annex b2: presentation and script...annex b2: presentation script – page 2 new directions in...

New Directions in Community Safety – Hugh C. Russell and Norman E. Taylor 2014

Annex B2: Presentation and Script

A Framework for Planning Community Safety and Well-being

Ontario Working Group for Collaborative, Risk-driven Community Safety

Slide Script

Instructions

This script is written narration that accompanies visual images in a

Microsoft PowerPoint® deck, included in electronic form with this

Appendix, and entitled “Framework for Planning Community Safety and

Well-being”

The PowerPoint deck contains very few slides that are composed in

layers. Most of the important meanings and actions are illegible in static

viewing (e.g. printed hardcopy). The only way to benefit from this

composition is by using the “From beginning” button in the “Slide show”

drop-down menu, in PowerPoint. Motions and transitions were composed

in the 2010 version of Microsoft Office® -- an earlier version will provide

insufficient support for this production.

Sequenced comments in the script are keyed to changes in visual images

in the deck via the masked bandit mouse in the left column of this table.

As you read the script, click the computer’s mouse, or the “down” cursor

key, to advance images every time the masked bandit appears beside the

comment.

This script was written for oral delivery at a public symposium convened

at the Toronto Police College on February 5, 2014. Notwithstanding that

particular application, all users are encouraged to read through the script

and adapt it to local audiences, times and places. Ultimately the script

and deck are designed for local use in order to encourage all community

partners to share responsibility for increasing community safety and well-

being.

ANNEX B2: Presentation Script – Page 1


1. Title

Slide

Salutation...

A. One of the Ontario Working Group’s key products is a logical

framework for community safety planning. Provincial policy

makers, community leaders and professionals in emergency

response are calling for guidelines that will help communities

increase safety and well-being for all.

B. Consequently we designed the Framework for Planning

Community Safety and Well-being with three goals in mind:

a. It should be simple -- meaning all elements of the

framework should be logical and easy to understand;

b. It should be based on evidence about what works; and,

c. It should be practicable -- meaning that all communities can

adapt and apply it to their own situation -- whether they are

whole towns, smaller neighbourhoods, or even residents in

a single, high-rise housing unit

C. We’ll look at the whole Framework, discuss five principles of

community safety planning, and look at two examples.

D. Then we’ll come back to the Framework and share some practical

steps any community may take to apply it to their own situation.

2.

Framework

A. The elephant in the room is the size of our investment in

emergency response to harmful incidents. For example, we have

community partners, who have made it very clear that they can no

longer sustain the costs of policing. And this in the face of growing

demand for emergency response.

B. We also have Canadian and Ontario-based data which show that

less than 20 percent of demand for police assistance involves

crime. Well over three-quarters of the incidents relate to what we

call “social disorder.” Crime trends are downward; but social

disorder incidents leading to calls for emergency assistance are

trending upwards.

C. Social disorder incidents can lead to serious victimization; it is

Mute Screen



important that all of our emergency responders get to them in order

to minimize harm.

D. We, in Ontario, enjoy a quality of emergency response that is

second to none. I have heard local officials say in the same speech

-- “We receive excellent services; and we enjoy wonderful

relationships with our emergency responders. We simply cannot

afford it!”

E. So the question the Ontario Working Group faced is, “What can

community do in order to increase safety and well-being, and

thereby reduce demand for emergency response?”

F. Back in the 1950s-60s, the health sector faced a similar

conundrum owing to the increasing costs of health care. They

asked a similar question: “How can we reduce the demand for

expensive medical treatment?” Notice, they did not say, “Let’s stop

treating disease.” Rather, they asked, “How can we help people be

healthier so that we have less disease to treat?”

G. Since then the health sector has begun to emphasize the

importance of health promotion -- including discovering what they

call, the “social determinants of health” -- factors like income,

education, housing, employment and social isolation. Would it

surprise anybody to learn that these are the same factors that

increase risks of crime and social disorder?

H. The challenge for us, then, is how to engage in safety promotion in

our communities. If we don’t address the social determinants of

health; if we do not invest in crime prevention through social

development; if we do not learn how to prevent or mitigate risky

situations; if we continue to wait for harmful events before we

react, we will remain caught in the unsustainable demand for

emergency response?

