# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0717 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0717

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Evaluation report on the European Union Crime Prevention Network /* COM/2012/0717 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
COUNCIL

Evaluation report on the European Union Crime Prevention Network

1.           Introduction

Crime prevention is recognised as an
important tool to contribute to citizen's safety and security. The Lisbon
Treaty mentions crime prevention among the key building blocks to establish
and maintain an area of freedom, security and Justice[1]. Also the Stockholm
Programme reiterated the importance of crime prevention : “The best way
to reduce the level of crime”, it argued, “is to take effective measures
to prevent it from ever occurring, including promoting social inclusion, by
using a multidisciplinary approach which also includes taking administrative
measures and promoting cooperation between administrative authorities, citizens
of the Union that have similar experiences and are affected in similar ways by
crime and related insecurity in their everyday lives”.

While systematic cost-benefit analyses
related to crime prevention programmes or studies on the costs of crime[2] that can be used to develop
crime prevention measures are not yet common practice in Europe, studies
available in countries that have a longer tradition in this (US, UK, New
Zealand and Australia), do indicate that crime prevention "works" and
that in any case, the costs of crime (including both material and psychological
harm caused to victims) are very often higher than the cost of preventing it.
Also specialised UN bodies[3]
pro-actively promote and support the gradual shift to innovative methods of
preventing criminality, rather than punishing it.

The European Crime Prevention Network
(EUCPN) was set up by the Council Decision 2001/427/JHA, repealed by the Council
Decision 2009/902/JHA. The main objective of the May 2001 Council Decision
establishing EUCPN was to promote crime prevention activities and to provide a
means through which valuable good practice in preventing crime could be shared.
In 2009 a new Council Decision specified the tasks of the EUCPN as follows :

·
Facilitate cooperation, contacts and exchanges
of information and experience between actors in the field of crime prevention;

·
Collect, assess and communicate evaluated
information including good practice on existing crime prevention activities;

·
Organise conferences, in particular an annual
Best Practice Conference, and other activities, including the annual European
Crime Prevention Award, designed to achieve the objectives of the Network and
to share widely the results thereof;

·
Provide its expertise to the Council and the
Commission as required;

·
Report to the Council on its activities each
year through the Board and the competent working bodies. The Council shall be
invited to endorse the report and forward it to the European Parliament;

·
Develop and implement a
work programme based on a clearly defined strategy that takes account of
identifying and responding to relevant crime threats.

The Council Decision also describes the
EUCPN’s structure and operating framework. In addition to a Board
consisting of National Representatives, the structure includes an Executive
Committee, Contact Points[4] and a Secretariat.
The European Commission is an observer[5] in the
Board and attends the meetings of the Executive Committee. The EUCPN’s rules of
procedure explain how these different elements should interact with each other
and third parties.

The EUCPN’s basic goals were reaffirmed in
the Multiannual Strategy for the EUCPN which was adopted by the Board in
December 2010 for the period until the end of 2015. It elaborates on the
EUCPN’s mission, defining it as being to ‘Contribute to the development and
the promotion of a multidisciplinary and preventive approach to crime and
feelings of insecurity at European level. With this in mind, the Network has as
‘a key role to support policymakers and practitioners of European, national and
local level’. The Multiannual Strategy goes on to define the vision,
mission, target groups and the strategic goals that the EUCPN should achieve
over five-year period. It provides policy orientations with a special focus on
four types of activities: (i) to be a point of reference for the EUCPN’s target
groups; (ii) to disseminate knowledge of crime prevention; (iii) to support
crime prevention at national and local levels and (iv) to develop EU policy and
strategies with regard to crime prevention.

The EUCPN target groups are identified as
being: (i) Practitioners and policymakers at local level; (ii) practitioners
and policymakers at national level; and (iii) relevant EU and international
agencies, organisations, working groups, etc. Annual work programmes then set
out more specific priorities.

The EUCPN currently benefits from financial
support from the ISEC Programme[6]
through a grant worth 845.000€ covering the period mid 2011 – mid 2014.

