PROVEN STRATEGIES FOR YOUTH CRIME PREVENTION
| Back to Table of Contents |
Recent developments in effective youth crime prevention have occurred in a number of industrialized countries whose experiences with and concerns about crime parallel Canada's. Among these nations are France, England, the United States, Australia, and the Netherlands. Much of the research on the causes of crime described in the first part of this brief resulted from their initiatives. This research was further developed to establish a model of intervention and specific programs which target the root causes of and have proven effective in addressing the youth crime problem. These nations have also implemented national policies and community based strategies to put this knowledge to use.77
The general approach adopted in many countries to address the root causes of crime is the social development model. It seeks to ameliorate those social, family, and individual conditions that are associated with youth offending patterns. Social development has formed a central element to national policies for crime prevention which have been adopted in the various countries named above. These policies have invariably involved establishing a national policy-making body with the power to administer funds set aside for social development initiatives, improvements in policing and methods for reducing opportunities for offending. Such initiatives have also been individually adapted to the needs, laws, practices and philosophies of the different nations.78
In many of these countries, strategies which were supported nationally have been implemented at the community level. A good example of this approach is the T-CAP project. In the 1990's community action plans for crime prevention were instituted in Texas' seven largest cities with funds mandated under the US Law Enforcement and Violent Crime Act. This legislation created the President's Crime Prevention Council and allocated one dollar per American per year for five years to support partnerships between community groups, justice, police, social services, schools and housing for the prevention of crime. Each of these cities' action plans comprised a comprehensive approach to crime prevention. Without exception, these approaches identified the needs of youth and families as paramount, assigning community and financial support to services aimed at improving their life conditions. The hallmarks of these developments have been: 1) partnership between all levels of government, including state provided services, and leaders, organisations and concerned members from the community 2) comprehensive approaches which target opportunity reduction as well as social development and 3) a focus on the local needs of families and youth.79
National policies and community strategies have served these countries well. Many have reported reductions in crime in areas receiving the focus of their efforts. Where strategies do not demonstrate a reduction in crime, their funding is redirected to ones that do.80 Indeed, a key element to these developments has been a focus on cost and service effectiveness which is assessed through the development of a strong knowledge base founded on sound research.81
| Back to Table of Contents |
A social development approach and focus on community action received unanimous endorsement by the Government of Canada Justice Committee, chaired by Dr. Bob Horner. The committee reported that Canadians too experience unacceptable levels of interpersonal crime, as well as the accompanying social and economic costs. Dr. Horner advocated investing in crime prevention through the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy. According to his committee's report, this represents the most effective means to save these costs in the long-term.
The Horner Committee's proposed strategy included the recommendation that 1% of the criminal justice system budget be reallocated to crime prevention each year for five years to reach a total, renewable yearly budget of 5%. A share of the proceeds of crime was also suggested as a source of funding. A second recommendation involved the creation of a National Crime Prevention Council, to bring about significant changes in social policy, related programming and resource allocation. Third, Canada was advised to examine what actions were effective in reducing crime through evaluation of programs and projects which have demonstrated effects of crime reduction. Finally, Dr. Horner stressed the importance of funding support for evaluation research as an ongoing tool for policy in this area 82
As already mentioned, the Horner report formed the "blueprint" for the liberal party's election platform on crime prevention. One of the recommendations has been implemented in the creation of Canada's National Crime Prevention Council or NCPC in July of 1994. In its "Status Report: First Six Months of Activities January 1995" the NCPC acknowledges that Canada is only beginning to understand what can be done to prevent crime and to make communities safer. Their mandate thus involves the following: advising all levels of government on trends and successful strategies and proposing future directions and policies, sharing information on modalities of practice, educating the public and promoting awareness, and addressing specific issues through the appointment of task forces and\or subcommittees. The NCPC is supported through a secretariat in the Department of Justice which also co-ordinates the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention and other federal violence prevention activities.83
The NCPC has agreed to emphasize prevention through social development using a problem-solving framework. Their current priority is crime prevention directed at children and youth. They recognize that "this is the area that holds the most potential for a long-term reduction in crime and vitimisation".84 They are currently examining ways in which Canada can address the root causes of crime.
