The following is an example of what a plan may look like. It is intended to guide local partners involved in the community safety and well-being planning process as they summarize work undertaken in the development of their plan. While planning partners should include information in their plan related to the headings below (i.e., members of their advisory committee and implementation team(s), overview of community engagement, risks, activities and outcomes, etc.) it is left up to local discretion.

A plan is meant to be a living document, and should be updated as communities move forward in their work. While the plan itself will be important for planning partners to stay organized and inform the community of the way forward, the most valuable outcomes from this process will be improved coordination of services, collaboration, information sharing and partnerships between local government, agencies and organizations and an improved quality of life for community members.

Municipality/First Nation: Municipality of Grassland Coordinator(s)

Coordinator: Claudia T.
Social Services, Municipality of Grassland
Co-coordinator: Steffie A.
Department Head, Grassland Catholic School Board

Grassland Community Safety and Well-being Planning Committee Members (advisory committee):

Claudia T.
Municipality of Grassland (Social Services)
Silvana B.
Municipality of Grassland (Communications)
Steffie A.
Grassland Catholic School Board
James L.
Grassland Public School Board
Morgan T.
Community Elder
Fionne Y.
Children’s Mental Health Centre
Yoko I.
Grassland Hospital
Stephanie L.
Social Services
Shannon C.
Ontario Works
Ram T.
Ontario Disability Support Program
Emily J.
Grassland Police Services Board
Nicole P.
Grassland Police Service
Sheniz K.
Grassland Probation and Parole
Stephen W.
Local Aboriginal Agency
Oscar M.
University of Grassland, Data Analytics

Community background

The Grassland community has a population of 64,900, with approximately 40% made up of those between the ages of 15 and 29. There are 54% males and 46% females in the community. The majority of residents living in Grassland were born in Grassland, with only 20% coming from another community, province or country. As a result, most of the population is English speaking; however, there are some smaller neighbourhoods with a strong presence of French-speaking individuals. Most residents of Grassland are single, with 30% of the population being married or in a common-law relationship; there is also a high presence of single-parent households. Most of the land is residential, with several retail businesses in the downtown core. Households living in Grassland have an average annual income of $65,000.

Community engagement

To support the identification of local risks, partners involved in the development of Grassland’s community safety and well-being plan hosted two community engagement sessions at the community centre. The first session had 25 participants, and the second session had 53 participants. Each of these sessions were open to the public, and included representation from a variety of agencies/organizations from a wide range of sectors, including but not limited to local elementary and secondary schools, university, hospital, community agencies, private businesses, addictions support centres, mental health centres, long-term care homes, retirement homes and child welfare organizations. Members of the public and vulnerable groups also attended, including youth and seniors themselves. A number of open-ended questions were posed at the engagement sessions to encourage and facilitate discussion, such as: What is the Grassland community doing well to ensure the safety and well-being of its residents? What are challenges/issues in the Grassland community and opportunities for improvement?

To receive more specific information regarding risks, planning partners conducted 14 one-on-one meetings with community agencies/organizations (some attended the town-hall meeting and some did not). These meetings were initiated by the municipal coordinator, as she grew up in the community and already had a strong working relationship with many of these agencies/organizations. Questions were asked such as: What are the barriers to success that you see in your organization? What are the risks most often faced by the individuals and families that you serve? Agencies/organizations that were engaged during this phase include:

  • Grassland Catholic School Board
  • Employment Centre
  • Children’s Mental Health Centre
  • Grassland Hospital
  • Ontario Works
  • Grassland Police Service
  • Grassland Senior’s Association
  • Local Homeless Shelter
  • Organization that works with offenders
  • Addictions Centre
  • Women’s Shelter
  • Local First Nations and Métis Organization
  • Francophone Organization
  • LGBTQ Service Organization

Priority risks:

The following risks were selected by the planning committee as priorities to be focused on in their four year plan:

  • Low educational attainment rates
    • At the town-hall community engagement sessions, members of the public and the local school boards identified a lack of educational attainment in Grassland. Statistics provided by Ontario Works also indicated that Grassland has an above-average number of individuals being financially supported by their services that have not obtained their high-school diploma. The local school boards have noticed a significant increase in the number of individuals dropping out before they reach grade 12 in the past two years. This was supported by statistics received from Statistics Canada, which show Grassland having a significantly high number of people that have not completed high-school compared to other municipalities of a similar size.
  • Mental health
    • Mental health was identified most frequently (12 out of 14) by the agencies/organizations that were engaged on a one-on-one basis as being a risk faced by many of the individuals and families they serve.
  • Domestic violence
    • Statistics provided by the Grassland Police Service indicate that they respond to more calls related to domestic violence than any other type of incident. Grassland also has the largest women’s shelter within the region; it is often over-populated with women having to be referred to services outside of the municipality.

