INVESTING WISELY IN

CRIME PREVENTION

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES

C RIME P REVENTION S ERIES

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

INVESTING WISELY IN

CRIME PREVENTION

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES

#1

Monograph
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

This document was prepared by Community Research Associates, Inc., under grant number

95–DD–BX–K001,awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of Justice Programs,U.S.

Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressed

in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position

or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
INVESTING WISELY IN

CRIME PREVENTION

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES

September 2000

NCJ 182412

Prepared by Irvin Waller and Daniel Sansfaçon

International Centre for the Prevention of Crime
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE iii

From the Director

At the end of a century that has seen unprecedented levels of crime, violence, and drug abuse in communities across America, we can take hope

from the growing number of communities now reporting significant declines

in their crime rates. We know that, at the community level, this success is

due largely to crime reduction partnerships that contain strong prevention

components. However, we still face many challenges to ridding our communities of crime. 

First, the media’s preoccupation with violent and frightening crimes leaves

us all with a feeling of apprehension over the safety of our homes, workplaces, and schools. So although communities may be safer today than they

were a few years ago, people still feel unsafe, and their perceptions, real or

unreal, must be addressed. Second, despite the recent reductions in crime

and violence, crime rates are still at unacceptably high levels, and we must

not become complacent. Third, some communities have been left behind in

this success—communities in which crime and violence are still on the rise. 

We must find ways to meet these challenges head on by funding crime

prevention programs that work. This monograph examines a variety of successful programs from around the world: the United Kingdom, France, the

Netherlands, and New Zealand. These programs demonstrate that focused

policing and mobilization of a broad range of agencies can significantly

reduce crime rates. It is our hope that practitioners in the United States can

learn from these experiences and develop crime reduction and prevention

programs that are both financially and socially beneficial.

Nancy E. Gist

Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance
Acknowledgments

This monograph is based on a comparative analysis of successful crime

prevention activities presented in Crime Prevention Digest II, prepared by 

the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime (ICPC) in Montreal,

Canada. The analysis was made possible through the financial support of

the National Crime Prevention Centre of Canada, as well as through core

contributions to ICPC from the Home Office (England and Wales, United

Kingdom), the Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville et au Développement

Social Urbain (Interministerial Delegation for Social Development of Inner

Cities) (France), Ministries of Justice and Interior and Kingdom Relations

(the Netherlands), and the Ministry of Public Safety (Province of Quebec,

Canada). Expert advice and comments were received from board members

of ICPC, particularly those of the National Crime Prevention Council (United

States), Crime Concern (England), the European Forum for Urban Safety

(France), and the United Nations Office at Vienna (Austria).

The Bureau of Justice Assistance and ICPC would like to acknowledge the

contributions of the following individuals who provided comments: Frantz

Denat, Margaret Shaw, and Claude Vézina of ICPC and Brandon Welsh of the

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE v
Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Should America Look at International Experience

To Improve Safety? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Crime Trends Better, But Still Worse Than They Were . . . . . . . . 1 

Efforts To Reduce Crime Show Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. Risk Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Risk Factors Are Well Established, But Overlooked . . . . . . . . . . 5

Projects That Tackle Risk Factors Achieve Big Reductions . . . . . 6

Tackling Risk Factors Pays Off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Country Examples: Keys to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

U.K. Turns to Prevention To Spend Better, Not More . . . . . . . . 12

France Pioneered Local Prevention Contracts, 

Now Creates Prevention Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

The Netherlands Uses Learning-Based Strategies . . . . . . . . . . 14

New Zealand Puts Prevention Where It Matters Most. . . . . . . . . 14

IV. Conclusion: Good Governance for Crime Prevention . . . . . . . . . . 15

V. Bibliography/References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

VI. For More Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE vii
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 1

Should America Look at

International Experience To

Improve Safety?

