Community Action Policing Activities for 1999/2000
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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;