According to article 9 of the 2009 Council
decision, the Commission shall present by 30 November 2012 an evaluation report
to the Council on the activities of the Network with a special focus on the
efficiency of the work of the Network and its Secretariat, taking due account
of the interaction between the Network and other relevant stakeholders.

In the Stockholm Programme, the European
Council invited the Commission to submit a proposal to setting up an ‘Observatory
for the Prevention of Crime’ (OPC), "the tasks of which will be to
collect, analyse and disseminate knowledge on crime, including organised crime
(including statistics) and crime prevention, to support and promote Member
States and EU institutions when they take preventive measures and to exchange
best practice. The OPC should build on the work carried out within the
framework of the European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) and the evaluation
of it. It should include or replace the EUCPN, with a secretariat located
within an existing EU agency and functioning as a separate unit. The Stockholm
Programme stipulated that a proposal should be submitted by 2013 at the latest.

This document therefore evaluates the work
of the EUCPN over the past two and a half years and provides recommendations as
regards the future, including considering the feasibility of establishing a
Crime Prevention Observatory.

2.           External Evaluation

In order to inform the further development
of the EUCPN, an independent, external evaluation of the EUCPN was undertaken
in the first months of 2012[7].
The external evaluation addressed several aspects of the EUCPN, including its
performance over the past two and a half years, its organisation and governance
and finally it provided for a number of development options.

Overall, the external evaluation concluded
that the EUCPN is functioning relatively well and has made good progress in
relation to the objectives set out in the 2009 Council Decision and the
2010-2015 Multiannual Strategy. Following the adoption of the 2009 Council
Decision and follow-up activities, the EUCPN has a much more clearly defined
strategy and target groups. It has been strengthened and professionalized,
particularly following the establishment of the new Secretariat which has
provided much needed support for the Network’s activities.

Compared to the situation when the last
evaluation was conducted[8],
many shortcomings have been addressed, the EUCPN’s activities are more targeted
and the quality and quantity of outputs have been improved. For example: since
2012, the EUCPN Secretariat is producing "Thematic Papers". The
first paper on ‘Sport, science and art in the prevention of crime
among children and youth’ was based on the work completed by the former
Presidency trio.. In June 2012 the EUCPN Secretariat has published the first
6-monthly "European Crime Prevention Monitor" which presents
information on crime situations and crime trends based on statistics, surveys
and reports from different sources. The aim of these reports is to provide a
quick and substantial, but selected overview of the situation and trends on
crime and crime prevention . Target groups are local, national and European
practitioners and policy makers.

Furthermore, new initiatives such as the
setting up of a stakeholder database, the dissemination of a
redesigned newsletter, the world cafés during Board meetings and the launch
of a stakeholder feedback survey have all contributed to better
cooperation, contacts, exchanges of information and experience between actors
in the field of crime prevention (for example, Bulgaria’s recently adopted
national crime prevention strategy relied heavily on EUCPN information). EUCPN
Board meetings have increasingly dealt with points of substance as opposed to
procedural issues. A greater number of Member States now takes part in the ECPA
(European Crime Prevention Award) contest.

Other substantive activities include a
total of 18 research projects which since 2009 received support under
the EUCPN work programmes. These projects dealt with preventing domestic
violence, restorative justice, developing estimates of the economic cost of
crime, developing administrative measures to combat organized crime, reducing
recidivism among youth, neighborhood mediation, the promotion of social
inclusion, developing good practices of Community Conflict Management etc. The results of all projects can be consulted on the EUCPN website. A
substantial number of systematic reviews were produced in 2008 on
various initiatives and activities to prevent criminal activities. However,
since then no systematic reviews were published until May 2012 when the Danish
Crime Prevention Network published a systematic review on the EUCPN website on
the effectiveness of mentoring and leisure-time activities for youth at risk.

The EUCPN website – despite its technical
limitations – now has a more developed searchable online database of
good practices and up to date information on crime prevention strategies and
measures.

