent) than do the rest of the Canadian public. Amongst homeless people, this fear is, perhaps not surprisingly, higher amongst women (59 percent) than men (28 percent). Lesbian, gay and bisexual people are slightly more fearful of walking alone at night (40 percent) than is the heterosexual homeless population (35 percent), and youth (41 percent) are more fearful than adults (34 percent). These differences for the most part accurately reflect the real risks different sub-populations face.

Table 5: Contexts where homeless people feel more or less safe

Q: “How safe would you feel doing the following unsafe1 Don’t Safe2 things?” know Sleeping in the streets (doorways or alleys) (n-130) 76 (58.5%) 28 (21.5%) 26 (20.0%) Sleeping in the park (n-131) 75 (57.3%) 21 (16.0%) 35 (26.7%) Sleeping in a squat (n-130) 62 (47.7%) 34 (26.2%) 34 (26.2%) Sitting in a doorway by yourself (n-131) 57 (43.5%) 23 (17.6%) 51 (38.9%) Walking in your neighbourhood after dark (n-131) 48 (36.6%) 14 (10.7%) 69 (52.7%) Hanging out in the park (n-134) 43 (32.1%) 18 (13.4%) 73 (54.5%) Staying in a hostel or shelter (n-131) 41 (31.3%) 18 (13.7%) 72 (55.0%) Going to a drop-in (n-131) 16 (12.0%) 18 (13.5%) 97 (72.9%) Going to a shopping mall (n-133) 11 (8.3%) 15 (11.3%) 107 (80.5%)

1. “Unsafe” includes the responses “very unsafe” and “unsafe” 2. “Safe” includes the responses “fairly safe” and “very safe”.

The contexts in which homeless people feel most safe include shopping malls, drop-ins for homeless people, and shelters. This is in spite of the difficulties that homeless people spoke of in terms of their dealings with mall security. In the focus groups, homeless people generally spoke very positively about their experiences in drop-ins, and in fact see them as a refuge from potential crime outside of the shelter.

One of the interesting findings here is that the contexts in which homeless people tend to show the highest levels of fear generally have to do with sleeping in public spaces such as parks, and in doorways. There is an unfortunate irony in the fact that the very public spaces that homeless people are often forced to sleep in, rest or hang out in (because they lack private spaces to do so) are also the spaces that they feel least safe in.

In a second set of questions, we tried to identify the specific criminal infractions that homeless people were in fear of. As is demonstrated in Table 6 below, the main fears homeless people have, have to do with theft. 57 percent of respondents are in fear of having something of theirs stolen, and an equal number are worried more specifically about having things taken that keep them warm in the winter (sleeping bags, shoes, etc.). Even though homeless people as a rule have few possessions, they are still much more likely than members of the Canadian general public to be victims of theft or robbery (see Table 3 - Rates of Victimization of the Homeless). In addition, in focus groups, homeless people spoke of the fact that because of the risk of robbery, they must take extraordinary measures to protect their property, which may mean carrying all of their possessions with them at all times, sleeping with all of their clothes on (including shoes), and having to be vigilantly alert to the potential of theft, whether they are awake or asleep. This has an impact on where people feel they can relax or be safe (including their choice of drop-ins and shelters), greatly reduces their freedom of movement and also undermines their ability to sleep securely.

Table 6: What Homeless People Fear

Q: “How worried are you about:” Very Worried Don't know Not worried Having your things being taken 68 (56.7%) 2 (1.7%) 50 (41.7%) Having things taken that keep you warm 67 (56.8%) 1 (0.8%) 50 (42.4%) Having something valuable of yours stolen 56 (47.1%) 5 (4.2%) 58 (48.7%) Being attacked or assaulted by strangers 56 (45.9%) 1 (0.8%) 65 (53.3%) Being mugged or robbed 55 (45.8%) 1 (0.8%) 64 (53.3%) People being threatening or abusive towards you 56 (44.8%) 3 (2.4%) 66 (52.8%) Being attacked or assaulted by someone you know 50 (39.1%) 3 (2.3%) 75 (58.6%) Being sexually assaulted or molested 43 (37.4%) 4 (3.5%) 68 (59.1%) Being forced to do something you don't want to 36 (33.6%) 4 (3.7%) 67 (62.6%)

Table 6 also shows that, while less of an apparent worry than “property crime”, homeless people are worried about the potential of assaults - ranging from “being assaulted” (46 percent), to “threatening or abusive” behavior (45 percent), to fear of being sexually assaulted or molested (37.4 percent). An important thing to consider, however, is that while homeless men are slightly more concerned about property crime than are women, the latter are much more concerned about violent assault (of all kinds) than are men, by a two to one ratio. This is in keeping with other research in Canada which shows that women are more fearful of assault - and sexual assault in particular - than are men (Sacco, 1995). It also significantly reflects the differences in personal experiences between homeless men and women.

Aboriginal Canadians are also more fearful of most forms of assault than almost any group of the homeless. For instance, 59 percent fear being mugged or robbed, and 63 percent fear being attacked by strangers (only 16 percent of aboriginals fear attacks by people they know). This is generally consistent with the high levels of assault that they actually endure. Homeless people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual are distinguished from the rest of the homeless population by their high level of fear (60 percent) of threatening and abusive behaviour. An awareness of homophobia, and of the potential for ‘gay bashing’ no doubt accounts for this higher level.

