Participants at the community engagement sessions spoke about their local community safety and well-being challenges from a wide variety of perspectives. Some tried to capture the overarching needs of the community, while others spoke as individuals and identified specific challenges that impact them personally. Conversely, some participants spoke on behalf of the particular organization for which they work or volunteer and others from the perspective of the broader sector to which those organizations belong. Despite the wide variety of perspectives, many common challenges were highlighted by various participants, across multiple sectors and communities. More specifically, the challenges mentioned most often at the engagement sessions relate to the following four themes:

  • collaboration
  • service gaps
  • service accessibility
  • resources and sustainability

This section includes references to some of the locally-identified promising practices noted at the community engagement sessions, as well as current Ontario government programs that may assist with addressing some of the above noted challenges.

Collaboration

The benefits of collaboration were acknowledged by many communities at the engagement sessions, but not without mention of the following significant challenges they face when attempting to build and maintain effective partnerships:

  • silos
  • information sharing
  • community empowerment

Some communities noted that service providers often work in isolation, otherwise known as silos. This creates divisions not only between sectors, but also between providers working within the same sector. A few communities indicated that silos are often reinforced by funding systems that compel agencies to compete with one another, making them less likely to initiate partnerships or share information. Additionally, many communities identified difficulties building partnerships with specific sectors. However, the sectors identified differed across communities, indicating that a few key agencies or individuals representing these sectors may need to be engaged at the local level.

While the absence of a partnership does not necessarily prevent the flow of information between sectors, it may create additional challenges. It logically follows that when relationships are strengthened, collaborators operate as partners and tend to be more comfortable sharing information. Even in instances where established partnerships exist, other factors may still prevent sectors from sharing information.

Ontario communities have implemented community safety and well-being practices that work within the existing legislative framework and one such example includes the Rapid Mobilization Table. This is an example of a Situation Table that uses a four-filter approach to share information.

A few communities suggested that legislative amendments are needed in order for sectors to effectively collaborate and share information, while others have found innovative ways to work within the existing legislative framework. In some instances, legislation may appear to prohibit sectors from sharing information among themselves and/or across sectors in order to protect their clients’ privacy rights. However, some pieces of legislation are specifically designed to enable sectors to share information in order to avoid risk-driven incidents from occurring. The inconsistencies sometimes result in sectors choosing to simply err on the side of caution when it comes to privacy.

The Ontario Working Group on Collaborative, Risk-Driven Community Safety (OWG), a co-operative effort of the Ministry, various Ontario police services and their community partners, have developed An Interpretive Guide to Information Sharing Practices in Ontario…within the Context of Collaborative, Risk-driven Community Safety and Well-being. It focuses exclusively on some of the challenges inherent in exchanging personal and confidential information to address the immediate needs of those at risk of harm or victimization. The guide was made available through the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) in July 2014, as part of a collection of documents entitled New Directions in Community Safety: Consolidated Lessons Learned about Risk and Collaboration.

While partnership building and information sharing are concepts often associated with a more formalized level of collaboration, the need for informal collaboration among community members and groups was also acknowledged at many community engagement sessions. It is generally understood that members of a community should not simply report a crime once it has occurred, but should also be actively engaged in its prevention. It was noted that some of the most successful community safety and well-being initiatives are often led by community members and groups. A few communities indicated, however, that their members do not feel empowered to make a difference in their community and sometimes rely on professionals such as the police and other service providers to assume responsibility for the community’s safety and well-being. Additionally, some community members that become engaged may find it challenging to make the time to volunteer on a consistent, ongoing basis. Other communities identified their successes and highlighted the emergence of grassroots initiatives in which mobilized community members seek to encourage and empower other citizens to engage in positive community-building activities.

East Side Pride and Our West End Initiative are two examples of grassroots organizations currently in operation in Ontario.

