COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the EUROPEAN CRIME PREVENTION NETWORK 2012-2022
Date: 2023-06-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, European security, area of freedom, security and justice, exchange of information, fight against crime, organised crime

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.6.2023  SWD(2023) 201 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the    EUROPEAN CRIME PREVENTION NETWORK    2012-2022      {SWD(2023) 202 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 8 

2.1 

Description of the intervention and its objectives .......................................................... 8 

2.1.1. Policy Context ................................................................................................................ 8 

2.1.2. The EUCPN: goals, tasks and structure.......................................................................... 9 

2.1.3. Intervention Logic ........................................................................................................ 11 

2.2   Point of comparison .......................................................................................................... 11 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......... 13 

3.1. 

Facilitate cooperation, contacts and exchanges of best practices ............................... 13 

3.2. 

Develop knowledge and expertise on crime prevention .............................................. 14 

3.3. 

Disseminate knowledge and expertise to facilitate implementation ........................... 15 

3.4. 

Contribute to various aspects of crime prevention at the EU level .............................. 16 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 17 

4.1. 

To what extent was the intervention successful and why? .......................................... 17 

4.1.1. 

Effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 17 

4.1.2. 

Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 21 

4.1.3. 

Coherence ............................................................................................................. 22 

4.2. 

How did the EU intervention make a difference? ......................................................... 23 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? .................................................................................. 24 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 25 

5.1. 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 25 

5.2. 

Lessons learned and suggested areas for improvement............................................... 27 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 29 

1. 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references ...................................................................... 29 

2.  Organisation and timing .................................................................................................... 30 

3. 

4. 

Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines ................................................................. 30 

Evidence and sources ........................................................................................................ 30 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 32 

1.  Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 32 

2. 

3. 

Timing ................................................................................................................................ 33 

Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 33 

1 

 
 
 
4.  Commission assessment of the work of the contractor ................................................... 35 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................... 36 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................. 57 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 59 

1.  Objectives of the consultation .......................................................................................... 59 

2.  Consultation methods and tools ....................................................................................... 59 

3.  Results of the consultation activities ................................................................................ 60 

4. 

Interviews and attendance in workshops ......................................................................... 60 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 62 

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 63 

Coherence .............................................................................................................................. 63 

EU added value ..................................................................................................................... 64 

Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 65 

5. 

Stakeholder survey ............................................................................................................ 66 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 67 

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 69 

Coherence .............................................................................................................................. 70 

EU added value ..................................................................................................................... 72 

Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 73 

5.  Public Consultation ............................................................................................................ 75 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CEPOL 

CSE 

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training 

Child Sexual Exploitation 

DG HOME 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

ECPA 

ECPC 

EFUS 

EMCDDA 

EMPACT 

ENAA 

EQ 

EU 

European Crime Prevention Award 

European Crime Prevention Conference 

European Forum for Urban Security 

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug 
Addiction 

European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal 
Threats 

European Network on the Administrative Approach 
tackling Serious and Organised Crime 

Evaluation question 

European Union 

EUCPN 

European Crime Prevention Network 

EUROPOL 

European Union’s Law Enforcement Agency 

ExCom 

ICPC 

Executive Committee 

International Centre for the Prevention of Crime 

3 

 
 
 
ISEC 

ISF 

JHA 

LEWP 

MAS 

MASP 

NCP 

NCPC 

NGO 

NR 

OAP 

OPC 

Prevention of and Fight against Crime 

Internal Security Fund 

Justice and Home Affairs 

Law Enforcement Working Party 

Multi-Annual Strategy 

Multi-Annual Strategic Plan 

National Contact Point 

National Crime Prevention Council 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

National Representative 

Operational Action Plans 

Organised Property Crime 

SOCTA 

Serious and Organised Crime Threat assessment 

4 

 
 
1.   INTRODUCTION 

Organised crime is a real and increasing threat to our societies, democracies and economies. 
As organised criminal groups look to sustain and expand their activities, they take advantage 
of  their  position  to  recruit  their  members  and  leaders  of  tomorrow.  Individuals  raised  in 
criminal  environments  and  in  socio-economically  deprived  areas  are  most  vulnerable  to 
recruitment for criminal activities. Most activities within the criminal justice system, such as 
investigations, prosecutions, and the imposition of sanctions are carried out after the crime has 
been committed. However, in order to prevent people from joining a life of violence and crime, 
and in order to raise the resilience of society, it is paramount to invest in crime prevention 
policies and tools.  