Many rigorous evaluations have

shown that prevention projects in

the United States have reduced

crime across the nation over the

past decade (Sherman et al.,

1997). However, more is needed to

decrease crime rates to the levels of

the 1950s and 1960s. On average,

American families spend more than

$4,000 each year to participate in

criminal justice systems, install private security measures, replace

stolen property, or repair harm to

victims. Can this money be used

more wisely? Some European

countries have started to invest in

crime prevention, and the United

States may be able to learn from

these experiences.

By a three to one margin,

Americans are ready either to pay

more taxes or to forgo a tax cut to

provide children access to early

childhood development programs

and quality afterschool activities,

because they believe these programs greatly reduce violence

(National Crime Prevention Council,

1999). Should public funds be

invested in these programs to make

America safer?

This monograph provides an

analysis of opportunities for further

reducing crime in the United States

by looking at trends in the United

Kingdom (U.K.), the Netherlands,

France, and New Zealand. It focuses on the economic returns

Americans may receive from investing in prevention.

The report is based on Crime

Prevention Digest II: Comparative

Analysis of Successful Community

Safety, produced by the International Centre for the Prevention of

Crime (ICPC) (Sansfaçon and

Welsh, 1999). ICPC is an independent, nongovernmental organization

supported by government agencies

in Europe and North America.

Representatives of the U.S. National

Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)

and the U.S. Conference of Mayors

are members on its board of 

directors.

Crime Trends Better, But

Still Worse Than They Were

Like other Western democracies

in Europe, Australia, and Canada,

the United States has seen a gradual decline in crime rates in the

1990s. Because of the rapid rise in

crime rates in the 1960s and 1970s,

however, today’s rates are double or

triple those of the early 1960s. 

I. Introduction
Members of households become

the victims of such property crimes

as burglaries or car thefts at similar

rates on both sides of the Atlantic.

The most recent comparative survey was taken in 1996 showing 

1 residential burglary for every 38

adults in the United States and the

Netherlands, 1 for every 42 adults

in France, and 1 for every 33 adults

in the U.K. (Mayhew and van Dijk,

1997).

Unfortunately, at 8 per 100,000

population the homicide rate in

America is 4 times the rates of West

European countries, which are

between 1 and 2 per 100,000.

In the past four decades, the

response to crime in the Western

World has been primarily from law

enforcement agencies and criminal

justice systems. The Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that

“expenditures for each of the major

criminal justice functions (police,

corrections, judicial) has been

increasing” steadily for several

decades (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 2000).

In the United States and Western

Europe, most offenders who are

prosecuted and convicted for common offenses are disadvantaged

men—typically in their late teenage

or early adult years. Ultimately,

many are incarcerated. The rate of

adults in prisons and jails on an

average day is one indicator of the

use of incarceration as a sanction.

2

INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

In 1970 the rate was 176 inmates

per 100,000 population in the

United States, compared with 80 in

England, 59 in France, and 18 in

the Netherlands. By 1998 these

rates had grown to 645 in the

United States, 125 in England,

90 in France, and 85 in the

Netherlands—showing a significant

increase in the gap between the

United States and these European

countries.

Efforts To Reduce Crime

Show Results

From 1986 to 1996 property 

and violent crime rates in the United

States decreased by a modest 

7 percent. Yet in some U.S. cities,

such as Fort Worth, New York, and

Boston, they decreased dramatically—56 percent, 41 percent, and 29

percent, respectively.

Some argue that increases in

employment rates, decreases in the

proportion of Americans between

the ages of 15 and 25 (an age

group prone to crime), and the

large numbers of persons incarcerated account for these reductions.

They may in part, but cities like

Fort Worth, New York, and Boston

also implemented special initiatives

to reduce crime, calling on their

police departments to focus on

crime reduction. They also have

mobilized other agencies to work

with disadvantaged youth and protect residences better against burglary and high-volume crime.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 3

Introduction 

Cities in other countries, such as

Canada and the U.K., also have

seen such reductions. Again, these

reductions appear to have been due

to a combination of demographic

trends, focused policing, and mobilization of a broad sector of agencies.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 5

II. Risk Factors

Risk Factors Are Well

Established, But

Overlooked

Crime rates do not decrease 

simply by creating more jobs or

improving policing services. Reducing crime requires a range 

of agencies to focus on multiple

causes. Numerous studies in the

United States, the U.K., and the

Netherlands, as well as reports prepared by the United Nations, have

concluded that several risk factors

are associated with increases in

crime.