Service gaps

Participants at the community engagement sessions identified service gaps particular to their needs; some of those mentioned were highly specific and not shared across communities. Common service gaps were also identified in several locations, often by multiple sectors, including:

  • mental health
  • poverty, homelessness and economic opportunities
  • youth

The local priority most frequently identified at the community engagement sessions was mental health. Communities identified mental health issues as a significant risk factor that can lead individuals to either engage in crime, social disorder incidents or activities and/or become victims of crime. Some communities noted that a significant service gap exists in this area. In addition, some communities also highlighted the need for more services, such as enhancing emergency response by ensuring the presence of trained mental health specialists, for individuals with mental health needs. A few communities specifically spoke about the need for additional resources for youth with mental health needs, to provide services early on in life. Some communities also noted that addictions and substance abuse create additional challenges for those with mental health needs.

To address the priority of mental health, one Ontario community has established a multi-disciplinary Community Outreach and Support Team to provide integrated and coordinated responses to individuals with mental health needs who are in crisis. The sectors involved include police and mental health.

The ministry has used this information to select “Prevention Through the Promotion of Mental Health” as the theme for the 2014/15 – 2015/16 Safer and Vital Communities (SVC) Grant. This grant provides funding to community-based, not-for-profit, incorporated organizations and First Nations’ Chiefs and Band Councils to develop and deliver community safety and well-being initiatives. More information about this grant and other grants can be found at the Ontario Grants website.

Many communities also identified poverty and homelessness as contributing factors to crime and victimization, and recognize the need for adequate, affordable and stable housing. It was suggested that more services are needed, and should be targeted to those who face the greatest risk of homelessness. Some communities identified their vulnerable, at-risk populations as youth, people newly released from custody/jail and individuals with mental health needs. Individuals falling into more than one of these groups, such as a youth in conflict with the law with mental health needs may face even greater challenges with achieving adequate housing. In addition, some communities highlighted a lack of employment related opportunities and/or a need for more education and employment programs for youth and people newly released from custody/jail.

In recognition of the fact that many individuals and families experiencing homelessness often face complex and co-occurring challenges related to mental health, addictions and poverty, one Ontario community has implemented a Community Addiction Response Strategy. This strategy uses a collaborative community-based approach to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness to achieve stable housing.

Overall, the most common priority group identified at the community engagement sessions as requiring additional services was youth. A few communities noted the negative impacts of social media, including cyberbullying, and other communities expressed concern with the issue of youth suicide. Some communities indicated that more programming is required to support positive parenting and preventative counselling services related to domestic violence and healthy relationships, as well as early childhood development. Other

communities made reference to the need for more programming for seniors to provide opportunities to connect with youth in an attempt to reduce intergenerational gaps.

A community has responded to the need for healthy relationship programming by assisting school boards to implement an interactive classroom curriculum specifically for youth called the Fourth R. The Fourth R aims to reduce dating violence by teaching youth about healthy relationships.

Some communities have responded to the need for early childhood development by implementing a program for children in their early years called Stop Now and Plan (SNAP), which helps to regulate angry feelings by getting participants to stop, think and plan positive alternatives before acting impulsively

The provincial government also offers funding through the Seniors Community Grant for projects that encourage greater social inclusion, volunteerism and community engagement for seniors across the province. This grant is open to non-profit seniors’ organizations, local service boards, municipalities, Aboriginal groups and individuals representing seniors groups. More information about this grant and other grants can be found at Ontario grants.

Some communities have responded to the need for early childhood development by implementing a program for children in their early years called Stop Now and Plan (SNAP), which helps to regulate angry feelings by getting participants to stop, think and plan positive alternatives before acting impulsively.

Some Ontario communities have also responded to the need for parenting programs and have implemented:

  • strengthening families for the future, which aims to facilitate change within the family
  • caring dads, which seeks to improve fathers’ parenting skills
  • the Triple P - positive parenting program (Triple P), that aims to prevent and treat problems in the family, school and community before they arise

The provincial government offers Parents Reaching Out Grants to support parents in identifying barriers to community engagement, and to find local solutions to become more involved in supporting student achievement and well-being. Grant recipients may include school councils, parent organizations and involvement committees, publicly funded school boards, non-profit organizations and post-secondary institutions operating in Ontario. More information about this grant and other grants can be found at the Ontario Grants website.