A multidisciplinary and inter-agency approach to crime prevention can contribute to reducing 
the likelihood of criminal activity, by raising awareness among potential victims, or providing 
support to vulnerable individuals and communities to reduce the risk of falling into a criminal 
lifestyle. Crime prevention involves a wide range of stakeholders, including schools, families, 
the  community,  the  social  welfare  sector,  civil  society  and  the  private  sector;  and  their 
cooperation  and  partnerships  are  of  vital  importance.  Therefore,  as  laid  down  in  the 
Organised Crime Strategy1, the Commission aims to enhance the exchange of knowledge and 
best  practices  on  crime  prevention  through  the  European  Crime  Prevention  Network 
(hereafter referred to as EUCPN or the Network). 

The EUCPN was set up in 2001 by the Council of the European Union.2 Currently, Council 
Decision 2009/902/JHA3 (‘the Council Decision’) sets out the aim to develop a platform for 
the  Member  States  to  exchange  knowledge  and  best  practices  in  the  field  of  crime 
prevention, with the aim to reduce or otherwise contribute to reducing crime and citizens' 
feeling  of  insecurity4.  The  Network  supports  tangible  crime  prevention  activities  and 
contributes to formulating EU policy and strategy on crime prevention. The EUCPN was set 
up to be a point of reference for its target groups: practitioners5 and policymakers working on 
crime  prevention  at  local  and  national  level,  as  well  as  for  policymakers  at  the  EU  and 
international  level.  The  Network  is  funded  by  the  European  Commission  and  contributions 
from the Member States. 

1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-
2025, COM/2021/170 final 

2 Council of the European Union (2001), ‘Council Decision 2001/427/JHA of 28 May 2001 setting up a European 
crime prevention network’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 153, 8 June. The creation of the EUCPN 
was launched at the initiative of France and Sweden. 

3 Council of the European Union (2009), ‘Council Decision 2009/902/JHA of 30 November 2009 setting up a 
European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) and repealing Decision 2001/427/JHA’, Official Journal of 
the European Union, L 321, 8 December. 
4 Council Decision 2009/902/JHA, Article 2. 
5 Anyone directly involved in  crime prevention: this  would  include law enforcement,  but also social  workers, 

psychologists, schools and NGO’s, for example. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
10 years since its last evaluation in 20126, the EU and national policies to counter crime have 
undergone significant developments. Crime prevention has been fully recognized at the EU 
level  to  be  an  essential  component  of  an  effective  strategy  to  tackle  crime.  The  preventive 
dimension  of  crime  has  been  included  in  several  EU  policies,  from  drugs,  to  trafficking  in 
human  beings,  radicalisation  and  child  sexual  abuse.  Furthermore,  the  network  underwent 
important changes: EUCPN has aligned its crime prevention activities with the priorities of 
the European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats (EMPACT)7, the EU 
flagship  instrument  for  multidisciplinary  and  multiagency  operational  cooperation  to  fight 
organised crime at EU level. In order to ensure the adequate involvement of the Network in the 
EMPACT  platform,  the  Network’s  Secretariat  was  strengthened  from  2  to  7  full-time 
members, and the Network’s budget was increased up to EUR 2 million for a period covering 
two years.8  

In light of these and more developments, it was decided to perform a new evaluation and an 
assessment of the implementation of recommendations in 2012, as recommended by the 2012 
evaluation, to ensure that the available knowledge and practical tools on crime prevention are 
used to their full potential.  

This staff working document (SWD) presents the findings of the evaluation of EUCPN 
for  the  period  2012  -  2022.  In  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines,  the  Commission 
assesses  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  EU  added  value  and  relevance  of  the 
Network. The evaluation covers the Network’s achievements since the last evaluation in 2012, 
and provide the useful evidence base to address weaknesses. 

In order to provide the evidence base for the evaluation, a study of the Network’s progress 
and results since 2012 was conducted by an external contractor between March 2019 and 
June 2021 (‘the external study’). This study involves all Member States9. A wide range of 
stakeholders  was  consulted  as  part  of  the  study.  These  included  Member  States  competent 
authorities at the national, regional and local levels; the Network’s members, crime prevention 
practitioners  and policy  makers,  academia  and researchers,  as  well as  relevant  Commission 
services, and EU agencies.  

