Whenever governments or police talk about “partnership,” they often describe bringing people to the table. But who actually gets a seat — and who doesn’t — can shape the outcome as much as the decisions themselves. Representation in safety planning isn’t just symbolic; it defines whose voices matter and whose priorities count.
Common Gaps
Youth: Often excluded, even though they are most affected by policies on schools, curfews, and justice.
Indigenous peoples: Historically sidelined despite bearing disproportionate impacts of policing.
Racialized and marginalized groups: Over-policed communities frequently have the least influence in planning.
People with lived experience: Those who’ve been incarcerated, homeless, or in crisis rarely invited as decision-makers.
Women and gender-diverse voices: Too often absent in conversations about community violence and safety.
Why It Matters
Legitimacy: Safety plans designed without affected communities lack trust and buy-in.
Blind spots: Exclusion leads to policies that miss real risks or reinforce harms.
Equity: Representation ensures resources aren’t allocated only to the loudest or most powerful voices.
Innovation: Diverse perspectives create more creative and durable solutions.
Canadian Context
Community Safety and Well-Being Plans: Required in Ontario, but representation varies widely by municipality.
Indigenous self-determination: Some First Nations building their own safety boards rooted in traditional governance.
Urban advisory councils: Often dominated by service providers rather than community members themselves.
Grassroots efforts: Groups like youth councils and cultural associations pushing for real seats at decision-making tables.
The Challenges
Tokenism: One representative asked to “speak for” an entire community.
Accessibility: Meetings scheduled, structured, or located in ways that exclude working people or elders.
Power imbalance: Institutions still hold final authority, even when communities are “consulted.”
Burnout: Representatives asked to contribute unpaid labour in emotionally taxing spaces.
The Opportunities
Power-sharing: Give communities veto power or co-decision authority, not just advisory status.
Compensation: Pay community representatives for their time and expertise.
Capacity-building: Training and resources so marginalized voices can fully participate.
Rotating seats: Prevent the same few people from monopolizing representation.
The Bigger Picture
Representation is the difference between planning for communities and planning with them. If the table isn’t built to include everyone, then the safety strategies that come out of it will always be partial, skewed, and fragile.
The Question
If community safety belongs to everyone, then the table must too. Which leaves us to ask: how can Canada move from token representation to true power-sharing in community safety planning?
Who Sits at the Table? Representation in Community Safety Planni
The Table Metaphor
Whenever governments or police talk about “partnership,” they often describe bringing people to the table. But who actually gets a seat — and who doesn’t — can shape the outcome as much as the decisions themselves. Representation in safety planning isn’t just symbolic; it defines whose voices matter and whose priorities count.
Common Gaps
Why It Matters
Canadian Context
The Challenges
The Opportunities
The Bigger Picture
Representation is the difference between planning for communities and planning with them. If the table isn’t built to include everyone, then the safety strategies that come out of it will always be partial, skewed, and fragile.
The Question
If community safety belongs to everyone, then the table must too. Which leaves us to ask:
how can Canada move from token representation to true power-sharing in community safety planning?