Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Crime prevention in the European Union
Date: 2004-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation policy, crime, fight against crime

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.3.2004 
COM(2004) 165 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

CRIME PREVENTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

CONTEXT AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... 3 

The legal and political context ..................................................................................... 3 

Definitions.................................................................................................................... 4 

1.2.1.  The concept of volume crime....................................................................................... 4 

1.2.2.  The concept of crime prevention.................................................................................. 5 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

General crime trends .................................................................................................... 7 

Trends in selected crime areas ..................................................................................... 8 

Public opinion on crime ............................................................................................... 8 

Expected future crime trends ....................................................................................... 9 

DEVELOPMENTS AT EU LEVEL............................................................................ 9 

Achievements in the Member States.......................................................................... 10 

Achievements at EU-level.......................................................................................... 11 

2.2.1.  The European Crime Prevention Network................................................................. 11 

2.2.2.  The Hippokrates and AGIS programmes................................................................... 13 

2.3. 

The European Crime Prevention Award .................................................................... 13 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ........................................... 14 

Essential conditions in the Member States.................................................................. 14 

Essential conditions at EU level................................................................................. 15 

2 

 
 
  
 
1. 

CONTEXT AND DEFINITIONS  

1.1. 

The legal and political context 

The  Treaty  of  Amsterdam,  in  force  since  May  1999,  established  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  19971  identified  some  priority  areas  to 
prevent  organised  crime  and  the  Vienna  Action  Plan  of  December  19982  also  included 
specific measures in this respect.  

The European Council of Tampere of October 1999 confirmed the importance of effective 
crime prevention policies in the Union through its conclusions3 nr. 41 and 42, which call for:  

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

-  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." 

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 developments have taken place, such as the creation of the European Forum for the 
Prevention  of  Organised  Crime5,  the  establishment  of  the  European  Crime  Prevention 
Network6  and  the  adoption  of  a  Council  Decision  creating  the  Hippokrates  program  to  co-
fund co-operation projects between Member States.7 

1 
2 

3 
4 
5 

6 
7 

OJ C 251 of 15 August 1997. 
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 
OJ C 124 of 3 May 2000. 
COM(2000) 786 final of 29th November 2000 
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 17th and 18th May 2001. 
Council Decision of 28 May 2001 (OJ L 153 of 8.6.2001) 
OJ L 186 of 7 July 2001. 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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 the local level. In order 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  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. This states that European laws or framework laws may 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). 

1.2. 

Definitions 

1.2.1.  The concept of volume crime 

This Communication limits itself to the prevention of 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  citizens8.  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  feature  of  volume  crime  is  that  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 

However,  its  importance  in  terms  of  causing  financial  costs  to  society  should  also  not  be 
underestimated10,  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 

8 

9 

10 

11 

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 
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. 
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. 
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  £60  billion  or  the  equivalent  of  €  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 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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 

For  the  purpose  of  this  Communication,  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 definition, "… 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  qualitatively,  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  government,  competent 
authorities, criminal justice agencies, local authorities, specialist associations, the private and 
voluntary sectors, researchers and the public, supported by the media".13  

Preventive  measures  should  thus  not  only  address  crime  stricto  senso,  but  also  cover  “anti-
social behaviour”, which forms, so to speak, a sort of 'pre-stage' of crime. Examples of such 
behaviour  are  noisy  neighbourhoods,  neighbourhoods  characterised  by  teenagers  hanging 
around, drunk or rowdy people, rubbish or litter lying around, deteriorated environments and 
housing.  Such  conditions  can  affect  the  regeneration  of  disadvantaged  areas,  creating  an 
environment  in  which  crime  can  take  hold.  Anti-social  behaviour  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 research14 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  Member  States  that  the 
prevention  of  crime  constitutes  a  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 
examples15. 

12 

13 

14 
15 

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

5 

 
 
  
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
•  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  Population 
Monitoring  Programme,  a  large  Dutch  victimisation  survey.  Such  research16  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 group17. 

•  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 shows 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. 

•  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  children  (3  and  4  years  old)  of 
low  income  families,  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  also  significantly  higher  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. 

The EU Youth Programme19, which started at the end of the 1980s, focuses on the well-being, 
inclusion  and  political  respect  of  young  people  in  society.  Through  its  activities  the 
Programme has important prevention effects. 

- 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 
- Waller, Irvin & Sansfacon, Daniel (2000). Investing wisely in crime prevention: 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. 
Willemse,  Hans  M.  (1998).  Overlooking  crime  prevention:  Ten  years  of  crime  prevention  in  the 
Netherlands. Security Journal, vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 177-184. 
Center  for  the  Study  and  Prevention  of  Violence  /  CSPV  (2003).  Model  programs  and  promising 
programs. http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/bleuprints/default.htm 
Farrington,  D.P.  &  Welsh,  B.C.  (2002).  Improved  street  lighting  and  crime  prevention.  Justice 
Quarterly, vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 313-342. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/youth/index_en.html 

16 

17 

18 

19 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
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 impact on the participating institutions and beyond20. 

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 
regional  conditions.  It  is  therefore  the  responsibility  of  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 
characteristic 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  on  youth)  and  private  (business  associations,  insurance  companies,  citizens' 
organisations). 

1.3. 

General crime trends  

Information  regarding  crime  trends  and  the  public  opinion  on  crime  is  necessary  to  get  a 
better understanding of the implication 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  registered  by  the  police  and  (2)  the  International  Crime  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 crime statistics are produced. However, for trends in 
time, these data can be useful.  

When looking at the total number of crime recorded by the police the following picture at EU-
level emerges. The development in the crime level 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 percent21.  