However, the external evaluation also
identified a number of weaknesses : (1) the evaluation could not find
evidence that EUCPN activities are always linked to the crime prevention
priorities facing the EU and Member States; (2) the quality of the EUCPN
outputs is generally good and these products are useful but there is scope to
tailor them even more to target groups; (3) EUCPN is in general less successful
in reaching target groups at local level, than at national or EU level
(although the two above mentioned products - the thematic papers and the
European Crime Prevention Monitor - are specifically destined to practitioners at
national and local level); (4) a substantial amount of crime prevention
projects supported by the ISEC programme are implemented without associating or
even informing EUCPN; (5) there is a considerable difference in effectiveness
of the rotating presidencies capacity to provide leadership to EUCPN; (6) the
intention to put key documents in different EU languages on the website to
attract a wider readership and provide supporting documentation to stakeholders
particularly at local level was not fulfilled; (7) many of the contact points
do not appear to provide any added value to the functioning and visibility of
the EUCPN and in a variety of member states there are no contact points; (8)
the activities of the EUCPN are supported by relatively modest funding and its
activities and outputs are proportionate to the financial inputs; (9) more
needs to be done to raise the EUCPN profile.

3.           The role of the EUCPN

Over much of the past decade, the EUCPN’s
development has taken place in the absence of a strong EU legislative framework. The EU had limited competence[9]
in crime prevention and to the extent that it had powers, these were mainly in
the field of organised crime. With the changes made by the Lisbon Treaty to the
Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU) the EU received a stronger role in crime prevention.

Reflecting this, Article 84 of the Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) states that the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with
the ordinary legislative procedure, ‘may establish measures to promote and
support the action of Member States in the field of crime prevention, excluding
any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States’.

Overall, it can be said that the EU
dimension of crime prevention has been strengthened in many ways in recent
years, including through a number of initiatives being taken to assist Member
States in their efforts to combat criminal activities[10]. With the increasingly
cross-border nature of crime, and the blurring[11]
of the distinction between organised and so-called ‘volume’ crime, having an
effective EU framework in place is a necessity for crime prevention efforts at
all levels to have a greater chance of success.

Although crime rates in Europe have
decreased for many years[12],
there are signs in some EU Member States[13]
of this trend having now been reversed, perhaps reflecting the effects of the
economic recession[14].
Moreover, security concerns among EU Citizens remain important[15]. Consequently, crime
prevention - and collaboration at EU level to promote it - remains a priority
for the EUCPN’s key stakeholders and EU citizens generally[16]. The rationale for further
developing the EUCPN therefore remains valid.

4.           Future development of the EUCPN

The following section provides
recommendations for addressing the weaknesses identified during the external
evaluation. Two of them seem to stand out : first, the need to address the
visibility of EUCPN[17]
and - linked to that - the need to better align EUCPN activities to agreed
priorities at EU level, including through creating synergies with other
initiatives and bodies. This would contribute to a better focus and to building
up know-how in specific crime areas, allowing more added value in the
interaction with both the local and EU level and thus also addressing the issue
of lack of visibility.

4.1.        What are the main changes
required of the EUCPN ?

Firstly, a number of measures could be
taken to increase the EUCPN’s performance, impact and added value.

(1)
The EUCPN should more systematically align
its priorities to agreed EU priorities, including those defined in the
Internal Security Strategy, the EU Policy Cycle and other security related
initiatives endorsed by EU Member States (for example, there are obvious links
between the EUCPN and the informal network of contact points on the
administrative approach[18]
to prevent and fight organised crime[19]
that could usefully be further explored).

(2)
Linked to the above, the EUCPN should strengthen
its role in making inputs to EU and Member State policymaking in the
crime prevention field. At the moment, the inputs of the EUCPN at the EU
level remain modest.

(3)
A more strategic approach to determining EUCPN
activities and strengthening its role in providing inputs to policymaking at
the EU and Member State level, should be supported by the development in the
longer-term of an observatory-type monitoring function[20]. Establishing a better
knowledge base on crime prevention at EU level should primarily be done by
using available data (e.g. from EUROPOL and EUROSTAT) while avoiding any
overlap with existing initiatives.