For instance, large-scale longitudinal surveys on both sides of the

Atlantic have studied how the

development of individuals from

birth to adulthood affects their

propensity to be involved with

crime. Studies have shown that a

small group of individuals (5 to 10

percent) accounts for most offenses

(50 to 70 percent) committed each

year. Researchers have concluded

that youth exposed to any or all of

the following conditions are more

likely to commit delinquent acts

than those who are not:

• Relative poverty and inadequate

housing.

• Inconsistent and insufficient

parental or guardian guidance.

• Limited social and cognitive

abilities.

• Exclusion from school.

• Family violence.

• Few opportunities for employment and economic exclusion.

• A culture of violence.

Biennially in the U.K. and annually in the United States, large-scale

surveys of the adult population are

taken to determine the number,

location, and characteristics of victims of crimes. These surveys

involve hundreds of thousands of

persons.

The surveys show that a small

proportion of neighborhoods

account for a large number of crime

incidents—in the U.K. 4 percent of

neighborhoods account for 44 percent of incidents. Repeat victimization is common for victims of

burglaries and car thefts, as well as

domestic and street violence.

The surveys also show that victimization is not random. It happens

more frequently under the following

conditions:

• Residences and goods are 

inadequately protected.
INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

6

• Goods are easy to transport and

sell.

• Victim lives with the offender.

• Alcohol or substance abuse is

involved.

• Firearms are available.

Finally, the surveys show that

information about crime prevention

is not used systemically. Fads and

popular notions guide action more

than facts.

Projects That Tackle Risk

Factors Achieve Big

Reductions

In England, the United States,

and the Netherlands careful evaluations of some of these risk factors

conclude that delinquency can be

reduced effectively. Del Elliott’s

Blueprints Program at the University

of Colorado at Boulder has identified 10 of the most effective early

childhood and youth programs

for reducing delinquency. These

include the Midwestern Prevention

Program, Big Brothers/Big Sisters,

Functional Family Therapy,

Quantum Opportunities, Life Skills

Training, Multi-systemic Therapy,

Nurse Home Visitation, Treatment

Foster Care, Bullying Prevention

Program, and PATHS (Promoting

Alternative THinking Strategies)

(University of Colorado, 2000).

When treating young children and

their parents, the following interventions have proved useful:

• Using preschool and afterschool

programs to increase the cognitive and social abilities of 

children, particularly in underprivileged social environments.

• Visiting at-risk families at home

to improve parenting skills (particularly of young, single, lowincome mothers with limited

schooling).

• Increasing support and assistance for parents.

The following interventions are

used with school-age children:

• Improving cognitive and social

skills through at-home visits by

teachers and structured recreational and cultural activities.

• Providing incentives to complete

secondary studies by offering educational and financial assistance.

• Improving self-esteem and social

integration capacity through

neighborhood programs such as

Big Brothers/Big Sisters and

Boys & Girls Clubs.

• Offering on-the-job training and

opportunities.

• Organizing school and afterschool activities to decrease violent behavior.

• Working with families of firsttime youthful offenders to

decrease domestic dysfunction.

6
Risk Factors 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 7

Several projects have demonstrated success at reducing common crimes, such as residential

burglaries and car thefts. The following approaches have been effective at preventing residential

burglary:

• “Cocoon” neighborhood watch.

• Improvements in home security

and etching owners’ names on

household items.

• Treatment of substance-abusing

offenders.

• Analysis of and intervention for

repeat victims.

For public disorder and incivilities, a number of approaches have

achieved reductions:

• Vandalism has been reduced

through measures that hold

youth accountable for their 

delinquent behavior.

• Cheating on public transportation

has been reduced by increasing

personnel and surveillance at

transit stations.