In focus groups, homeless families displayed a significantly different perspective on safety, in that it was their children’s safety that was their primary concern. Another interesting outcome of focus group discussions with families in Scarborough was the degree to which refugee families see potential victimization in a fundamentally different way than does the rest of the homeless population. Many spoke of the fact that relative to the situations that they escaped from in their home countries (Angola, for instance), staying in motels on Kingston Road feels particularly safe. In the survey, then, it is evident that homeless people show higher levels of fear of victimization than does the average Canadian. It is worth pointing out that, as with the general public, fear of crime is influenced by personal experiences, in that those who report being victims of property crime or assault in the recent past are generally more fearful as well. Living with such fear - and a level of fear that is justified given the high rates of victimization - adds an extra burden on the lives of homeless people.

(3) Reporting Victimization: In Canada, it is true to say that a large number of criminal offences are not reported to the police. In fact, surveys of victimization show that people who are the victims of theft or assault only report such offences to police 52 percent of the time. Such surveys show that, generally speaking, people don’t report offences to the police if they feel there are other avenues for dealing with the problem, if they believe the event to be minor in nature or if they are convinced that police intervention will not be effective in this case (Kong, 1995).

What is of interest is that people are much more likely to report property crime offences to the police than they are crimes against people. Explanations for this include, first, the fact that property crimes are reported more often for insurance reasons, and conversely, many violent crimes involve a relationship between victim and offender (thus, not reporting avoids complicating such relations). Further, for some crimes such as sexual assault, which are perhaps the most under-reported of crimes, the explanations for not reporting are in fact quite complex.

In our consultations with homeless people, our goal has been to find out how they report offences in order to determine the nature of the support systems that they have in place in the event of being victimized. This includes not only reporting such offences to the police, but also sharing such information with informal supports (friends, family) and/or more formal supports (social workers, doctors, politicians, etc.). To get at this information, we asked people to identify the worst thing that had happened to them in the past year. While few people were willing to give explicit details on the nature of this event, they were willing to reveal who they told about the incident. Interestingly, 19 percent of respondents did not tell anyone about the incident at all. Of the remaining 81 percent who did, they relied for the most part on informal sources of support (friends, partners, family members), as demonstrated in Table 7. Almost 40 percent shared this information with social service providers such as social workers, doctors, shelter workers, etc. Of particular interest here is that only 19 percent reported their victimization to the police, and if one includes those in the sample who did not tell anyone, the figure drops to under 16 percent, which is considerably lower than the 52 percent average for Canadians as a whole. Table 7: Reporting a Crime

Q: “What is the worst thing that happened to you last year? ... When this happened to you, who did you tell about the incident?”

Yes % No % I told a friend (n-98) 80 (81.6%) 18 (18.4%) I told a member of my family (n-98) 49 (50.0%) 49 (50.0%) I told a social worker, or counsellor (n-98) 38 (38.8%) 60 (61.2%) I told the police (n-98) 19 (19.4%) 52 (53.1%) I told a politician (n-90) 7 (7.8%) 83 (92.2%) Other (n-98) 30 (30.6%) 62 (63.3%)

Note: the calculations in this table include only those who indicated that they reported this incident to someone. Those who said they didn’t report the incident to anyone are not included.

Those who did not report the crime to anyone (n-23) gave various reasons for this. Many of these reasons, which are reviewed in Table 8 below, are in fact similar to those expressed by the Canadian public when asked why they don’t report crime to the police - because “reporting it was a waste of time”, or “I can take care of it myself”.

______

Table 8: Reasons for not reporting

Q: “If you didn’t report the incident, please tell us why? (n-23)

Yes % No % Because it wasn't that big a deal 8 (40.0%) 12 (60.0%) Reporting is a waste of time 14 (77.8%) 4 (22.2%) Reporting might get me in trouble 7 (41.2%) 10 (58.8%) I was afraid of the people who did it 5 (31.3%) 11 (68.8%) Don't want a reputation as a snitch 11 (61.1%) 7 (38.9%) I can take care of myself 11 (73.3%) 4 (26.7%)

However, when takes into account the unusually high rates of victimization amongst the homeless, and their reticence to inform the police, a different picture emerges. In our focus groups, people spoke of their lack of trust in the effectiveness of reporting complaints to the police - that their stories were ignored or not followed up on in a timely manner. One woman who was assaulted in Parkdale in broad daylight by a person known to her suggested she had to wait hours for the police to show up, and when they did they indicated to her that there was nothing they could do. People also spoke strongly about their belief that because they are homeless they lack credibility with the police and their concerns are not treated seriously. As a result, a high percentage of homeless people choose not to report offences.

The lack of faith in having their victimization redressed through channels that most Canadians take for granted has its effects on homeless people. There can be no doubt that when people are forced to internalize such negative events, it can lead to depression, lower self-esteem and the ‘normalization’ of violence and victimization. Of significance here is that it also results in an even greater level of strain between the homeless population and the police. And, as reported regularly in focus groups, when people have a lack of faith in the police and ‘official’ responses to crime, they often choose instead to redress offences on their own. People spoke of the need to be “taking care of themselves” and of “taking matters into their own hands” as logical and commonplace solutions to victimization. The woman whose story of assault is described above sought to redress this offence through revenge; she suggested that she and her boyfriend will “settle the score later this week... we know where he goes for breakfast these days”. Because homeless people often feel that they must take matters into their own hands, there is a resultant increase of risk for other homeless people, who may (justifiably or not) become targets of retribution. Said a homeless man in Parkdale, “When something happens, you just get even - you knock him down and hurt him and then, call your friends, and he calls his friends ...”