(4)
To support such monitoring activities, the EUCPN
should continue its collaboration[21]
with Eurostat and others to introduce better statistical information
at EU level but also to avoid any overlap with on-going or planned activities.

(5)
The EUCPN should further develop its outputs
to increase the capacity to respond to key stakeholder needs, subject to the
necessary resources being available. The EUCPN’s Secretariat has an important
role to play in this respect. Likewise, Member States should be encouraged to
contribute more actively to the work of EUCPN (e.g. by feeding it more
regularly with data or signalling best practices), herewith ensuring better
quality outputs.

(6)
A key EUCPN priority should be to produce good
practice material for crime prevention practitioners at a regional and local
level, including in a demand-driven manner. The EUCPN’s capacity to do so
depends on intensifying EU-level networking involving practitioners and being
able to convert the results of this and other activities (e.g. ECPA) into
useful material.

(7)
During the period under review, the EUCPN has
developed closer relationships with a number of other entities. Priority in this respect should be given to EUROSTAT, CEPOL (because
of the possibility of strengthening the EUCPN’s capacity to reach practitioners
at the local level), and EUROPOL (because of EUROPOLs role in helping to
identify future challenges and priorities in fighting organized crime).

(8)
The content, design and user-friendliness of the
EUCPN website should be improved, preferably through the establishment of a
new website as the current one seem to have reached its limits as regards the
technical possibilities to further adapt it to users' needs.

Secondly, while the changes introduced by
the 2009 Council Decision have strengthened the EUCPN organisation and
governance, further improvements could be introduced through a number
of measures:

(1)
There remains a considerable difference in the effectiveness and capacity of the rotating EUCPN
Presidencies to provide leadership to the EUCPN. While it remains important
mainly for reasons of creating "ownership" among EU Member States, to
have rotating presidencies, Member States should commit to allocating
sufficient resources to the EUCPN Presidency. The
Secretariat should be closely involved in providing support to plan and
implement priorities.

(2)
The role of National Representatives
(EUCPN Board members), especially in relation to promoting the EUCPN in
their countries, should also be defined in more detail. National
Representatives of Member States that joined the EU in the past decade are
still on a steep learning curve as regards the integration of crime prevention
in their overall security policy. The EUCPN is for them first and foremost a
useful source of information and inspiration. Most other Member States have a
longstanding experience in crime prevention and some of them actively share it.
Nevertheless, the success of the EUCPN critically depends on the active
contribution of all National Representatives to the activities of the
network, during and beyond EUCPN Board meetings.

(3)
The role of the EUCPN Board observers
should be clarified in terms of (a) who should enjoy this status and (b) their
attendance to board meeting should define whether or not to continue to grant
this status.

(4)
As there has been little evidence of their added
value in promoting the EUCPN and its activities, the
role of the EUCPN’s Contact Points should be reviewed[22] and at least better defined, for example by ensuring that all
Member States appoint Contact Points who subsequently should turn into an
active network of crime prevention practitioners, closely associated to the
work of the EUCPN. Alternatively, the concept of EUCPN contact points could be
abandoned all together and replaced by e.g. networks of academics that on a
case by case basis could provide scientific inputs to the activities of EUCPN.

(5)
Overall, the research confirms that the EUCPN Secretariat
is performing well in supporting the Network, despite its limited capacity (3
full time staff). In fact, the establishment of the Secretariat is probably the
most important structural change that has contributed to improving the performance
of the Network overall. A stronger secretariat would be
an important asset to further develop the EUCPN.

4.2.        EUCPN versus a "Crime
Prevention Observatory" as stipulated by the Stockholm Programme

While there is no clear-cut definition of
an EU level “observatory”, it is generally accepted that the common key tasks
and activities of European observatories (or organisations with observatory
features) are at least the following:

1.           Gathering, monitoring,
analysing, interpreting and disseminating data on a regular basis to all
parties concerned regarding a specific policy area in the different countries
in order to provide the EU and its countries with an overall view of the
situation, measures or activities designed in their respective spheres of responsibility;

2.           Identifying emerging
trends and best practices across the Member States often based on a common
set of key indicators allowing to some extent the comparison between the
different Member States;

3.           Producing a set of technical
papers, reports, studies and other outputs specifically designed to
disseminate the information to the target groups such as decision-makers,
academic communities, practitioners and the general public;

4.           Promoting networking
and exchange between stakeholders through setting up working groups,
forums, and/or meetings.