I. Obviously social development is a long-term strategy; e.g. how do

we create more employment opportunities for marginalized



populations? The key for increasing community safety and well-

being through social development is, first, recognizing the risk

factors, and, second, applying local leadership, plans, initiatives,

resources and collaboration to this challenge.

J. Another approach we can consider deals with specific, identified

hazards, for which we can implement particular measures that

prevent people or places from experiencing harm.

K. For example, maybe there is a hi-speed intersection in the

community, where school children have to cross twice a day. That

is a specific risk for which we can train and use crossing guards,

install traffic lights, or apply other speed abatement measures in

order to reduce harm and minimize the demand for emergency

response.

L. We are learning a lot about yet another strategy from places like

Prince Albert, Saskatchewan -- and before them Glasgow,

Scotland and Boston, Massachusetts.

M. It turns out that a lot of people in our communities are in a good

position to notice when an individual, a family, a group of people,

or a specific location are for any reason at all, at acutely elevated

levels of risk of being victimized or experiencing harm.

N. Knowing and acknowledging that is the first step in mounting a

multi-agency response to mitigate that elevated risk situation --

thus reducing the chances of harm and consequent demands for

emergency response.

O. Let’s summarize these four levels of planning to increase

community safety and well-being:

a. Out in the green zone we’re making long-term investments

into social development -- this is where we’re working hard

to address the social determinants of health.

b. In the blue zone we’re engaged in designing and adapting

specific measures that prevent harm from identified risks



and hazards.

c. In the amber zone we’re noticing when people are in

imminent danger of experiencing harm; and we mount a

multi-agency response to mitigate it.

d. Finally, in the red zone, when all else has failed, we fall

back on our reactive and enforcement-dominated defaults.

Children’s Aid has to apprehend a child; mental health is

forced to a certificate; school boards may have to use

expulsion or reassignment; police, fire and emergency

medical respond.

P. But notice, because we’re willing to try to deal more effectively with

risk-driven situations, that red zone is a lot smaller now than when

we started out. If we can actually achieve these things, our

communities will be safer and our people healthier.

Q. The Ontario Working Group has developed this planning

framework for safety and well-being, along with particular products,

tools or guidelines that will help communities apply it to their own

situation -- whether they’re regions, municipalities,

neighbourhoods, or simply groups of people living in high rise

housing.

R. Let’s look at three areas where communities will have to refocus

their efforts in order to apply this framework for planning. The

areas are collaboration, information sharing, and performance

measures.

S. We can depict these with pie-shaped wedges. Notice, that with that

shape, we’re simply indicating that the farther out we choose to

work in this framework, the more multi-sector, multi-agency,

collaboration will be required of us.

T. See for example in the red zone where collaboration exists but is

fairly limited to a very few protocols, policies, procedures and

responders.



U. But when we organize to mitigate elevated risk situations through

multi-agency interventions -- in the amber zone -- all of a sudden

we have to collaborate among many more acute care agencies

and organizations -- many of which may not be accustomed to

working together on the same situation.

V. When we choose to design and implement specific measures for

preventing harm from identified risks, we will have to enlist

members of community who are not specialists in safety and well-

being. These may be members of the school community; or

business owners if we’re preventing harm in the downtown core.

We’re going to have to put more effort into enrolling more and

more “partners” in the community safety and well-being enterprise.

W. By the time we get to long-term social development strategies --

like reducing poverty, or promoting positive parenting among all

first-time parents, we will be collaborating across sectors in ways

that challenge conventional assumptions about organizational

culture and institutional boundaries, responsibilities, and

accountabilities.

X. For example, effective collaboration requires responsible

information-sharing. The farther out we work in our framework, the

more information-sharing we’ll have to do. And yet, our vertical

silos put up barriers to sharing information.

Y. Obviously, not much information is shared in the red zone, among

emergency responders. It is generally limited to the broadest

categories of risks and how they are handled.