In order to carry out the external study, a range of methodological tools and techniques were 
used. These included the review of 164 documents, 58 interviews with relevant stakeholders 

6 2012 Evaluation of the EUCPN, COM (2012) 717 final. 
7  EMPACT  is  a  mechanism  of  structured  cooperation  at  EU  level  between  law  enforcement,  customs,  tax 
authorities,  magistrates,  European  institutions  and  agencies  and,  where  relevant,  third  countries,  international 
organisations and the private sector, all working together to address the priority crime threats where collective 
action  is  needed.  For  the  2022-2025  cycle  priorities,  see  https://www.europol.europa.eu/crime-areas-and-
statistics/empact. EUCPN is the coordinator of the Common Horizontal Strategic Goal 7: prevention and harm 
reduction, assistance to victims, awareness raising. 
8 Grant no. 101056705 of call ISFP-2020-AG-IBA-EUCPN. Current grant amount is EUR 2,105,262.45 (1 July 
2022- 30 June 2024) of which 5% co-financed by Member States. 
9 For the United Kingdom until its withdrawal from the Network on 1 December 2014. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
(EUCPN members, law enforcement, local authorities, academics, NGOs, EU institutions and 
agencies), a dedicated online survey targeting the same stakeholders, 4 specific case studies on 
selected  actions  of  the  EUCPN  Multi-Annual  Strategy  2016-2020,  an  analysis  of  12 
comparable EU networks10, and a public consultation through the Have Your Say website of 
the Commission.  

Several limitations were identified throughout the course of the evaluation. Not all information 
and data on aspects relevant to the evaluation was available, especially about costs relevant for 
the assessment of efficiency, such as the hours/days spent on goals and actions of the Multi-
Annual Strategy. Moreover, the sources identified at national level, such as national laws and 
institutional  websites,  provided  a  rather  heterogeneous  pool  of  information,  which  made  it 
difficult  to  make clear comparisons. There  were  also  several  limitations  on the information 
collected with the field research. One of the main issues was the high turnover among National 
Representatives, making it more difficult to  acquire information  from  experienced National 
Representatives.  These  limitations  were  overcome  with  specific  mitigation  measures,  for 
example by interviewing former Representatives and the former head of the Secretariat11.  

This  evaluation  covers  the  period  from  the  EUCPN’s  last  evaluation  in  201212  until 
September  2022.  Developments  after  the  completion  date  of  the  external  study  have  been 
included  in  this  evaluation  by  the  Commission.  The  descriptions  of  the  most  recent 
developments are based on fact finding, based on open sources and interviews and contacts 
with the EUCPN Secretariat and the National Representatives.  

10 Euroguidance; Europe DIRECT - European Documentation Centres (EDCs); Europe DIRECT  - Information 
Centres (EDICs); European Centre of Expertise in the field of labour law, employment and labour market policies 
(ECE);  European  Competition  Network  (ECN);  European  Innovation  Partnership  Network  (EIP-AGRI); 
European  Network  for  Rural  Development  (ENRD);  EURYDICE;  Green  spider  network  (GSN);  Informal 
Network of ESF Information Officers (INIO); National Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARIC); 
National Europass Centres (EUROPASS). 
11 More information about the methodology and its limitations can be found in Annex II.    
12 2012 Evaluation of the EUCPN, COM(2012) 717 final. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

The  European  Crime  Prevention  Network  was  set  up  primarily  in  order  to  exchange  and 
develop knowledge and best practices on crime prevention at the local, national and EU 
level. This section describes the policy context,  how the Network is structured and works 
towards achieving its objectives, and the intervention logic. The section concludes with the 
2012 evaluation13 findings as the point of comparison. 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

2.1.1. Policy Context  
The EU’s policy on crime prevention focuses  on facilitating exchanges of experience and 
best practices to mitigate factors that encourage crime and recidivism, including on preventing 
people  from  ending  up  in  vulnerable  situations  that  may  lead  them  to  engage  in  criminal 
activity.  The  Security  Union  Strategy14  names  close  cooperation  with  local  and  regional 
administrations as well as civil society as key for crime prevention. Furthermore, the EU works 
towards prevention of corruption as well as of criminal infiltration of the economy and society 
Prevention  is  an  integral  part  of  EU  policy  on  cybercrime15,  anti-radicalisation16, 
environmental crime17, drugs18, trafficking in human beings19, child sexual abuse20, domestic 
violence21 and firearms.22  

Since  crime  prevention  includes  all  the  activities  that  contribute  to  halting  or  reducing 
crime as a social phenomenon, its definition can be broad, and may depend on the specific 
context. In 2019, the Network defined the concept of crime prevention as ‘Ethically acceptable 
and evidence-based activities aimed at reducing the risk of crime occurring and its harmful 
consequences with the ultimate goal of working towards the improvement of the quality of life 
and safety of individuals, groups and communities’. The Network classifies crime prevention 
into four different types of interventions23. In developmental prevention, the goal is to prevent 

