Enhancing Victim Services Delivery in Ontario Collective … Impact Workshop... · Entitled...

Enhancing Victim Services Delivery in Ontario — Collective Impact

An Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Victim Services Forum in

Partnership with the Halton Regional Police Service

May 27-28, 2014

Burlington, Ontario

OACP Forum: Enhancing Victim Services Delivery in Ontario 2


Table of Contents

Preface and Forum Purpose 3

Opening Remarks and Session Overview 5

Welcome from the Host Chief of Police 5

The Forum in Context 5

Speakers and Presentations 6

Keynote Speaker: “The Lady in the Green Dress” 6

Collective Impact: The Concept, The Principles…The Promise 8

Let’s Talk: Exploring Victim Information-Related Privacy Issues 10

Mobile Technology for High Risk Domestic Violence Victims 14

Maximizing Impact Through Social Media 16

Collective Challenges and Potential Solutions — Moving Forward and Advancing a Shared Agenda for Victim Services/Support 17

Wrap-Up and Closing Remarks 30

Appendix 31

Workshop Agenda 32


Preface and Forum Purpose

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) in partnership with the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) hosted the two-day forum held in Burlington, Ontario on May 27/28, 2014.

Entitled “Enhancing Victim Services Delivery in Ontario — Collective Impact” the forum brought together representatives from various sectors including: community-based victim services, policing organizations and their victim services units, victim/witness assistance programs, various provincial ministries and the courts system, the national parole board, the special investigations unit, and related community agencies among others. Participants were from diverse locations across the province. In total, approximately 85 people attended the workshop — all are to be commended for their participation and constructive contributions to the forum outcomes.

The challenges faced by victims of crime and tragic circumstances (and their families) are all too real and accompanied by deep and abiding impacts. Though tremendous work is being done to assist victims — and the success stories are many — much more can and needs to be accomplished. Given this, the session was undertaken in support of the following overarching purpose:

To jointly explore how various organizations might further strengthen and enhance victim services delivery in ways that are strategic and sustainable.

More specifically, the forum was designed to:

Foster greater understanding of victim needs and circumstances — and share related personal stories and real life experiences;

Generate greater understanding of the concept and promise inherent in a ‘collective impact’ approach — and explore the potential roles of various parties in productively and constructively fostering enhanced approaches to meeting the needs of victims of crime and tragic circumstances;

Improve individual organization and collective responses to victim-related events;

Explore how new technology might be better harnessed in support of victims;

Strengthen communication between and understanding among victim services organizations;

Share best practices — and approaches that have not worked as well as hoped — and the lessons to take away from these experiences;

Explore the challenging topic of victim information-related privacy issues; Identify gaps and areas of need/deficiency — and potential actions to

address them; Build overall capacity within the broader community — and promote the

concept of cooperative and collaborative approaches in support of collective success; and

Provide the opportunity for dialogue and mutual learning.


In addition, the session agenda (included in the appendix of this summary) provided for an overview of next steps and included various open forums in which participants could share comments and questions about issues of their choosing. This report summarizes key workshop agenda components.

Of note, the workshop evaluations were overwhelmingly positive — the forum was typically referred to as a “great starting point” and an “excellent conference.” The vast majority of participants who completed an evaluation (in total, 50 were received) rated the overall forum very highly (94% providing a ‘top-three box’ scale score, using an eleven-point scale), with most also reporting that the session was personally beneficial. Moreover, virtually all respondents (98%) would like to see the forum conducted as a yearly event (“Let’s keep this going”; “Hope this is the first of many”; “Let’s continue the dialogue”). Again, this speaks to the perceived value of the two-day session. Participants typically identified the panel discussion on legal/privacy issues, the sharing of real life personal stories and the opportunities for networking as among the most valuable components of the forum.

Notwithstanding the above, there were reminders about the importance of building on the momentum generated in the forum. It is clear from participant comments and the evaluation results that there is a keen interest in next steps and further actions to advance the victim services agenda.


Opening Remarks and Session Overview The session began with context setting comments by the session facilitator (Glenn Pothier, GLPi) who:

Welcomed all participants, thanked them for attending and introduced himself;

Provided an overview of the session purpose and agenda — emphasizing the importance of capitalizing on the collective knowledge and wisdom found among the diverse session participants;

Invited participants to review the forum package containing detailed biographies for the speakers;

Described the types of organizations represented at the forum and their geographic breadth; and

Thanked the forum organizers for their hard work and dedication in making the event a reality.

Welcome from the Host Chief of Police Halton Regional Police Service Chief of Police Stephen Tanner offered some brief words of welcome on behalf of both the OACP and the HRPS emphasizing:

The importance that police place on victims — and the need to address victim needs;

The appreciation and regard for the dedication and hard work of all involved in assisting victims;

The importance of this type of forum wherein participants have the opportunity to learn from one another, ‘borrow’ ideas and collaborate to improve victim services; and

Best wishes for a productive and constructive forum.

The Forum in Context Some opening comments and observations were provided by Halton Regional Police Service Deputy Chief Bob Percy, who, in brief, noted that:

The large number and breadth of participants is a testament to the commitment of those involved in the victim services area;

The forum topic is an important one. The forum has its roots in the past release of working documents by the

province that explored potential changes to the provision of victim services and in OACP/community responses to them — and the need to influence new directions;

Though there are differences between police-based and community-based victim services (in areas such as oversight, funding models, etc.) there are far more commonalities, including a shared commitment to best meeting the needs of victims;

There is a tremendous opportunity to build on strengths and better work together to accomplish shared aspirations — and to demonstrate issue leadership (including the modeling of key leader traits and characteristics);


All participants have a role in contributing to the discussion/generating ideas — and the importance of being ‘authentic’ (sharing honest views and being forthright in the discussions);

The OACP and HRPS are pleased to be associated with this event; The forum is an important step in helping shape a collective and coordinated

approach to enhancing victim services; and Participants should also take the opportunity to socialize and have fun.

Speakers and Presentations

Keynote Speaker: “The Lady in the Green Dress” — Responding to Victims of Homicide (Dr. Lori Triano-Antidormi, Registered Psychologist)

As both a registered psychologist who works with victims and as someone who has experienced first hand the loss of a loved one — and been the beneficiary of victim family support services — Dr. Lori Triano-Antidormi shared a deeply personal and compelling story. Selected key points are highlighted below:

All involved in assisting victims and their families are to be commended for this important work — which is critical to assisting people to rebound as best they can;

Following the tragic loss of her son Zachary to a violent crime, the ‘lady in the green dress’ — Brenda, a victim services provider — was essential to her recovery;

Dr. Triano-Antidormi’s points speak to her personal experience and those of many of her clients;

There are concerns about the government’s Victims Bill of Rights — it is not always possible to increase the role of the victim in the criminal justice system and greater victim involvement may be contrary to recovery (given the potential to re-victimize and re-traumatize people);

The justice system focuses on the rights of the accused, much less so the rights of the victim;

Victims need their own system where they can be heard and have the opportunity to re-build their lives;

No one can ever be prepared for a life-changing victim experience — in an instant, norms are shattered and everything changes forever;