Z. In the amber zone, acute care providers have to begin to share

information about individuals, families, or specific locations at

acutely elevated risk of harm. That is hard for them to do because

conventional policies and practices seem to prohibit the sharing of

personal and confidential data. At first these service providers can

talk in general terms -- i.e. without naming people or identifying

street addresses. But if they are going to mount an effective, multi-

agency intervention, those select agencies are going to have to

share more particulars about the hazards, those at risk, and



meaningful interventions and supports.

AA. When dealing with specific, identified hazards, there’s less need to

share personal and confidential information about individuals. But

there’s more need to share data and information about the risks,

their physical locations and vulnerable groups and populations.

BB. When we finally make it out to the green zone, we need to count

on all sectors to share their long-term planning and performance

data. We need school boards, municipal planners, social services,

health units, and police to amalgamate data bases, integrate maps

of physical and social characteristics of community, and share the

kinds of information that the community needs if it is going to

mount a long-term, sustainable, social development strategy.

CC. Performance measures also challenge us. How can we find out if

we are safer and healthier? Too often our agencies and

organizations monitor what they do; without sufficient assessment

of what impacts they’re having.

DD. Notice, for example, in the red zone, we can find out the number of

high school expulsions; or public school bullying incidents to which

administrators had to respond. But neither of those tell community

how much safer it is because of these actions.

EE. In the amber zone we need to monitor the kinds of risk situations

we’re mitigating; but also evaluate whether our multi-agency

interventions to reduce risks, actually alleviate the problems. Are

vulnerable people better connected to a seamless web of

services? Do they trust their service providers?

FF. In the blue zone we want to see lots of people engaged in

reduction and prevention of risks. So one useful measure is who

and how many people and agencies are engaged? Does their

involvement make them more confident in their own abilities to

prevent harm? Does confidence in our network of social agencies

increase?

GG. Finally, evaluating community performance in social development



leads us to quality-of-life indicators. Are more people sufficiently

compensated that they can afford to make safe and healthy life

decisions? Is housing adequate for our whole population? Are

people physically and mentally healthier? All of these have a direct

bearing on safety and well-being.

HH. That is our Framework for Planning Community Safety and

Wellbeing. Notice that it has one chapter each for the four levels of

planning. But also notice that we list social development as our first

chapter -- primarily because in re-focusing this whole initiative,

we’re encouraging communities to move aggressively toward the

long-term benefits of social development; harm reduction and

prevention is the next priority; and mitigating acutely elevated risk

is our last shot at keeping bad things from happening. After those

three strategies, we’re into emergency response to harmful and

victimizing events. And while necessary, that’s an expensive and

without the other three strategies, unsustainable approach to

community safety.

II. We started with the notion of emergency response to harmful and

victimizing incidents.

JJ. We added three more layers of work to achieve community safety

and well-being. For some of the key learnings coming out of today

it is important for you to notice that everything within those white

borders deals with situations of risk -- and that is quite different

from responding to harmful and victimizing incidents.

KK. Today we will be focusing on how to increase safety and well-

being by paying more attention to situations of risk in community.



3. Principles

A. In designing this Framework for Planning Community Safety and

Well-being, the Ontario Working Group has benefited significantly

from the experiences of other communities around the world. Five

principles for planning community safety and well-being have

emerged.

B. The first is that planning has to be supported by the highest level

authority, directive and imperative that it is possible to obtain. If it’s

being done on behalf of a whole municipality, then let’s try to get

the mayor and council to pass a resolution supporting the initiative.

If it’s being done on behalf of only a neighbourhood, obtain the

support of the highest elected official for this neighbourhood.

C. The main reason we need high level of commitment is so that we

can get all of the important organizations and individuals to the

planning table. In some communities, agencies and organizations

are reluctant to collaborate. Having high-level elected officials put a

leadership face on the strategy encourages them to find ways to

collaborate effectively across sectors.

D. “Collaboration” is the second principle. While initiative, leadership

and authority comes from the highest power in the community, no

single agency owns the planning exercise. The resulting plan for

community safety and well-being will be only as good as the spirit

of partnership and collaboration that exists among all participants

in the exercise.

E. “Risk-driven” is a third important principle. This one says that the

plan should focus, only, on those risks and hazards which

experience and data say are prevalent in the community. This plan

should be targeted on reducing them. It is not a general affirmation

of the importance of safety for all. It is a specific strategy to make

safety and well-being a reality for vulnerable individuals, families,

groups and locations.

