The Cost of Prolific Offenders on the Local Economy
The Surrey Board of Trade is calling on the Provincial and Federal Governments to focus on crime through a renewed policy entitled ‘The Cost of Prolific Offenders on the Local Economy’.
“The economic development of any community relies upon its reputation as a safe, viable region in which to locate and do business with supporting infrastructure, community assets, and most importantly, customers willing to walk in the door. However, if customers feel unsafe, they won’t come. If the reputation of a region is suspect, businesses won’t come. If the media targets a community as one in which prolific offenders reside, its economy suffers,” said Anita Huberman, CEO, Surrey Board of Trade.
The Surrey Board of Trade is asking Provincial and Federal Governments to: 1. Provide adequate budgetary support for offenders to receive treatment while incarcerated, and for post-release housing and programming of prolific offenders to ensure successful societal reintegration and safer communities; and
2. Combine resources to develop a national strategy to deal with prolific offenders, to ensure the efficacy of programs such as the Integrated Court Services Plan, and to successfully implement measures such as the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations.
Prolific Offenders
The majority of crime committed in Canada is by prolific offenders. The largest portion of crimes committed are property crime, and the largest portion of property crimes are commercial crimes.
These impact business directly via immediate loss and costs to re-secure property and indirectly by the overall costs of our justice system.
Ongoing dialogue with experts in policing, corrections, treatment facilities and housing for those on parole or conditional release indicates that the “solutions” to the problems of prolific offenders are widely known and supported amongst the criminal justice community. However, Federal and Provincial budgetary impacts and political decision making is a causal problem in preventing successful reintegration of some offenders.
Specifically, reductions in Federal funding for psychiatric services for offenders while incarcerated and post-release is one example of setting an offender up for failure and increasing community risk.
If a business is a victim of repeated crimes due to prolific offenders cycling through the justice system, without adequate interventions, without programs to stop the cycle of addiction and the resulting need to commit crimes to fund that addiction, where is the incentive to invest in that community?