• Incivilities have been reduced by

placing closed-circuit cameras in

problem areas.

• Fights and physical assaults

have been reduced near bars by

holding owners partially responsible and requiring them to take

various measures.

Several measures have been

introduced to help people, particularly women, feel safe in public

places. Initial assessments reveal

that the following measures show

promise: 

• Hiring more staff to provide

information and surveillance in

public areas in cities.

• Modifying public transportation

routes.

• Improving lighting on streets.

Tackling Risk Factors

Pays Off

In addition to being effective, the

measures described above are usually more cost-effective than traditional crime control measures, such

as incarceration. Economic evaluations of crime prevention programs

show that:

• Actions encouraging the social

development of children, youth,

and families reduce delinquent

behavior with returns ranging

from $1.06 to $7.16 for every

$1 spent (Sansfaçon and Welsh,

1999).

• Actions aiming to reduce opportunities for victimization have

produced returns ranging from

$1.83 to $7.14 for every $1

spent (Sansfaçon and Welsh,

1999).

As well as decreasing delinquency, reducing the number of offenses,
INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

8

and increasing social integration,

these measures also generated economic benefits for various government sectors:

• More people were employed

so more taxable income was

generated.

• More housing was rented, increasing residency rates as well

as economic investment in the

community.

• Demand for criminal justice services decreased.

• Less social and health-care

assistance was required.

In England, a survey by the Audit

Commission (1996) on the costeffectiveness of various measures to

treat young persons showed that

judicial intervention costs $10,542,

compared with $6,950 for an

enhanced school program (helping

youth dropouts to return to the

school) and $1,167 for programs

to help youth find jobs.

In the United States, the RAND

Corporation (Greenwood et al.,

1996) analyzed the costs and benefits of five approaches to veering

youth from a life of crime. ICPC was

able to use the data to determine

the tax increase per family that

would be needed to reduce crime

by 10 percent. The study found

that $228 in extra taxes would be

required for incarceration, $118 for

probation, $48 for special parent

training, and $32 for incentives to

help at-risk youth complete school

(figure 1).

Like countries in Western Europe,

the United States spends more on

education and health than on justice

and crime, but because of the

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Extended incarceration 

for repeat offenders 

(three strikes law)

Delinquent 

probation

Parent 

training

Incentive 

for youth to 

complete school

Increase in taxes per household

$228

$118

$48

$32

Figure 1 

Extra Taxes Needed for a 10-Percent Reduction in Crime
Risk Factors 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 9

meteoric rise in incarceration in the

United States, incarceration expenditures may soon exceed education

expenditures. Another study by

RAND shows that, at current rates

of growth, expenditures on incarceration in California will rise from 9

percent of the state budget in 1994

to 17 percent in 2002, while the

funds available for higher education

will drop from 12 percent to 1 percent (Sansfaçon and Welsh, 1999).

In the Netherlands a simulation

model comparing four scenarios to

reduce crime by 10 percent showed

that investing in prevention through

social development was more effective than the addition of 1,000

police officers (van Dijk, 1997). On

this basis, the Dutch government

reallocated $100 million over 5

years to reinforce social prevention. 
III. Country Examples: 

Keys to Success

Broad consensus exists in the

international community on the

process needed to ensure costeffective action. The United Nations

and international organizations

comprising local elected officials,

leaders of police organizations,

judges, community groups, governmental experts, and service providers have identified the same set

of procedures for successfully and

effectively preventing crime.

At the heart of the process is a

responsible central organization that

brings together key departments

(justice, education, health, social

services, housing and urban planning, community organizations, and

citizens). With strong leadership,

this organization sets in motion a

rigorous process of diagnosis,

development of an action plan,

implementation, and assessment

and evaluation (figure 2). 

