Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): Establishing a GMES capacity by 2008 - (Action Plan (2004-2008))
Date: 2004-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Space Agency, action programme, data collection, environmental monitoring, financing, information processing, international cooperation, international security, remote sensing

C 92/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2004

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

CRIME PREVENTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

(COM(2004) 165 final)

(2004/C 92/02)

1. CONTEXT AND DEFINITIONS

1.1. The legal and political context

The Treaty of Amsterdam, in force since May 1999, estab-
lished a legal basis for crime prevention activities at EU level.
Article 29 states that the ‘Union's objective shall be to provide
citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom,
security and justice’. It lists the prevention of crime, ‘organised
or otherwise’, as one of the means towards the attainment of
this goal.

Until the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May
1999, attention for crime prevention policies at EU level had
mostly been limited to the prevention of organised crime. The
Action Plan to Combat Organised Crime of 1997 (1) identified
some priority areas to prevent organised crime and the Vienna
Action Plan of December 1998 (2) also included specific
measures in this respect.

The European Council of Tampere of October 1999
confirmed the
crime prevention
policies in the Union through its conclusions (3) nr. 41 and
42, which call for:

importance of

effective

crime

‘— the integration of crime prevention aspects into actions
against crime as well as for the further development of
national
Common
priorities should be developed and identified in crime
the
prevention in the external and internal policy of
Union and be taken into account when preparing new
legislation;

programmes.

prevention

On 29 November 2000 the Commission submitted a
Communication to the Council and the European Parliament
‘The prevention of crime in the European Union: Reflection on
common guidelines and proposals for Community financial
support’ (4). This Communication was the first step from the
Commission to identify priority areas in crime prevention at
EU level and to contribute to developing an effective EU
strategy. Following this Communication,
important devel-
the
opments have taken place,
European Forum for the Prevention of Organised Crime (5),
the
Prevention
Network (6) and the adoption of a Council Decision creating
the Hippokrates program to co-fund co-operation projects
between Member States (7).

European Crime

the creation of

establishment

such as

the

of

In addition, a specific research topic on crime prevention has
been introduced in the 6th EU Framework Programme RTD
(Research and Technological Development). This will
inter
alia help defining common instruments for measuring the
extent and the nature of volume crime, evaluating crime
reduction strategies and analysing long-term threats.

Like the 2000 Communication, the current Communication
also underlines the primary responsibility of
the Member
States in the field of prevention, since juvenile, urban and
drug-related crime occur at
to
effectively support prevention activities in the Member States,
to avoid duplication of efforts and to use resources more
efficiently, certain co-operation activities need to be taken at
EU level.

the local

In order

level.

— the exchange of best practices should be developed, the
network of competent national authorities
for crime
prevention and co-operation between national crime
prevention organisations should be strengthened and the
possibility of a Community funded programme should be
explored for these purposes. The first priorities for this
co-operation could be juvenile, urban and drug-related
crime’.

The draft Constitutional Treaty prepared by the Convention
on the future of Europe reconfirms the need to continue to pay
adequate attention to crime prevention with its Article III 173.
framework laws may
This
establish measures to promote and support
the action of
Member States in the field of crime prevention (except the
approximation of legislative and regulatory provisions).

that European laws or

states

16.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/3

1.2. Definitions

1.2.1. The concept of volume crime

itself

to the prevention of
This Communication limits
non-organised crime. The Commission is of the opinion that
these types of crime can best be defined as volume crime
because this type of crime comprises all ranges of crime,
which are committed frequently and where victims are easily
identifiable. Volume crime is the number one cause of concern
for European citizens (8). Offences are typically committed
against property and do often involve physical violence.
Examples are domestic burglary, theft from vehicles, common
assault, street robbery, etc. These types of crime are covered by
the three broad priority areas identified by the Tampere
European Council: juvenile, urban and drug-related crime. An
important
it shows the
contours of normal victimisation against households and
citizens. This has implications for preventive policies, especially
those concerned more with alleviating the commonplace
nuisance of
these types of crime than with reducing the
number of ‘headline’ offences that more often are committed
in the field of organised crime (9).

feature of volume crime is that

However, its importance in terms of causing financial costs to
society should also not be underestimated (10), while taking into
account that cost estimates vary between Member States (11).
And, studies have shown that such crime is often the first step
for young people to get involved in more serious forms of
crime,
including organised crime. Investing in volume crime
prevention would therefore also contribute to curbing more
serious criminality (12).