F. “Asset-based” is our fourth principle. This one is about planning

with the resources that already exist in the community. These

include all agencies, services, offices of government, businesses

and community-based organizations. But they also include full



participation and collaboration with the vulnerable populations.

One of the lessons we’ve learned from many jurisdictions is that

this approach will not work if we treat it like a “welfare” strategy.

External providers cannot “fix” marginalized people or

neighbourhoods. But disadvantaged people living and working in

marginalized neighbourhoods can, over time, improve their

situations and make better life choices, if they’re well supported by

the broader community to do so.

G. Finally we come to that old challenge of evaluating what we’re

doing. The “Performance Measures” principle is an invitation to

seek new standards and measures that actually reflect real

changes in the community’s safety and well-being status. It’s no

longer sufficient to measure what we do; we have to measure the

effects of what we do.

4. Planning

A. With the Framework and Principles in place, we are ready to

prescribe the planning process. Notice that it happens at all four levels in our Framework. We need plans for social development, prevention, mitigation and emergency response.

B. First we will build on good work that exists where people from agencies, organizations, and neighbourhoods who have a sense of our safety and well-being priorities are coming together. Police will have one perspective based upon calls for assistance. But others like social and medical services, school boards, business organizations have ideas of what priority safety and well-being issues are. You’ll get different answers for each level in the framework. For example, a priority in the green zone might be job creation for marginalized populations. Whereas, in the blue zone where we’re interested in prevention, our priority might be domestic violence or truancy.

C. When we’ve picked the priorities on which we want to focus, we’ll start by specifying who is at risk, what are the risk factors, and what would protect people from the harms associated with those risks. Those are the three key building blocks of any successful preventive strategy:

a. Identify the vulnerable groups b. Identify risk factors c. Identify protective factors

D. It then remains for planners to specify desired outcomes.



Obviously they include increasing the identified protective factors -- e.g. more youth enrolled in organized recreation. These outcomes can be benchmarked. That is, it is possible to apply quantitative targets that will help the community monitor the outcomes and success of this initiative.

E. The third component of the community safety and well-being plan lays out strategies for achieving the specified outcomes. At this point planners will want to consult with subject-area experts who may be available locally, e.g. within some social services. But you can also Google the priority problem area and read the research literature about it.

F. Once the planning team has selected strategies for achieving desired outcomes, specify the tasks required locally to apply them. Maybe it means acquiring a program, getting trained on how to implement it, and then applying it in the target neighbourhood. Maybe it requires some kind of public information program. Whatever the strategy, break it down into specific tasks that will get the job done. Then, of course, apply the performance measures to assess effects.

G. Here’s an example, from the blue zone of a community safety and well-being plan. Presume for a moment that this neighbourhood wants to tackle domestic violence. Notice they’ve specified the vulnerable groups as women and children; the risk is violence; and the protective factor is an enlightened public, and strengthened social networks for the vulnerable population.

H. The desired outcomes are increased public awareness of domestic violence, and esp., everyone’s roles and responsibilities for dealing with it.

I. A little research uncovered the availability of two helpful programs which were designed and standardized in Ontario. Best of all, they have been applied in a number of settings and shown through qualified research to be effective in dealing with this particular problem.



J. The Fourth R is a curriculum dealing with building safe and responsible relationships. It is targeted on grade 9-12 students and designed to be consistent with provincial public education standards -- so it fits nicely for delivery in the school context; and reportedly, teachers who’ve tried it, love it.

K. Similarly, Neighbours, Friends and Family was developed by qualified university specialists, under the auspices of the province. It teaches all those people in the broader social network surrounding vulnerable women and children about the risks of domestic violence: how to recognize them and what to do about them. This program too, has received high ratings for effectiveness in credible evaluation studies in Ontario.

L. That’s just one example taken from a hypothetical safety and well-being plan for one neighbourhood -- and notice, it only deals with preventive strategies in the blue zone. The complete plan for this neighbourhood would want to also address this risk in the other zones as well.

5.