This process rests on two fundamental elements. First, studies of

risk factors and the actions that

reduce them show that these factors

are interrelated and that many sectors must agree on how to respond

to them. Efforts should not concentrate on implementing a specific

measure, but rather should set in

motion a battery of interventions

that will target the risk factors. For

this reason, it is important to mobilize several partners.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 11

Diagnosis

• Challenges From Crime

• Risk Factors

Evaluation

• Process

• Results

Action Plan

• Priorities/Resources

• Actions vs. Risk Factors

Implementation

• Coordination

• Benchmarks/Timeline

Central Organization

• Provides Leadership

• Mobilizes Sectors

• Encourages Diversity

• Engages Citizens

Figure 2 

Key Elements of Successful Crime Prevention
INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

12

Second, analysis of successful

action shows that such sectors as

education, health, social services,

entertainment, housing, transportation, justice, and police should initiate action in their respective areas

in collaboration with other sectors.

The remainder of this chapter

presents brief descriptions of how

the U.K., France, the Netherlands,

and New Zealand have used this

process to prevent crime.

U.K. Turns to Prevention

To Spend Better, Not More

In 1997 the British Treasury said

‘‘no more’’ to rising expenditures

unless they would reduce crime. It

undertook a comprehensive spending review using American, British,

and Dutch evaluations and analysis

by the International Centre for the

Prevention of Crime. This review

identified programs that had significantly reduced crime by investing in

prevention. It showed evidence that

particular preventive approaches

were more cost-effective than paying for more intervention and detention (Goldblatt and Lewis, 1998).

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of

Constabulary (1998)—comprising

experienced police chiefs in the

U.K.—examined the success of

British police in reducing crime.

Police forces that had achieved a

40-percent reduction in crime over

5 years without an increase in personnel had used problem-solving

policing and partnerships with other

organizations. Written under the

chairmanship of John Stevens,

head of Scotland Yard, the review

found that significant policing was

still reactive despite the interest in

preventive tools.

A report by the Audit Commission (1996)—a governmental 

watchdog on local government

spending—reported that funding for

youth crime was being misspent.

Funding was going to inefficient

responses after the harm was 

done, rather than to programs that

involved children in their early years

when chances were good that they

could be diverted from a life of

crime. The Audit Commission

agreed with research conducted for

the U.S. Congress showing that the

main impact of incarceration is to

incapacitate offenders by placing

them behind bars and that jail experience has little effect on reducing

crime, as offenders relapse into

crime at a high rate within the first

2 years of their release (Sherman et

al., 1997).

As a result, the British Treasury

allocated the equivalent of 5 percent of spending ($7 per household

per year) on enforcement and

deterrence to a new crime reduction program based on proven

ways of reducing crime. Ten percent of this money was to be spent

on evaluating the costs and benefits of the investment (Home Office,

1999). The program focuses on the

following:

• Establishing programs for families, children, and schools to prevent youth from offending.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 13

• Tackling high-volume crime (e.g.,

burglary) in communities.

• Redesigning consumer products

so that they are difficult to steal.

• Implementing more effective 

sentencing.

All city government officials and

police managers were required to

cooperate on a new community

safety approach to reduce crime.

This effort required city government

and police services to collaborate

on a safety diagnosis, the design

and implementation of a community

safety strategy, and the evaluation

of the results. These tasks were

coordinated with other social policies of the government. This national “crusade” was to be tough on

crime and its causes.

France Pioneered Local

Prevention Contracts, Now

Creates Prevention Jobs

In 1983 the French government

developed a national crime prevention policy. It set up a national crime

prevention council to coordinate the

crime prevention efforts of a broad

range of ministries, such as law

enforcement, justice, education,

youth, and housing. This council

had funds to form contracts with

mayors to support local crime prevention projects that would develop

a broad committee organization

chaired by the mayor and that

would analyze local problems to

tackle situations that led to crime. 

In the 1980s many local councils

were developed.

In 1989 the functions of the

national crime prevention council

were integrated into a broader based

policy on urban and social development, managed by the interministerial secretariat. Crime prevention

became a component of policies on

housing, health, education, culture,

and recreation. The council continues to form contracts with mayors

each year on a range of urban

issues, including security and justice.