1.2.2. The concept of crime prevention

this Communication,

For the purpose of
the Commission
proposes to use the definition of crime prevention presented
in the Council Decision of May 2001 establishing the European
Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN). According to that defi-
nition, ‘. . . crime prevention shall cover all measures that are
intended to reduce or otherwise contribute to reducing crime
and citizens' feeling of insecurity, both quantitatively and quali-
tatively, either through directly deterring criminal activities or
through policies and interventions designed to reduce the
potential for crime and the causes of crime. It includes work
by
justice
agencies,
local authorities, specialist associations, the private
and voluntary sectors, researchers and the public, supported
by the media’ (13).

government,

authorities,

competent

criminal

Preventive measures should thus not only address crime stricto
senso, but also cover ‘anti-social behaviour’, which forms, so to
speak, a sort of
such
behaviour are noisy neighbourhoods, neighbourhoods char-

‘pre-stage’ of crime. Examples of

or

lying

rubbish

around,

rowdy
acterised by teenagers hanging around, drunk or
deteriorated
people,
litter
environments and housing. Such conditions can affect
the
regeneration of disadvantaged areas, creating an environment
can take hold. Anti-social behaviour
in which crime
undermines the sense of security and responsibility that
is
needed for people to participate in their community. From a
prevention perspective, it is therefore also an important area to
concentrate upon.

Prevention should also address the issue of fear of crime, since
research (14) shows that such fear can often be as harmful as
crime itself. Fear of crime can lead to withdrawal from social
life and loss of trust in police and the rule of law.

There is general agreement with the relevant authorities in the
the prevention of crime constitutes a
Member States that
necessary complement
to repressive measures. Experience
shows that an unbalanced focus on repressive measures leads
to ever increasing costs for the criminal justice system, growing
prison populations and recidivism rates. If well conceived and
implemented, preventive measures can,
to varying degrees,
contribute to a considerable reduction of crime. That crime
prevention can indeed work is illustrated by the following
examples (15).

— The risk of domestic burglary can be reduced significantly
by taking a number of
relatively simple prevention
measures, such as the ones described in the Police Popu-
lation Monitoring Programme, a large Dutch victimisation
survey. Such research (16) shows that when five of such
prevention measures are taken, the risk of burglaries is
reduced dramatically (keeping a light on when leaving
out; extra locks on doors and windows; extra outside
lighting; burglar alarm and/or dog).

— Evidence from well-researched and evaluated initiatives for
juveniles in the 10-16 age group strongly suggests that
significant
long-term benefits will accrue from effective
developmental and early intervention programs. 16 years
later participants were found to be much less likely arrested
than their counterparts in the control group (17).

— Although it may sound simple, enhanced street lighting is a
crime prevention measure that has been proven to work. A
systematic review of 13 separate studies
that
enhanced street lighting reduces crime by about 20 % (18).
It revealed that areas with enhanced lighting at night also
experience less crime during daylight hours. The installation
of new lighting may have given a signal
to potential
offenders that there is increased community investment in
the area, greater pride, cohesiveness and informal control,
24 hours a day.

shows

C 92/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2004

— An important example which should also be mentioned, a
landmark case in prevention policy, is the Perry Pre-school
program. This initiative, started in the United States in the
1970's, provides pre-school enrichment classes for small
low income families,
children (3 and 4 years old) of
combined with weekly home visits by program staff.
Long-term follow-ups revealed that program participants
have significantly lower juvenile and adult arrest rates,
but
rates of high school
completion, tertiary education, employment and earnings.
In addition to its proven effectiveness the program has
passed a cost/benefit analysis positively. Total benefits
have been estimated at three times the program costs.

also significantly higher

The EU Youth Programme (19), which started at the end of the
1980s,
inclusion and political
respect of young people in society. Through its activities the
Programme has important prevention effects.

focuses on the well-being,

Finally it should be mentioned that education in prison and in
the crucial post-release period can play a vital part in helping
offenders to make the difficult transition back into the social
mainstream and to reduce the recidivism. Grundtvig, the adult
education action within the EU education programme Socrates,
supports projects and learning partnerships which have a
remarkable
and
beyond (20).

impact on the participating institutions

It

is

the

therefore

conditions.

Volume crime most often occurs locally, in cities and towns.
This means that effective policies can only be implemented at
these levels, while adjusting them to the specific local or
responsibility of
regional
Member States to ensure the implementation of effective
crime prevention policies at all levels on their territory. As a
consequence of the local emphasis, there is a need to develop
preventative action as close as possible to the grass-roots level
and to involve many different kinds of actors. A typical char-
acteristic of prevention measures is therefore also the necessary
involvement of a variety of actors, including public (e.g. police,
local governments, social work, all these with a particular focus
insurance
(business
on youth)
companies, citizens' organisations).

and private

associations,

Victims Survey (ICVS). As regards the first source it is not
possible to compare absolute and relative numbers between
Member States because of
the many differences between
Member States in legislation and the different ways official
for trends in time,
crime statistics are produced. However,
these data can be useful.

in the crime level

When looking at the total number of crime recorded by the
police the following picture at EU-level emerges. The devel-
opment
from 1950 to 1970 shows a
steady, though not disquieting, increase. However, since 1970
crime levels accelerated, with a climax in the mid-nineteen-
eighties. Since 1990 the total amount of registered crime has
remained fairly stable in the 15 Member States. The average
annual percentage increase between 1991 and 2001 is around
one percent (21).