(4) Safety Strategies and Crime Prevention:

What makes the average Torontonian feel safe? There are several identifiable factors that reduce the risk of victimization and/or the fear of crime. The most significant factor is secure shelter. This gives people a level of protection and refuge from attack, abuse and assault, particularly from strangers. Secure shelter means possessions are safe, and it gives most (but not all) people choices about where they go and how they can avoid dangerous places. It also means people have refuge in cases where they may be vulnerable (if they are alone, sick, or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol). Having said this, one must bear in mind that many serious acts of violence do occur in the home (spousal and child abuse being obvious examples). In fact, police statistics suggest that around one third of crimes take place in and around the home (Sacco, 1995) most involving known persons.

Another factor that enhances the safety of the average citizen of Toronto is the Police (and also private security firms). One of the indicators of the success of policing in Toronto is the unusually low crime rate that people in Toronto enjoy, for a major urban centre. Another indicator is the high level of faith that Canadians have in the police. In an international survey (1996), the rate of public satisfaction with the police by Canadians ranks highest above all other nations, at 80 percent. Most Canadians count on the police to protect them, to come to their aid if they are the victim of a crime, and generally people believe that the police operate in an impartial manner. It should be noted, however, that in virtually every country surveyed in the 1996 ICVS, that where people are victims of a crime, their faith in the police diminishes. This is probably one factor that contributes to the attitudes of the homeless towards the police.

Many people in Toronto also increase their safety through participating in a range of community based crime prevention initiatives. This includes: taking self-defense classes, participating in Neighbourhood Watch, conducting Safety Audits and belonging to residential or tenant Safety Committees. Many Torontonians also choose to invest, individually or collectively (in the case of tenants) in ‘hardware’ that will make their homes and automobiles safer. This includes the purchase of special door locks, burglar alarms, special window/door grilles, high fences, surveillance cameras, guard dogs and private security. The results of the ICVS survey indicates that these are quite common in most developed countries (on average, 70 percent of individuals use them), yet the rate of usage in Canada is above average (78 percent) and in fact the use of such security devices increased quite dramatically between 1992-96, in spite of the drop in the crime rate (Besserer, 1997). The use of such hardware is of course obviously not a relevant option for the homeless.

Finally, many Canadians are able to engage in the political process (as individuals or through advocacy groups) to influence the different levels of government to act on issues that people feel affect their personal safety. Some of these issues include gun control legislation, calls to toughen the Young Offenders Act, and at the municipal level, to participate in the Task Force on Community Safety. The end results of these activities can include things ranging from changes in legislation to support for community-based crime prevention strategies.

Homeless People and Safety Strategies: The safety strategies of homeless people tend to differ markedly from those of the average Canadian, because they lack power and basic resources, and are more disengaged from the political process. Because homeless people generally lack secure shelter and do not have the financial resources to invest in security devices, they tend to rely on personal or individual safety strategies, many of which are outlined in Table 9. Like many Canadians, the majority of homeless people feel an effective safety strategy is to stay away from what they perceive to be dangerous places. Unfortunately, this is not always possible because: a) the places where homeless people generally congregate carry risk factors, and b) their subsistence strategies often put them in situations that are dangerous.

______

Table 9: Safety Strategies

Q: “What steps do you take or have you Never Once or Several or Taken to keep safe?” twice many times I stay away from places where there is trouble (n126) 19 (15.1%) 22 (17.5%) 85 (67.5%) I carry my things with me at all times (n118) 27 (22.9%) 18 (15.3%) 73 (61.9%) I try to look as tough as possible … (n122) 59 (48.4%) 11 (9.0%) 52 (42.6%) I spend as much time... at drop-ins and shelters (n111) 36 (32.4%) 30 (27.0%) 45 (40.5%) I hang around with people who can protect me (n118) 52 (44.1%) 25 (21.2%) 41 (34.7%) I have taken self defense courses (n119) 58 (48.7%) 27 (22.7%) 34 (28.6%) I carry something to defend myself (n120) 58 (48.3%) 29 (24.2%) 33 (27.5%)

Homeless people in all focus groups were able to identify areas of Toronto that made them feel unsafe. In focus groups, people regularly spoke of the efforts they go through to avoid areas that they feel put them at risk. What is interesting is that several people suggested that they preferred to live in the suburbs (such as North York) because, even if it meant they were more socially isolated and that transportation now became a significant factor, it was much more safe than downtown, and they were “less likely to get into trouble’. At the other end of the spectrum are those whose sense of powerlessness is clearly reflected in their belief that no place in Toronto was particularly safe.

Other strategies for reducing the risk of victimization included, as discussed throughout this report, the necessity of carrying possessions with oneself at all times. In this regard, it is also worth pointing out that for a group of people who are characteristically in poor healthi, are malnourished (Antoniades, M. and Terasuk, V. ,1997), and lacking proper rest, having to carry around your possessions at all times greatly restrains mobility and can impair one’s ability to easily access drop-ins, shelters and “Out of the Cold” programs.