You go cold and numb — and the most routine tasks and automatic behaviours become virtually impossible to complete (one can be rendered virtually ‘non-functional’);

Many victims feel poorly supported — through no fault of their own, victims become embroiled in a criminal justice system that can be cold, impersonal and difficult to navigate;

The focus is placed on the crime and the accused — not on the victim and the family member’s grief and trauma;


A victim’s anger is fueled, in part, by a perceived lack of respect from the criminal justice system — and a sense of differential treatment based on the type of crime and profile given to a case;

Despite consistently raised criticisms, the justice system continues to have gaps and typically lets victims down;

Victims are too often left unaware of the services and resources available to them;

There is a need for more cooperation and a better transition between victim services and victim witness assistance;

The lady in the green dress exhibited the best of what needs to be provided to victims:

o Early, immediate assistance — and ongoing emotional and practical support;

o Compassion, empathy, genuine concern and true caring; o Respect for the individual and the profound and unique nature of the

victim experience; o A gentleness, patience and a calm demeanor; o A focus on the victim and family members — and their grief/trauma; o A steady, continued and consistent presence to help decrease

loneliness and fear; o Assistance with practical support/necessary activities and key steps

in the process (from notifying family members and assisting with logistics, to arranging for basic needs to be met, to offering system navigation advice, to keeping one informed, and so forth);

o A willingness to listen carefully — and to discuss/celebrate the life of the victim;

o The offering of choices and options — respecting that individual’s are unique;

o Being real — never fuelling false expectations or hopes; o Education about rights and limitations; o Helping prepare one for the courtroom experience and throughout

the justice system process; and o A sense that the victim matters and should and will be supported.

It is imperative that victim services be automatically called-in to assist (immediate support is critical and the onus should be on an individual to ‘turn-down’ the assistance; implied consent should be the norm) — people are not in a state to ask for victim services (of which they are likely unaware) or in a position to consider issues of privacy and consent;

Victims do not know what they do not know; There is too much fragmentation in the victim services sector — things are

not as seamless as they could or should be; Increased funding for victim services would be very beneficial; and Consistency, effective training and standardized approaches are important.


“Collective Impact: The Concept, The Principles…the Promise” (Rob Halpin, University of Ontario Institute of Technology)

Mr. Halpin’s presentation focused on the topic of change management in the context of collective impact [the latter, defined for the purposes of the forum as the facilitation of major change through various organizations coming together in support of a common agenda, but with each taking on key roles or activities to which they are best suited — not everyone doing the same thing, but rather the right groups taking on the right things in a coordinated fashion]. The following is a selective listing of key points shared:

There are six important components or contributors to changing collective cognition: Commitment from the top to explore change, a willingness to be holistic (that includes varied perspectives/alternatives), an external agent who can serve as a facilitator of change, use of a neutral (offsite) meeting venue, a group of individuals who are committed to working through the change process and taking responsibility for outcomes, and the ability to execute the desired change;

One’s mental model influences actions — it is important to share values and beliefs (including beliefs about the potential consequences of change strategies);

Collective beliefs can be a significant source of inertia; Leading change involves understanding both individual processes and

collective processes; Change management is the process, tools and techniques to manage the

people side of change to achieve the required business outcome — it is important to help manage resistance to change, increase the probability of success, and reduce transition time;

Broadly defined, there are three states of change: the current state (how things are done today), the transition state (how to move from the current to the future) and the future state (how things will be done tomorrow);

An organization’s future state is the collection of many individual future states;

The consequences of not managing change typically include: lower productivity, passive resistance, active resistance and turnover of valued employees;

ADKAR (attribute to Prosci 2008) refers to the five building blocks of successful change:

o Awareness of the need for change; o Desire to participate and support the change; o Knowledge on how to change; o Ability to implement required skills and behaviors; and o Reinforcement to sustain the change.

The ADKAR model can be used to identify gaps across the spectrum of change — and potential corrective actions;


It is important to remember that not everyone moves through the change process at the same pace;

There are eight key steps to driving change (from John Kotter): o Establish a sense of urgency (build the case to help overcome resistance

to change); o Build a coalition (identify stakeholders and build alliances); o Create a shared vision; o Communicate the vision repeatedly; o Empower others to act on the vision; o Plan for and create short term wins; o Reinforce the change; and o Institutionalize new approaches.

The above ‘leading change’ model needs to be applied at both the organizational and program implementation levels;

There are typically five categories of groups in a change management initiative: champions of an issue, allies of an issue, fence-sitters (neutral), mellow opponents and hard core opponents — it often makes sense to target the middle using hard information, evidence reports, compelling provable stories and other facts;

Consider the potential for ‘reframing’ the problem, issue or situation in a way that will better align with the interests of your target group;

Leaders build capacity to: o Resolve conflict to create positive gain; o Execute priorities together through action and alignment; o Solidify joint decisions that stick; o Use data to drive decisions; o Leverage contributions to the critical work; o Turn talk into aligned actions; and o Stay connected to each other and the result.

Consider the following initiatives to enhance organizational learning: o Create a strategic intent to learn; o Create a shared vision; o Empower employees to make decisions and seek continuous

improvement; o Develop systems thinking; o Encourage personal mastery of the job; o Encourage action learning; o Learn from failure; o Encourage continuous experimentation; o Develop political skills to make connections with and influence others;

and o Encourage creative thinking.

Consider Peter Senge’s eleven laws: o Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions; o The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back;


o Behaviour grows better before it grows worse; o The easy way out usually leads back in; o The cure can be worse than the disease; o Faster is slower (for example, optimal growth is not always the fastest

growth); o Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space; o Small changes can produce big results — but the areas of the highest

leverage are often the least obvious; o You can have your cake and eat it too, but not at the same time; o Dividing elephants in half does not produce two elephants; and o There is no blame (the system is holistic).

It is important to remember that: structure influences behaviour, structure in human systems is subtle, and leverage often comes from new ways of thinking; and

The road to successful change and collective impact begins with moving a sub-group of the whole — a critical mass that adopt and embrace a new direction.

Following a lunch break and short presentation by forum sponsor User in Mind Internet Solutions (on volunteer online scheduling systems and websites), the group reconvened for the afternoon session. “Let’s Talk: Exploring Victim Information-Related Privacy Issues” (Context setting remarks provided by Robert Solomon, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario; followed by a panel discussion with Professor Solomon, Stephen McCammon, Legal Counsel, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, and Marco Visentini, Legal Counsel, Hamilton Police Service and Chair of the OACP Legal Advisors Committee — moderated by Glenn Pothier, GLPi)

In his opening, context-setting remarks, Professor Solomon shared a number of key points, the highlights of which follow:

There has been a parallel significant rise in concerns about both support for victims and issues relating to the protection of individual privacy — the challenge is to find a way forward that satisfies each of these;

Historically, the role of the victim in the criminal justice system was marginalized — typically, either ignored or limited to being a witness;