In 1997, the national cabinet

committee on safety and security

decided to reenergize the process

and find a better balance between

social prevention and community

safety by proposing contracts to be

signed by the mayor, the chief prosecutor, the police chief, and, in

many cases, the national official for

education.

Approximately 450 contracts

have been signed, covering most

urban areas in France. A total of

700 are expected. Many smaller

communities have local crime prevention councils and are also

expected to draw up contracts in the

future. The contracts foster crime

prevention through projects involving social integration, employment,

and support for parents, as well as

access to justice and victim assistance through community justice

centers (maison de justice). The

national government has made

funds available to local communities

Country Examples: Keys to Success 
INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

14

to employ 35,000 youth who work

with police as safety and security

assistants or as social mediation

agents in communities.

The Netherlands Uses

Learning-Based Strategies

The Netherlands has specialized

in testing innovative crime prevention efforts in local projects. If 

evaluation results show that a particular effort works, the results are

publicized and communities across

the country are encouraged to try

this activity. For instance, when

results showed that setting particular design standards for houses

reduced the number of houses 

burglarized in the early 1990s, the

standards were promoted nationally. 

Another example is a program

called HALT. Through this program

juveniles involved in vandalism are

required by the police or the prosecuting authority to repair the 

damage and seek assistance. Evaluations show that the program

reduces recidivism, and the program

has been established in 65 sites.

The current policy to prevent

youth violence has been influenced

by results from the United States. It

follows three tracks:

• A structured and inclusive national action directed at reducing 

delinquency among minority youth.

• A structured program of action to

lower secondary school dropout

rates and to facilitate employment

of at-risk youth.

• A structured program to give 

children and teenagers a healthy

start.

New Zealand Puts

Prevention Where

It Matters Most

In 1993 New Zealand created a

crime prevention unit within the 

Prime Minister’s office. The unit has 

an annual budget of more than 

$3 million to allow local communities

to establish community safety partnerships, called Safer Community

Councils. It also influences the 

allocation of government resources 

to prevent crime. The unit has 

assisted in developing more than 

60 Safer Community Councils.
IV. Conclusion: Good Governance

for Crime Prevention

For too long, we have left the

problems of crime to law enforcement and criminal justice. However,

research has shown that other 

sectors—such as schools, social

services, entertainment, health 

services, and business—are also

important partners in crime 

prevention efforts.

Good governance for crime prevention ensures that organizations

are mobilized to take on the necessary responsibility. Whether at the

city, state, or federal level, a central

crime prevention organization is

needed to be responsible for intersectoral work that brings together

different agencies, stimulates partnerships, facilitates the dissemination of knowledge and tools, and

encourages monitoring and

reassessment. 

The central crime prevention

organization (figure 2) translates the

initial messages from leaders into

practical strategies for communities.

Strategies should:

• Elaborate a plan of action with

defined priorities and targets.

• Influence the policies and decisions of relevant organizations.

• Stimulate and sustain community partnerships.

To develop a practical strategy,

the central crime prevention organization must have:

• The capacity to analyze trends in

crime, identify risk factors and

ways to address them effectively,

and organize a rigorous assessment of the actions.

• Resources to invest in pilot projects, sustain action, disseminate

information, and foster training.

• The ability to ensure coordination among the various sectors.

• The means to inform the public and change practices if 

necessary.

Some cities in the United States,

like those in Europe, have achieved

remarkable reductions in crime.

Despite some decreases, crime 

levels remain unacceptable. 

Many agreed that the causes of

crime must be tackled. If demonstration projects tackle those 

causes, crime will decrease. In

many cases, community demonstration projects are more costeffective than existing law

enforcement and incarceration

measures. The demonstration 

projects, however, are often not 

sustained.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 15
INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

16

The benchmarks for successful

crime prevention strategies have

been well established by experts

and intergovernmental commissions. Unfortunately, fads and conventional wisdom, rather than

proven methods, dominate innovations for diagnosing the problem

and mobilizing the agencies that

can solve it.