This latter point is significant because people do see shelters and drop-ins (in particular) as offering some degree of safety, many people choose to spend their time there. However, focus group participants remarked that in spite of the relative safety of these services for homeless people, there are still risks posed by people who might steal their possessions, people who are known to be violent and those with severe substance abuse problems. Finally, one should not ignore the fact that a significant percentage of respondents to the survey (32.4 percent) suggested that spending time in shelters and drop ins does NOT offer a solution to their concerns about safety.

Finally, in order to enhance their safety, people adopt individual solutions that include, amongst other things, social isolation, adopting behaviours or styles of presentation of self that keep others at bay, or by carrying weapons. In terms of social isolation, while it is true that a majority of homeless people say that they do hang around with other people for safety and protection, 35 percent of the total sample indicated that they preferred to spend time by themselves rather than with friends, partners or a crowd. Almost half of these people suggested that they felt much safer this way. In terms of ‘presentation of self’, 42 percent of the respondents reported that as a safety strategy they “tried to look more tough” , with more women (51 percent) than men (34 percent) indicating that they did this. In focus groups, people spoke regularly of the need to ‘dress down’ or ‘act bizarre’ in order to keep others at bay. At a Regent Park focus group, for instance, one person spoke of the need to ‘take it to another level’ by acting crazier than you really are, and that this puts people on the defensive. At a Parkdale focus group, a woman suggested that “Nowadays people in Parkdale don’t get dressed up when they go outside. They don’t wear their good clothes outside even when they’ve got them”. People also make themselves more defendable through training in self-defense, adopting pets (big dogs), and some have chosen to carry weapons. Said one person, “Watch your back, watch your mouth, and carry a weapon”.

That homeless people must resort to such strategies in order to keep safe begs the question of the larger impact of such strategies on their own health and well being, and that of other homeless people who they engage with. (V) Making Sense of Homelessness and Criminal Victimization:

Research on public violence - that is, violence that occurs outside the home - generally suggests that some groups of people are more likely to be victims of crime than others are. In explaining the patterns of victimization of the homeless population, it is evident that they stand out as a group whose experiences of victimization are significantly greater than that of the broader Canadian public. In explaining the nature of this victimization, and what conditions it, we need to examine key aspects of the lives of the homeless in order to understand, first, what factors account for the higher levels of victimization experienced by the homeless, and second, what can be done to reduce this risk.

One of the key arguments to be made here is that in general, people adopt - or are forced into - a lifestyle that has a significant impact on their safety and risk of victimization (Hindelang, et al.1978). The lifestyle of a group includes “the routine of daily activities, both vocational and leisure, that tend to characterize the lives of individuals occupying a certain social position” (Whitbeck, Simons, 1997). This lifestyle, whether structurally determined or adopted by choice, is generally consistent with the economic, political, social and psychological resources a group of people are able to draw on (ibid.). In making sense of the victimization of the homeless, the following key factors are deemed to affect their lifestyle in ways that directly impact on their safety:

(1) Lack of Adequate Shelter:

This is a key factor, for several reasons. If one has safe, secure shelter, a person has the potential to exert greater control over their life, and to develop a lifestyle that allows them to sleep more regularly, to eat more consistently, be healthy, maintain employment and of significance here, to reduce the risk of criminal victimization. Not having a safe, secure residence means that homeless people are unable to find the safety and refuge most of us take for granted behind a locked door. It means that personal possessions are fewer and at greater risk. It means that people have less control over their interactions with others, and cannot avoid such contact when they are tired, ill or under the effects of alcohol or drugs.

It also means, significantly, that most of their day to day lives get played out in a public environment over which they have less control than the average resident of Toronto. Homeless people spend a large amount of their time - year round - on the sidewalks and streets, and in the parks and alleyways of Toronto, during the daytime and at night. Their use of semi-public spaces such as shopping malls is more constrained than for most people, and they often find themselves in over-crowded social service environments where their health and safety are to some degree at risk. Their social lives in public spaces bring them into contact with hostile strangers, other homeless people who may be a threat, people with serious substance abuse issues, mental health problems, and unsympathetic security guards and the police, etc. If someone who wishes to harm them is looking for them, their ability to ‘disappear’ behind a secure door is limited. Without a safe and secure place to return to, the vulnerability of homeless people is dramatically increased. (2) Life History of Victimization:

A well-established characteristic of the homeless population is that a large percentage come from situations where, prior to being homeless, they were subject to high levels of victimization, and in particular, physical and sexual assault. A large body of research on street youth indicates that the vast majority have come from homes where there were high levels of physical, sexual and emotional abuse (Read, et al., 1993; Gaetz, et al. 1999). Similarly, a high percentage of homeless women have come from households where there is a history of domestic violence (Browne, A., et al., 1997). Other research on homeless females demonstrates that they are more likely to come from abusive backgrounds prior to street involvement, and at the same time, are more likely to experience ongoing violence on the streets and to be fearful of victimization (North, et al, 1996). Conversely, they are less likely to be the perpetrators of violence (Kipke, M., Simon, T. et al, 1997). There is also research that indicates that experience of ongoing and pervasive violence (whether in abusive homes or on the streets) is correlated with lower self-esteem and mental health problems (Goodman, L. et al 1996)

