REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Evaluation report on the European Union Crime Prevention Network
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, EU programme, area of freedom, security and justice, database, exchange of information, financial aid, prevention of delinquency, research programme

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.11.2012  
COM(2012) 717 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

Evaluation report on the European Union Crime Prevention Network 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

Evaluation report on the European Union Crime Prevention Network 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Crime  prevention  is  recognised  as  an  important  tool  to  contribute  to  citizen's  safety  and 
security.  The  Lisbon  Treaty  mentions  crime  prevention  among  the  key  building  blocks  to 
establish  and  maintain  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  Justice1.  Also  the  Stockholm 
Programme reiterated the importance of crime prevention : “The best way to reduce the level 
of  crime”,  it  argued,  “is  to  take  effective  measures  to  prevent  it  from  ever  occurring, 
including  promoting  social  inclusion,  by  using  a  multidisciplinary  approach  which  also 
includes  taking  administrative  measures  and  promoting  cooperation  between  administrative 
authorities,  citizens  of  the  Union  that  have  similar  experiences  and  are  affected  in  similar 
ways by crime and related insecurity in their everyday lives”.  

While systematic cost-benefit analyses related to crime prevention programmes or studies on 
the costs of crime2 that can be used to develop crime prevention measures are not yet common 
practice in Europe, studies available in countries that have a longer tradition in this (US, UK, 
New Zealand and Australia), do indicate that crime prevention "works" and that in any case, 
the  costs  of  crime  (including  both  material  and  psychological  harm  caused  to  victims)  are 
very  often  higher  than  the  cost  of  preventing  it.  Also  specialised  UN  bodies3  pro-actively 
promote and support the gradual shift to innovative methods of preventing criminality, rather 
than punishing it.  

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2001/427/JHA, repealed by the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA.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

• 

• 

1 

2 

3 

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

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

Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty reads as follows : The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being 
of its peoples. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, 
in  which  the  free  movement  of  persons  is  ensured  in  conjunction  with  appropriate  measures  with  respect  to 
external  border  controls,  asylum,  immigration  and  the  prevention  and  combating  of  crime’.  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:FULL:EN:PDF 
Examples  include  the  costs  of  violence  (Corso,  Mercy,  Simon,  Finkelstein  &  Miller,  2007)  or  sexual  violence 
(Miller, Taylor &  Sheppard,  2007),  the cost  of alcohol-related crime (Miller, Levy, Cohen & Cox, 2006; Miller, 
Levy, Spicer & Taylor, 2006), the cost of fear of crime (Dolan & Peasgood, 2007), the cost of crime in specific 
states (Aos et al., 2001), and the cost of mental health care (Cohen & Miller, 1998). 
UNITED NATIONS CRIME AND JUSTICE INFORMATION NETWORK, Centre for International Crime 
Prevention, Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention http://www.uncjin.org/index.html)  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

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

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

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

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

The  Council  Decision  also  describes  the  EUCPN’s  structure  and  operating  framework.  In 
addition  to  a  Board  consisting  of  National  Representatives,  the  structure  includes  an 
Executive Committee, Contact Points4 and a Secretariat. The European Commission is an 
observer5 in the Board and attends the meetings of the Executive Committee. The EUCPN’s 
rules of procedure explain how  these different elements should interact with each other and 
third parties.  

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

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

The EUCPN currently benefits from financial support from the ISEC Programme6 through a 
grant worth 845.000€ covering the period mid 2011 – mid 2014.  

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

4 

5 

6 

According to article 6 of the Council Decision, Contact points shall support national representatives in exchanging 
national crime prevention information and expertise within the Network. 
There  are  currently  5  observers  representing  Croatia,  EU  agencies  (Europol,  EMCDDA)  and  the  European 
Commission and Council Secretariat. Observers may participate in the business of the EUCPN Board but do not 
have a vote. 
Financial  support  programme  of  the  European  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  and  Fight  against  Crime. 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/prevention-of-and-
fight-against-crime/index_en.htm 

EN 

3 

   EN 

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

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

2. 

EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

In  order  to  inform  the  further  development  of  the  EUCPN,  an  independent,  external 
evaluation  of  the  EUCPN  was  undertaken  in  the  first  months  of  20127.  The  external 
evaluation addressed several aspects of the EUCPN, including its performance over the past 
two and a half years, its organisation and governance and finally it provided for a number of 
development options.  

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

Compared to the situation when the last evaluation was conducted8, many shortcomings have 
been  addressed,  the  EUCPN’s  activities  are  more  targeted  and  the  quality  and  quantity  of 
outputs have been improved. For example: since 2012, the EUCPN Secretariat is producing 
"Thematic  Papers".  The  first  paper  on  ‘Sport,  science  and  art  in  the  prevention  of  crime 
among children and youth’ was based on the work completed by the former Presidency trio.. 
In  June  2012  the  EUCPN  Secretariat  has  published  the  first  6-monthly  "European  Crime 
Prevention Monitor" which presents information on crime situations and crime trends based 
on statistics, surveys and reports from different sources. The aim of these reports is to provide 
a quick and substantial, but selected overview of the situation and trends on crime and crime 
prevention . Target groups are local, national and European practitioners and policy makers.  

Furthermore,  new  initiatives  such  as  the  setting  up  of  a  stakeholder  database,  the 
dissemination  of  a  redesigned  newsletter,  the  world  cafés  during  Board  meetings  and  the 
launch of a stakeholder feedback survey have all contributed to better cooperation, contacts, 
exchanges of information and experience between actors in the field of crime prevention (for 

7 

8 

This evaluation was undertaken by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES). The study is available on 
the website of DG HOME : http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-
trafficking/crime-prevention/index_en.htm 
Evaluation  of  EUCPN  conducted  in  2008  –  2009  by  CSES  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-
do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/crime-
prevention/docs/evaluation_of_eucpn_final_report_(cses_11_03_09).pdf 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
example,  Bulgaria’s  recently  adopted  national  crime  prevention  strategy  relied  heavily  on 
EUCPN  information).  EUCPN  Board  meetings  have  increasingly  dealt  with  points  of 
substance as opposed to procedural issues. A greater number of Member States now takes part 
in the ECPA (European Crime Prevention Award) contest. 

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

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

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

3. 

THE ROLE OF THE EUCPN 

Over much of the past decade, the EUCPN’s development has taken place in the absence of a 
strong EU legislative framework. The EU had limited competence9 in crime prevention and to 
the  extent  that  it  had  powers,  these  were  mainly  in  the  field  of  organised  crime.  With  the 

9 

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

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
changes made by the Lisbon Treaty to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the EU received a stronger role in crime 
prevention.  

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

Overall,  it  can  be  said  that  the  EU  dimension  of  crime  prevention  has  been  strengthened  in 
many  ways  in  recent  years,  including  through  a  number  of  initiatives  being  taken  to  assist 
Member  States  in  their  efforts  to  combat  criminal  activities10.  With  the  increasingly  cross-
border nature of crime, and the blurring11 of the distinction between organised and so-called 
‘volume’  crime,  having  an  effective  EU  framework  in  place  is  a  necessity  for  crime 
prevention efforts at all levels to have a greater chance of success.  