In, 1993, the Department of Justice organised the National Symposium on Community Safety and Crime Prevention in which the CWLC participated. The aim of this gathering was to develop a national policy on crime prevention. In the materials sent to participants, they described a number of programs funded by the Federal Government with the aim of reducing crime.85 While some of these programs continue, as Irvin Waller points out, many more have closed due to a decreasing commitment to such initiatives by the Canadian government.86 It seems that the next step for Canada's leaders must be to establish a strong and ongoing funding base for crime prevention activities. Otherwise, the work of the NCPC will be in vain and Canadians will continue to bear the unacceptable social and economic costs of crime.
Such funding must be allocated in a rational, planned manner which includes an evaluative component and research base. As Dr. Horner and the NCPC recommend, programs which have demonstrated effectiveness must be evaluated in the Canadian context.87
In the final section of this brief we will present programs that have proven effective both in preventing crime and saving money. Our focus here is on strategies which target families. Given the key role which families play in crime prevention, we see a priority in addressing their needs. Additionally, as organisations and agencies involved in services to children and families we have a lot of expertise to contribute to such a discussion. This expertise lies not only in service provision but in social research and program evaluation.
A STARTING POINT: PREVENTION PROGRAMS THAT WORK
| Back to Table of Contents |
Experts in both criminal justice and social services have underlined the need for a range of responses in the prevention continuum. Judge Michel Jasmin, in his report on the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec, gives a particularly helpful description of the three levels of prevention. Primary prevention seeks to prevent offending patterns from ever beginning in a young person. Secondary prevention efforts identify youth and families who have begun to exhibit tendencies toward antisocial behaviour and intervene to prevent exacerbation of these problems. Tertiary prevention is understood as rehabilitation of young offenders once they have come into contact with the criminal justice system, thereby reducing recidivism. As has already been shown, young offenders vary in terms of the complexity of their needs, the time of onset of anti-social behaviour, the severity and persistence of their offending. The full range of preventive measures is required to address the needs of this varied group of young people. 88
The programs we are about to present have been implemented and studied in various countries, including Canada. Many may have to be altered to reflect the realities of juvenile crime for this country, its various regions and communities. Of utmost importance is the involvement of aboriginal and ethnic minority communities in developing strategies to assist their young people and families. As described above, the youth of these communities are seriously over-represented in the child welfare and juvenile justice populations. Due to the forces of racism, oppression, and community strain or breakdown many aboriginal and ethnic minority youth are exposed to most or all of the risk factors associated with youth crime. A commitment to assisting them and their families must involve their communities, with the recognition that such communities may need additional resources to fulfill this goal. Aboriginal and ethnic communities must be given a special role in developing safer communities in Canada.
| Back to Table of Contents |
Included in this category are those programs involving early childhood intervention, particularly with disadvantaged families. As Utting et al. and Graham and Bennett report, a combination of material support and assistance with financial problems, quality day care, parenting support and training and pre-school education yield excellent results in terms of assisting families to become self-supporting and well- functioning.89 The following programs have all demonstrated their effectiveness in terms of long-term prevention of family problems and delinquency.