13 COM(2012)717 Final 
14 COM(2020) 605 Final 
15 Cybercrime (europa.eu) 
16 Prevention of radicalisation (europa.eu)  
17  For  example  1_1_179760_prop_dir_env_en.pdf  (europa.eu),  and  The  EU  Approach  to  Combat  Wildlife 

Trafficking - Environment - European Commission (europa.eu) 

18 EU Drugs Strategy 2021-2025, EUR-Lex - 52021XG0324(01) - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
19  EU  Strategy  on  Combatting  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  2021-2025,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0171&rid=7  

20 EUR-Lex - 52022PC0209 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) and https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/child-

sexual-abuse-prevention-network-csapn_en  

21 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against women 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

COM/2022/105 

domestic 

final, 

and 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0105  
2020-2025  EU 
firearms 
plan 
communication_en.pdf (europa.eu) 

violence, 

action 

on 

22 

23 EUCPN (2020), published in Crime prevention - a European definition | EUCPN. 

8 

trafficking, 

20200724_com-2020-608-commission-

 
 
 
 
                                                           
the  onset  of  criminal  behaviour.  Insights  from  psychology,  education,  medicine  and  public 
health  can  guide  these  activities,  for  example  with  parenting  and  early  childhood  support. 
Secondly,  community  prevention  aims  to  influence  behaviour  by  changing  the  social 
conditions  and  institutions  in  the  community.  Examples  of  community  prevention  are 
neighbourhood  watch  programmes  and  police  outreach  to  the  public.  Thirdly,  situational 
prevention has a prime interest in the criminal event itself. By changing conditions, such as 
installing alarms, the opportunity to commit a crime and/or the likelihood to be victimized is 
reduced.  Lastly,  criminal  justice  interventions  mostly  take  place  after  crime  has  been 
committed, but can also have a future-oriented dimension, for example with general deterrence 
and rehabilitation programmes. 

In the Organised Crime Strategy, it is stated that the Commission will enhance the exchange 
of  knowledge  and  best  practices  on  crime  prevention  through  the EUCPN.  The  Network’s 
activities and outputs involves crime prevention in all its aspects, as described above. The next 
section explains how his is done, by elaborating on the Network’s mandate, objectives, tasks 
and structure.  

2.1.2. The EUCPN: goals, tasks and structure 
The overall objective of the EUCPN, set by Council Decision 2009/902/JHA, is to contribute 
to ‘developing the various aspects of crime prevention at the Union level, in accordance 
with EU policy on crime prevention’. The Network shall support crime prevention activities 
at the national and local level, as laid down in Article 2.1 of the Council Decision. It will cover 
all  measures  that  intend  to  reduce  or  contribute  to  reducing  crime  and  increasing  citizens’ 
safety, while acknowledging the multi-disciplinary nature of crime. 

In the pursuit of the strategic objectives of the EUCPN, the Network is headed by a Board of 
National Representatives from each EU Member State, chaired by the rotating Presidency of 
the  Council  of  the  European  Union.  The  National  Representatives  are  civil  servants  from 
national administrations, who carry out this task next to their nationally appointed position. 
The Board is supported in its activities by an Executive Committee24 and the Secretariat. The 
Secretariat  aims  to  provide  general  administrative,  technical  and  analytical  support  to  the 
Network, and represents the Network externally. The European Commission acts as observer, 
both in the Board and in the Executive Committee. Since 2011, the Network is supported by 
an enlarged Secretariat whose functions and role have been progressively strengthened over 
the years. The Secretariat now consists of 7 full-time members. 

24  The  Executive  Committee  is  led  by  the  Chair  and  is  additionally  composed  of  up  to  two  National 
Representatives selected by the Board for the term of 18 months and four National Representatives from the 
outgoing,  current  and  the  two  incoming  Presidencies  of  the  Council  of  the  European  Union,  as  well  as  a 
Representative designated by the European Commission. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
In order to  implement  its  objectives  and tasks, the EUCPN adopts five-year Multi-Annual 
Strategies  (MAS)25.  Concrete  objectives  and  tasks  are  laid  down  in  Annual  Work 
Programmes26. The Secretariat drafts both the MAS and the Annual Work Programmes, with 
input from the National Representatives, after which they are formally adopted by the Board. 
The Secretariat monitors progress and results with feedback from the National Representatives 
and writes yearly reports of its annual programmes.  