The EUCPN has currently only embryonic
features of an ‘observatory’.

In addition to the specific conclusions and
recommendations set out above, various more general options regarding the
EUCPN’s development have been examined in the external evaluation. These
included keeping the status quo, enhancing the EUCPN, establishing a European
Crime Prevention Observatory, and disbanding the EUCPN.

Option 1: Status quo

Keeping the situation as it is would mean
that the EUCPN could probably continue to function in a quite satisfactory
manner. However, it would also mean that the identified shortcomings would not
be addressed and the added value of the EUCPN would not be fully exploited in a
way that it can fully meet the expectations underlying the 2009 Decision. This
could lead to key stakeholders losing interest in the Network, which risks to
ultimately lead to option 4 : disbanding the EUCPN. For these and the other
reasons mentioned under option 4, Option1 is not recommended.

Option 2: EUCPN +

In order to consolidate progress made so
far and to allow further incremental development in line with the
recommendations listed under section IV.1, the capacity of the EUCPN would be
strengthened to address key stakeholder priorities through a strengthened
Secretariat and a range of
measures that will increase the Network’s visibility. These improvements would
be possible to achieve by doubling its currently very modest resources, which
would still represent a relatively small budget compared to similar networks.
Additional costs might include (i) enlargement of the Secretariat (estimated
€180.000 for 2 extra staff x 2 years = €360.000), (ii) website development and
maintenance (= €150.000 for a 2 year period), and (iii) enhanced
role/networking of Contact Points or alternatively establishing networks of
academics (e.g. 2 meetings per year x 2 = €100.000). The total costs for the
EUCPN would be approximately €600.000 per year, or €1,2M for two years, to be
compared with the current level of funding (approx. €300.000[23] per year).

Option 3:
European Crime Prevention Observatory

Establishing a full-fledged observatory
would enhance the EUCPN’s ability to monitor and analyse crime prevention
trends. However, while this type of data is relevant to key stakeholders at the
national level, the regional level and local level were above all interested in
learning from good practices and the other types of outputs currently produced
by the EUCPN. Assessing the added value of an Observatory has also to take into
account the costs it would imply, which will be substantially higher than in
option 2. Starting from the estimated costs for option 2 (€1,2M) the additional
funding required might include (i) an additional 2 secretariat staff to help
coordinate observatory data collection and analysis (€180.000 x 2 years =
360.000€) and (ii) grants to Contact Points to collect data (average €25.000 per
year, per Member State x 2 years = €1,4M). The total costs would be around €3M
for a period of two years. The risks are also higher because of a combination
of relatively high costs and a shift of focus which is not necessarily equally
beneficial to all stakeholders.

Option 4: Disbanding the EUCPN

There is very little support for disbanding
the EUCPN. The EUCPN is widely seen as producing more and more benefits for
Member States, especially since the adoption of the 2009 Council Decision.
Disbanding it would reduce the capacity of the EU and Member States to promote
crime prevention and make it more difficult to engage Member States and other
key stakeholders in helping to prepare and implement innovative and smart ways
to prevent crime in a complementary way to classical law enforcement actions.
Member States whose crime prevention policies are still at an early stage would
lose out most of it. Given that the rationale for collaboration at EU level on
crime prevention remains strong, this course of action would not be relevant to
key stakeholder needs. Moreover, given the relatively low cost of operating the
EUCPN, the savings would be modest

5.           Concluding Remarks

The EUCPN has proven itself to be an
increasingly useful instrument to support policymakers at EU and national
levels and also with a considerable potential to create added value at local
level. Building on its improving track record, the Commission is confident that
the EUCPN will continue to adapt to meet new challenges.