The second source that can be used to give a picture of the
nature and volume of crime at EU-level is the ICVS (22). This
survey is the most far-reaching program of fully standardised
sample surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in
different countries. An estimate of absolute levels of crime can
be obtained from the ICVS relating to victims' experience of
crime. Generally speaking, the ICVS suggests that crime rose
between 1988 and 1991, or fell in 1995, and then fell back
more in 1999. Comparison with data on crime recorded by the
police suggests that the trends from the victimisation survey
data are similar to those from the police data.

1.4. Trends in selected crime areas

In addition to the total number of crimes, two specific types of
crime recorded by the police are briefly dealt with: domestic
burglary (defined as gaining access to a dwelling by the use of
force to steal goods) and violent crime (defined as violence
against
robbery and sexual offences). These
crimes are selected since they are, from the victims' point of
view, the most serious and costly types of crime, which cause
great concern among urban population and occur frequently in
all Member States.

the person,

1.3. General crime trends

Information regarding crime trends and the public opinion on
crime is necessary to get a better understanding of the impli-
cation for society if preventive action is not taken, and how
crime prevention efforts can reduce tangible and non-tangible
costs for victims of crime and recidivism among offender
populations.

The nature and volume of crime at
the EU-level can be
measured by two main sources: 1) official crime statistics
the International Crime
registered by the police and 2)

fall

the

is probably

influence of

There is a remarkably sharp decrease of domestic burglary in
many EU Member States. One of the main reasons for this
spectacular
increased
preventive behaviour among the population. According to
the latest outcomes of the International Crime Victims Survey
the use of crime preventive measures among the population is
increasing in most countries. The proportion of homes with
special door locks has generally increased since 1992. Average
alarm ownership increased from 8 % in 1992 to 14 % in 2000,
but
the problem still exists. Domestic burglary implies a
violation of one's personal space. In these cases the negative
effects of victimisation are greater than just the damage in
material terms.

16.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/5

In the year 2000 the police in the 15 Member States
recorded a total number of 1 511 000 domestic burglary
cases. This means an average of 4 140 cases per day, 172
per hour and almost 3 cases every minute.

Statistics unfortunately indicate an increase in the level of
violent crime at the EU-level. This seems to hold particularly
for violence among juveniles. When comparing the trends in
violent crimes recorded by the police over the years 1995 to
2000, an increase in violence is observed in twelve of the
Member States. Spain, France and the Netherlands show the
sharpest increase (+ 50 and + 41 %).

In the year 2000 the police in the 15 Member States
recorded a total number of 1 770 000 cases of violent
crime. This means an average of 4 850 cases per day,
202 per hour and more than 3 cases every minute.

1.5. Public opinion on crime

Next to statistics derived from police sources and victimisation
surveys, public opinion surveys on crime also serve as
important tools to measure the fear of crime, risk perception
of
crime
opinions
prevention (23).

victimisation,

crime

and

and

on

These show that the feeling of insecurity has increased slowly
but steadily across the EU as a whole between 1996 and 2002.
In autumn 2002, women and the elderly are the demographic
groups who are most
insecure. The level of
likely to feel
contact with drug-related problems in the area of residence
also increased across the EU over the same period. Younger
respondents were most likely to report such contact. In all
Member States, over half of all respondents felt that better
policing would help reduce crime. Across the EU, respondents
were significantly more likely to think that young people
would be more effectively deterred from crime by targeted
crime prevention programmes than by tougher sentencing. A
majority of respondents also thought that poverty and unem-
ployment and lack of discipline were factors
that could
encourage youth to commit crime.

that

services and systems, and misbehave in newly
products,
created environments (24). This means
the authorities
should be permanently scanning for new threats and devel-
opments on the crime market. In this way large-scale crime
preventive effects can be achieved. However, many past efforts
have shown that some developments were entirely unexpected.
On the basis of a number of recent initiatives (25) that looked
ahead to identify new crime threats and developments, a
number of major developments from social, technological or
economic change can be assessed.

goods

services,

new technologies

In general, society will be more diverse, networked, better
educated, more prosperous and better informed, but with
potentially more people at risk. The increased movement of
brings
and
people,
enormous opportunities for prosperity and growth, but it can
also provide new opportunities
to commit crimes. Some
groups remain excluded from the trends of prosperity and
learning: one-parent
abusers,
people living anonymously alone in households and margi-
nalised areas,
immigrants, and second and third-generation
migrants. New technology might create more opportunity for
crime by: providing easier access to systems, premises, goods
and information; removing geographical obstacles to crime;
rewards; and increasing
increasing the scale of potential
anonymity in committing crime or consuming its proceeds.