The Commission has provided financial support through financial instruments in the area of 
justice and home affairs, including the Prevention of and Fight against Crime (ISEC) 2007-
201327 programme and the Internal Security Fund 2014-2020. Under the new Multi-Annual 
Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027, the Commission is supporting the Network with 24-
month  direct  grants  of  approximately  EUR  two  million  under  the  Internal  Security  Fund 
Police.28  Member  States  provide  structural  financial  support  through  the  co-financing 
mechanism  (5%  of  the  total  amount,  divided  according  to  GDP)  under  this  EU  funding 
programme and can fund specific projects of interest to the Network. In the table below, an 
overview of the amounts given to the EUCPN is provided:  

Programming period 
01/07/2011- 30/09/2014 

Grant number 
НОМЕ/2010/ISЕС/РР/С1-
4000001422 
HOME/2012/ISEC/AG/4000004372  01/03/2014 -28/02/2016 
01/10/2016- 31/03/2018 
ISFP-2016-AG-IBA-EUCPN 
01/04/2018- 31/03/2020 
ISFP-2017-AG-IBA-EUCPN 
01/04/2020- 30/06/2022 
ISFP-2019-AG-IBA-EUCPN 

Planned expenses 
€ 889.658,48 

Final grant amount 
€ 428.629,91 

€ 407.974,74 
€ 1.000.000,00 
€ 2.000.000,13 
€ 2,105,262.45 

€ 355.217,66 
€ 593.077,76 
€ 1.742,382,52 
€ 1.748,926,77 

25 For the latest MAS, see https://www.eucpn.org/document/eucpn-multiannual-strategy-2021-2025.  
26 For the latest Annual Work Programme, see https://www.eucpn.org/document/work-programme-2022  
27 HOME/2010ЛSEC/FP/C1 -4000001422, EUR 889.658,48 provided for 01/07/2011 – 30/6/2014. 
28 Grant no. 101056705 of call ISFP-2020-AG-IBA-EUCPN. Current grant amount is EUR 2,105,262.45 (1 July 

2022- 30 June 2024) of which 5% co-financed by Member States. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
2.1.3. Intervention Logic 
  The  intervention  logic  provides  an  overview  of  how  the  objectives  of  Council  Decision 
2009/902/JHA were to be achieved through the work of the EUCPN. The logic used for this 
evaluation is summed up in the figure below, showing the needs addressed. 

2.2   Point of comparison  

The baseline for the EUCPN was mainly constructed by relying on the previous evaluation of 
the Network conducted by the Commission in 201229, with the support of an external study30. 
This provides an adequate frame of reference, as the objectives set by for the EUCPN by the 
Council of the European Union have not changed. The 2012 evaluation stated that following 
the  adoption  of  the  2009  Council  Decision  and  follow-up  activities,  the  Network  had 
undertaken successful steps to foster better cooperation, contacts, and exchange of information, 
and the quality and quantity of its outputs had improved.  

However, the evaluation also identified a number of weaknesses:  

(1)  insufficient  evidence  that  EUCPN  activities  are  always  linked  to  the  crime 

prevention priorities facing the EU and Member States;   

29 COM (2012) 717 final. 
30 Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (2012), Evaluation of the European Crime Prevention Network, 

Final Report. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
(2)  EUCPN is in general less successful in reaching target groups at local level than at 

national or EU level; 

(3)  a substantial amount of crime prevention projects supported by the ISEC programme 

are implemented without associating or even informing EUCPN;  

(4)  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;  

(5)  many  of  the  contact  points  do  not  sufficiently  contribute  to  the  functioning  and 
visibility of the EUCPN and in a variety of Member States there are no contact points;  

(6)  more needs to be done to raise the EUCPN profile in general. 

The objectives  set  out  in the Council Decision and the 2012 recommendations have set  out 
clear expectations for the development of the Network. The EUCPN should: 

- 

- 
- 

further  facilitate  the  cooperation  and  exchange  of  practices  between  all  relevant 
stakeholders; 
establish closer relationships with relevant partners; 
take a more strategic approach towards contributing to EU, national and local crime 
prevention needs, while improving the evidence base of its products; 

-  work  to  strengthen  its  contribution  to  implementing  effective  crime  prevention 

measures and policies at national, regional and local level; 
-  monitor and support the impact of crime prevention measures; 
- 
- 

ensure a broad dissemination and awareness of its products and activities;  
further align its priorities to agreed EU priorities and strategies and contribute to 
the development of EU policies and projects in the field of crime prevention. 

