Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

312Summary of case studiesothers. Over this period, female victimization ratesdecreased, while male rates increased slightly, and theaverage age of homicide victims declined. Toronto’s blackpopulation has faced much higher rates of homicide victimizationthan non-blacks since at least the early 1990s. Just asthere is evidence indicating that the risk of homicide andother serious violence in Toronto is unequally distributedacross social groups, there is also some evidence to suggestthat incidents of serious violent crime tend to cluster inparticular neighbourhoods.The changing nature of who is at risk of homicidevictimization and the contexts in which this violence tendsto occur have guided the development of a host of crimeprevention and violence reduction policies in Toronto overthe past several years (see Box 4.7 for details).For example, in early 2004, the City of Toronto establishedits Community Safety Plan (CSP), a toolbox of crimeprevention initiatives designed to improve public safety inthose neighbourhoods where violent crime is thought tocluster. The CSP emphasizes collaborative efforts that workacross authority and agency boundaries with respect to thedevelopment and evaluation of social policy. The CSP isbased on a strategic model that rests on the twin pillars ofcrime prevention through social development and CPTED.While recognizing the central role that policing plays in thecontrol of crime, the CSP also argues that in order to besuccessful, enforcement-based strategies must be balancedwith preventative approaches that address the root causes ofcrime and violence.Among the more prominent policy developments havebeen the introduction of spatially targeted or area-basedinterventions aimed at specific neighbourhoods in Toronto.The privileging of such initiatives stems from the recognitionthat the causes of crime are rooted in a complex mix of socialand structural factors that can vary across urban neighbourhoods.As such, the CSP emphasizes that solutions cannot beof the ‘one-size-fits-all’ variety, but rather that resources andsupport be tailored to address the specific needs of eachneighbourhood.It is, as yet, difficult to comment on the efficacy ofrecent crime prevention initiatives implemented in Toronto’sneighbourhoods for the simple reason that many are newand have yet to be subject to evaluation. Criminologicalresearch has consistently highlighted the importance ofevaluating and monitoring the effects of crime preventioninitiatives to ensure that they are having the desired impact.Careful programme evaluation and monitoring are alsoimportant in light of the limited resources that are availablefor investment in crime prevention and reductionprogrammes – thus, an understanding of what programmesand interventions are the most effective use of scarceresources is important from a cost–benefit perspective.Furthermore, although a multi-agency or ‘partnership’approach to community safety has been widely endorsed inToronto, it appears that crime prevention strategies andinitiatives are more segmented and compartmentalized thanthey are collaborative. Research on partnerships and crimeprevention has demonstrated that conflicts and tensionsoften emerge among different parties incorporated withinpartnership structures. Therefore, policy-makers in Torontowill face some challenges with respect to fostering anenvironment that is conducive to the development of interorganizationaltrust and collaboration.On the whole, crime prevention initiatives in Torontoappear to be one facet of more generalized public policyaimed at empowering ‘distressed’ neighbourhoods andfostering the growth of healthy and self-governing communities.Research has shown that ‘non-crime’ policies – forexample, building neighbourhood-level social and economiccapital, increasing levels of community cohesion, andpromoting collective action among residents – may, in fact,have important effects on crime. As such, if the obstacles tointeragency collaboration outlined above are addressed earlyon, it may well be that the integration of crime-targetedinterventions with more general policies that address socialand structural deficits will have lasting effects on crime andviolence in Toronto’s neighbourhoods.SECURITY OF TENURE ANDFORCED EVICTIONSPositive policies and legal responses toenhance security of tenure in BrazilBrazil is one of the most urbanized countries in the world,with 85 per cent of its population, or some 162 millionpeople, living in cities or towns. According to official statistics,some 30 million people migrated from rural to urbanareas between 1970 and 1990. The lack of available urbanland forced millions of Brazilians to live in cardboard or tinshacks in the urban slums known as favelas or vilas. Manyother low-income Brazilians live in cortiços: collective, oftendilapidated, multi-family buildings with poor access to basicsanitation and infrastructure.This was the situation when the period of militarydictatorship ended in 1984. The 1988 Brazilian constitutionintroduced institutional and legal processes for the democratizationof the state. The new constitution recognized theright of citizens to participate in formulating and implementingpublic policy. It thus opened up possibilities of resolvinga range of problems stemming from social inequality inBrazilian cities. The constitution also recognized the municipalitiesas autonomous members of the federation, alongsidethe states and the union itself. The case of Brazil during thelast two decades is thus a story of decentralization andincreased participation of social movements and NGOs. Thisis framed in a historical context where democracy andhuman rights are increasingly being considered by thenational government and its institutions. From the perspectiveof increasing security of tenure, this gave rise to nationalpolicies and programmes aimed at regularizing and upgradingurban slums, including issues related to the utilization ofvacant public and private land, the occupation of vacantbuildings, the acquisition of informal land, etc.The City Statute – the Federal Law on UrbanDevelopment, adopted in 2001 – introduced a range of legalinstruments that address landownership regularization andslum upgrading (see Box 11.8). It also guaranteed protection