With regards to safety, the impact of these histories of victimization is apparent. That is, it has been shown that those homeless people who have come from households where they experienced violence and /or have come from abusive backgrounds are more likely to experience violence on the streets. It is argued that this is because, first, they to some degree ‘normalize’ violence, and have a higher expectation of day to day risk as being part of life. Second, people with histories of violence are more likely to exhibit deviant peer associations, and third, they are more likely to engage in risky behaviors (Whitbeck, L., Hoyt, D. et al., 1997). It has also been argued that coming from abusive backgrounds conditions people to adopt more ‘violent’ approaches to problem solving (Terrell, 1997).

(3) Subsistence Strategies:

There is clear evidence that the subsistence strategies of the homeless impact on their safety and affects the degree of risk they are exposed to. “While all homelessness implies vulnerability, subsistence strategies serve to exacerbate or decrease exposure to potential harm” (Whitbeck, et al., 1997). When people are homeless, they are generally forced to use a wide range of strategies to make money, obtain food and clothing, in order to survive. Because some of these strategies illegal or quasi-legal, homeless people are more likely to find themselves in situations where they are at increased risk of being victimized. This is because such activities often take place in situations or locations where the opportunities for violence or crime are in fact greater, as is the likelihood of being in contact with potentially violent or criminal people. Again, because of the dubious legality of these subsistence strategies, the chances of having negative experiences with the police increases.

This of course begs the question as to why homeless people engage in economic activities that clearly put them at risk. Recent research by Shout Clinic in Toronto (Gaetz, et al., 1999) shows that while most homeless youth, for instance, do want regular jobs, the vast majority face significant barriers to obtaining – and maintaining – employment. Many, if not most homeless people obtain work of one kind or another – but often these are short term, dead end jobs, or unregulated work on the margins of the economy. Many people diagnosed with mental illnesses, or those who have severe substance abuse problems (or both) are unlikely to be able to sustain paid employment without appropriate supports.

Because of the difficulty in entering the economic mainstream, and more importantly, the necessity of making enough money to survive, many homeless people are also forced to engage in risky money making strategies, including the sex trade, panhandling, squeegeeing, and more obviously criminal acts such as theft and drug dealing. Recent legislation such as the Safe Streets Act (2000) has had the effect of criminalising several subsistence strategies (pan handling and squeegeeing) which have traditionally been associated with homeless people. On the streets, then, people resort to a range of quasi-legal and illegal subsistence strategies not because they choose to or like to, but rather, in order to survive on a day to day basis.

This and other research (Whitbeck, et al., 1997) points to the degree that these subsistence economic activities bring with them great risk, because: a) people engaging in these activities are more likely to be in contact with others who may be deviant or dangerous, b) the work takes place in places and situations where the opportunities for assault or robbery are greater, c) the activities themselves may place homeless people in a more vulnerable position vis a vis other more powerful criminals, d) in most cases the activities are unregulated and uncontrolled, and e) their illegal or quasi legal status brings a greater risk of negative interactions with the police. The conclusion, then, is that the subsistence activities of the homeless do indeed place them at greater risk for victimization, but that the choice to engage in such activities results from very limited employment options, inadequate employment supports, and the need to meet immediate survival needs.

(4) Homeless people as a Risk Factor:

While determining the degree to which homeless people are offenders is beyond the scope of this research, it can be argued that because homeless people spend much of their time with other people who are homeless, they are at greater risk. While some emerging research in Toronto suggests that homeless youth, for instance, are more likely than housed youth to be victimized by strangersii, it is also true that in many cases, those who are homeless are also victimizers. This should not be surprising - it has long been argued by criminologists that there is a considerable overlap between victimizers and victims (Fattah, 1989; Singer, 1981). Argues Singer, “the idea that victims and offenders are part of the same homogeneous population runs contrary to the public’s popular impression that criminals are distinct from their innocent victims”.

As argued above, many people on the streets have experienced a life of victimization, and as a result some have become conditioned to using violent or aggressive approaches to problem solving, which invariably puts others at risk. The lack of faith in the police means that homeless people sometimes resort to ‘settling scores’ by committing crimes against other people.

From focus group discussions, it is also evident that while overly aggressive and violent people are in a minority, they do have an impact on the day to day lives of other homeless people. Often, those with severe substance abuse problems have conflicts with others leading to their eviction from shelters and drop-ins because of disruptive and violent behaviour. The level of supports that such people require are often not available, and the result is that such individuals are forced into the public realm where they may be a risk to other people (including the homeless), and at the same time, are at greater risk themselves of being victimized because of their vulnerability. While it is a mistake to generalize about a very diverse population, it can be argued that in some cases homeless people with concurrent diagnoses of mental illness and substance abuse problems are likewise at greater risk of perpetrating – or more likely, of being the victims of – violent and criminal acts, because in many cases they tend to be “disengaged from formal and informal supports, to eschew traditional mental health services, and to be only occasional users of public shelters” (Szadkowski, 1998).