Performance Measures

A. That brings us to the question of how we know when our safety

and well-being plan is actually making people safer and healthier. As you might expect, the performance measures we would use, vary with the four quadrants of our planning framework.

B. The Ontario Working Group collected performance measures that pertain to each level of the framework. Here are just a few for each quadrant in the Framework.

C. For example, these are quality-of-life indicators that are used by the City of Toronto. They can map any neighbourhood on the basis of these dimensions. That gives them and their community partners a sound basis on which to target programs and interventions that will have the greatest effect on improving these conditions.

D. In the blue zone, performance measures depend on the specific risks the community seeks to reduce. Once identified, it is fairly easy to measure how they’ve been affected by prevention strategies.

E. When striving to mitigate situations of elevated risk in the amber



zone, of course we would want to measure the types of risk we’re faced with; their frequency; and the agencies that are most involved in pre-emptive interventions.

F. Finally, let’s also improve how we measure outcomes of emergency response. For example, improving emergency responders’ capacities to make sound referrals for social supports might have a significant effect on reducing repeat incidents.

6. Truancy

A. This is what a community safety and well-being plan would look

like in all four sectors for the priority problem caused by high school truancy. Notice, again, we need to specify the priority; determine our desired outcomes; and select strategies for achieving those outcomes.

B. Specifying “Truancy” as the problem we want to deal with, it remains for us to identify the vulnerable populations, the risks they face, and what protective factors we can bring to bear through a plan for community safety and well-being.

C. Having done that, we would probably select people from our community who are best informed with ways to deal with truancy -- in all four sectors of our plan, ranging from long-term social development strategies, to emergency response. Each group would write their own section of the plan, based on their own knowledge of effective strategies and the tasks required to implement them.

D. For example, in the green zone we might focus on parental and family supports that increase interest and value in education; and provide counselling and mentoring to students so that they’re encouraged to improve their school performance, competence and confidence. Ultimately, in the green zone we would want to track such dimensions as school performance and high school retention rates.

E. In the prevention component of the plan (blue zone) we would probably focus more on the problems of daytime theft in the downtown core, and the risks and hazards of drug use; because both correlate highly with truancy in the high school population. Strategies could include physical changes in stores so that shoplifting is discouraged, and more easily detected. In the schools we would re-double our drug awareness messaging; and alert families of young people on the early signs of drug use and



addiction.

F. In the amber zone, we would have to focus on identifying when a particular school, high school student, and/or family is struggling with the symptoms of truancy; and get our acute care providers to monitor thresholds of tolerance, identify those at risk, and organize immediate, multi-agency interventions that can provide the necessary supports to alter this behaviour.

G. In the end of course, we may have to rely on reactive, and

enforcement-dominated defaults. They may take the form of measures by school administrators and school boards, or even raising the priority of this issue with police and other social service, acute care providers. But the fact that this community has declared this problem as a priority will increase the level of attention all emergency responders give to it.

10. Mental

health

A. Let’s recall where we left off this morning, by seeing what a

community plan for safety and well-being would look like. Remember, we want to identify through the planning process the Priorities, Outcomes, Strategies and Measures that will be needed to increase community safety and well-being.

B. We will develop this one around the priority problem of mental health and addictions. Notice that as soon as we name that priority, it is important for our planning group to identify three things:

a. Vulnerable groups, b. Risk factors, and c. Protective factors

C. Most communities will have access to local experts and specialists

who are familiar with the latest and best research on the identified priority problem. On the other hand, should such a person not be available to help name vulnerable groups, risk factors and protective factors, planners can quickly catch-up with the latest and best research by Googling the problem priority on the internet.

D. The research literature points out that a lot of harm associated with mental health and addictions occurs because of significant gaps in



the infrastructure for diagnosis, treatment and recovery. The implication being, if our plan can address some of those issues, we can have a significant impact on reducing harms from this priority problem.

E. Mental health problems can have organic origins, in which cases we would be interested in applying measures that provide supports for treatment and management. But mental health and addictions may also have socio-emotional origins. In this case the social development section of our plan, might focus on limiting stressors in peoples’ lives -- especially those of young people -- like negative parenting and domestic violence.

