OIDAS Issues Table
Part A: Addressing Public Disorder Issues
Team Membership (organizations represented):
ü
Alfred Cormier, CAMH (Co-Chair)
ü Niki
Economo, United Way (Co-Chair)
ü
Public
Health
ü
Ottawa
Police
ü
Rideau-Vanier
BIA
ü
Dalhousie
Safety Committee
ü
Sandy Hill
CHC- OASIS
ü
Salvation
Army
ü
CMHA
ü
Maison
Fraternité
ü
Crime
Prevention Ottawa
ü
Youth
Services Bureau
ü
Consumers
(youth & adult)
ü
Robert
Smart
Responding to the
safety of community and front-line workers and public disorder concerns as it
pertains to illegal drug activities
a) Identify evidence-based systems protocols and problem-solving mechanisms which enable a coordinated and integrated response.
b) Recommend “grassroots” interventions based on good information in order to intervene early, develop community involvement and prevent conflict.
A number of neighbourhood issues were identified including: pan-handling, drug dealing, street prostitution, crack houses, crack use in public, overall increase in drug use, noise & fights, violence, physical assaults, fear, break-ins, shoplifting, property damage, discarded drug equipment and gangs.
Although there is no “quick fix” to most of these issues, there was consensus among members of the committee that any response needed to be multi-disciplinary, coordinated, easy to access and proactive.
One of the community representatives put it this way:
We understand that the addiction to crack cocaine and other substances present a serious risk to increased HIV and HepC rates in Ottawa. However we also recognize that certain communities are experiencing unrelenting pressure on their businesses and family life. We recognize that the agencies who counsel addicted persons have a responsibility to continually educate their clients about the effects of their open drug use on the life of their community. We believe that our harm reduction programme must be fully supported by full police enforcement, excellent prevention strategies and increased treatment options.
This approach was confirmed by the
conclusion of a recently held international criminal justice forum. Based on the experience of over 30 cities in
various countries in the European Union and beyond, the forum concluded that
“the complexity of the problem requires a multi-faceted response developed and
implemented in partnership between relevant agencies and stakeholders”
(“Responding to open drug scenes and drug-related crime and public nuisance-
towards a partnership approach,” John Connoly, Pompidou Group, Strasbourg,
August 2006).
Based on this approach, the committee came up with the following recommendations.
Recommendations:
1.
We recommend a
one-year pilot initiative, with an evaluation component (report card), that
coordinates existing internal city services (police, public health, bylaw
services, fire, paramedics and employment and financial assistance), the drug
treatment court, private security, community services (eg. outreach, mental
health & addiction), people who use substances and other stakeholders to
respond proactively to non-crisis public disorder incidents (eg. police address
illegal drug use while a community outreach worker engages the person who is
using drugs in motivational counselling).
This would not replace 9-1-1 calls in the case of life-threatening
emergencies and/or crime in progress. There would be a centralized telephone
number for the general public to use to access this integrated response,
although the integrated service response would be proactive and not wait for the
community to call. The feasibility the
feasibility of offering this pilot in French as well as English would be
explored.
The Issues Planning Committee supports the motion accepted by the
Community Protective Services Committee and brought forward by Councillor
Bédard that is aimed at integrating a coordinated response to problematic
addresses in Rideau-Vanier. The
feasibility of integrating or coordinating these two initiatives, as well as
the City of Ottawa initiative, “No Community Left Behind,” would be explored.
The pilot initiative would include the following steps:
i) Establish a multi-disciplinary steering committee (including representatives from public health, police, addiction and mental health outreach programs, shelters, BIA, neighbourhoods and people who use drugs) to oversee the project, identify multisectoral solutions and to resolve any conflicts which may arise.
ii) Develop a partnership agreement between member organizations to work together to address drug use and safety concerns.
iii) Conduct an inventory of existing outreach services and related programs in the affected neighbourhood.
iv) Develop a proactive response model that coordinates member agencies, along with a one-stop shopping telephone number for the general public to use to access these integrated services.
v) Build an evaluation component into the model to measure the impact of this initiative on the community and of the ability of the committee to implement multisectoral solutions and resolve complex issues. The evaluation would include recommendations concerning its continuation and transferability to other neighbourhoods.
vi) Implement and oversee the initiative.
vii) Evaluate its effectiveness and make recommendations concerning its sustainability and transferability.
Outreach
Legislation
i)
Cost
of recommendations
The main recommendation that would
require additional funding is the one-stop shopping telephone line to access
the multidisciplinary response team. Besides establishing the line, the main
cost would be the salaries of trained staff to triage the calls and coordinate
an effective and timely response. Since
there is already a similar model in place for mental health through the “Mental
Health Crisis Line” and corresponding “Mobile Crisis Team,” the committee
recommends consulting with the manager to determine how much it would cost to
operate a similar service. An
additional cost would be to hire a researcher to evaluate the model’s
effectiveness.
ii)
Sources
of potential funding
(1)
Provincial
Government- Ministry of Health
(2)
Federal
Government- Ministry of Justice
(3)
Crime
Prevention Ottawa
(4)
Community
Foundation of Ottawa
(the following is an excerpt from a
paper that was produced for the Community Network entitled “Issue 1: Crimes
related to drug use & supply are on the rise: A review of research on the
connections between substance use and crime”)
Canadian
rates of crimes reported to police have decreased significantly in recent years
(17% between 1991 and 2003). Crime rates in Canada for the most recent year
available (2004) fell slightly after a 5.5% increase the previous year.
Ontario, which has the lowest crime rate in the country, led with the greatest
decrease in the past year. The decrease in Ontario, in turn, was driven by
significant reductions in Ottawa and several other large centres. Violent
crimes reported to Ottawa Police (includes Gatineau) decreased by 8.9% over the
previous year, while property crimes (including B&Es) decreased by 12.4%. [i]
Various factors have been suggested for this general decline, including an
older population, shifts in policing policy, lack of inflation, and reductions
in unemployment).