Although it is important for communities to assess their own specific service gaps to help identify local priorities, by sharing common service gaps communities have an opportunity to work together and learn from one another when attempting to address common gaps.

Service accessibility

Service accessibility is an important consideration in addressing a community’s priority service gaps. At the community engagement sessions, many communities identified a lack of access to existing programs and services as a significant challenge. Communities acknowledged the following reasons for their accessibility issues:

  • lack of knowledge, awareness and coordination
  • waitlists
  • location and transportation
  • low uptake of services

One reason that creates service accessibility challenges that was noted by many communities is a lack of knowledge and awareness about existing programs and services. In many instances, up-to-date information is not readily available, making it more difficult for people to access services on their own and impacting the ability of agencies to make referrals to other available services. This lack of awareness may be a contributing factor to the overall lack of coordination among services that was referenced by several communities. It was suggested that better coordination among human service providers would make it easier for people to connect with the supports they need, and help to avoid service duplication across agencies.

Many communities also identified lengthy waitlists as a significant barrier to accessing existing programs and services. In some instances, it was noted that programs and services may be reactive rather than preventative, meaning that, for example, priority may be given to those who have already come into contact with the law. Additionally, a few communities indicated that the limited hours during which some services are available (for example, weekdays and during standard business hours) can affect an individual’s ability to access the appropriate services when they are needed. It was suggested that extending and expanding service hours to include evenings, weekends and/or holidays could help to improve service accessibility.

Some Ontario communities have acknowledged the need for better coordination among human service providers and in response have implemented community safety and well-being practices with that intention. Some examples include New Opportunities and Hope Supportive Partnerships Advocating Community Empowerment and Situation Tables.

One community has implemented an innovative program that aims to address the issue of lengthy waitlists, specifically for at-risk youth. Youth Outreach Under 18 Response Services provides short-term support for youth aged 12 to 18 years old who exhibit risk factors often associated with crime and victimization.

Many communities also identified lengthy waitlists as a significant barrier to accessing existing programs and services. In some instances, it was noted that programs and services may be reactive rather than preventative, meaning that, for example, priority may be given to those who have already come into contact with the law. Additionally, a few communities indicated that the limited hours during which some services are available (for example, weekdays and during standard business hours) can affect an individual’s ability to access the appropriate services when they are needed. It was suggested that extending and expanding service hours to include evenings, weekends and/or holidays could help to improve service accessibility.

Generally, communities also cited location as a barrier to service accessibility. Many communities indicated that people must travel out of the region to access certain programs and services. Often services exist in central, urban locations, leaving parts of the community un-served or under-served. This can be of particular concern when the under-served areas overlap with the high risk areas of the community, which are home to vulnerable individuals and groups who most need the services. Many communities also indicated that there are challenges related to accessing transportation to services. In some communities there is a lack of available transportation to service locations, while in other communities transportation is available, but too costly. A few communities suggested partnering with local service clubs to respond to local transportation needs.

It was noted that even in instances where it appears that programs and services are both available and accessible, low uptake of services can present a significant challenge. People may not be accessing services on a consistent and/or continuous basis and, therefore, programs and services may not be achieving the intended results. This issue is of particular concern when uptake is low or infrequent among those who most need the programs and services being offered, such as high risk vulnerable populations. It was suggested that better outreach strategies are needed in some communities.

It is clear that simply establishing a program or a service is not enough to ensure that all members of a community who require the program or service can and will access them. Reasons for service accessibility issues are varied and the complexity of the causes suggests that multi-dimensional solutions are required.