In terms of the organisational set up, set out in the Council Decision, the Secretariat was 
expected  to  play  a  key  role  in  supporting  the  activities  of  the  Network,  while  the  National 
Representatives were expected take a more active role in developing its activities.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

This chapter describes the development of the EUCPN since the 2012 evaluation, and how 
the Network has worked towards achieving its intended goals, as set out in the intervention 
logic.  

3.1.  Facilitate cooperation, contacts and exchanges of best practices  

The EUCPN aims to provide a platform for practitioners and policy makers to connect and 
exchange best practices across the EU, by organizing conferences, seminars and by providing 
support to national,  regional and local  stakeholders.  In order for  these services to  reach the 
intended audience, the EUCPN has taken a number of measures in order to facilitate exchanges 
between practitioners at the national and local level.  In order to facilitate the exchange of best 
practices, the EUCPN organizes several events. The EUCPN organizes an annual conference 
for sharing and disseminating experience and knowledge of Best Practices in preventing crime 
and increasing safety and security in the EU Member States (BPC). Here, the European Crime 
Prevention  Award  (ECPA)  is  handed  out,  for  which  Member  States  can  propose  crime 
prevention  projects  on  a  theme  chosen  by  the  Presidency  of  the  Network.  Furthermore,  the 
EUCPN organizes biannual Crime Prevention Conferences, where all the target groups of the 
Network (policy makers and practitioners at EU, national and local level) meet to exchange 
knowledge on a chosen topic.  Aside  from  events  and  conferences,  the  Secretariat  also 
reaches out to and connects with practitioners directly.31 The Secretariat has participated in 
many international, regional and local events to present its products. Moreover, the Secretariat 
was involved in other organisations' events and activities, such as the European Network for 
the  Administrative  Approach  (ENAA),  CEPOL,  Europol  and  Eurostat.  In  order  to  improve 
cooperation with other networks and organisations, the Secretariat has engaged with several 
other  entities  by  organising  dedicated  stakeholder  meetings,  or  by  attending  relevant 
events.32  

According  to  the  division  of  labour  laid  down  in  the  Council  Decision,  each  National 
Representative shall promote the Network’s activities at the national and local level and can be 
supported by National Contact Points in doing so. However, National Representatives have not 
been able to take up a proactive role in creating a network of local and national contact points 
and their input to the work of the EUCPN has been relatively modest. According to the findings, 
most National Representatives face difficulties in reaching out to stakeholders due to the lack 
of translated material, and their limited capacity for outreach due to the requirements of their 
position in the national context. 
  However, the Secretariat has created occasions for the development of a network of local 
and  national  contact  points,  such  as  the  meeting  between  the  National  Crime  Prevention 

31 For an overview of events, see Events | EUCPN 
32 Stakeholders involved between 2016-2019: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Europol, 

CEPOL, ENAA, EMCDDA, UNODC, ICPC, EIGE, Open Society, IJJO, EFUS, ICPCR 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
Councils,  which  was  first  organised  in  March  2018.  Moreover,  the  Secretariat  regularly 
participates in and shares expert groups and workshops, for which experts from Member States 
are invited33.  

3.2.  Develop knowledge and expertise on crime prevention 

The  Network  has  strived  for  a  common  approach  to  research  on  crime  prevention,  by 
establishing  an  agreed  definition  of  crime  prevention  in  2019,  in  consultation  with 
practitioners, academics, and stakeholders: ‘Ethically acceptable and evidence-based activities 
aimed at reducing the risk of crime occurring and its harmful consequences with the ultimate 
goal of working towards the improvement of the quality of life and safety of individuals, groups 
and  communities.’  This  development  is  part  of  a  stronger  shift  and  emphasis  on  evidence-
based policy making.  