Over time, there has been increased legislative support for victims: o Ontario’s 1971 Compensation for Victims of Crime Act was limited to

violent crimes and capped damages at $25,000; o Ontario’s 1995 Victims’ Bill of Rights provided no rights, but provided

a list of things victims should have (‘be treated with respect and courtesy,’ ‘access to information,’ and so forth);


o Victim Impact Statements have been in force since 1989 (victims have the right to present a statement, which judges are required to take into consideration);

o Victim surcharges have been in force since 1989 (this surcharge is imposed on offenders with proceeds going to support victim support programs) — in October, 2013 the surcharges were doubled and made mandatory;

o The 2014 Federal Victims Bill of Rights (Bill C-32) does give victims certain rights:

Expands right to get general and case specific information; Increases the right of a victim to share their views and have

them considered; Increases protection of victims’ security and privacy interests; Expands the financial liability of offenders; and Provides for victims to register a complaint if the rights

afforded them have been infringed upon. There has been a growth in victims-related infrastructure and bureaucracy; In 1996, the Ontario Victims’ Justice Fund was established to assist victims of

Criminal Code offences; 1987 saw the creation of VCARS (Victim Crisis Assistance and Referral

Service) – there are now 48 sites across Ontario; The Ontario Office for Victims of Crime was launched in 1998 – it is an

independent agency that advises the Ministry of the Attorney General on victims’ issues;

Federal infrastructure for victim assistance includes: the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime (1993), the Federal Victim Strategy including the Victim Fund (2007) and the recent Federal Victims Bill of Rights;

In Ontario, police are under several independent legal obligations of confidentiality, including:

o The Police Services Act (PSA); o The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

MFIPPA (Municipal Police). [Professor Solomon reviewed various points relating to the above and covered

in a handout distributed to forum attendees — this handout is available under separate cover. In so doing, he noted that despite the uncertainty in the current climate, in his view, part of a police officer’s duty to assist a victim of crime could include collecting and disclosing in good faith a victim’s contact information to a VCARS without consent — and that this should not be in violation of MFIPPA.]

In summary, there are three key points to consider: o The current legal uncertainty and inconsistencies in practice are in

the interests of neither the police community nor VCARS; o There is a need to optimize the benefits that victims receive from the

substantial resources that are currently being expended on their behalf; and


o There are several ways to resolve the existing uncertainty, comply with privacy legislation and better serve the interests of victims.


Panel Discussion Key Points and Themes

From a police perspective, one needs to balance and consider: o SECTION 1 of the PSA (Police Services Act) that speaks to the

importance of and respect for victims of crime; o SECTION 4 of the PSA that speaks to the five pillars of policing — one

of which is to assist victims of crime; and o SECTION 41 – Duties of the Chief of Police, that speaks to the

disclosure of information to protect the victim. It is very important to understand the context of the information and

disclosure: o Personal information is broadly defined; o It may be entirely possible to collect information and comply with the

regulation; and o Privacy is something that continues along the lifecycle.

As a general rule, ‘data minimization’ is a good principle to follow (that is, only release a victim’s contact information to VCARS to facilitate outreach and let VCARS do the rest) — this approach respects the victim, does not go beyond what is needed for transparency, and reduces exposure to applicable laws/regulations holding one accountable for privacy.

There are many ways to justify forwarding basic information to VCARS — one needs to look holistically at everything and not an individual statute.

There were some differing views on who owns personal information collected about a victim — whether it is the victim him or herself, or if obtained lawfully, the entity that collected the information.

There are a number of key issues underlying the need for the discussion of victim-related privacy issues:

o Police fear contravening legislation and being taken to account by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner;

o There is great inconsistency across the province in how police services currently deal with victim privacy — and in levels of willingness to share victim contact information with VCARS (too often this is based on individual relationships rather than standardized practice);

o Too few police services are forwarding referrals to VCARS — and, among some, there is an unwillingness to change;

o For some, it is unclear about the degree to which the lack of sharing of victim information referrals is a legal/policy issue or a process issue;

o Some victims are not being well served given the inability to reach-out to them and provide assistance;

o The variety of opinions about and perceptions of what is permissible and what is not are overwhelming; and

o The legal ‘rhetoric’ is getting in the way of acting on everyone’s good intentions to assist victims.


The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner works with people all the time to determine guidelines and direction, and will take concerns about the issues being discussed back for further exploration and clarification.

As a general rule and privacy protection best practice, information provided by police to a victims services organization should not then be re-shared with other community partners or agencies.

There are communities that have ‘domestic violence high-risk advisory committees’ comprised of justice-type representatives (police, crown attorneys, etc.) that share information about victims, but not if community partners are present.

It is possible to have similar types of committees that include community partners and share information about offenders (given the imperative to identify, manage and monitor offenders, particularly in high-risk cases) when a framework of confidentiality-assuring and privacy-protecting protocols is in place — including such things as: memorandums of understanding among all participating agencies, agreed upon adoption of the ‘Vegas Rule’ – that is, what happens in the meeting stays in the meeting, oaths of confidentiality signed by all meeting participants, and so forth. [These were described as a good suite of model approaches by various panellists.]

Those in places where community partners are not ‘welcome’ at domestic violence high-risk committees were invited to challenge their justice system counterparts by asking them to clearly identify the legal impediment that prevents them from sitting at the table.

A variety of potential strategies were identified to address the lack of victim referrals from police: encouraging individual police officers to ‘make the call’ to share the victim contact information (and advise the victim of this information exchange), to change police policy, to secure a ‘standing order’ from the Chief in support of referrals, to amend the regulations of the RCMP in support of an affirmative referral (as long as key criteria are met), to remove the current ambiguity about the practice, and to amend the Police Services Act to explicit sanction referrals.

Again, if victim information sharing is authorized by the victim, there should not be any privacy-related issues.

The victim information-sharing/referral issue should be solvable by getting the right people in the room and developing an effective template approach — this conversation needs to involve multiple parties (from police services, to victim services, to representatives of the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner). [Note: The representative of the latter stated a willingness to return to the Office and give consideration to a workable and acceptable model. He noted that the exchange with his fellow panelists and the group as a whole was very enlightening and helped provide a more in-depth understanding of the issues and concerns.]


A current problem is that there is no definitive framework — so, with multiple police services involved it becomes a patchwork quilt of practices.

Regardless of any efforts on the part of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, police services — given their duty to establish internal protocols and procedures — will and must be involved in resolving the issues and implementing any new approaches. The roles of Police Chiefs and the OACP are important.

Of note, some forum participants said that: o It is disrespectful and troubling to VCARS that the onus seems to have

been placed on them to try and ‘fix’ the lack of referral problem; o There is an ongoing frustration with privacy issues that have been

raised many times, but that do not get resolved — the time for action is now;

o Victims are not being treated equally or consistently across the province;

o The ‘victim consent model’ is problematic given a victim’s potential lower capacity to make informed decisions when in trauma;

o Victim services is essential to a victims’ well-being and it is imperative that police services help connect victims with these services;

o The privacy issue is both important in terms of maximizing effective service to victims and to the ongoing sustainability and economic viability of victim services providers (given that funding is tied to the number of victims being served);

o Perhaps some police services do not recognize the true value of what victims services provide [those representing police services in attendance at the forum made clear that this was not the case among most within their organizations]; and

o It is good to hear that the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner will look seriously at this issue, but that best intentions need to result in substantive changes to the current situation.