families, drug and alcohol

Due to these developments, the authorities need to prevent and
respond to more specialised crimes, such as electronic theft,
whose scale and speed may be increased by new technologies.
In the years to come governments will need to develop
prevention policies
to societal changes and to
emerging crime patterns. National crime prevention policies
need to be able to respond in an innovative way to the chal-
lenges that such developments bring.

to adapt

2. DEVELOPMENTS AT EU LEVEL

Due to the fact that volume crime occurs at the local level,
effective policies can only be taken at that level, with support
from the national one. Certain co-operation activities need to
be taken at EU level, however, in order to effectively support
activities at national level, to avoid duplication of efforts and to
use resources more efficiently.

1.6. Expected future crime trends

2.1. Achievements in the Member States

Crime is changing continuously. Offenders adapt to counter-
measures. Offenders misappropriate, mistreat or misuse new

Different Member States have had varying degrees of success in
the field of volume crime prevention (26).

C 92/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2004

Despite the positive developments in a majority of Member
States there are still a number of obstacles, which hinder the
effective prevention of volume crime. These can be briefly
described as follows.

Implementation difficulties

There is growing evidence that successful crime prevention
measures do exist and can be applied to many forms of
delinquent behaviour. However, the challenge is how to put
this knowledge into practice. Often, existing good or best
practices are not used in official crime prevention policies
and practices. There seems to be a gap between the results
from research and crime prevention policies and practices,
which can be explained by the following.

authorities

There are many different partners and organisations operating
in the crime prevention field, which often do not operate in a
co-ordinated manner as would be desired. Another difficulty is
related to insufficient inter-linkage between information of the
many
in crime
and organisations
prevention (police, youth workers, chambers of commerce,
municipal social services departments, etc.). The limited use
to the
of
measures taken not being in accordance with the actual
problem.

information contributes

the large amount of

involved

There are Member States which place obligations on local auth-
orities,
the police, police authorities, health authorities and
probation committees (amongst others) to co-operate in the
development and implementation of a strategy for tackling
(including exchanging
in their area
crime and disorder
information) (27). These
consider
to
changed working practices,
and their
relationships both with other agencies and with the wider
community.

internal priorities

organisations

have

Properly implemented schemes that fail
in terms of product
target, but contribute to the knowledge of the causes of this
failure should be rewarded as successes. Governments should
set up dedicated professional units that take the responsibility
for leadership on crime prevention and for the application and
implementation of evidence-based crime prevention inter-
ventions. Crime prevention measures need time to be imple-
mented and require a number of years to fully develop and be
evaluated. Because many of today's crime problems require
solutions
justice
extend beyond traditional
boundaries, new system wide responses must be encouraged
by government having the same political status as other chains
in the criminal justice system.

criminal

that

If European crime prevention policies want to improve justice
and security, the implementation and application of successful
absolute
and
pre-condition.

evidence-based

prevention

crime

an

is

There is still not very much knowledge for quantitative and
qualitative methods of analysis and of all possible preventive
measures, their relevance, limitations and successes.

There are ample cases of crime prevention still getting limited
the criminal
attention compared with the other chains of
justice system. The limited means and human resources lead
to the fact that necessary long-term planning is often replaced
by a short-term approach and that insufficient attention is paid
to the proper implementation of prevention projects.

2.2. Achievements at EU-level

Following the November 2000 Communication, the Union has
adopted important instruments to contribute to more effective
crime prevention throughout the Union, such as the European
Crime Prevention Network and the Hippokrates and AGIS
funding programmes.

How to bridge the gap

2.2.1. The European Crime Prevention Network

A number of measures can remove the above obstacles.
Descriptions of best and good practices should be more user
friendly particularly for those working in daily practice. In case
of the recruiting, selection and promotion of management staff
implementing the crime prevention policy,
and personnel
greater importance should be attached to the knowledge of
professional
and their
application in crime prevention practice. Subsidising authorities
should draw the attention of those implementing prevention
programs to existing best and good practices and to the possi-
bilities of making use of them. Adequate process and impact
evaluation should be a standard condition for agreement with
or support of any crime prevention scheme. The exchange of
information between various partners should be rewarded.

and analysing methods

literature

On 28 May 2001, the Council adopted a Decision establishing
the European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) (28). The
objectives of the network are to contribute to developing the
various aspects of crime prevention at Union level and to
support crime prevention activities at local and national level.
Although covering all types of criminality, the Network shall
pay particular attention to the fields of juvenile, urban and
drug-related crime. In this respect the Network should facilitate
information and
co-operation, contacts and exchanges of
experience between Member States, national organisations,
the Commission and other networks specialising in crime
prevention matters. Another important task of the Network
is the collection and analysis of
information on existing
crime prevention activities.