In  order  to  contribute  to  the  development  and  provision  of  knowledge  and  expertise  to 
policy makers and practitioners, the Network produces a variety of written outputs, which 
are addressed to different target audiences: monitors, policy papers, toolboxes, reports and 
information about funding sources.34 The EUCPN publishes these outputs on its website.35  
The range of activities and topics is wide and can encompass all the dimensions of crime 
prevention policy mentioned in section 2.1.1. The Toolbox on street gang prevention (2022)36 
for example, covers developmental prevention (family-oriented interventions, among others), 
community prevention (social development in neighbourhoods) and criminal justice prevention 
(disengagement and rehabilitation). There are many more topics, ranging from cybercrime, to 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  to  community-oriented  policing,  for  example.  The  EUCPN 
publishes these outputs on its website.37  
  EUCPN products are varied but categorised according to their contents and intended use. 
First, the EUCPN Secretariat, in cooperation with the EUCPN Presidencies, conducts research 
and  analysis  on  the  themes  selected  by  the  Presidencies.  The  outputs  stemming  from  these 
activities include Toolboxes, which are published twice a year and include practical tools for 
practitioners  for  addressing  the  Presidencies’  themes,  and  thematic  papers  that  provide 
information for policymakers for helping them deepen their knowledge on the selected themes.  
Secondly,  the  EUCPN  carries  out  research  activities  independent  from  the  themes 
selected by the Presidencies, whose results are published in booklets, research reports, and 
monitors  that  present  recent  data  and  preventive  measures  for  facing  crime  phenomena.  In 
order to support evidence-based policy making, the Secretariat has published ‘Mythbusters’ 
that aim to dispel common misconceptions about crime prevention. 

Furthermore, the Network produces material for conducting crime prevention campaigns 
at  the  European,  national,  and  local  level.  Finally,  the  Secretariat  collects  information,  on 

33 For example, see https://www.eucpn.org/event/eurocrim-2020  
34 In the period from 2016-2020, the EUCPN produced 24 newsletters, 7 EUCPN documents, 8 policy papers, 6 

toolboxes, 4 reports, 5 documents on funding and 2 campaigns. 

35 Knowledge Centre | EUCPN 
36 2206_Toolbox FR_LR.pdf (eucpn.org)  
37 Knowledge Centre | EUCPN 

14 

 
 
 
                                                           
national crime prevention policies and strategies and on EU-funded projects and, mainly, on 
procedures to apply for the funding. However, information about national crime prevention 
strategies  is  incomplete  and  sometimes  outdated,  and  the  information  on  interregional 
information exchange, for which the Secretariat started working on a paper to illustrate policy 
similarities between states and regions in the EU, is limited.  

In  2022,  the  EUCPN  has  made  further  steps  to  improve  the  evidence  base  of  their 
products.  The  Network  announced  the  establishment  of  an  Advisory  Board,  consisting  of 
academic  experts,  who  can  provide  independent  scrutiny  and  expert  peer  review  on  the 
commissioning  of  research.38  Furthermore,  the  EUCPN  has  founded  a  dedicated  working 
group, which39 developed a minimum list of criteria for crime prevention which will have to 
be met it can be disseminated by the EUCPN as a ‘good practice’.40 

3.3.  Disseminate knowledge and expertise to facilitate implementation 

The Network strives to play an important role in the dissemination of qualitative knowledge 
on crime prevention, which could be shared to enable to improve crime prevention policy and 
tools in the EU. This entails collecting, sharing and communicating information on relevant 
crime-related  problems,  interventions  and  good  practices,  as  well  as  on  effective  means  of 
implementation.  

Regarding outreach and communication, the Network established a communication plan 
in 2018, which has resulted in the creation of a new website, an increased presence on social 
media (Twitter,  LinkedIn, Facebook), an updated  newsletter, which has been disseminated 
more and more (in 2018 6 newsletters, in 2019 13 newsletters and in 2020 15 newsletters), the 
production of promotional material and the creation of videos, which can be viewed on the 
website.  The  website  is  the  main  platform  for  knowledge  dissemination  and  contains  a 
‘knowledge centre’ database where users can find EUCPN outputs such as research articles, 
toolboxes and campaigns.  

Regarding dissemination, the National Representatives have reported to face difficulties 
in fulfilling their role, according to interviews conducted by the external study: three National 
Representatives declared they have no channel to directly communicate with local stakeholders 
and are unaware of whether the information they share at the national level ultimately reaches 
the local level. Among surveyed stakeholders, 41% of responding national, regional or local 
authorities declare to not receive information from their National Representatives. For local 
policymakers  and  practitioners,  this  share  increases  to  80%.41  The  interviewed  stakeholders 

38 EUCPN Board Meeting minutes, 21 June 2022 
39 EUCPN Board Meeting minutes, 8 December 2021 
40 There is a clear description of the crime problem(s) the activity wishes to address, there is a clear description of 
the way in which the intervention addresses the identified problem(s) and why it is expected to be effective, 
there  should  be  a  robust  and  positive  outcome  evaluation,  or  at  least  strong  indications  of  theoretical 
plausibility  and  there  is  sufficient  information  available  about  the  nature  of  the  intervention,  its  original 
context, and the implementation of the activities to help practitioners select, replicate or innovate from it. 