It would be untrue to suggest that people who are homeless are the primary perpetrators of crime against other homeless people. At the same time, it must be recognized that, given the unique stresses that many homeless people face, their unusually high rates of victimization, the degree to which some people have ‘normalized’ violent solutions to problem solving, and the lack of protection that characterizes homelessness, that homeless people will in some cases pose a threat to others.

(5) Homeless people lack protection:

As discussed in section IV.4, Canadians typically are able to use a range or resources and strategies to enhance their safety – including secure shelter, home protection devices and safety hardware, police, community safety initiatives, and political processes. Still, up to 25 percent experience criminal victimization of some kind in a given year.

Homeless people, on the other hand, experience dramatically increased vulnerability in large part because they do not have access to these very same resources to enhance their safety. As has been discussed extensively in this report, living their lives in public means that homeless people are visible targets for harassment and victimization, and have limited material means to protect themselves. It also means that many behaviors and activities that are certainly risk factors for people who are sheltered, but which occur behind closed doors (including domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness) become necessarily public, and as a result, are more likely to come to the attention of the police.

It is in fact the troubled relationship between the homeless community and the police that clearly jeopardizes the safety of the homeless. Through focus groups, homeless people have made it very clear that they do not have faith in policing or the justice system, and feel that their concerns are not taken seriously simply because they are in fact homeless.

Without a doubt, the illegal and quasi-legal subsistence strategies of homeless people bring them readily to the attention of the police, as do highly visible conflicts. Nevertheless, focus group participants felt that all too often they were targeted for harassment by the police and private security guards when they were not doing anything wrong. Their belief is that their appearance of being homeless makes them easily identifiable targets.

One avenue for improving safety that Canadians enjoy but homeless people do not have the same access to is the political process. In terms of civic engagement, we have seen over recent years more homeless people become active in the political process through advocacy efforts. However, in our focus groups participants revealed a degree of cynicism about the political process as a viable means of dealing with their own safety issues. In fact, recent provincial legislation such as the Safe Streets Act, and the Community Action Policing Initiative in Toronto, have given homeless people the impression that they are the targets of crime control efforts, rather than the beneficiaries.

As discussed above, because of the significant risk of victimization faced by homeless people and because at the same time they lack the resources necessary to enhance their safety, they have developed a range of short term strategies to protect themselves. One might question whether some of these strategies in fact have contradictory consequences. For instance, by carrying one’s possessions with them all the time, by ‘dressing down’, or by adopting bizarre behaviors as a means of keeping others at bay, people who are homeless may at the same time be creating the conditions whereby they are targeted for being visibly homeless. In the face of high levels of criminal victimization, the strategies of homeless people to keep safe are clearly not adequate.

(IV) Conclusions:

Being homeless in Toronto means many things – amongst the most significant being that one’s health and safety is jeopardized on a day to day basis. While in an average year one quarter of Canadians report being the victim of a crime (half of these reports being automobile related offenses), the research presented here shows that over a six month period, an overwhelming majority of homeless people (85.6 percent) report being the target of criminal offenses. This incredibly high rate of victimization means that people who are homeless live day to day with the very real fear of theft and robbery, of being attacked and/or of being sexually assaulted. For some, this becomes just another hazard associated with life on the streets; for an even greater number, this can have a devastating effect (as being a victim of a crime would for most people), and can present yet another barrier to moving successfully off the streets.

What is also apparent is that while homeless people are much more likely to be victims of crime than is the rest of the population, they are, at the same time, much less able to protect themselves, or to have the same access to resources that in general reduce the risk of victimization for the average Canadian (including adequate shelter, telephones, financial resources, law enforcement protection, community safety initiatives, etc.). As a result, people who are homeless have developed a range of strategies which have an uncertain impact on their own safety, and which in many ways may further marginalize and isolate them. They do these things because the range of options available to enhance their safety is in fact very limited.

The goal of the City of Toronto should be to improve the safety of homeless people, through increasing their access to many of the resources and strategies that other citizens of Toronto have access to, and many take for granted. There are no easy solutions – whether short term or long term – to address the safety issues of homeless people. The City of Toronto currently offers a broad range of programming for the homeless, and through these activities safety strategies are often incorporated. While the beginnings of a process for dealing with the safety issues of homeless people is in place, then, more is needed. The following strategies are recommended. Affordable and Supportive Housing as a Safety Strategy: As emphasized most conclusively in the Report of the Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task Force, the lack of adequate housing has a negative impact on the homeless, effecting health, employment opportunities, the opportunity to move forward and, of significance here, safety. Currently the City of Toronto has a number of strategies in place regarding affordable and supportive housing. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of the problem, it must again be recommended that all levels of government work together to find solutions to the problem of a lack of affordable and supportive housing. Without this, homeless people will continue to be forced to live their lives in public, exposing themselves and their personal property to constant risk.

Promoting improved relations between the Police and homeless people:

Given the level of animosity expressed by homeless people regarding the police, a concerted effort must be made to improve relations between the two groups. Participants in this consultation strongly voiced their views that: a) the police unfairly harass them, and b) the justice system as a whole is not responsive to their experiences of being the victims of crime. It is therefore recommended that the Police Services Board identify the safety of the homeless as a priority, and immediately establish strategies to improve relations between the police and the homeless. There must be a concerted effort to ensure equity of treatment, through awareness training of new and current officers and appropriate community policing strategies, as well as through collaborating with the City of Toronto’s Advisory committee on Homelessness and socially Isolated Persons.