All three panelists echoed the sentiment that the issues raised are not insurmountable and, in fact, should be solvable — and that there needs to be greater clarity about and uniformity in approaches.

In considering various perspectives, the well-being of the victim and victim safety should be paramount.

“Mobile Technology for High Risk Domestic Violence Victims” (Penny McVicar, Brantford Victim Services with a personal story shared by guest speaker “Janet”)

[P. McVicar]

There are currently 11 sites using the mobile trackers — and over 150 clients who use them;

Many clients have successfully avoided problematic situations as a result of the trackers;


Given the increasing use/prevalence of cell phones (and the corresponding decrease in land lines), an enhanced system has been developed — it can locate a victim within a 100-yard radius;

The system uses cell phone towers and GPS satellite technology; The unit sends a signal to the satellite every 5 minutes under normal

conditions — once activated, the MTS unit will send a message every minute, continually updating the client’s location;

The MTS will track the direction and speed that the client is traveling; If the client goes into a dead zone the MTS will pick up the signal immediately

after the client is again in an active area; The MTS is monitored 24/7 by a response centre; The local police service is immediately notified when a MTS is activated; Police treat this as a priority one alarm and respond immediately; The local police service is actively involved in helping to determine those

clients that are appropriate for the MTS system; and The local police work together with Victim Services throughout all aspects of

program delivery. [Ms. McVicar then provided sample screen shots of the dashboard display

associated with the system.]

[Guest Speaker]

As a victim of domestic violence who has used the mobile technology tracking system, the guest speaker:

Expressed her gratitude for the assistance provided by victims services; Provided an overview of her personal situation, including:

o The implied and explicit threats to her and her family; o The abusive and intimidating behaviour of her spouse; o The challenges inherent in dealing with a situation where troubling

behaviours at first hover around the threshold of criminality, but do not explicitly cross them (and then what to do when the latter did occur);

o The impact on her life; o The uncertainty and debilitating impact of being a victim in a high-risk

situation; and o The continued anxiety that accompanies unresolved family court

issues and uncertainty about spousal intent and future actions. Described the importance of the tracking device to her personally — its

positive contribution to her mental well-being (and vital role in helping her ‘reclaim her life’ — to work, to enjoy a social life and so forth);

Noted that the tracking devices are such a small investment given the large payoffs in terms of a person being able to function as a productive member of society;

Heartily endorsed the use of tracking devices as an effective approach; and


Re-emphasized the importance of victim services and vital role they have played in her life.

“Maximizing Impact Through Social Media” (Joe Couto, Director Government Relations and Communications, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police)

Mr. Couto began by thanking the group for the opportunity to speak at the forum and by sharing an unequivocal message on behalf of OACP president Paul Cook: That police services stand with victim services and victims of crime — that victims are a top priority. He then shared important information about communications generally and the importance of social media. Key highlights are included below:

There is a lot of ‘noise’ — multiple messages, channels, etc. — through which it can be difficult to communicate and reach people in the intended way;

Effective use of social media is one means of helping cut through the clutter and successfully deliver messages and improve advocacy;

The social media are a subset of the mass media; The nature of communication has evolved over time — characterized by the

introduction of new methods and technologies; An important characteristic of communication in the 21st century and social

media in particular is the ability for feedback and ongoing dialogue (often unmediated and instantaneous);

Social media changes how we communicate — social media are: immediate and updateable, unlimited and allow for real time commentary, allow for easy archive access, facilitate individual publishing, encourage sharing and participation, allow for easy back-up and storage;

Once a message is ‘out there, it’s out there’ — though you can recall messages, they do not disappear (this introduces a new rigour and important consideration);

The social media landscape includes multiple options — from Facebook to Twitter to Google+ — to which people are devoting ever greater amounts of time and attention (for example, the average American spends 37 minutes a day on social networks);

[Mr. Couto then described the relative uses and characteristics of three social mediums: Facebook; Twitter and YouTube (regarding the latter, emphasizing the potential for ‘moving images’ to be more impactful than words)];

The top ten social media platforms are: Facebook (networking), Twitter (microblogging), Linkedin (networking), Pinterest (image sharing), Google+ (networking), Tumblr (blogging), Instagram (image sharing), VK (networking), Fickr (image sharing), MySpace (networking);

In using social media — DO produce content and remember/engage your audience; DON’T use it as a push tool or use a cookie cutter approach;

Tips for engaging people include: post photos/videos, live tweet events, post relevant information, connect with opinion leaders, personalize (but be professional in tone and language), respond quickly, market and monitor, develop strategies and policies; and


You are not alone — the OACP offers training and advice — and is a resource available to assist.


Collective Challenges and Potential Solutions — Moving Forward and Advancing a Shared Agenda for Victim Services/Support

Overview

A key workshop focus was providing participants with the opportunity to identify victim services-related issue areas requiring collective attention and for which potential solutions could be identified. To that end, the whole group identified a number of ‘strategic itches’ that were discussed and clustered together. From these, key questions were prepared covering or touching on virtually all of the issues identified. All participants then had an opportunity to answer the questions using an ‘additive paper-wiki’ approach. The collective outcomes of these various exercises are summarized in the tables that follow. Each table documents the identified answers/potential strategies in response to the question, and includes a sample of the strategic itches that informed the topic discussion. Please note that the topics/questions that follow — and the related answers to the questions and potential strategies — are listed in no particular order (and are not suggestive of priority). Answers are being shared without judgment about the desirability or feasibility of the suggestions. They represent a range of possibilities requiring further consideration and investigation.


Topic/Question A: How might we improve standardization of services while maintaining site or organizational uniqueness?

Answers/Potential Strategies Create core or minimum expectations of all victim services providers/sites. Standardization should include education to service providers and services to victims. Conduct research to make evidence-based decisions to guide standardization across the

province — use grassroots forums to gather information about victim services to help inform standardization [Note: Some caution that research without some standardization already in place may result in invalid comparisons (comparing ‘apples with oranges’) and that there is a risk of spending too much money on research that could have otherwise been used for service to victims.]

Begin relatively modestly — establish key reference benchmarks or ‘top five’ lists of guiding principles and core competencies, and use these as the base upon which to begin standardization and build on them going forward.

Create standardized measurements to assess core competencies and help direct educational/training resources (build on the provincial adequacy standards already in place re: victim services — these can used as guidelines).

Determine for whom the core competencies are being established — should they vary by type of organization?

Focus on mutual learning, including the sharing of: best practices, case studies, issues and challenges, things that have worked/not worked, etc.

Implement province-wide training (e-learning/site-specific) in support of consistent implementation (focus on core/minimum standards, while respecting the need for service or local area flexibility).

Potential areas for standardization on which to focus include: response time, transportation, interpretation/translation, volunteer deployment [Note: Some feel that standardization of certain of these will be challenging given varying geographies, available resources, etc.].

Provide tools/training to assist victim services providers to better identify and understand local needs.

Identify any duplication of services that interfere with or inhibit service to a victim — consider transferring certain services from victim services to VWAP.

Place all victim services-related programming, policies, funding, etc. under the auspices of a single ministry.

Given that different boards of directors may create inconsistency across agencies, consider removing or changing the nature of the boards (potentially move to a direct Ministry funding model).