For the reasons set out in section 4.2, as
well as the positive developments in the past two years (subject to taking into
account the recommendations in section 4.1.), the Commission considers that establishing
a Crime Prevention Observatory, based on or in addition to the EUCPN, for
the time being, does neither correspond to a pressing need, nor is it
politically or financially desirable in the short term.

Enhancing the EUCPN ("EUCPN
+"), notably by a better resourced Secretariat, is therefore the preferred
option as it would allow the EUCPN to concentrate
on consolidating progress made so far and on further improving its functioning
along the recommendations made in section IV and in the external evaluation. A
particular effort is required to increase the visibility of its activities and
communicate them pro-actively to its stakeholders. The EUCPN has embryonic
features of an "observatory" and could overtime evolve towards
reinforcing these features. Preliminary work has already started in this
respect under the current grant agreement financed through ISEC.

The costs of an incremental development of
the EUCPN are estimated at approximately €1,2M for a two years period, starting
when the current Action Grant expires (mid 2014). Member States may decide to
finance EUCPN themselves, or alternatively, decide to apply for co-funding
under the ISEC Financial Programme (through an Action Grant).

Independently of any possible future
application for financial support through the ISEC programme, the future
development of the EUCPN should be matched with a stronger commitment of all EU
Member States to actively support the work of the EUCPN.

The Commission
considers that a working group of the EUCPN Board Members supported by the
Secretariat should be established to consider and address the recommendations
made in this report under section IV and in the external evaluation.

The Commission
recommends that the work of the EUCPN over the next three years (2013-2015) is
evaluated again in 2016. At that time, the usefulness of establishing a Crime
Prevention Observatory could be reconsidered. The Commission looks forward to
debating the development of the EUCPN further on the basis of this report,
notably with the other EU institutions and the Member States.

[1]               Article
2 of the Lisbon Treaty reads as follows : The Union’s aim is to promote
peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples. The Union shall offer its
citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers,
in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with
appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum,
immigration and the prevention and combating of crime’. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:FULL:EN:PDF

[2]               Examples include the costs of
violence (Corso, Mercy, Simon, Finkelstein & Miller, 2007) or sexual
violence (Miller, Taylor & Sheppard, 2007), the cost of alcohol-related
crime (Miller, Levy, Cohen & Cox, 2006; Miller, Levy, Spicer & Taylor,
2006), the cost of fear of crime (Dolan & Peasgood, 2007), the cost of
crime in specific states (Aos et al., 2001), and the cost of mental health care
(Cohen & Miller, 1998).

[3]               UNITED NATIONS CRIME AND JUSTICE
INFORMATION NETWORK, Centre for
International Crime Prevention, Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention
http://www.uncjin.org/index.html)

[4]               According
to article 6 of the Council Decision, Contact points shall support national
representatives in exchanging national crime prevention information and
expertise within the Network.

[5]               There are currently 5
observers representing Croatia, EU agencies (Europol, EMCDDA) and the European
Commission and Council Secretariat. Observers may participate in the business
of the EUCPN Board but do not have a vote.

[6]               Financial support programme of the European Commission
for the Prevention of and Fight against Crime. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/prevention-of-and-fight-against-crime/index_en.htm

[7]               This evaluation was
undertaken by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES). The
study is available on the website of DG HOME : http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/crime-prevention/index_en.htm

[8]               Evaluation of EUCPN conducted
in 2008 – 2009 by CSES http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/crime-prevention/docs/evaluation_of_eucpn_final_report_(cses_11_03_09).pdf

[9]               Article
2 of the of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty
establishing the European Community reads as follows : "To maintain and
develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the
free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures
with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention
and combating of crime". Article 29, second subpara refers to "... preventing
and combating crime, organised or otherwise, in particular terrorism,
trafficking in persons and offences against children, illicit drug trafficking
and illicit arms trafficking, corruption and fraud,..." http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/ce321/ce32120061229en00010331.pdf

[10]             Dedicated crime prevention provisions have been inserted in Directive 2011/36/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating
trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (art 18) as well as in Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography (art 23 ).
The EU Strategy towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings (2012 –
2016) – COM(2012)286final - has the prevention of trafficking in human beings
as one of its key priorities (priority B).