16.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/7

Achievements so far

The Network has achieved good results since its beginning in
2001. For the first time ever, Member States representatives
and experts have begun meeting regularly to exchange
experiences, set a common strategy and priorities for action
and research on the basis of annual programs. A beginning has
been made to inventarise prevention policies which have
proven to be effective (good practices). The first conference
for the exchange of good practices on the issues of youth
crime/ethnic minorities, domestic burglaries and drug-related
robberies was organised on 7-8 October 2002 in Denmark
with co-funding from the Hippokrates programme. A second
conference held in Rome on 11-12 November 2003 repre-
sented a further important step in building up an EU-wide
body of good prevention practices.

Progress has been achieved in the development of a common
methodology to prepare,
implement and monitor prevention
projects. The establishment of expert groups has enabled
progress as for example in tackling the problem of theft of
mobile phones as a serious form of street crime (29) and
improving co-operation between the public and the private
sector. Expert meetings have also led to a better view on
gaps in research and ways to fill these. In this context the
Network Secretary is currently preparing the implementation
of five studies on subjects like juvenile violence, car-theft index,
fear of crime, bullying in schools and the costs and benefits of
crime prevention.

Considerable work has been done in collecting, describing and
improving the quality and comparability of Member States
criminal
justice statistics. The EUCPN Subgroup on Crime
and Victimisation established an inventory of the information
available on national and cross-national crime statistics to
in the Member
provide easy reference for policymakers
States. The group focused on (street)
robbery, domestic
burglary and car theft.
In May 2003 it produced a report
recommending how to improve and apply cross-national
statistics in prevention policies.

The website of the EUCPN has become an effective tool for
providing information, both to practitioners and the general
public, on Member States' prevention policies, the activities
of
the EUCPN. The Network has established co-operation
links with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction in Lisbon and with Europol.

wherever carried out in the Union and to enable a standardised
comparison between countries. The discussions in the EUCPN
focused on the so-called ‘5 I's’ approach. The 5 ‘I's’ refer to the
five steps to be taken in the description and evaluation of each
crime prevention project/measure (30). The EUCPN plans to
have agreement on the 5 I's approach between the Member
States in the next few months. It is important to formalise such
agreement so that its effective application is ensured.

Difficulties faced by the EUCPN

The Council Decision establishing the Network calls for an
evaluation of
its activities in the three years following the
adoption of the Decision (31), i.e. before the end of 2004. In
order to assist the Council in making its evaluation next year
the Commission considers it necessary that the institutional
structure of the EUCPN needs to be subject of a thorough
assessment. Despite the results achieved so far, the functioning
the Network needs to be improved considerably. Major
of
the network does not
difficulties stem from the facts that
have any institutional
is not
adequate and no clear financial rules exist.
In addition the
Secretariat with a staff of 1,5 person is too small to fulfil its
tasks properly, also in view of the fact that the Network will
comprise 25 full members from 1 May 2004 onwards. The
to
Commission therefore strongly believes
become fully effective the EUCPN should profit
from the
Community budget, possess financial rules, which stipulate
clearly how the budget should be used and a Secretariat
staffed with an adequate number of persons. Options in this
respect are either to give the Network legal personality or to
incorporate the Network into the Commission services.

the budget

structure,

in order

that

that

Another problem is that the full potential of the Network can
not be realised as
long as not all Member States have
committed themselves to formally adopting and implementing
national general crime prevention policies. As long as not all
Member States have such policies, there is the risk that the
activities of the Network, however useful they may be in them-
selves, will take place in partial isolation, without an adequate
follow-up in the national crime prevention practice in the
Member States.

Good progress was achieved also as regards the development of
a common methodology to prepare,
implement and evaluate
concrete crime prevention projects. Such a methodology is
necessary to improve the quality of prevention projects

2.2.2. The Hippokrates and AGIS programmes

the Union has adopted two instruments

Following the November 2000 Communication on crime
prevention,
to
co-fund co-operation projects between Member States in the
field of crime prevention, Hippokrates in 2001 and AGIS in
2002.

C 92/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2004

at

aims

‘Hippokrates’-programme (32)

encouraging
The
co-operation between all the public and private organisations
in the Member States involved in the prevention of crime. It
was established for a period of two years, 2001 and 2002. The
priorities for general crime prevention were based on the three
main issues identified by the Tampere European Council and
the work programme of the EUCPN, namely juvenile -, urban-
and drugs-related crime. In 2001 23 projects out of 60 project
proposals were funded. In 2002 the programme (33) received
44 projects of which 14 got financial support. Examples of
successful project proposals were co-operation between the
public and the private sector in crime prevention,
football
hooliganism and designing out of crime.

adopted

At the proposal of the Commission the Council, on 22 July
2002,
co-fund
co-operation projects in police and judicial co-operation in
criminal matters (34), the AGIS programme which inter alia
replaced the Hippokrates programme.

programme

framework

to

a

In 2003 30 out of 54 crime prevention projects were
co-funded. Examples of successful proposal include the design
of secure urban environments, the exchange of best practices
on juvenile and urban crime as well as costs of crime and their
distribution.