Yale Child Welfare Research Program
| Back to Table of Contents |
This program aimed to assist disadvantaged young parents to support their young children's development and improve the quality of their life as a family. This goal was accomplished through the provision of health and social services, parent training, child care and paediatric care, largely within the family's home. Seventeen mothers participated in the program for three years, from pregnancy until their children reached the age of 30 months. At the most recent follow-up, ten years after the program's end, program families fared much better than control families in a number of areas. The parents had achieved higher educational levels, had smaller families, and enjoyed better socioeconomic conditions. The children in the control group were significantly more likely to show aggressive and predelinquent behaviour serious enough to warrant suspension or placement in a special class. The control group children also showed higher rates of school absenteeism and a greater need for educational support services.90
Syracuse University Family Development Research Program
| Back to Table of Contents |
As in the Yale program, this project sought to bolster family and child functioning by focusing on parental interactions with the child. Extremely disadvantaged new mothers received weekly home visits by paraprofessionals who helped them with child-rearing, family relationships, employment and connecting with the community. The children received four and a half continuous years of childcare, starting part-time and graduating to full days. In the follow-up ten years later, the strongest program effects were seen in the reduction of juvenile delinquency and improved functioning in the community. Program children aged 13 to 16 were four times less likely to be involved in probation services. Moreover, the severity of the offences which they did commit was much lower than that of their peers in the control group.91
| Back to Table of Contents |
In this, the most familiar longitudinal study in the Industrial world, primary intervention was directed at impoverished families of three-and four year-old children. They received high quality, active learning pre- school programming while their parents obtained parenting education and assistance as well as encouragement in taking an active role in their children's education. Their most recent follow-up was with the 27 year-old children from these families. Participants have experienced a number of benefits from the program. They evidence better earnings, higher levels of schooling and less use of social services. Most importantly, the participant group shows a significantly lower arrest rate, at 7%, than their control counterpart's of 35%.92
University of Rochester Home Visitation Program
Starting in 1980, 400 women were randomly assigned to four treatment groups. Four interventions were undertaken including sensory and developmental screening for young children, transportation vouchers for pre-natal and child doctor appointments, home visits by nurses during pregnancy, and continued home visits up to the children's two year birthday. The control group received all services except the postnatal visits. The most recent follow-up occurred at four years of age. The treatment groups showed a 751/10 reduction in state verified cases of child abuse and neglect. This finding has been recognised as particularly encouraging given the longitudinal research which connects experiencing abuse as a child with later criminal and violent acts.93
Primary Prevention Initiatives in Canada
| Back to Table of Contents |
"Moncton -Head Start" focuses on poor, neglected and abused pre-schoolers involving their parents and parental partners in early family intervention. The child comes to the family centre with his or her parents, contact which is augmented by home visits and involvement in family and neighbourhood activities. Parents are assisted in caring for their children while setting appropriate behavioural limits. This program has yet to be evaluated.94
"Better Beginnings\Better Futures", a project developed by the Children's Services Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, established a 25 year longitudinal prevention policy research demonstration with the goals of preventing emotional, social, cognitive and behavioural difficulties for children aged 0-8 and enhancing their communities. Program interventions closely resemble the Perry Pre- school Project with an added emphasis on social and cognitive skill development for the children. Program staff report a reduction in child welfare intake rates in one project and reduced vandalism by children in another. Research findings will soon be available as to the short-term effects of these projects.95
| Back to Table of Contents |
As David Day explains, once anti-social behaviour patterns have begun to develop in a child, more intensive interventions need to be embarked upon. Secondary prevention involves identifying those risk factors or criminogenic needs which are contributing to the child's troublesome behaviour and addressing them in an intense way. Here we are focusing mainly on the under 12 offender. Families, schools and other members of the community have key roles in such interventions. However, unless the young person is older, aged 10 or 11, and exhibiting serious violence or destructive behaviour, the offence should not be the focus. In any event, correctional and punitive responses are found to be completely ineffective and potentially counter-productive with the majority of youth who are under 12.