F. So, for example, a positive parenting course for all first time parents would significantly reduce the kinds of emotional stressors in the family that create anxiety, panic, stress and depression in children and youth.

G. In the category of prevention, we can increase physician screening

for mental health and addictions disorders; and strengthen the connections between primary health care and mental health and addictions services.

H. When we are planning mitigation of harm for persons at acutely elevated risk, we want to do things that get these people referred to treatment and recovery systems; even if they only succeed to the point of harm reduction -- or controlled use of their addictive substance.

I. In most communities police and emergency medical personnel are involved in response. Yet some Ontario communities have shown that it really improves response, and reduces harms, if mental health and addictions specialists are available to assist at that point. Other communities have benefited from qualified advocates accompanying a person through ER and into the treatment system. Both of these fixes reduce the amount of expensive time that emergency responders remain involved; expedite people more into treatment; and reduce repeat calls..

J. That’s only one way that a mental health and addictions strategy

might look in a community plan for safety and well-being. Each community will use the planning process to customize their own approach. But the planning process itself remains fairly consistent. Let’s consider now how any community could get started in planning for safety and well-being.



11. Getting

Started

A. We will use the five principles of planning for community safety and

well-being in order to lay-out some basic steps for getting your local planning initiative started.

B. The first step requires getting the highest level local authority to mandate planning for community safety and well-being. Remember, we need this directive and imperative because it not only holds local authorities accountable for safety and well-being; it also serves as the basis for getting all community partners to the planning table.

C. In a small municipality, this can be done by the mayor and municipal council. For example, the Town of Bancrof has passed a resolution declaring safety and well-being their highest priority; and calling on all citizens and agencies to collaborate in the planning exercise. Interestingly, even that imperative is not enough to get some agencies to the table because the executives of those agencies operate far away in the county seat. Hence, this town asked the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer of the county, to pass a similar resolution -- thereby leveraging the collaboration and participation of all agencies.

D. No matter what the unit of planning -- be it a region, town, single neighbourhood, or just the residents of one, high-rise, social housing unit -- planners need to focus on the highest probability risks and threats to safety and well-being. There are a number of sources for this information:

a. Police crime and disorder statistics b. Data from other acute care providers c. Social services have information on risks d. Local businesses have some ideas e. Citizens and neighbours can tell you what threatens them

E. This is where the plan begins to take shape. For each priority

problem area, do sufficient research to enable specification of: a. Who is at risk? b. What are the factors that create and exacerbate those risks? c. What factors can mitigate the risks, or protect people from

them?

F. Now we take advantage of many people in the community who have knowledge, experience, and motivation to tackle these priorities. Identify and recruit a small team of people who are best suited to put details into each level of the emerging plan. Quite



obviously you would want some emergency responders to develop plans for the red zone. Acute care providers would have the best knowledge and experience to apply in the amber zone. Way out in the green zone, where long-term social development is concerned, you might consider planners, managers, and people who have a good handle on the resources that may be required for social development.

G. But no matter which team you’re composing at this point, ensure that it includes representatives of those citizens, organizations, neighbours who are most directly affected by the subject risks. These are invaluable community assets for an exercise like this.

H. Charge each group to build on information about planning priorities; and vulnerable groups, risk factors and protective factors. Each team should, for their own component of the plan, develop:

a. Desired outcomes, b. Effective strategies, and c. Performance measure by which we’ll assess the effects of

our plan.

I. When each team is finished with this work, we’re ready to compile the draft safety and well-being plan. But it’s more than just putting the parts together. The planning group has to ensure that for each group, there are observable targets and outcomes; that each team has designated implementation plans including who’s going to do what, when; with what resources; and how will each strategy be evaluated.

J. When the planning group is satisfied it’s a good plan with achievable results, it’s time to specify a schedule for implementation, evaluation and re-initiating the planning cycle again.

9. Thank

you

A. We have presented just the broadest guidelines for planning

community safety and well-being. Each and every local group that accepts this responsibility will have to adapt them to their own character, priorities and partnerships.

B. Thank you!

annex b2: presentation and script...annex b2: presentation script – page 2 new directions in...

Documents