The second source that can be used to give a picture of the nature and volume of crime at EU-
level is the ICVS22. 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 

20 

21 

22 

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. 
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. 
See http://www.unicri.it/international_crime_victim_survey.htm. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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 the person, 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. 

There is a remarkably sharp decrease of domestic burglary in many EU Member States. One 
of the main reasons for this spectacular fall is probably the influence of 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. 

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 - + 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 
victimisation, and opinions on crime and crime prevention23. 

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 likely to feel insecure. The level of contact with drug-related problems 

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. 

8 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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  unemployment  and  lack  of  discipline  were 
factors that could encourage youth to commit crime. 

1.6. 

Expected future crime trends 

is  changing  continuously.  Offenders  adapt 

Crime 
to  countermeasures.  Offenders 
misappropriate,  mistreat  or  misuse  new  products,  services  and  systems,  and  misbehave  in 
newly  created  environments24.  This  means  that  the  authorities  should  be  permanently 
scanning for new threats and developments 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 initiatives25 that 
looked  ahead  to  identify  new  crime  threats  and  developments,  a  number  of  major 
developments from social, technological or economic change can be assessed.  

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 people, 
services,  goods  and  new  technologies  brings  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  families,  drug  and  alcohol 
abusers, people living anonymously alone in households and marginalised 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;  increasing  the  scale  of  potential  rewards;  and  increasing 
anonymity in committing crime or consuming its proceeds. 

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 adapt to societal 
changes and to emerging crime patterns. National crime prevention policies need to be able to 
respond in an innovative way to the challenges that such developments bring. 

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. 

24 

25 

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

9 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
2.1. 

Achievements in the Member States 

Different  Member  States  have  had  varying  degrees  of  success  in  the  field  of  volume  crime 
prevention26. 

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.  

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  authorities  and 
organisations  involved  in  crime  prevention  (police,  youth  workers,  chambers  of  commerce, 
municipal social services departments, etc.). The limited use of the large amount of information 
contributes to the measures taken not being in accordance with the actual problem.  

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 attention compared with the other 
chains of the criminal 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. 

How to bridge the gap 

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 and personnel implementing the crime 
prevention  policy,  greater  importance  should  be  attached  to  the  knowledge  of  professional 
literature and analysing methods 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 possibilities 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. 
There  are  Member  States  which  place  obligations  on  local  authorities,  the  police,  police 
authorities, health authorities and probation committees (amongst others) to co-operate in the 

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). 

10 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
development  and  implementation  of  a  strategy  for  tackling  crime  and  disorder  in  their  area 
(including exchanging information)27. These organisations have to consider changed working 
practices,  internal  priorities  and  their  relationships  both  with  other  agencies  and  with  the 
wider community. 

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 
interventions. Crime prevention measures need time to be implemented and require a number of 
years  to  fully  develop  and  be  evaluated.  Because  many  of  today's  crime  problems  require 
solutions that extend beyond traditional criminal justice boundaries, new system wide responses 
must  be  encouraged  by  government  having  the  same  political  status  as  other  chains  in  the 
criminal justice system. 

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

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. 

2.2.1.  The European Crime Prevention Network  

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 co-operation, contacts and exchanges of information and 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. 

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 
represented  a  further  important  step  in  building  up  an  EU-wide  body  of  good  prevention 
practices. 

27 
28 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/cdaindex.html 
OJ L 153, 8.6.2001, p. 1. 

11 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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 crime29 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 provide easy reference for policymakers in the Member 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.  

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 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 Decision31, 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  of  the  Network  needs  to  be  improved 
considerably.  Major  difficulties  stem  from  the  facts  that  the  network  does  not  have  any 

29 

30 

31 

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. 
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 
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. 

12 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
institutional  structure,  that  the  budget  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 Commission therefore strongly believes that in order to 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.  

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 themselves, will 
take place in partial isolation, without an adequate follow-up in the national crime prevention 
practice in the Member States.  

2.2.2.  The Hippokrates and AGIS programmes 

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

The “Hippokrates”-programme32 aims at encouraging 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  programme33 
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.  

At  the  proposal  of  the  Commission  the  Council,  on  22  July  2002,  adopted  a  framework 
programme  to  co-fund  co-operation  projects  in  police  and  judicial  co-operation  in  criminal 
matters34, the AGIS programme which inter alia replaced the Hippokrates programme. 

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 repeatability, respect for local conditions, and effectiveness in actually reducing crime. 

32 
33 
34 

OJ L 186, 7.7.2001, p. 11. 
2002 Report for the Hippokrates programme, SEC(2003) 1176 of 23 October 2003. 
OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 5. 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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 
Union.  In  order  to  ensure  more  effective  crime  prevention  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 authorities at those level are first of all 
responsible for addressing the problem, ideally supported by the national level. Co-operation 
at  EU  level  can  provide  an  important  facilitating  and  supporting  role,  without,  however, 
substituting national policies of the Member States. 

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  formally  declare  their  commitment  to  establishing  effective  volume  crime  prevention 
policies. 

Following internationally agreed standards is important  

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  Crime35.  These  include  inter  alia  the  existence  of  a  political  commitment  at 
the highest level, adequate resources including funding for structures and activities, guidance 

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. 

14 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
from  the  national  level  to  local  level  as  well  as  efficient  public-private  partnership.  Crime 
prevention strategies should also, when appropriate, pay due regard to the different needs of 
men  and  women  and  consider  the  special  needs  of  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. 

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 

15 

 
 
  
 
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 in the next few months. 

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 199736 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  for  targeted 
interventions and 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 Council in mid-2004, the Commission intends to put 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. 

36 

OJ  L  344  of  15.12.1997,  p.  7-9.  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 
organised crime. 

16