Children who begin criminal behaviour at this stage of their development deserve our close attention as they are most likely to suffer from the effects of a whole constellation of risk factors and show greater probability of becoming serious and persistent offenders. A number of programs have been developed which have shown high success rates with this group of young people.96
Oregon Social Learning Centre Program
| Back to Table of Contents |
As reported in Grabosky and James, this program aimed at educating parents of preadolescent, anti-social children in effective child rearing. Parents were trained to use positive, non-coercive methods of discipline and to deal "consistently and decisively" with their children's acting out behaviour. Specific tasks for parents included monitoring of behaviour over long periods, clearly stated house rules, a reward and punishment system, and the negotiation with the children of acceptable standards of behaviour. Problem- solving, the prevention of crisis escalation and improved parent-child communication were also supported. Meticulous evaluation of this program revealed that, in the short-term, theft and other anti-social behaviour decreased significantly for program children when compared to controls. In the long-term, where parents maintained their newly acquired skills, the prevention effect continued to operate.97
Secondary Prevention Initiatives in Canada
| Back to Table of Contents |
In Canada, similar approaches to secondary prevention have been adopted though adapted to fit the needs of the client group. "Tremblay and Vitaro" targeted 7 year-old boys who were assessed as disruptive by classroom teachers. A multi-faceted approach was devised which combined workshops at school aimed at teaching prosocial behaviours and problem solving with the Oregon Social Learning model of parent education. Teachers also received some assistance in dealing with troublesome behaviour. By the age of 12 the program group boys were significantly less likely to engage in bullying or fights than their control group peers. They also committed less theft and drug and alcohol abuse. The differences between the control and program group increased with time.98
The "Earlscourt Child and Family Centre's Under 12 Outreach Project" or ORP uses a similar mode of intervention. The ORP "helps children under the age of 12 who come into contact with the police learn self control and problem solving skills and also helps their parents better monitor and control their child's behaviour."99 The child participates in role plays, discussions and sports activities.. The parents receive counselling and participate in support groups. School advocacy services which include meetings with the child's teacher are also provided. Several evaluations of the ORP are currently underway. Earlscourt Child and Family Centre is particularly interested in examining both program outcomes and the child, family, and program factors that are associated with these outcomes. The Centre will use this information to better understand the processes associated with the treatment of conduct problem behaviour in children and to contribute to program development. Early research has found that parents report a significant reduction in the child's anti-social behaviour after participation in the program. Preliminary research also shows a 30% recidivism rate for these children after leaving the program. Dr. Day comments, "though comparison group data will soon be available we are already encouraged by these numbers given the high risk nature of the children involved in this program."100
| Back to Table of Contents |
Once a child has been processed by the youth justice system he or she requires the type of services involved in tertiary prevention. Research on the rehabilitation of young and adult offenders has supported a general approach at this stage of a youth's offending history. Bonta and Leshied and Gendreau emphasize the importance of matching the rehabilitative response to the assessed risk of the offender. In other words, intense services must be available, or those at a high risk of re-offending, such as daily contact, while low risk offenders require much less intense intervention. The need principle is also key. Here the experts speak of criminogenic needs, which are those needs which contribute to the offending. Any intervention must directly address these needs. Examples would be treatment for a young offender's substance abuse, family preservation services, or therapy for prior sexual abuse. The final element which contributes to effective rehabilitation services is a focus on cognitive and behavioural change in a structured and directive environment. Programs which reflect this orientation yet also facilitate a warm rapport with staff are highly effective.101
Implementation of the YOA in Quebec
| Back to Table of Contents |
Many CWLC members and supporters praised Quebec's approach to implementing the YOA. The Batshaw Youth and Family Centers Consultation Group, who all have many years of experience in providing rehabilitation services to young offenders, expressed a strong commitment to the approach described above for tertiary prevention. The current strategies they describe as operating both in their programs and province-wide involve assessments of needs and risk and as well as the importance of structure, and social and cognitive skill development. They also acknowledge the need -to protect society from seriously dangerous young people and the importance of developing assessment tools and effective treatment modalities for these teens.