Create, share and promote buy-in to collective vision and mission statements that can guide the provision of victim services.

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’ Inconsistent police/homicide response standards and approaches. Incongruent expectations. Inconsistent standards for cultural diversity. Victims not being treated equally. There are too many variables for standardization to occur. Changing/over-stepping mandates. Lack of program consistency between jurisdictions. Technology and notification processes. Decisions made in a vacuum.


Topic/Question B: How might we improve collaboration to enhance seamless service to victims?

Answers/Potential Strategies Create common networks in the community with representation from different groups (e.g.

victim services, shelters, private practice clinicians, victim witness assistance, police, etc.). Create and implement processes that will facilitate victim-directed collaboration between

agencies (e.g. coordinating phone calls, three-way calls with victims, shared emails, faxes, etc.).

Develop a process map that is easy to understand and that all can follow. Develop and implement a ‘consent protocol’ for information-sharing between agencies,

preferably through a single point of contact and covering multiple situations including meetings involving high-risk cases — re-evaluate as relationships change and evolve.

Create a community hub model that fosters awareness of the various services and agencies and that facilitates ‘warm hand-offs’ between them.

Organize and participate in network forums — and provide organizational updates. Provide presentations to police and community agencies (explain the role/function/fit of

various agencies involved in victim services-related issues) and identify opportunities for greater collaboration and effective working relationships.

Develop and make operational a web-based, controlled-access, no fee user’s reference site for all victim services agencies — including such things as: bulletin boards for posting information, Q&A forums, a research drop box, etc.

Develop an e-version process map of services with drop-down highlight boxes into and from which updated information could be posted and retrieved.

Facilitate better referrals from police services — conduct three-way calls with police, victim and referral agency or provide the victim’s contact information to the agency (with the victim’s consent).

Enhance transparency in providing information on service delivery challenges. Maximize use of available resources by: being more flexible about geographic boundaries,

exploring resources available to a client through work/OHIP/etc. — better balance workloads and address wait times through innovative approaches.

Create an enhanced culture of collaboration — and include this language/concept and related expectations in service models.

Improve or refine the funding model (the current model has agencies ‘competing’ for the same available money).

Create a united voice to advocate for coordinated services — in smaller regions, not just ‘mega’ regions.

Better communicate and share information — about what victim services does, the restrictions under which they operate, etc.

Identify and implement processes to help coordinate overlapping services, while maintaining unique core services.

Address the issue of paid staff vs. volunteers — develop a ‘consistency relationships’ policy.

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’ Not receiving referrals early enough. Fighting for referrals — yet we say it's a victim’s right. Withholding of investigative information. Consent barriers – victims lost in the system. Too much red tape – victims cannot access services they need. FIPPA. Lack of MOUs for victim services. Silos — personal/organizational agendas versus victims needs. Inconsistent practices re: High Risk Committees.


Should be seamless — not seamless enough. Duplication of service in some areas.

Topic/Question C: How might we make funding more fair and equitable (for victims and victim services organizations)?

Answers/Potential Strategies Expand the victim surcharge by increasing the application and types of crimes fined — make

the surcharge mandatory with no waivers. Keep victim surcharge funds in the region in which the offence took place (to more equitably

match funds with victim needs). Increase judiciary enforcement of fines. Increase the size of the operational grants — adopt a shorter and more streamlined process

for securing them. Ensure that grant money is used for the intended purpose and not ‘wasted.’ Ensure a balanced approach — do not take money away from one victim services

organization to fund another. Develop a memorandum of understanding with police services (for purchase of service) —

find a mechanism for police to help fund agency victim services provision (potentially using a more balanced approach and by flowing additional provincial money through police services).

Change the funding matrix to better consider the varying dynamics of geographical location — including community capacity, quality of service and so forth (consider more than the number of referrals).

Develop budget templates that are foundationally sustainable. Stop using money intended for victims for offender programs (e.g. PARS and Supervised

Access) — use the money for victims’ services. Put money from the proceeds of crime toward victim services. Eliminate duplication of services and place newly available resources into the areas of

greatest need. Address the issue of equality of pay across sectors — there is a huge disparity between

VWAP and victim services. Consider regional and corporate funding sources. Make the case: document and make clear situations where services to victims are

compromised and communicate these to funders (including articulation of the ‘victim voice’) — and do a true analysis of the heavy victim services workload.

Better and more equitably disburse funding across the province — do not require smaller communities to spend money on consultants to make the case for funding.

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’ Inconsistent funding across the province. Insufficient funding impacts capacity of an agency. VCARS and VSU funded differently. French Language Services sites struggle with legislation – often only one FLS referral each

year yet requirements and associated costs are over the top. Need additional staff to meet program standards. Never ending modernization process for VCARS — cannot modernize without additional

funding. Continual threats to cut funding. Why is VJF being used to fund offender programs? Funder does not understand the amount of work for each VCARS agency.


Topic/Question D: How might we improve awareness and understanding of victim services (among the public, police, others)?

Answers/Potential Strategies The province should initiate/launch an advertising and awareness raising/promotion

initiative — make the case for the importance of victim services and risks/costs of not having them (that is, the negative impact of additional public health issues, safety issues, etc.).

Secure public champions (such as in the areas of mental health, various chronic or other diseases, etc.) who can share compelling stories, testimonials and secure community buy-in/support.

Share information with police during shift briefings — and make clear the benefits of victim services to police [Note: Some question the feasibility/practicality of this given time investment challenges and limited time availability during briefings.]

Foster the mutual exchange of information between police services and community agencies — include training/awareness raising on the importance and benefits of victim services at the Ontario Police College.

Fund additional hires for police victim services — encourage enhanced working relationships with community-based service providers.

Consider better integrating/housing victim services within police services. Use ‘free’ Public Service Announcements (PSAs) — in traditional media, social media, movie

theatres, etc. to share powerful messages about the need for and importance of victim services.

Provide money and translation services for regional/local ad campaigns, email campaigns and social media initiatives — the latter two being more affordable and likely more feasible (and simpler to implement).

Develop relationships with local elementary/high schools, colleges and universities to leverage assistance with various communication initiatives — from media tools development, to creative design, to public relations.

Develop and implement a community presentation program (provide speakers who can address key groups and stakeholders).

Develop and distribute pamphlets/brochures/posters — place them in community centres, physician’s offices, at community events, and other ‘high traffic’ locations or sites that include target audiences.

Develop innovative strategies for reaching large audiences without requiring large expenditures or much additional funding.

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’ Police unaware of all the roles performed by VCARS. Misunderstanding of each other’s roles. Social media should be more prevalent. Victim services are the province’s “best kept secret.” Not enough understanding of nor respect for victim agencies. Victimization more complex – more work required to explain. Who is responsible for safety planning?


Topic/Question E: How might we enhance the credibility/value of and understanding/respect for victim services providers?

Answers/Potential Strategies Implement marketing strategies directed toward police services, ministries and others

(work from the top-down and use: targeted presentations, yearly block training, shift briefings, etc.).

Build credibility with police by fulfilling our promise — doing what we say we will do in ways that are consistent with operational values.