Resources and sustainability

A contributing factor to the overall availability and accessibility of services identified by communities may be related to their challenges with ensuring the sustainability of the programs and services offered. Generally, communities indicated that current resources are either insufficient or unsustainable due to challenging:

  • funding structures
  • funding criteria
  • limited evaluation

Specific challenges were identified with the structure of grant funding. Grants often have specific criteria that outline the areas in which funding can be spent. In some instances, funding may only be used for program start-up costs, rather than for on-going operations such as staffing or evaluation. Other grant criteria can also make it difficult for communities to target funding towards locally-identified priorities if they are unrelated to the priorities of the funding organization. Failure to abide by grant funding criteria may result in a loss of funding. Many grants are short-term, which means that grant recipients must either develop programs that fit within the timeframe for funding, or find ways to adapt and continue the program with other resources once the grant has finished. Additionally, knowledge and awareness of some grants may be low and as a result, potential recipients may miss opportunities to access funding.

In response to the overwhelming sustainability concerns identified at the community engagement sessions, the ministry extended the term of the SVC Grant from one to two years, for the period of 2014/15 – 2015/16, in order to support the sustainability of initiatives funded. More information about this grant and other grants can be found at the Ontario grants website.

Some communities also noted that it can be challenging to meet the expectations placed on grant recipients. If a program is funded through multiple grants from more than one source, reporting and other expectations are multiplied and can be difficult to manage for some community organizations. In a few instances, communities indicated that recipients are required to provide a substantial amount of information, sometimes related to the resources to be used to implement the program, or evaluation of the model upon which the program is based. Fulfilling these requirements can be particularly challenging if recipients are utilizing the funding to initiate pilot projects that aim to test out an innovative, new approach. Overall, there is a significant need for a coordinated funding system which both streamlines administrative requirements and ensures the accountability of funding.

Communities’ challenges related to resources and sustainability are very closely linked to their challenges related to program evaluation. It was recognized that conducting meaningful evaluations can be complex, time consuming and require significant resources. For example, it is difficult for police services and other community safety and well-being partners to prove that an individual did not commit a crime or become a victim because he or she was involved in a specific program. Similarly, it is difficult for a health care agency to prove that an individual did not develop a disease because he or she followed a particular diet and exercise routine, or a school to prove that a student avoided expulsion because he or she participated in a specific extra-curricular program. Generally, prevention initiatives are simply more difficult to evaluate. Because finding a way to demonstrate the social value of an investment is essential to illustrating societal savings, and validate funding decisions, some communities have acknowledged the opportunity to leverage their local academic community to assist in conducting evaluations.

The OWG has also developed a guidance document that identifies examples of effective and appropriate performance indicators for measuring community safety and well-being. The performance measures are derived from the applied research and evaluation efforts of municipalities, university departments, provincial agencies and offices. The measures have been shown to work and be of value to those who are interested in strengthening community capacities to develop and care for the safety and well-being of Ontarians. The guidance document, Performance Measures…for Community Safety and Well-being, was made available through the OACP in July 2014, as part of a collection of documents entitled New Directions in Community Safety: Consolidated Lessons Learned about Risk and Collaboration.

Two Ontario based programs mentioned at the community engagement sessions, SNAP and Triple P, have had return on investment evaluations, and have shown positive results in obtaining value for money spent.

Although some communities are finding challenges with obtaining resources and ensuring sustainability, many others are using existing resources in an innovative and collaborative way to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in their community safety and well-being practices. Communities are encouraged to partner with others, and learn from those who have developed new ways to ensure the needs of their community are being met on an ongoing basis.

Conclusion

The local involvement and input received at the community engagement sessions shed light on many common challenges experienced by multiple participants, across various sectors and communities when aiming to increase community safety and well-being. The sessions have shown that communities are working together in partnership to shrink service gaps, increase service accessibility and use existing resources in a more innovative way to create sustainable responses. When developing community safety and well-being practices, communities are encouraged to be proactive in considering the challenges outlined above in order to mitigate and/or avoid them if possible. Encouragingly, and perhaps most importantly, the sessions also gave communities the opportunity to share and celebrate their successes, and identify the following local promising practices.