In Quebec, young offenders are treated similarly to all youth who are experiencing family, social and emotional difficulties. Youth protection and family support are integrated well with services to young offenders. In fact the Director of Youth Protection is delegated the responsibilities of the Provincial Director for Young Offenders services for his or her region. As already mentioned Quebec manages to prevent a much larger proportion of its young offenders from entering the youth court. This is made possible through a well developed alternative measures program which has existed since 1984. Probation and custody responses are also rehabilitation focused and supported by community, family and clinical services.102
Alternative measures in Quebec are carried out under a written agreement which involves the child, the representative of the provincial director and the child's parents. They may involve donations, voluntary community work or work for the victim and programming aimed at improving the young person's behavioural and social skills. These measures are available when the youth has committed a minor offence, where there are attenuating circumstances and a committed response by the youth and the parents.103 Alternative measures are an example of an appropriate rehabilitative response for low risk youth which can target their criminogenic needs through skill development and assist parents in providing the necessary level of structure and supervision.
Probation and custody are undertaken in Quebec with a similar focus on skill development, needs and family involvement. What has changed with these responses is the relative level of structure and supervision, with the state taking on more responsibility for this aspect of the measure. Probation services and supervision are provided by youth workers who are usually persons with social work, criminology, or social counselling training. Custodial facilities are staffed by child care workers or psycho-educators. The emphasis in both is rehabilitation of the child and his or her family. Community based placement is undertaken to the greatest extent possible.104
The Quebec approach signifies a strong commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, values which are founding principles of the YOA. Those who consulted on this brief report that such an orientation is not consistently applied across Canada, however. Provincially adopted admission criteria for alternative measures vary. In Ontario, for example, such a disposition is available only for a first offence; this is not the case in Quebec. Moreover, as Quebec also faces cuts to funding for community-based and supportive services, service providers are seeking additional ways to address the rehabilitation needs of more serious offenders in a more cost-effective way. Batshaw Youth and Family Centers has thus proposed the Electronically Monitored intensive Probation program, or EMIP.
| Back to Table of Contents |
The following is an excerpt from Madeleine Rivard-Leduc's proposal, prepared on behalf of Batshaw Youth and Family Centers:
The Batshaw model combines the best features of Electronic Surveillance and of Family Ties within the framework of Quebec and Canadian laws. It will permit higher-risk offenders to benefit from family preservation services within their parental or even foster or group home environment. It thus exemplifies a further example of innovative, cost effective ways to provide appropriate rehabilitation services to young offenders. Andrews, Leshied, and Hoge report findings that intensive probation services when combined with intensive rehabilitation services serves to reduce recidivism in young offenders.106
An interesting question that arises from the Family Ties program, one of the bases of the EMIP project, is whether such measures can be imposed prior to final sentencing as a way of monitoring the effectiveness of alternatives to custody. The idea is that as long as the program works, the young person can avoid a finding of guilt or a severe sentence. Such a measure would increase the structure of the response for more serious offenders and better ensure the safety of the public from future violent acts. This approach is key to the Family Ties program where judges adjourn the case while the intervention takes place.107
In Canada, due to the difference in our laws, this is not officially possible. However, as Judge Allard reports, it is being done in a more subtle manner, unofficially, all across the country. Its use is highly variable, however. In their normal power as judges to sentence and suspend sentence, the Canadian judiciary will suspend sentence on the stipulation that certain conditions, typically involving child welfare interventions, are met. The approach is attractive in that it can motivate behaviour and monitor the effectiveness of alternative programs. However, Judge Allard cautions that it also potentially violates the youth's right to due process, in that he or she is not really given a choice. The Alberta Court of Appeal has "frowned upon" using this measure for adults. Judge Allard also has found that a well developed probation plan with proper conditions and available resources can accomplish the same goals.108
The preceding pages have hopefully demonstrated that much can be done to prevent youth criminality, whether from ever developing or from continuing once it starts. All of these measures focus on families, but most also recognize the importance of other key people involved in a young person's life, especially those employed in his or her school. While we will not examine them here, many school-based prevention measures have also been developed and evaluated. All researchers seem to agree that measures taken by schools are only effective when families are involved in the intervention.109 The CWLC strongly advocates implementing such measures as an essential component of any strategy aimed at youth crime.