Generate greater awareness and understanding of victim services by implementing public service announcement (PSA) and social media campaigns — as a provincial initiative.

Describe and position victim services staff and volunteers as ‘crisis responders.’ Share positive client and police feedback — use testimonials that speak to the role and value

of victim services. Utilize the Ontario video training alliance to help spread the word. Implement standardized and accredited training for victim services/victim witness staff and

volunteers — ensure a high level of professionalism and service provision. Better represent and reflect different cultural groups and improve cultural competencies. Become a more genuinely recognized justice partner (specific to victim crisis assistance and

referrals). Place greater emphasis on the quality of service delivery and achieved outcomes (as

opposed to simply the number of clients served). Enhance understanding and foster respect among all of the ‘players’ in the field: VWAP,

VCARS, police, funders, etc. — through education, awareness activities, job shadowing, job exchanges/secondments, and so forth.

Engage in ongoing community development activity — and continue to build the ‘voice’ for victim services.

Hold a high-profile yearly event that brings together/unites the community — and use it to build bridges and educate.

Develop and consistently use a set of key messages/common language — broadly share this with all stakeholders.

Consider name changes to reduce some of the confusion/misunderstanding among groups who do related things [Note: Some said they are not in favour of the ministry suggested term: VCAO.]

Use annual provincial audit reports to describe numbers of victim’s served, budgets, volunteer contributions/hours spent, successes and value delivered.

Conduct regular provincial or regional meetings to develop and share best practices. Create and share a publication documenting research/data supporting the value and impact

of victim services (also show the negative impact of not investing in victim services). Secure appropriate additional funding to maintain and/or support enhanced professional

service provision and communication.

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’ Lack of a shared vision of the value of victim services. Lack of respect for VCARS by MAG. Disrespect of volunteer programs. Lack of communication. Support for VCARS is dependent upon the Chief or Detachment Commander.


Topic/Question F: How might (or should) we ensure that victim support occurs automatically?

Answers/Potential Strategies Develop a more standardized approach — first better define the role of victim services,

assess if needed and call-out as required. Implement a policy change in support of enhanced access to/availability of victim services

(including ‘on scene’ and ‘walk-in’ support). Have teams always available for video statements (Note: Some cautioned that ‘victim

services in video statements’ can get a case tossed; also, statements are disclosed to offenders, so if safety planning is included in the video, the offender will become aware of the plan].

Police and others should follow the ADKAR model steps in support of required approach and policy changes.

Increase education to and awareness among police — using briefings, introductory and follow-up presentations, shift change updates, and other techniques.

Increase ‘officer-in-charge’ availability to victim services and education of first responders (to increase understanding of the vital role of victim services).

Institute mandatory victim services call-outs to crime scenes to facilitate introduction of personnel/services or, at minimum, mandatory referrals to victim services [Note: There were differing views about whether the mandatory call-outs should apply only to certain ‘benchmark’ calls (i.e. all homicides, fatalities, etc.) or to all calls given that ‘no victim is more deserving than another’ (some say, the list of mandatory versus non-mandatory call-outs would need to be defined — and this may be difficult to do). Moreover, some feel that mandatory call-outs may not be in the best interest of the victim in all circumstances and could serve to escalate certain situations (again, some vehemently disagree with this). In any event, there were requests for ensuring that mandatory call-outs be monitored and accountability ensured.].

In the interim, use memorandums of understanding at the local level to meet the challenge of automatically or better involving victim services.

Identify barriers to service introduction and develop early intervention strategies and risk identifiers to determine which cases/circumstances warrant victim services involvement.

Require police services to provide statistical reports re: referrals and involvement of victim services (to promote transparency and accountability).

Implement an ‘implied consent’ approach (this is critical given a victim’s emotional state/level of shock, the inability to clearly identify assistance required and the need for immediate ‘crisis first aid’) — change the Police Services Act, create an ‘eligibility spectrum’ (as in child welfare), etc.

Ensure that the OACP and others follow-up with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to explore the feasibility of an implied consent approach (or similarly effective model).

Include victim services in the electronic data management system (Niches RMS) and enhance access to police information and research regarding what is happening in the province [Note: Some say that Niche-using agencies already have the option to implement Police Information Portal (PIP) protocols that allow for inter-agency information sharing].

Hold meetings with agencies, police services, ministry personnel and other key stakeholders to demonstrate the results/outcomes of the enhanced referral strategies.

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’ Timely outreach to victims is critical — not always occurring. Gap between the crime and time VWAP gets involved. Victims are rated deserving and un-deserving. VS needs to be on-site in the immediate aftermath — does not always happen.


Topic/Question G: How might we better engage volunteers and ensure that they get a meaningful and valuable experience?

Answers/Potential Strategies Clearly understand the goals, strengths, weaknesses and motivations of volunteers. Clarify expectations of the role of the volunteer at the beginning. Develop a profile of the ‘ideal volunteer’ and match for fit against volunteer

expectations/credentials/skills./competencies. Enhance recruiting practices to ensure better organizational fit and the degree to which

volunteers more comprehensively reflect the community being served. Provide appropriate ongoing training/education and hold regular meetings (e.g. monthly) at

which updates and information can be shared [Note: Some said that training should extend beyond standardized e-learning — and that funding is required to facilitate this].

Provide volunteers with regular constructive feedback and opportunities for dialogue about their experiences/aspirations (with supervisors and others in the field with whom they might interact).

Include volunteers in the debriefing process (conveys they are part of the process/team). Establish ‘volunteer champions.’ Create a volunteer mentoring program. Create different types of meaningful volunteer experiences/opportunities within the

organization — do not allow volunteer roles to become stale. Provide social experience opportunities — lunches, barbeques, etc. Increase the ability to contribute substantively and deliver value — increase call-outs for

victim services (‘use them or lose them’). Better match volunteers (and their strengths/capabilities) with the type of situation/call. Provide volunteers with the core ‘tools’ required (e.g. reference binders, badges, etc.). Introduce manageable shift lengths and rotations that work for both the organization and

volunteers. Create a consistent and stable environment. Recognize contributions — through volunteer appreciation initiatives of varying kinds:

events, small gifts, etc. [Note: Some said that the lack of ministry funding for volunteer appreciation is a significant obstacle].

Potentially reimburse volunteers for travel expenses related to the volunteer work. Create incentive-based recruitment strategies (i.e. reward volunteers who bring in others). Potentially position volunteering for victim services as a ‘stepping-stone’ to other things (e.g.

employment in legal services) — but withhold letters of reference until an agreed upon minimum number of hours have been volunteered.

Promote community awareness of victim services and the value of them. Leverage the growing number of seniors/retirees (particularly those who have the

skills/requisite experience to contribute quickly: health care workers, educators, etc.) — introduce volunteer information to people’s retirement packages.

Share volunteers with other similar agencies. Utilize different volunteer skill sets (e.g. graphic design, research, administration, etc.). Connect volunteers to police dispatch (in addition to the Team Leader) to promote a greater

sense of partnership [Note: Some said that this can complicate existing relationships and responsibilities].

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’

Difficult economy requires many to have part-time jobs (which decreases time available to volunteer).

Turnover is high. Uncertainty hanging over victim services as a result of the November 9th letter. Changing demographics and impacts on volunteerism.