Some countries have started

national strategies to reduce crime

through prevention. The latest 

hard-hitting program in the U.K.

invests in prevention. The

Netherlands invests in efforts that

have proved successful. In France

education, housing, and law

enforcement agencies tackle the

risk factors together.

The United States can benefit

from experiences of practitioners

not only in the United States but

also in other countries committed to

reducing crime through prevention.
V. Bibliography/References

Audit Commission. 1996.

Misspent Youth . . . Young People

and Crime. London, England: Audit

Commission.

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

2000. “Summary Findings.”

Expenditure and Employment

Statistics. Retrieved June 12, 2000.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/eande.htm.

Council of Europe. 1988. Final

Declaration. Paper presented at the

Conference on the Reduction of

Urban Insecurity, November 17–20.

Barcelona, Spain.

Crime Concern. 1993. A Practical

Guide to Crime Prevention for Local

Partnerships. London, England:

Home Office.

European Forum for Urban

Safety, Federation of Canadian

Municipalities, and the United

States Conference of Mayors. 1991.

Final Declaration. Paper presented

at the Second International Conference on Urban Safety, Drugs,

and Crime Prevention, November

18–20. Paris, France.

European Forum for Urban

Safety, Federation of Canadian

Municipalities, and United States

Conference of Mayors. 1989.

Agenda for Safer Cities: Final

Declaration. Paper presented at the

European and North American

Conference on Urban Safety, Drugs,

and Crime Prevention, October

10–13. Montreal, Canada.

Gauthier, L.A., D. Hicks, D.

Sansfaçon, and L. Salel. 1999.

100 Promising Crime Prevention

Programs From Across the World.

Montreal, Canada: International

Centre for the Prevention of Crime.

Goldblatt, P., and C. Lewis, eds.

1998. Reducing Offending: An

Assessment of Research Evidence

on Ways of Dealing With Offending

Behaviour. London, England: Home

Office, Research and Statistics

Directorate.

Greenwood, P.W., K.E. Model,

C.P. Rydell, and J. Chiesa. 1996.

Diverting Children From a Life of

Crime: Measuring Costs and

Benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Corporation.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of

Constabulary. 1998. Beating Crime.

London, England: Home Office.

Home Office. 1999. Crime

Reduction Strategy. London,

England: Home Office.

Linden, Rick. 1996. A Safer

Canada: Guide for Community

Crime Prevention. Ottawa, Canada:

National Crime Prevention Council

of Canada.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 17
INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

18

Loeber, R., and D.P. Farrington.

1998. “Never Too Early, Never Too

Late: Risk Factors and Successful

Interventions for Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders.” Studies on

Crime and Crime Prevention 7(1):

7–30. 

Mayhew, P., and J.J.M. van Dijk.

1997. Criminal Victimisation in

Eleven Industrialised Countries. The

Hague, the Netherlands: Research

and Documentation Centre, Ministry

of Justice.

National Crime Prevention

Council. 1999. Saving Money While

Stopping Crime. Washington, DC:

National Crime Prevention Council.

Newman, G., ed. 1999. Global

Report on Crime and Justice.

Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

Reiss, A.J., and J.A. Roth, eds.

1993. Understanding and

Preventing Violence. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Sansfaçon, D., and B. Welsh.

1999. Crime Prevention Digest II:

Comparative Analysis of Successful

Community Safety. Montreal,

Canada: International Centre for the

Prevention of Crime. 

Sherman, L., D. Gottfredson, D.

MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and

S. Bushway. 1997. Preventing

Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t,

What’s Promising. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ

165366.

University of Colorado. 2000.

“Ten Model Programs.” Blueprints

for Violence Prevention. Retrieved

June 8, 2000. www.colorado.edu/

cspv/blueprints/model/Default.htm.

van Dijk, J.J.M. 1997. “Towards a

Research-Based Crime Reduction

Policy: Crime Prevention as a CostEffective Policy Option.” European

Journal on Criminal Policy and

Research 5(3): 13–27.
Please use the contact information

below to learn more about the programs discussed in this monograph,

as well as other national crime 

prevention programs.