Alternatives to the criminalization of activities of the homeless:

Related to the point above, it is recommended that all levels of government refrain from enacting legislation and/or policies that further criminalize the activities of the homeless. Such legislation has had the effect of reducing the ability of homeless people to generate income and live their lives in a safe way.

The Task Force on Community Safety should address the issues of marginalized and high risk populations:

The Task Force on Community Safety has been successful in identifying community safety strategies that are effective in many of the communities and neighbourhoods throughout Toronto. The Task Force should therefore identify and/or support innovative strategies to apply the principles of community safety to the lives of marginalized and high risk populations such as the homeless in collaboration with Shelter Housing and Support. The Task Force should also ensure that existing community safety strategies to not inadvertently and/or unfairly target the homeless for community action.

Promoting Community-Based Crime Prevention for the Homeless:

The City of Toronto should support the development of innovative community-based solutions to the safety of homeless people through various grants programs, including the “Homeless Initiative Fund” and the “Breaking the Cycle of Violence Grants Program”. Action on Domestic Assault and Child Abuse:

It is now well established that there is a connection between domestic assault, child abuse and homelessness. Not only is it a recognized causal factor, it is also correlated with higher incidences of victimization amongst homeless people once on the streets. A long term preventive strategy by the City of Toronto should be to work with other levels of government to enhance support for programs that identify and prevent domestic assault in all of its forms. The City of Toronto can promote this work through the Task Force on Community Safety, the Department of Public Health and various grants programs, such as Breaking the Cycle of Violence.

Expand Employment Diversion Programs:

Because many of the subsistence strategies of the homeless are illegal or quasi-legal and as a result expose homeless people to countless risks, the three levels of government should support innovative employment training and preparation programs which take account of the complex and significant barriers to employment faced by the homeless. Projects such as S.W.Y.M. – the Squeegee Diversion Program – are a model for how innovative employment preparation programs for homeless populations can be developed and implemented, and must exist as part of a continuum of services.

Expand program support for Harm Reduction Approaches in Hostels and Drop-Ins:

The City of Toronto, through the Department of Public Health, and Shelter Housing and Support, should continue to support – and enhance – programs and services that assist people with substance abuse problems from a perspective of harm reduction. A continuum of services that include ‘wet hostels and drop-ins’, should be funded and should include safety of homeless people as a priority.

Enabling the Safe Storage of Possessions:

The City of Toronto should support programs that give homeless people the opportunity to store their possessions and goods – including identification – at little or no cost. Currently, ‘for profit’ storage facilities are not able to adequately meet the needs of the homeless. Such storage facilities should be available where homeless people feel safe and congregate, including shelters, drop-ins and ‘out of the cold’ programs.

Specific Strategies for High Risk Sub-Groups - The City of Toronto, Shelter, Housing and Support should look at innovative ways to support sub-populations of the homeless who are particularly vulnerable to victimization, including homeless people who are Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual, street youth, women or ethno-racial minorities. When the issues and needs of such sub-groups are not explicitly identified, there then exist implicit – and some times explicit - barriers to accessing services. Focus on Youth as Victims of Violence:

The City of Toronto, through the Youth Advocate and the Youth Cabinet, should address the issue of youth violence through a focus on young people as victims of crimes, rather than perpetrators. This work should include a special focus on the issues of street youth, who are particularly vulnerable to victimization of all kinds.

As we now know, homeless people are amongst the most vulnerable members of our society. There do exist opportunities to reduce some of the risks that homeless people face while living on the streets of Toronto. Fear of being a victim of assault or robbery affects the quality of life for anybody, and has been recognized by the City of Toronto as an issue that as citizens we can and should address. For homeless people, such fear plays a significant role in their day to day existence, and can represent a significant barrier to moving forward with their lives, and eventually getting off the streets. With a concerted effort, the safety of homeless people can be significantly improved.

______

Bibliography:

Ambrosio, E., Baker, D., Crowe, C. and Hardill, K. (1992) The Street Health Report - A Study of the Health Status and Barriers to Health Care of Homeless Women and Men in the City of Toronto

Antoniades, M. and Terasuk, V. (1997) “A Survey of Food Problems Experienced by Toronto Street Youth” Canadian Journal of Public Health

Besserer, S. (1998) “Criminal Victimization: An International Perspective - Results of the 1996 International Crime Victimization Survey”, Juristat, Vol. 18, No. 6

Browne, A., Bassuk, S., (1997) “Intimate Violence in the Lives of Homeless and Poor Housed Women: Prevalence and Patterns in an Ethnically Diverse Sample” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 67, 2, Apr., 261-278

City of Toronto (1999) Toronto. My City. A Safe City. A Community Safety Strategy for the City of Toronto

Daly, Gerald (1996) Homeless: Policies, Strategies and Lives on the Street New York: Routledge Fattah, E.A. (1989) “Victims and Victimology: The Facts and the Rhetoric” International Review of Victimology, 1989, Vol. 1, pp. 43-46

Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B. and Vaillancourt, B. (1999) Making Money The Shout Clinic Report on Homeless Youth and Employment Shout Clinic Gartner, R., Doob, A. (1994) “Trends in Criminal Victimization: 1988-93" Juristat, Vol. 14, No. 3