Although crime rates in Europe have decreased for many years12, there are signs in some EU 
Member States13 of this trend having now been reversed, perhaps reflecting the effects of the 
economic  recession14.  Moreover,  security  concerns  among  EU  Citizens  remain  important15. 
Consequently,  crime  prevention  -  and  collaboration  at  EU  level  to  promote  it  -  remains  a 
priority  for  the  EUCPN’s  key  stakeholders  and  EU  citizens  generally16.  The  rationale  for 
further developing the EUCPN therefore remains valid. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Dedicated crime prevention provisions have been inserted in Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims 
(art 18) as well as in Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and 
child pornography (art 23 ). The EU Strategy towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings (2012 – 2016) 
– COM(2012)286final - has the prevention of trafficking in human beings as one of its key priorities (priority B).  
Crimes  committed  by  mobile  “itinerant”  criminal  groups  are  a  good  example  of  this  blurring  between  organised 
and volume crime. These crimes include: shoplifting, metal theft, cargo theft, house burglaries and pickpocketing. 
In  most  EU  countries,  crime  levels  have  been  decreasing  consistently  over  the  period  since  around  2002-03 
although the tendency was upwards in some Member States (Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania 
and  Sweden).  The  countries  where  the  decrease  in  total  crime  has  been  most  noticeable  were  Cyprus,  Greece, 
Malta, Poland and the UK. Even recent figures indicate for the UK (crimes recorded by the police in England and 
Wales) a further drop of 4.2% between the years ending March  2011 and March 2012. Total numbers of crimes 
recorded for nine of the ten main categories of offence fell compared to the previous year, with criminal damage 
showing a fall of almost 10% (source : UK Police force tables). But underlying these general tendencies there are 
considerable differences in the development of specific types of crime. Since 2006 – 2007 the police recorded more 
crimes in a number of Member States, particularly, for domestic burglary and drug trafficking. On the other hand 
the type of recorded crime which showed the most substantial decrease was theft of motor vehicles, followed by 
violent  crime  and  robbery.  (Source  :  EUROSTAT  -  Statistics  in  Focus  crime  and  criminal  justice) 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-006/EN/KS-SF-12-006-EN.PDF  
See  media 
statistics-trends-and-police-countermeasures-in-2011-2/).  
See also OCTA (2011) p6 : "The recent global economic crisis and the connected financial restraints have made 
communities more tolerant to illicit commodities, especially counterfeit goods". 
Nine  out  of 
EUROBAROMETER 371 of 2011 on p 28.  
According  the  survey  of  key  stakeholders  undertaken  for  this  evaluation,  almost  two-thirds  (65.2%)  of  the 
respondents  indicated  that  collaboration  at  the  EU  level  between  Member  States  to  promote  crime  prevention  is 
either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important. This confirms the findings of a Special Eurobarometer 380 ‘Awareness of Home 
Affairs’  report,  June  2012,  pages  51-60,  which  stated  that  nine  in  ten  Europeans  (91%)  agreed  that  the  EU 
institutions  and  individual  Member  State  governments  should  work  more  closely  together  to  fight  terrorism  and 
crime. 

(http://www.balkanalysis.com/greece/2011/05/15/organized-crime-in-greece-

ten  Europeans  consider  organised  crime  as  an 

to  EU  security,  see 

reports  on  Greece 

important 

threat 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUCPN 

The  following  section  provides  recommendations  for  addressing  the  weaknesses  identified 
during the external evaluation. Two of them seem to stand out : first, the need to address the 
visibility  of  EUCPN17  and  -  linked  to  that  -  the  need  to  better  align  EUCPN  activities  to 
agreed priorities at EU level, including through creating synergies with other initiatives and 
bodies. This would contribute to a better focus and to building up know-how in specific crime 
areas, allowing more added value in the interaction with both the local and EU level and thus 
also addressing the issue of lack of visibility. 

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

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

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

17 

18 

19 

20 

The  EUCPN  should  more  systematically  align  its  priorities  to  agreed  EU 
priorities,  including  those  defined  in  the  Internal  Security  Strategy,  the  EU  Policy 
Cycle  and  other  security  related  initiatives  endorsed  by  EU  Member  States  (for 
example,  there  are  obvious  links  between  the  EUCPN  and  the  informal  network  of 
contact  points  on  the  administrative  approach18  to  prevent  and  fight  organised 
crime19 that could usefully be further explored). 