Australia

Law Enforcement Group 

Law Enforcement Coordination

Division

Robert Garran Offices

National Circuit

Barton, Canberra 2600

Australia

61–2–6250–6772

Fax: 61–2–6273–0914

E-mail: cathy.rossiter@ag.gov.au

Belgium

Secrétariat Permanent à la Politique 

de Prévention

Ministère de l’Intèrieur 

26, rue de la Loi

Brussels 1040

Belgium

32–2–500–24–41

Fax: 32–2–500–24–47

E-mail: info@belgium.fgov.be

Canada

National Crime Prevention Centre

Department of Justice of Canada

275 Sparks Street, Fifth Floor

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Canada

613–957–9639

Fax: 613–952–3515

E-mail: Mary-Anne.kirvan@ 

justice.gc.ca

VI. For More Information

England and Wales

Policing and Reducing Crime Unit

Home Office

Clive House, Room 419

Petty France

London SW1H 9HD

England

44–207–271–8901

Fax: 44–207–271–8344

E-mail: CaroleF.Willis@homeoffice. 

gsi.gov.uk

France

Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville 

et au Développement Social Urbain

194, Avenue du President Wilson

St-Denis-La Plaine 93217

France

33–1–49–17–46–10

Fax: 33–1–49–17–46–90

E-mail: didier.michal@ville.gouv.fr

Ivory Coast

Conseil National de Sécurité

01 B.P. 518

Abidjan

Ivory Coast

225–32–24–77/78

Fax: 225–32–12–24

E-mail: gtanny@globeaccess.net

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 19
INVESTING WISELY IN CRIME PREVENTION

20

Canada H2Y 2W8

514–288–6731

Fax: 514–288–8763

E-mail: cipc@crime-preventionintl.org

National Crime Prevention Council

1000 Connecticut Avenue NW.

13th Floor

Washington, DC 20036

202–466–6272 

Fax: 202–296–1356 

World Wide Web: www.ncpc.org

For additional information on BJA

grants and programs contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

810 Seventh Street NW.,

Fourth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

202–514–6278

Fax: 202–305–1367

World Wide Web: 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org

Clearinghouse staff are available

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.

to 7 p.m. eastern time. Ask to be

placed on the BJA mailing list.

U.S. Department of Justice 

Response Center

1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480

Response Center staff are available Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m. eastern time.

The Netherlands

Policy Department

Ministry of Justice

P.O. Box 20301

The Hague 2515 EX

The Netherlands

31–70–370–79–11

Fax: 31–70–370–79–75

E-mail: wmeurs@best-dep.minjust.nl

Department of Public Safety, 

Information Policy & Projects

Ministry of the Interior & Kingdom 

Relations

P.O. Box 20011

The Hague 2500 EA

The Netherlands

31–70–426–68–17

Fax: 426–61–62

E-mail: Derk.Oosterzee@minbiza.nl

Portugal

Gabinete de Assuntos Europeus

Ministerio da Administraçao Interna

Praça do Comercio

Lisbon 1149–015

Portugal

351–1–32–32–062

Fax: 351–1–343–15–96

E-mail: gae@meganet.pt

South Africa

Secretariat for Safety and Security

P.O. Box 413460

Craighall

Johannesburg, South Africa

27–11–325–4556

Fax: 11–325–4607

E-mail: bfanaroff@resolve.co.za

International Center for the 

Prevention of Crime

507, Place d’Armes, Suite 2100

Montreal, Quebec
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

General Information

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone 

1–800–688–4252 

Monday through Friday 

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand

1–800–688–4252

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and information

on training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities,

requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information

with state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution,

participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities.

The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web 

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo

[your name] 
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJA

PERMIT NO. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs Office of Justice ProgramsBureau of Justice Assistance Bureau of Justice AssistanceWashington, DC 20531 Washington, DC 20531Official Business Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 Penalty for Private Use $300