For decades, public safety meant calling 911 and hoping institutions would respond effectively. Residents were framed as reporters of problems, not partners in solutions. Decision-making — from budget allocations to enforcement priorities — remained almost entirely in the hands of police leadership and municipal councils.
The Shift Toward Shared Power
Community boards, advisory councils, and joint planning tables are emerging as tools to give residents a say in how safety is defined and delivered. Instead of safety being done to communities, it’s increasingly being shaped with them.
What Shared Decision-Making Looks Like
Neighbourhood safety boards: Local representatives set priorities for policing and community initiatives.
Participatory budgeting: Residents help allocate funds between policing, mental health, housing, and prevention.
Civilian-police committees: Mixed groups review policies, training, and community complaints.
Youth and cultural advisory groups: Ensuring perspectives often excluded have influence.
Canadian Context
Toronto: Community Police Liaison Committees (CPLCs) bring together officers and residents, though critics say impact is uneven.
Winnipeg: Community boards have been used in crime prevention strategies linked to housing and youth programs.
Indigenous models: Some First Nations integrate Elders and councils directly into justice and safety decision-making.
Emerging practices: Cities experimenting with civilian oversight beyond complaint review — into budgeting and policy.
The Challenges
Token participation: Boards risk becoming symbolic if institutions don’t act on input.
Representation gaps: Who sits at the table? Marginalized voices are often missing.
Power struggles: Police culture and bureaucracy may resist shared control.
Sustainability: Volunteer-led boards can struggle without stable resources and authority.
The Opportunities
Trust-building: Decision-making with residents creates legitimacy.
Local relevance: Boards surface priorities that top-down strategies miss.
Prevention focus: Communities often emphasize root causes, not just enforcement.
Democratic renewal: Shared safety governance can deepen civic engagement.
The Bigger Picture
From call boxes to community boards, the shift is symbolic of a larger truth: safety isn’t only about emergencies — it’s about how we live together. Shared decision-making ensures institutions don’t just respond to crises but co-create the conditions for safer, healthier communities.
The Question
If safety is everyone’s concern, then decision-making should be everyone’s responsibility. Which leaves us to ask: how can Canada embed shared safety boards with real authority, not just advisory clout?
Shared Decision-Making in Action
The Old Model
For decades, public safety meant calling 911 and hoping institutions would respond effectively. Residents were framed as reporters of problems, not partners in solutions. Decision-making — from budget allocations to enforcement priorities — remained almost entirely in the hands of police leadership and municipal councils.
The Shift Toward Shared Power
Community boards, advisory councils, and joint planning tables are emerging as tools to give residents a say in how safety is defined and delivered. Instead of safety being done to communities, it’s increasingly being shaped with them.
What Shared Decision-Making Looks Like
Canadian Context
The Challenges
The Opportunities
The Bigger Picture
From call boxes to community boards, the shift is symbolic of a larger truth: safety isn’t only about emergencies — it’s about how we live together. Shared decision-making ensures institutions don’t just respond to crises but co-create the conditions for safer, healthier communities.
The Question
If safety is everyone’s concern, then decision-making should be everyone’s responsibility. Which leaves us to ask:
how can Canada embed shared safety boards with real authority, not just advisory clout?