2.3. The European Crime Prevention Award

The European Crime Prevention Award (ECPA) is an initiative
from the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK from 1997. The
idea behind it was to give an incentive to crime prevention
actors by selecting for the European award, on a yearly basis,
the two best crime prevention projects. The projects had to be
chosen on the basis of established criteria, such as their repeat-
ability, respect for local conditions, and effectiveness in actually
reducing crime. Since then, six other Member States have
joined the ECPA, which was born as an initiative from six
Member States (Denmark, France, Sweden, Portugal, Greece,
and Finland).

The objectives of the Award are to contribute to the reduction
of crime and the fear of crime, the sharing of good practices on
an international level and the further encouragement of crime
prevention activities. The Award offers a unique possibility to
raise awareness of crime prevention in a very broad context
including field workers as well as official representatives from
both Member States and Candidate Countries.

In order to make the ECPA better known and hopefully
accepted by all Member States, the EU has co-financed the
initiative through the Hippokrates programme. Thanks to this
financial aid, the ECPA of 2002 was not only limited to the
presentation of best and most promising practices, but also
comprised an in-depth discussion on the implementation and

the evaluation of the participating projects. The Commission is
considering that, in order to provide for better coherence and
stability, in the future the ECPA should become an integral part
of the EUCPN and include all EU Member States.

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Volume crime prevention is a relatively new, but potentially
effective, policy instrument to reduce crime. It should therefore
constitute a policy area in its own right within the European
In order to ensure more effective crime prevention
Union.
throughout the Union, the Commission considers it essential
that the following conditions are fulfilled, both in the Member
States and at EU level.

3.1. Essential conditions in the Member States

Local authorities first

Volume crime typically occurs at local level. Thus the auth-
orities at those level are first of all responsible for addressing
the problem,
level.
supported by
Co-operation at EU level can provide an important facilitating
and supporting role, without, however, substituting national
policies of the Member States.

the national

ideally

National crime prevention policies are key

The majority of Member States has developed volume crime
prevention policies, but a considerable minority of them not
yet. The Commission therefore proposes that all Member States
to establishing effective
formally declare their commitment
volume crime prevention policies.

Following internationally agreed standards is important

to local

Achievement of successful crime prevention policies requires a
number of essential conditions. Many of them figure on the list
of the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of
Crime (35). These include inter alia the existence of a political
commitment at the highest level, adequate resources including
funding for structures and activities, guidance from the national
level as well as efficient public-private part-
level
nership. Crime prevention strategies should also, when appro-
priate, pay due regard to the different needs of men and
women and consider
vulnerable
members of society. Differentiation is also important to both
in relation to offenders and victims. The Commission is of the
opinion that,
in the interest of effective crime prevention,
throughout the Union, it is necessary to incorporate the UN
crime prevention principles
into Member States' national
prevention policies.

special needs of

the

16.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/9

3.2. Essential conditions at EU level

In order to effectively support activities at national
level, to
avoid duplication of efforts and use resources more efficiently,
co-operation activities regarding volume crime prevention need
to be taken at EU level also.

In the Commission's view, the main tasks and activities to be
performed at the EU level are: exchange of experience between
policy makers and experts in prevention; define and agree
priorities
for action; agree on crime prevention policies/
measures which have proven to work (good practices); agree
on uniform methodologies to prepare, implement and evaluate
prevention policies; enhance awareness throughout the Union
on the relevance of general crime prevention; agree on joint
research to be undertaken to fill research gaps; undertake joint
prevention projects; monitor and evaluate national prevention
policies;
improve the comparability of national statistics to
identify differences in the level of crime (so as to be able to
identify causes for successful/unsuccessful policies).

These tasks and activities would benefit from the support of
the Member States, while keeping in mind that the activities
which the Member States undertake jointly in the context of
the EUCPN can never
substitute concrete national crime
prevention activities.

In order to enable the EUCPN to function more effectively and
to address the difficulties explained in section 2.2.1,
the
Commission intends to submit a formal proposal regarding
the future institutional structure of the Network following its
evaluation in 2004.