Supporting Families Saves Money In The Long Term
| Back to Table of Contents |
The programs we have described above are not only effective from a service perspective, they have demonstrated cost-effectiveness. As social service providers, CWLC members recognize only too well the importance of utilizing resources in the most rational, effective way possible. We have already shown that corrections focused responses are not only costly, but may contribute to increased offending in the long term. The strategies we advocate reverse this phenomenon; they cost less and prevent future offending.
Most of the primary prevention research projects we highlighted incorporated an evaluation of the cost- effectiveness of the program into their plan. A cost-benefit analysis of the Yale program revealed a saving of $20,000 per family per year, after factoring in program costs. This reflected savings of $1 for every $1 invested in the program. The savings noted were in terms of increased employment of the parents and a decrease in remedial and school services. A comparison of the program benefits and costs for the Perry Pre- school project revealed an even higher return on the investment. For every dollar invested $7 were saved in terms of social services, justice system costs, and the costs to victims. Savings to the justice system alone covered the program costs. Secondary prevention efforts revealed similar savings when a cost-benefit analysis was undertaken.110
Tertiary prevention efforts have also proven extremely cost-effective. Here the major contributor to cost savings is the ability to avoid secure custody placements for young people., placements that have been found to cost up to $80,000 per year in certain jurisdictions. In Quebec in 1989-90~, alternative measures cost $783 per youth, probation cost $2,213 and custody, both open and closed, averaged $24, 564. 111 Remember, too, that diversion alone is also an important option for minor offences and youth with limited criminogenic needs. it obviously costs nothing and saves expenditures on other levels of intervention which may be neither necessary nor appropriate in the circumstances.
The fact that Quebec sends one third of the national per capita average of young offenders to court indicates a great cost saving effect for their approach in terms of avoidance of probation and custody orders as well as court and legal costs.. In 1989-90, open and closed custody costs amounted to $52,393,336 in Quebec, while alternative measures required approximately $7 million and social services for young offenders and their families, including probation, cost $20,088,814. 112 The latest available statistics show us that the proportion that custodial and probation orders represent of total judicial decisions are similar for Canada and Quebec, at approximately 30% and 45% respectively. 113 However, as stated previously, Quebec sends approximately one third the number of young people to court. If Quebec were to serve its clientele in the same manner as the rest of Canada their custody costs would triple! just in terms of custody then, Quebec's system of alternative measures and social services with a price tag of $28 million in 1989-90 dollars saves close to $100 million per year in custody costs. This amounts to $3 for every dollar spent. The EMIP program, by serving 48 clients for the amount of funding 12 open custody beds would require per year, could potentially save an additional $1 million per year with an investment of the $348,000 which is required to put this pilot project into operation.114 For every dollar invested in such a program, $3 could also potentially be saved.
The above summary of cost-benefit analyses for prevention programs reveals that between $1 and $7 of tax revenues can be saved for every dollar invested. Extrapolating from these findings, were the federal government to implement the Horner report's recommendation that 1 % of the criminal justice system's total costs be invested in prevention programs for the first year, great savings in terms of long term government spending could be realized. Using 1992's figures, the 1 % reallocation would amount to $960 million. As illustrated in Table 1, below, investing even a quarter of that amount in family based prevention programs would potentially save tax payers from $265 million to $1.86 billion in the long term. Even if these figures appear overly optimistic, one must consider the great social costs of relying on carceral measures in an ever increasing way to deal with social problems. Given the spiralling costs of correctional responses to youth crime and the current fiscal climate in our country, Canada has no choice but to invest in such measures.
Table 1: Potential Savings on Investment in Family Based Crime Prevention
This site was initiated by the Canadian Child Care Federation and produced under contract to  Industry Canada. |
Ce site a été développé par la Fédération canadienne des services de garde à l'enfance et produit avec l'aide deIndustrie Canada. |
 |  |  |