Goodman, L., Dutton, M. (1996) “The Relationship between Victimization and Cognitive Schemata among Episodically Homeless, Seriously Mental Ill Women”, Violence and Victims 11, 2, summer, 159-174

Government of Canada, Minister of Industry (1997) “An overview of the Differences Between Police-Reported and Victim-Reported Crime, 1997" Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: Statistics Canada

Hagan, J., and McCarthy, B. (1997) Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness Cambridge University Press

Hindelang, M.J., Gottfedson, M.R., and Garofalo, J. (1978) Victims of Crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization Cambridge, MA: Ballinger

Hung, K. and Bowles, S. (1995) “Public Perceptions of Crime”, Juristat Vol. 15, No. 1

Kipke, M., Simon, T., Montgomery, S., Unger, J., Iverson, E. (1997 ) “Homeless Youth and Their Exposure to and Involvement in Violence while Living on the Streets” Journal of Adolescent Health 20, 5, May 360-367

Kong, R. (1995) “Victims’ Use of Police and Social Services”, Juristat, Vol. 15, No. 6

Lee, J., Gaetz. S., Goettler, F. (1994) “The Oral Health of Toronto Street Youth” The Canadian Dental Association Journal 1994: June, Vol.60, no. 6:545-548

Leonard, T. (1997) “Crime in Major Metropolitan Areas, 1991-95" Juristat, Vol. 17, No. 5

Mental Illness and Pathways into Homelessness: Proceedings and Recommendations (1997) Toronto: Mental Health Policy Research Group (CMHA Ontario Division, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Ontario Mental Health Foundation)

North, C., Thompson, S., Smith, E., Kyburz, L. (1996) “Violence in the Lives of Homeless Mothers in a Substance Abuse Treatment Program: A Descriptive Study” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1996 11, 2, June, 234-249

O’Brien, C., Travers, R., Bell, L., (1994) No Safe Bed Toronto: Central Toronto Youth Services

Read, S., DeMatteo, D., Bock, B., et al., (1993) HIV Prevalence in Toronto Street Youths The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

Report of the Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task Force (1999) Taking Responsibility for Homelessness City of Toronto (Ont). Sacco, V. (1995) “Fear and Personal Safety” Juristat Vol. 15, No. 9

Singer, S.I. (1981) “Homogeneous victim-offender populations: a review and some research implications” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, no. 2, 779-788

Statistics Canada (1988) General Social Survey

Statistics Canada (1993) General Social Survey

Szadkowski, Geyer (1998) “Homelessness, Mental Health and Addictions – Report Prepared for the City of Toronto Homelessness Action Task Force” Geyer Szadkowski Consulting Inc., Toronto

Terrell, N. (1997) “Street Life: Aggravated and Sexual Assaults among Homeless and Runaway Adolescents” Youth and Society, 28, 3, Mar, 267-290

Whitbeck, L., Hoyt, D., Ackley, K., (1997) “Abusive Family Backgrounds and Later Victimization among Runaway and Homeless Adolescents” Journal of Research on Adolescence 7, 4, 375-392

Whitbeck, L., Simons, R. (1993) “A Comparison of Adaptive Strategies and Patterns of Victimization among Homeless Adolescents and Adults” Violence-and-Victims; 8, 2, summer, 135-152.

______

Notes:

(1) Harvey Low and Alan Meisner of Community and Neighbourhood Services contributed to the research design and data analysis in this project.

(2) According to the report, Taking Responsibility for Homelessness An Action Plan for Toronto “Between 30 and 35 percent of the homeless population, on average, suffer from severe mental illness; the estimates are higher for some population groups. For example, 75 percent of homeless single women have mental health problems” (pg. 27)

(3) It should be noted that in general, victimization surveys in Canada do not attempt to show a link between the experience of victimization AND offending behaviour, in spite of much evidence that offenders are overwhelming likely to be victims as well (REF)

(4) Daly, Gerald 1996. Homeless: Policies, Strategies and Lives on the Street New York: Routledge, p. 24

(5) Read, S., Dematteo, Also Golden Report (see note 5 of the making money study) (6) Report of the Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task (1999) Taking Responsibility for Homelessness City of Toronto (Ont.).

(7) Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey (1988). 1993)

(8) According to Juristat, “A number of criteria were used to select the 11 offences, including: the offence has individuals as victims; the offence can be described in terms that respondents understand; and the offence has a similar meaning in all countries. In Canada, these 11 offences account for a fairly large proportion of incidents reported to police (approximately 70 percent of all criminal code incidents in 1996).

(9) Research on sexual assault demonstrates that not only to police statistics grossly underestimate the prevalence of sexual assault, but even general victim surveys (of which this is one) that tend to more accurately gauge rates of victimization, under-represent incidents of sexual assault by at least 50 percent. (REF)

(10) Statistics Canada (1993) General Social Survey

(11) This body of literature includes: Read, S., DeMatteo, et al (1993); Ambrosio, et al (1992); Lee, J. et al (1994), for example.

(12) Personal communication. University of Toronto criminologists Julian Tanner and Scott Wortley are currently conducting a large sample survey of youth and victimization in Toronto, in which they also sampled a number of street youth.

July 31, 2000.