The Commission proposes that in the next few years Member
States and the Commission, in the context of the EUCPN, focus
in particular on the following five main areas for priority
action, in order to achieve concrete progress more rapidly:

Priority types of crime

First of all there is a need to identify and find formal agreement
on the exact types of volume crime on which the Member
States should focus their attention. The European Council
conclusions of Tampere and the Council Decision establishing
the EUCPN have selected juvenile, urban and drugs related
crime as priority areas. These are too broad categories,
however. The Commission therefore proposes to subdivide
them, exhaustively, into all the various types of crime which
fall under these three categories (e.g. street robberies,
theft
from vehicles, burglaries,). On the basis of that list priority
types of crime should be selected for particular attention.

Good practices inventory

Secondly and in parallel, an inventory should be made and
agreed upon of all existing good practices to tackle each of

the selected types of crime. Member States should subsequently
agree on which of the good practices are most effective and
then commit themselves to begin implementing each of the
good practices for the relevant type of crime.

A common methodology — the 5 I's approach

A third priority area is to find agreement on a common
methodology to prepare,
implement and evaluate concrete
crime prevention projects. This is necessary to improve the
quality of prevention projects and to enable a standardised
comparison between countries. The Commission proposes to
build on the good progress that has been achieved in this area
in the past few years in the Union as regards the so-called 5 I's
approach and to find formal agreement
few
months.

in the next

Monitoring and evaluation

An important activity to be undertaken at EU level is also the
regular monitoring and evaluation of Member States' general
crime prevention policies. Experiences with the joint evaluation
mechanism established under the Joint Action of 5 December
1997 (36) in the area of organised crime have shown that this
can play a useful role in monitoring progress, comparing
experiences, drawing policy conclusions and informing the
European citizen. Such a
solution should therefore be
proposed regarding volume crime prevention as well.

Statistics

Finally, European co-operation is hindered by differences in
definition, recording procedures and the structure of crime
and criminal
justice statistics. Member States need to have
sound statistics on the occurrence of priority types of crime.
Only an increase in the comparability of statistical data on
crime can help to identify differences between the level and
type of crimes at national, regional and city-level and to
identify effective measures
targeted interventions and
for
policies at EU-level.

Final remarks

On the basis of a discussion of this Communication with the
European Parliament and the Council and taking into account
the conclusions of the EUCPN evaluation to be carried out by
the Commission intends to put
the Council
forward by the end of 2004 proposals to implement
the
above recommendations in order
to achieve quicker and
more tangible progress regarding the prevention of volume
crime in the Union.

in mid-2004,

C 92/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2004

(1) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.

(2) OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, p. 1. Action Plan of 3 December 1998 of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the

Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice, the Vienna Action Plan.

(3) OJ C 124, 3.5.2000.

(4) COM(2000) 786 final of 29 November 2000.

(5) The establishment of the Forum was foreseen in the Commission Communication mentioned in footnote 1. A first plenary meeting of the Forum

took place on 17 and 18 May 2001.

(6) Council Decision of 28 May 2001 (OJ L 153, 8.6.2001).

(7) OJ L 186, 7.7.2001.

(8) INRA (May 2003). Public safety, exposure to drug-related problems and crime: Public opinion survey.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/projects.html

(9) Van Dijk, Jan J. M. (1994). Understanding crime rates: On the interactions between the rational choices of victims and offenders. British Journal of

Criminology, vol. 34, No 2, pp. 105-121.

(10) 1) Van Kesteren, John et al. (2001). Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries: Key Findings from the 2000 International Crime
Victims Survey. The Hague: Ministry of Justice, RDC. 2) Barclay, Gordon & Tavares, Cynthia (July 2003). International Comparisons of Criminal
Justice Statistics 2001. London: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. 3) EUCPN (October 2003). Crime Trends in the EU.
Brussels: European Commission, DG JAI, EUCPN-Secretariat.

(11) The most sophisticated national estimates of the costs are available for England and Wales, where the Home Office has published a well
researched and analysed report showing the annual costs of crime to be EUR 60 billion or the equivalent of EUR 1 700 per citizen in 2000.
These costs included the costs of anticipatory measures such as private security (about 9 %); consequences, such as the impact on victims of loss,
suffering and community decay (about 71 %); and responses, such as operating expenditures on policing, courts and corrections (about 20 %).
Brand, Sam & Price, Richard (2000). The Economic and Social Costs of Crime. London: Home Office Research and Development Statistics
Directorate.

(12) Kleemans, E. & Van De Bunt, H. G. (1999). Social embeddedness of organized crime. Transnational Organized Crime, vol. 5, No 1, pp. 19-36.
Sampson, R. J. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, vol. 277, 15 August, pp. 2-25.

(13) See Article 1.3 of the Council Decision of 28 May 2001 setting up a European crime prevention network (OJ L 153, 8.6.2001, p. 1).

(14) Irving, B. (2002). Fear of crime: Theory, measurement and application. London: Police Foundation.