Vicarious trauma for staff/volunteers.


Topic/Question H: How might we maximize our collective voice to influence the strategic direction of victim services in Ontario?

Answers/Potential Strategies Identify our collective needs, goals and objectives (at all levels and for all types of victim

services) — and gather the evidence to support desired change and strategic outcomes (including increased funding).

Document and consolidate key issues and concerns — and develop a proposed action plan to address them.

Make the case for and communicate the proposed action plans to key target audiences/decision-makers (i.e. MP’s, MPP’s, provincial funders, etc.) and engage them in the process (through letters, invitations to meetings, and so forth.).

Make the decision to work together in a cooperative/collaborative way — stop pointing fingers and ‘in-fighting,’ set aside organizational egos, breakdown silos, etc.

Build on the established provincial advisory committee with representatives from police-based, community-based, and victim witness organizations — ensure that all sectors (and victims themselves) meet and work together.

Identify key things to measure (for example, case management hours) and success factors — and use data collected to shape strategic directions.

Focus on the needs of victims — there are so many who need assistance and are going without due to lack of agency capacity.

Work collectively to provide victim service intra-referrals to help ensure victims needs are being met and to maximize service, boost numbers and secure funding [Note: Some expressed concern about using intra-referrals to ‘boost numbers’ — given the perception that the emphasis should be on quality of service, not quantity and duty of care to victims that is not sacrificed for the sake of volume].

Maintain a victim-centered approach and include victims in all components of the process — their voice and perspective are critical, and will result in greater impact (consider surveying victims or otherwise capturing their perspective and views).

Continue to share information (through online and other means). Develop a shared ‘glossary of terms’ and definitions (of ‘victims,’ of ‘victim services,’ etc.) to

be used by all stakeholders — from community agencies and service providers, to police, to government funders, and so forth).

Retain paid staff to undertake victim services-related advocacy initiatives (Ontario Network of Victim Services Providers in conjunction with police-based and VWAP representatives).

Identify key gaps and our common voice, and get moving — the issues are time sensitive and there is an imperative to act quickly with a ‘time-bound’ schedule.

Underlying ‘Strategic Itches’ Provincial consultations are not inclusive of all victim services providers. OACP does not represent VS front line (need to include VCARS, VSU, VWAP). VSU, VCARS and VWAP should be working more closely together. Turf wars. MCSCS and MAG need to work better together.


Beyond the strategic itch-driven questions described above, participants were also invited to answer a smaller set of ‘core questions.’ These questions and the group responses are summarized below.

What do you believe should be the goals of a collective ‘common agenda’ in support of victims of crime and tragic circumstances?

Improved collaboration among all victim services providers to ensure victims are well supported — and that the immediate and ongoing needs of victims and their families are being met (‘no victim left behind’).

Ease of access to and availability of victim services — ‘never encounter a wrong door.’

Improved collaboration between VWAP and victim services (potentially bringing both together in ‘one office’).

As an option, the ability for victim services personnel to be exclusively present to support a victim’s needs — enhanced continuity of care to victims (including the option of having one contact person/case manager lead to assist the victim throughout the entire process).

Mutual respect for and valuing of the uniqueness of victim services across the province — and improved relationships among them.

Enhanced, equitable funding/resourcing for victim services. Addressing the challenges inherent in meeting current funding criteria. All victim services be police-based or have a direct link to police services — with

connections to VWAP and further linkages to the Crown’s Office. An agreed upon and broadly accepted approach/template regarding consent and

release of information — that is defensible, understandable and practical. Enhanced case conferencing in support of service collaboration (potentially

through use of a created template). A developed and adhered to set of standards for victim services. Increased access to victim services. Improved communication, networking and resource sharing. Enhanced understanding of the roles/contributions of all involved in victim

services-related activities. Strategy development in support of decreasing re-victimization. Availability of consistent/standardized, high-quality trauma and grief-related

information materials available provincially to all sites. Standardized training for volunteers — and addressing of some police concerns

about victim services responders being volunteers. Reduced need to utilize volunteers in ‘front-line’ victim services. An agreed upon definition of the term ‘victim.’ Improved sharing of best practices and successful models/approaches. A criminal justice system that better respects, incorporates and balances the

needs of victims. Development of a logic model to drive the conversation about victims and the

roles of various agencies/groups (victim services, victim witness, police, parole, probation, etc.).

Enhanced victim safety.


What are the principles that should inform a ‘common agenda’ in support of victims of crime and tragic circumstances?

Client centered — put victims and their needs first and ‘meet them where they are at’ (that is, recognize the ebbs and flows of needs and the healing process).

Client directed — respect for client decisions, goals, etc. Listen to the ‘victim voice’ — understand issues and needs as victims’ define

them. Victim involvement — engage victims in all facets of activity: from standard

creation, to process setting, and so forth. Immediate service to victims (timely response by a well-trained, qualified

service provider). Easy access to services. Service consistency and continuity — and assistance with victim system

navigation (including the ability to advocate on a client’s behalf and champion their needs/rights).

Respect for all victims, their circumstances and their dignity. Equal/equitable treatment of all victims regardless of circumstances, geography,

etc. Non-judgmental approaches that are trauma informed. Victim communication — keeping them informed and up-to-date. Continuous quality improvement. Meaningful, informative and appropriate referrals. Safety as the foundation for healing and change. Focus on justice, empowerment and restitution.

Confidentiality.


How will we know we’re making an even greater positive difference — what might be the tangible signs of success?

Greater numbers of victims’ served/assisted. Increased ‘on scene’ victim services presence — and ongoing duration of service. Improved client satisfaction with service/assistance provided (as gauged

through reliable surveys, online feedback forms, etc. — and potentially administered/collated/analyzed by independent parties not involved in the actual service provision).

Fewer complaints from victims to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

Heightened actual (and sense of) victim safety/security. Victims better able to move forward in terms of healing (given supports). Increase in the number of victim referrals (in particular, from police — but also

from community agencies and self-referrals). Increased victim services staff retention. Positive exit interviews (among those leaving victim services-related

positions/organizations). Increased sector networking and idea sharing among the various victim

services-related organizations and agencies. Gauge success against outcome measures as defined by David Voth (including

qualitative data). Decreases in re-victimization/case re-openings. Decrease in repeat calls to police. Greater public awareness and valuing of victim services (no longer ‘the best kept

secret’). Increased visits to and use of victim services-related websites (using various

analytics — ‘page views,’ ‘click-throughs,’ etc.). Increased positive feedback from police services. Improved and ongoing inter-agency communication. Increased victim services funding/resourcing. Funding no longer tied to referrals. Increased volunteerism and volunteer retention (and a reduced number of shifts

unfilled). Improvements in internal operational measures — staff and volunteers are

better supported. Increased partnership opportunities (and requests to be ‘at the table’) and

enhanced stakeholder partnerships. Reduction in domestic violence homicides in Ontario. A greater voice for victim services in policy development. Greater leveraging of personal supports for victims. Greater acknowledgement of barriers to victim service — and potential

solutions to address them. Increased/improved training and cross-training. Generally enhanced measurement approaches to gauge results — consider both

qualitative and quantitative measures.