Implementation teams and members

  • Increasing Educational Attainment Working Group
    • Purpose: to increase educational attainment in Grassland by creating awareness about the impacts of dropping out of school and ensuring youth receive the support they need to graduate.   
    • Membership: this group includes representation from the planning committee as well as organizations that were engaged during community engagement whose mandate aligns with this group’s purpose. Specifically, membership consists of:
      • Julie M., Grassland Catholic School Board
      • Ray A., Grassland Public School Board
      • Shannon C., Ontario Works
      • Ram T., Ontario Disability Support Program
      • Claudia T., Municipality of Grassland (Social Services)
      • Sam S., Employment Centre
      • Stephen W., Local Aboriginal Agency
      • Allan R., youth living in the community
  • Mental health task force
    • Purpose: to ensure Grassland community members who are experiencing mental health issues are properly diagnosed and have access to the most appropriate service provider who can assist in addressing their needs.
    • Membership: this group has been in place for the past two years and was identified after completing an asset mapping exercise of existing bodies as a body that could be responsible for coordinating/developing strategies related to mental health. Existing members will continue to be on this implementation team and include:
      • Mary M., Municipality of Grassland (Social Services)
      • Fionne Y., Children’s Mental Health Centre
      • James Y., Grassland Hospital
      • Susan B., Addictions Centre
      • Todd S., Grassland Catholic School Board
      • Lynn W., Grassland Public School Board
      • Morgan T., Community Elder
  • Domestic violence prevention working group
    • Purpose: to ensure victims of domestic violence are receiving the proper supports from the most appropriate service provider and are provided with assistance in leaving their abusive relationships.
    • Membership: this group includes representation from the planning committee as well as organizations that were engaged during community engagement whose mandate aligns with this group’s purpose. Specifically, membership consists of:
      • Emily J., Grassland Police Service
      • Aiesha Z., Women’s Shelter
      • Stephanie L., Social Services
      • Lisah G., Social Services
      • Kail L., Grassland Hospital
      • Frank C., Victim Services
      • Sean D., Local Indigenous Agency

Plans to Address Priority Risk

Priority Risk #1: Low educational attainment

Approximately 20% of the population of Grassland has not obtained their high school diploma. As a result, employment opportunities for these individuals are limited and the average household income is much lower than the provincial average. This has resulted in an increase in property crime in the past several years as these individuals strive to provide for themselves and their families.

Vulnerable group: youth between the ages of 12-17

Risk factors: missing school – chronic absenteeism, truancy, low literacy, low educational attainment, learning difficulties, behavioural problems

Protective factors: positive school experiences, optimism and positive expectations for future, self-esteem, positive support within the family

Activities:

  • broker partnerships between social services, neighbourhood hubs, library and school boards (social development) – this will be done collectively by the Increasing Educational Attainment Working Group
  • community engagement sessions involving youth (prevention) – this will be done at the onset by the planning committee
  • one-on-one meetings with local university, college and social services (prevention) – this will be done at the onset by the planning committee
  • review outcomes of lunch-time and after-school reading programs in schools to consider enhancement and expansion (prevention)
  • implement the Violent Threat Risk Assessment Protocol (risk intervention) – this will be a joint effort of the Grassland Catholic and Public School Boards

Immediate outcomes:

  • community is better informed of issues faced related to community safety and well-being (education specifically)
  • impacts of not graduating from high-school communicated to students, community members and service providers
  • increased access to education for students in receipt of social assistance
  • expansion of lunch-time and after-school reading programs in schools
  • a coordinated approach to supporting youth who pose a risk of violence to themselves or others
  • better school experiences for troubled youth

Intermediate outcomes:

  • increase graduations rates

Long-term outcomes:

  • increase community safety and well-being through an increase in employment rates and income levels

Priority Risk #2: Mental health

More than 50% of the Grassland Police Services’ social disorder calls are responding to those with a mental health issue. This has created tension within the community as the police are not properly equipped to handle these types of situations. These individuals are becoming involved in the criminal justice system, rather than receiving the support that they require.