(15) During the last years a number of overviews have proven evidence that crime prevention measures offer effective ways of getting or driving crime

down:
— Sherman, L.W. et al. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Available at: http://www.preventingcrime.org/report/index.htm

— Goldblatt, Peter & Lewis, Chris (Eds.) (1998). Reducing offending: An assessment of research evidence on ways of dealing with offending

behaviour. London: Home Office. Available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors187.pdf

— Clarke, Ronald V. (Ed.) (1999). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies. Albany: Harrow and Heston.
— Sansfacon, Daniel & Welsh, Brandon (1999). Crime prevention digest II: Comparative analysis of successful community safety.

http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/english/publications/index.html#CrimePDigestII
Investing wisely in crime prevention:

Irvin & Sansfacon, Daniel

(2000).

— Waller,

International experience. http://www.crime-prevention-

intl.org/Telechargement/USbjainvstcrimprev182412.pdf

— Welsh, Brandon C. et al. (Ed.) (2001). Costs and benefits of preventing crime. Oxford: Westview Press.
— Sherman, Lawrence W. et al. (Ed.) (2002). Evidence based crime prevention. Routledge. EUCPN (2003). Exchange of good practice in crime

prevention between practitioners in the Member States. http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/docs/aalborgReport200212.pdf

(16) Willemse, Hans M. (1998). Overlooking crime prevention: Ten years of crime prevention in the Netherlands. Security Journal, vol. 7, No 3, pp.

177-184.

(17) Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence/CSPV (2003). Model programs and promising programs.

http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/bleuprints/default.htm

(18) Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B.C. (2002). Improved street lighting and crime prevention. Justice Quarterly, vol. 19, No 2, pp. 313-342.

(19) http://europa.eu.int/comm/youth/index_en.html

(20) A broader European network has been launched, and support provided for the European Prison Education Association to consolidate and extend
its activities. The training of prison educators (and of prison officers, whose role in creating a positive learning environment is vital) requires
particular attention in this regard.

(21) 1) Van Kesteren, John et al. (2001). Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries: Key Findings from the 2000 International Crime
Victims Survey. The Hague: Ministry of Justice, RDC. 2) Barclay, Gordon & Tavares, Cynthia (July 2003). International Comparisons of Criminal
Justice Statistics 2001. London: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. 3) EUCPN (October 2003). Crime Trends in the EU.
Brussels: European Commission, DG JAI, EUCPN-Secretariat.

16.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/11

(22) See http://www.unicri.it/international_crime_victim_survey.htm

(23) INRA (2003). Public safety, exposure to drug-related problems and crime: Public opinion survey. For the full report, executive summary and

tables:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/projects.html

(24) Ekblom, Paul (2002). Future Imperfect: Preparing for the Crimes to Come. Criminal Justice Matters, Winter 2002, pp. 38-40.

(25) In 2002 the U.K. Foresight Programme produced the report Turning the Corner (available from www.foresight.gov.uk) Dutch Ministry of Justice

(2001), Justitie Over Morgen: een Strategische Verkenning, The Hague.

(26) Over the last years a majority of them has developed crime prevention policies. Determining factors behind successful policies are usually a
political commitment at the highest level, making available adequate resources for prevention, guidance to local and regional governments, and a
close co-operation between public authorities and society, including the private sector. It is important to note that these factors are included in the
United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime of 2002 (see also footnote No 33).

(27) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/cdaindex.html

(28) OJ L 153, 8.6.2001, p. 1.

(29) The expert meeting on mobile phone theft has led to a meeting between the Commission, manufacturers, providers and interested Member States
in June 2003 to clarify actions that should be taken at national and EU level. Discussions are continuing, on the basis of a questionnaire, to
determine, normally before the end of 2003, which actions are most effective at each level and who should take concrete initiatives.

(30) Ekblom, Paul (2003). The 5IS Framework (the Five ‘I's’ refer to: 1) Intelligence: gathering and analysing information. 2) Intervention: blocking,
disrupting or weakening the causes of crime. 3) Implementation: converting the intervention principles into practical methods. 4) Involvement:
mobilising other agencies, companies and individuals to play their part in implementing the intervention or acting in partnership. 5) Impact and
process evaluation).
http://europa.eu.int/com/justice_home/eucpn/practices.html

(31) Article 6 of the Council Decision on the establishment of the European Crime Prevention Network of 28 May 2001 (OJ L 153, 8.6.2001, p. 1).

(32) OJ L 186, 7.7.2001, p. 11.

(33) 2002 Report for the Hippokrates programme, SEC(2003) 1176 of 23 October 2003.

(34) OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 5.

(35) See United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Report on the eleventh session (16-25 April 2002) — Economic and

Social Council, Official Records, 2002; Supplement No 10.

(36) OJ L 344 of 15.12.1997, p. 7. In the Joint Action the Member States agree on a mechanism for a regular peer evaluation of the application at

national levels of legislative instruments in the fight against organized crime.