[11]             Crimes committed by mobile “itinerant” criminal groups
are a good example of this blurring between organised and volume crime. These
crimes include: shoplifting, metal theft, cargo theft, house burglaries and pickpocketing.

[12]             In most EU countries, crime
levels have been decreasing consistently over the period since around 2002-03
although the tendency was upwards in some Member States (Denmark,
Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and Sweden). The countries where the
decrease in total crime has been most noticeable were Cyprus, Greece, Malta,
Poland and the UK. Even recent figures indicate for the UK (crimes recorded by the police
in England and Wales) a further drop of 4.2% between the years ending March
2011 and March 2012. Total numbers of crimes recorded for nine of the ten main
categories of offence fell compared to the previous year, with criminal damage
showing a fall of almost 10% (source : UK Police force tables). But underlying these general tendencies
there are considerable differences in the development of specific types of
crime. Since 2006 – 2007 the police recorded more crimes in a number of Member
States, particularly, for domestic burglary and drug trafficking. On the other hand the
type of recorded crime which showed the most substantial decrease was theft of
motor vehicles, followed by violent crime and robbery. (Source : EUROSTAT -
Statistics in Focus crime and criminal justice) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-006/EN/KS-SF-12-006-EN.PDF

[13]             See media reports on Greece
(http://www.balkanalysis.com/greece/2011/05/15/organized-crime-in-greece-statistics-trends-and-police-countermeasures-in-2011-2/).

[14]             See also OCTA (2011) p6 :
"The recent global economic crisis and the connected financial restraints
have made communities more tolerant to illicit commodities, especially
counterfeit goods".

[15]             Nine out of ten Europeans
consider organised crime as an important threat to EU security, see
EUROBAROMETER 371 of 2011 on p 28.

[16]             According the survey of key
stakeholders undertaken for this evaluation, almost two-thirds (65.2%) of the
respondents indicated that collaboration at the EU level between Member States
to promote crime prevention is either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important. This
confirms the findings of a Special Eurobarometer 380 ‘Awareness of Home
Affairs’ report, June 2012, pages 51-60, which stated that nine in ten
Europeans (91%) agreed that the EU institutions and individual Member State
governments should work more closely together to fight terrorism and crime.

[17]             The overall low response rate
to the survey as well as the high degree of “don’t know” are only two examples
of the fact that EUCPN and its activities are still not widely known.

[18]             The so-called 'Administrative
approach' to combat organised crime can best be described as a combination of
tools at administrative level to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the
public sector, the economy or key parts of the public administration. Council
Conclusions on the fight against crimes committed by mobile (itinerant)
criminal groups were adopted in November 2010 and contained provisions for the
establishment of an informal network of contact points on the administrative
approach. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/118169.pdf
The network was established in 2011 but has no secretarial support.

[19]             The EUCPN Council Decision (art
2.2) allows EUCPN to look into “all measures that are intended to reduce or
otherwise contribute to reducing crime and citizens feeling of insecurity...”.
Equally, the multi-annual strategy of EUCPN states that EUCPN should contribute
“to the promotion of a multi-disciplinary and preventive approach to crime”.
For reasons of efficiency and sustainability, there should be greater synergies
between the EUCPN and the network, possibly also from an organisational point
of view.

[20]             This
could include building up a better understanding of trends at the EU
level and across Member States with regard to crime, establishing an overview
of Member States’ crime prevention institutional set ups, strategies and
policies (some of this information is already available) and to the extent that
it can be assessed, an assessment of what impact crime prevention measures have
on different types of criminal activity.

[21]             The EUCPN and EUROSTAT participate both in the expert group
assisting the Commission with the implementation of the Crime Statistics Action Plan 2011- 2015 COM(2011) 713 final.

[22]             See footnote 4 for their role
according to the Council Decision

[23]             The
Action Grant of €845.000 covering a three years period, requires 5 %
co-financing by EU Member States.