Vulnerable group: individuals between the ages of 15 and 45

Risk factors: poor mental health, learning difficulties, low self-esteem, impulsivity, mistreatment during childhood, neglect

Protective factors: self-esteem, adaptability, housing in close proximity to services, access to/availability of resources, professional services and social supports

Activities:

  • broker partnerships between mental health service providers (social development) – this will be done collectively by the Mental Health Task Force
  • community engagement sessions (prevention) – this will be done at the onset by the Planning Committee
  • one-on-one meetings with local mental health service providers (prevention) – this will be done at the onset by the planning committee and additional meetings will also be arranged by the Mental Health Task Force
  • broker partnerships with private sector building development companies with the aim of increasing housing opportunities in priority neighbourhoods (prevention) – this will be done by the Mental Health Task Force
  • implementation of the Youth Outreach Under 18 Response Service to eliminate service gaps for youth on waitlists by providing them with short-term support until other services may be accessed (risk intervention) – this will be led by the Children’s Mental Health Centre
  • implementation of an evidence-based collaborative model of police and mental health workers responding to mental health calls together (for example, COAST) (incident response)

Immediate outcomes:

  • mental health service providers interacting to reduce a duplication of services
  • individuals experiencing mental health issues receiving support from the most appropriate service provider
  • individuals in the community are aware and more sensitive to those experiencing mental health issues
  • individuals experiencing mental health issues are connected to stable housing that is in close proximity to services
  • development of relationship with private sector building companies

Intermediate outcomes:

  • the level of mental health service availability meets the needs of the population

Long-term outcomes:

  • increase community safety and well-being through availability of affordable housing in areas of need due to partnership between the municipality and private sector building company

Priority Risk #3: Domestic violence

There are a significant number of women (as well as some men) in Grassland in violent relationships. While the severity varies between cases, many of these victims continue to return to their spouses after the police have been involved. As a result, there are a significant number of children being taken away from their families and being put into foster care.

Vulnerable group: women and children in the community

Risk factors: physical violence in the home, emotional violence in the home, mistreatment during childhood, parent’s own abuse/neglect as a child, unsupportive/abusive spouses, young mothers

Protective factors: self-esteem, positive relationship with spouse, strong family bond, positive support within the family, stability of the family unit

Activities:

  • engage women’s shelters, local hospital and police to create an anti-relationship-violence campaign (social development) – this will be done collectively by the Domestic Violence Prevention Working Group with support from the municipality
  • engagement of victims in community engagement (prevention) – this will be done at the onset by the planning committee and additional meetings will also be arranged by the Domestic Violence Prevention Working Group
  • implementation of a healthy relationships program (prevention) – this will be a joint effort of the local Women’s Shelter and Grassland Hospital
  • implementation of a Situation Table to ensure individuals at risk of victimization and/or harm are connected to a service provider before an incident occurs (risk intervention) – this will be led by the municipality with participation from all planning committee members and other agencies/organizations who were engaged one-on-one

Immediate outcomes:

  • increase victim’s awareness of services in the community
  • awareness of the impact of domestic violence on children
  • enrolment in a healthy relationships program for those who have been arrested for domestic-violence related offences
  • connecting individuals with acutely elevate risk to service

Intermediate outcomes:

  • victims of domestic violence are provided with the support they require to leave their situation and/or victims and perpetrators are provided with the support they require to improve their situation

Long-term outcomes:

  • increase community safety and well-being

Sample community safety and well-being planning governance structure

Champion
Coordinator)s)
Multi-sectoral advisory committee
Implementation

  • commitment from local governance
  • obtained multi-sectoral buy-in
  • communication materials prepared
  • community is engaged
  • strategies are assessed and evaluated
  • community is engaged
  • strategies are assessed and evaluated
  • conduct local research to support identification of risks
  • plan is reviewed
  • risks are identified and prioritized
  • plan is finalized and released pulbically
  • strategies identified/enhanced and implemented
  • gaps in service are identified for priority risks
  • community assets are mapped

    • Note: governance my look different in each community.

This diagram includes an example of a governance structure for the community safety and well-being planning process. The roles and responsibilities of the participants represented in this diagram are highlighted in Tool 1: Participants, Roles and Responsibilities. The diagram also highlights different steps to the community safety and well-being planning process that are described throughout this document. As community safety and well-being planning may look different in each community, the different steps can be flexible and adaptable for each community across Ontario.