Where possible use SMART goals: Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Results-oriented; Timely.


What types of organizations — that perhaps are not as currently involved as they could or should be — might be invited to join a collective impact initiative in support of victims of crime and tragic circumstances?

Need greater Ministry of the Attorney General participation/engagement. Need greater Police Chief involvement (given their level of authority and ability

to set/influence directions and activity) — including individual police services, OACP, CACP.

Elected officials (MPPs and others with issue influence). OVC. VVPD. Victims of tragic circumstances (not just crime). Organizations similar to WACT, SAVIS. Youth Justice Committee. School boards. VWAP. MADD. Sexual assault centres. CCACs. The medical profession generally (doctors, nurses, etc.) including mental health

practitioners. Counsellors. Hospitals. Family health teams. Academic institutions. Private corporations (as potential funders and advocates). Insurance companies. Faith communities/religious institutions. Culture-specific services/groups. Group homes. Children’s aid services. Child advocacy centres. Services for people with disabilities. Those involved in parole and probation. Those involved in corrections. Those involved in criminal injuries. Those involved in community housing. Ontario Works. Victim’s rights advocates/high profile persons and lawyers. Family advocates. Family law practitioners. Victims/clients/survivors themselves.

Any agency or community partners that assists or ‘touches’ victims.


What else would you like to add?

Funding/resourcing remains a big issue — chronic funding issues limit victim services.

Who will take the good ideas and other issues discussed at the forum forward — in support of substantive action and meaningful outcomes?

The issues discussed need to be taken seriously — there is a need for action, not just talk.

Consider some form of centralization — a victim services hub. Equalization of funding (salaries, etc.) among agencies such as VWAP, VCARS,

victim services is an issue. The forum is a great start, but the dialogue needs to continue.

The forum should be an annual event and be SMART goal focused.

Wrap-Up and Closing Remarks

The session facilitator thanked all presenters, panelists, speakers and participants for their valued contributions to the forum — and for the opportunity to work with the group. He then respectfully asked participants to take a few minutes to complete the forum evaluation and verbally share any quick thoughts about the forum.

The facilitator then invited HRPS Deputy Chief Bob Percy to share the following closing remarks:

Thank you to the many organizers, sponsors, partners, volunteers and others who made the forum possible;

Thank you to all for participating and showing an interest in this important topic;

A session summary will be prepared and it is important that there be rigourous follow-up and the ongoing pursuit of excellence;

Though there is much that still needs to be achieved, there are also many notable accomplishments — and it is important to celebrate successes;

There is much that unites all who are involved in serving the interests and needs of victims — whether policing or community based;

Ongoing dialogue is critical — we need to continue the conversation that has been started at this forum;

It is imperative to ensure that victims have a real and substantive voice; There is a need to move the information discussed at this forum ‘upwards’ to

various ministries and decision-makers to help educate and influence future decisions;

Let’s collectively act on what we’ve heard in the forum and ‘be the change in our respective organizations’;

Let’s continue to look for opportunities to collaborate and cooperate, and be a network of committed groups and individuals; and

Let’s try do this again next year!


Appendix

Workshop Agenda


TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014

8:30 a.m. OPENING REMARKS Welcome and Session Overview

Glenn Pothier, G.L. Pothier Enterprises Inc., Conference Facilitator

The Conference in Context Bob Percy, Deputy Chief, Halton Regional Police Service and Chair, Victim Assistance Committee, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP)

9:00 a.m. “THE LADY IN THE GREEN DRESS”- RESPONDING TO VICTIMS OF HOMICIDE

Dr. Lori Triano-Antidormi, Registered Psychologist

Questions and discussion follow keynote address.

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. COLLECTIVE IMPACT: THE CONCEPT, THE PRINCIPLES....THE PROMISE Rob Halpin, M.A., University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Collective Impact is the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific problem.

Rob Halpin will discuss the concept and principles of Collective Impact.

12:00 p.m. Working Lunch: VOLUNTEER ONLINE SCHEDULING SYSTEMS & WEBSITES

User In Mind Internet Solutions will present their Victim Services Online Scheduling System.

Learn how having volunteers schedule their own shifts online can increase efficiencies.

1:00 p.m. “LET’S TALK”: EXPLORING VICTIM INFORMATION RELATED PRIVACY ISSUES – OVERVIEW

Robert Solomon, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario.

ssues Exploration: Facilitated Panel Discussion, Glenn Pothier, G.L. Pothier Enterprises Inc.

Followed by Participant questions.

Our facilitated legal panel discussion will explore the key challenges facing victim services organizations such as accessing victim contact information from police and participating in justice-led high risk domestic violence committees.

Panel: Robert Solomon, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario

Marco Visentini, Legal Counsel, Hamilton Police Service

Stephen McCammon, Legal Counsel, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

2:30 p.m. Break

2:45 p.m. VALUES BASED SERVICE Glenn Pothier, G.L. Pothier Enterprises Inc., Conference Facilitator

This session will engage participants in identifying and clustering key victim services-related issues, challenges and unrealized opportunities in support of establishing a shared agenda. The outcomes will inform the focused topic-specific discussions that will take place the next day.

4:00 p.m. UNTIL TOMORROW…


Deputy Chief Bob Percy, Halton Regional Police Service and Chair, Victim Assistance Committee, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2014

8:30 a.m. WELCOME BACK Bob Percy, Deputy Chief, Halton Regional Police Service and Chair, Victim Assistance Committee,

Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP)

8:45 a.m. RECAP & REFLECTIONS: “A PRODUCTIVE THINKING EXERCISE” Glenn Pothier, G.L. Pothier Enterprises Inc., Conference Facilitator

9:00 a.m. - 12:00 MOVING FORWARD: ADVANCING A SHARED AGENDA FOR VICTIM SERVICES/SUPPORT


The key questions/discussion topics.

Working in small groups, participants will review the issues and challenges from Day 1 and will actively work on creating responses.

A paper-wiki group exercise to explore and identify options for effective and innovative strategies in support of collective impact.

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. MOVING FORWARD: ADVANCING A SHARED AGENDA FOR VICTIM SERVICES/SUPPORT Cont’d

12:00 Lunch

1:00 p.m. MOBILE TECHNOLOGY FOR HIGH RISK DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS Various guest speakers.

Shared experiences from across the province and from a beneficiary of the technology.

Participants will learn about the various GPS type mobile programs in place across Ontario, how they are funded and who hosts the programs. We will hear from a woman who has benefitted from the program and shares how it assisted with her overall safety.

2:00 p.m. Break 2:15 p.m. MAXIMIZING IMPACT THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA

Joe Couto, Director, Government Relations and Communications, OACP

Learn how to implement and/or enhance your victim services social media engagement.

3:30 p.m. FACILITATOR WRAP UP


WRAP-UP & CLOSING REMARKS Deputy Chief Bob Percy, Halton Regional Police Service and Chair, Victim Assistance Committee,

Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP)

Enhancing Victim Services Delivery in Ontario Collective … Impact Workshop... · Entitled...

Documents

Transcript of Enhancing Victim Services Delivery in Ontario Collective … Impact Workshop... · Entitled...