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

A  more  strategic  approach  to  determining  EUCPN  activities  and  strengthening  its 
role in providing inputs to policymaking at the EU and Member State level, should 
be  supported  by  the  development  in  the  longer-term  of  an  observatory-type 
monitoring function20. Establishing a better knowledge base on crime prevention at 
EU level should primarily be done by using available data (e.g. from EUROPOL and 
EUROSTAT) while avoiding any overlap with existing initiatives. 

on 

points 

The overall low response rate to the survey as well as the high degree of “don’t know” are only two examples of 
the fact that EUCPN and its activities are still not widely known. 
The so-called 'Administrative approach' to combat organised crime can best be described as a combination of tools 
at administrative level to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the public sector, the economy or key parts of 
the public administration. Council Conclusions on the fight against crimes committed by mobile (itinerant) criminal 
groups were adopted in November 2010 and contained provisions for the establishment of an informal network of 
contact 
approach. 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/118169.pdf  The  network  was  established 
in 2011 but has no secretarial support. 
The EUCPN Council Decision (art 2.2) allows EUCPN to look into “all measures that are intended to reduce or 
otherwise contribute to reducing crime and citizens feeling of insecurity…”. Equally, the multi-annual strategy of 
EUCPN states that EUCPN should contribute “to the promotion of a multi-disciplinary and preventive approach to 
crime”. For reasons of efficiency and sustainability, there should be greater synergies between the EUCPN and the 
network, possibly also from an organisational point of view.  
This  could  include  building  up  a  better  understanding  of  trends  at  the  EU  level  and  across  Member  States  with 
regard to crime, establishing an overview of Member States’ crime prevention institutional set ups, strategies and 
policies (some of this information is already available) and to the extent that it can be assessed, an assessment of 
what impact crime prevention measures have on different types of criminal activity. 

administrative 

the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

To  support  such  monitoring  activities, 
its 
collaboration21 with Eurostat and others to introduce better statistical information 
at EU level but also to avoid any overlap with on-going or planned activities. 

the  EUCPN  should  continue 

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

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

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

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

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

(1) 

(2) 

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

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

21 

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

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

of  all  National  Representatives  to  the  activities  of  the  network,  during  and  beyond 
EUCPN Board meetings.  

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

As there has been little evidence of their added value in promoting the EUCPN and 
its activities, the role of the EUCPN’s Contact Points should be reviewed22 and at 
least better defined, for example by ensuring that all Member States appoint Contact 
Points  who  subsequently  should  turn  into  an  active  network  of  crime  prevention 
practitioners,  closely  associated  to  the  work  of  the  EUCPN.  Alternatively,  the 
concept of EUCPN contact points could be abandoned all together and replaced by 
e.g.  networks  of  academics  that  on  a  case  by  case  basis  could  provide  scientific 
inputs to the activities of EUCPN.  

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

4.2. 

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

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

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

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

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

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

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

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

In  addition  to  the  specific  conclusions  and  recommendations  set  out  above,  various  more 
general  options  regarding  the  EUCPN’s  development  have  been  examined  in  the  external 

22 

See footnote 4 for their role according to the Council Decision 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
evaluation.  These  included  keeping  the  status  quo,  enhancing  the  EUCPN,  establishing  a 
European Crime Prevention Observatory, and disbanding the EUCPN.  

Option 1: Status quo 

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

Option 2: EUCPN +  

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

Option 3: European Crime Prevention Observatory  

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

Option 4: Disbanding the EUCPN 

There  is  very  little  support  for  disbanding  the  EUCPN.  The  EUCPN  is  widely  seen  as 
producing  more  and  more  benefits  for  Member  States,  especially  since  the  adoption  of  the 
2009  Council  Decision.  Disbanding  it  would  reduce  the  capacity  of  the  EU  and  Member 
States to promote crime prevention and make it more difficult to engage Member States and 
other  key  stakeholders  in  helping  to  prepare  and  implement  innovative  and  smart  ways  to 

23 

The Action Grant of €845.000 covering a three years peri od, requires 5 % co-financing by EU Member States. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
prevent crime in a complementary way to classical law enforcement actions. Member States 
whose  crime  prevention  policies  are  still  at  an  early  stage  would  lose  out  most  of  it.  Given 
that the rationale for collaboration at EU level on crime prevention remains strong, this course 
of action would not be relevant to key stakeholder needs. Moreover, given the relatively low 
cost of operating the EUCPN, the savings would be modest 

5. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EN 

11 

   EN