Not
all criminals use drugs, and conversely, not all drug users engage in criminal
behavior; however, it is clear that the use of alcohol and other drugs is
strongly linked to criminal activity. A large Canadian study found that just
over half of offenders linked one or more of the crimes on their present
sentence either directly or indirectly to substance use[ii].
This connection between their substance use and their criminal activity arises
in one of three ways:
o pharmacological link:
o individual is intoxicated (e.g., for example,
affecting judgment and inhibition) and this leads to or “facilitates” offence;
o usually violent and disorderly behaviour
(particularly with alcohol).
o economic compulsive link:
o individual commits crime to support a drug
dependency;
o usually property crime.
o systemic link:
o crime results from direct involvement in the
“drug market” (e.g., production, trafficking).
Substance use has also been identified as
among several factors linked to repeat offending. [iii]
The
prevention of substance use problems and crime calls for both Universal
Prevention measures directed to whole populations (for example, all junior high
students) and Targeted (or selective) Prevention activities directed to
children and families viewed as being “at risk” (for example, marginalized
students). Children and youth, and their families, who are experiencing
multiple risks, are often ‘targeted’ for programming. This makes sense,
however, these programs can result in harm unless approached with caution:
targeted persons can easily become “labelled” and grouping higher risk youth
can result in “deviancy training”.[iv]
[v]
Both experts and youth themselves remind us
that the most effective prevention is fixed in policy and the structures of
community life, rather than project based. Population health research points to
the importance of equitable access to early nurturing, schooling, quality jobs,
and good social networks for all children, youth and families. [vi]
When asked, disadvantaged young people
have reported the same thing: housing, and educational and income generating
opportunities are seen as more valuable than more substance abuse “prevention
programs” per se. [vii]
Community prevention needs to strive for
“comprehensiveness” – that is, a range of policies and programs that permit all
children and youth, and their families, to access supports and services when
needed.
Given that
crime and substance use prevention address many of the same factors, the
development of mechanisms to link investment and program delivery in crime
prevention with efforts to prevent drug-related harm makes sense.
Intervention
Drug-related
diversion schemes have arisen from the belief that diversion to treatment
services or other forms of support at the point of apprehension can have a beneficial
impact on drug misuse and related crime. In the United Kingdom, widely
implemented “arrest referral” schemes are showing effectiveness. These programs
involve police in providing incentives for those apprehended to access
treatment or in actually connecting them with a drug counsellor. [viii]
The diversion
model most favoured in North America is the Drug Treatment Court. Drug Courts
aim to reduce crime committed by non-violent offenders with a drug dependency
through court-monitored treatment and community service support. Ottawa
established a drug court earlier in 2006. There are also drug courts in Toronto
and Vancouver, and an estimated 1,000 in the U.S. The few well-controlled
studies that have been undertaken have found that drug courts can be effective
in significantly reducing recidivism among participants for up to two to three
years. [ix]
[x]
There are several benefits to acting
upon these recommendations. The first
and most immediate benefit is that human lives can be saved and the
transmission of such debilitating viruses, such as HIV and HCV, can be
reduced. The second benefit is that
costs to our already financially-strapped healthcare system can be reduced by
preventing disease transmission and costs to our criminal justice system can be
reduced by reducing drug-related crime.
The third benefit is that the affected community, including neighbours
and businesses, will feel safer, enabling people to be more connected and
productive. This last benefit has
implications for tourism, investment and residency, as it is a key factor in
attracting people to our national capital region.
[i] Sauvé, J. (2005). Crime statistics in Canada, 2004 Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics; 25(5): 1-23, 2005 Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, 23 p.
[ii] Brochu, Serge; Pernanen, Kay, et al. (2002). Proportions of crimes associated with alcohol and other drugs in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
[iii] Makkai, T., Ratcliff e, J., Veraar, K., & Collins
L. (2004). ACT Recidivist Offenders. Research and public policy series,
no. 54, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
[iv] Offord, D. (2000). Selection of Levels of Prevention. Addictive Behaviours, Vol. 25, #6.
[v] T.J. Dishion and D.W. Andrews, (1995). Preventing escalation of problem behaviors with high-risk young adolescents: immediate and 1-year outcomes, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 538-548.
[vi] Spooner C, et al. (2001). The structural determinants of youth drug use. Australia National Council on Drugs,
[vii] Ginsburg, KG., et al. (2002). Enhancing their likelihood for a positive future: the perspective of inner city youth. Pediatrics, Vol. 109: 1136-1143.
[viii] Arun Sondhi, Joanne O'Shea and Teresa Williams (2002). DPAS Paper 18: Arrest referral: emerging findings from the national monitoring and evaluation programme, London: Home Office.
[ix] Marlowe, D. (2004). Commentary: Drug Court Efficacy vs. Effectiveness. Join Together. Accessed April 15, 2006. www.jointogether.org/news/yourturn/ commentary/2004/drug-court-efficacy-vs.html
[x] Belenko, S. (2001). Drug Courts: a critical review update. New York: National Center for addiction and substance abuse at Columbia University.
References
“Responding
to open drug scenes and drug-related crime and public nuisance- towards a
partnership approach,” John Connoly, Pompidou Group, Strasbourg, August 2006.
“Issue 1: Crimes related to drug use & supply are on the rise: A
review of research on the connections between substance use and crime” and
“Issue 4: Need to achieve a balance between the need to address the
HIV and Hep C rate among the drug using population in Ottawa while recognizing
community concerns and the safety of front line workers” (Reports commissioned
by OIDAS).