41 On a scale “Yes/No”, 22 responses received of which: “Yes” (N=12), “No” (N=10). As for “Yes”, National 

authorities (N=11), NCP (N=1). As for “No”, National authorities (N=9), NCP (N=1). 

15 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
report  no  instances  of  feedback  requests  from  their  Representatives  or  the  EUCPN  in  any 
capacity. 

In order to partially mitigate the challenges in reaching out to the national and local level, 
the EUCPN Secretariat has increased its presence on social media in order to reach the local 
practitioners without intermediaries. However the language barrier remains an issue as the 
EUCPN communicates and produces output almost entirely in English. 

Translation of materials is a key factor that affects the dissemination of materials. The 
range of outputs of the EUCPN suffers from a scarce availability of material translated into 
national  languages.  The  Network  is  aware  of  the  importance  of  providing  translations. 
However, up to now, only few documents are translated in all EU languages, due to a lack of 
resources.42 Even though on occasions, National Representatives have facilitated translations, 
they reported that usually there is no budget earmarked for this. Since the finalisation of the 
external evaluation, the Secretariat has continued their work on knowledge dissemination, by 
organising  webinars  and  trainings.  Furthermore,  the  EUCPN  has  worked  on  developing 
trainings for practitioners. In 2022, the EUCPN Secretariat will develop a training on crime 
prevention knowledge and evidence, for which National Representatives are responsible for 
the further dissemination to their Member State.43  

Regarding  implementation,  the  2012  evaluation  recommended  that  the  EUCPN  should 
strengthen its role in making inputs to policy making in the crime prevention field. However, 
the EUCPN does not systematically monitor whether Member States adapt best practices 
implemented in other Member States. Moreover, interviews from the external study review 
that stakeholders lament the lack of support to adapt best practices to the local context. The 
Network acknowledges its lack of capacity in this regard. 

3.4.  Contribute to various aspects of crime prevention at the EU level 

From a strategic perspective, in 2015 the Network decided to align its activities to the priorities 
of the European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats (EMPACT). This 
decision enabled it to put the emphasis on the illicit activities carried out by organised crime 
groups. Since 2018, the EUCPN has participated in operational actions carried out within 
the EMPACT priorities organised property crime, trafficking in human beings, child sexual 
exploitation and environmental crime.  

In the new EMPACT cycle 2022-2025,  approved by the Member States,  the EUCPN is 
tasked  to  coordinate  the  Common  Horizontal  Strategic  Goal  7:  Prevention  and  harm 
reduction, assistance to victims, awareness raising. The Secretariat represents the Network 
in  EMPACT  meetings  and  can  advise  and  support  the  drivers  and  action  leaders  on 

42  the  “Toolbox  3  -  Evaluation  of  Crime  Prevention  Initiatives  Manual  (2013)”  was  translated  in  22  national 
languages. “Toolbox 13 - Preventing individual fraud (2019)” was translated in French, German, Bulgarian; 
“Toolbox  14  -  Community-Oriented  Policing  in  the  European  Union  Today  (2019)”  was  translated  in  21 
national  languages;  “Toolbox  15  -  Preventing  the  Victimisation  of  Minors  in  the  Digital  Age  (2019)”  in 
French,  German  and  Romanian,  and  “Booklet  EUCPN  -  Criteria  for  the  evaluation  of  crime  prevention 
practices (2016)” in Lithuanian. 

43 EUCPN webinar: the evaluation of crime prevention | EUCPN 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
preventive actions. Furthermore, the Secretariat can propose preventive actions for priorities 
in which there is no preventive action yet. Moreover, depending on the resources available, the 
Secretariat could also take the lead in EMPACT priorities.  

In  terms  of  EU  level  cooperation,  the  EUCPN  mainly  collaborates  with  the  European 
Union’s Law Enforcement Agency (Europol), notably in the framework of EMPACT, and 
the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL). On 23 June 2020, 
a Working Agreement with CEPOL was signed. The Agreement allows participation of the 
EUCPN Secretariat  in  CEPOL training sessions  and CEPOL staff in  EUCPN activities and 
enhances the dissemination of crime prevention initiatives and research. The 2012 evaluation 
recommended a closer cooperation with Eurostat in order to gather statistical information on 
crime  prevention  at  the  EU  level.  The  EUCPN  continued  to  monitor  its  cooperation  with 
Eurostat until 2017, but has not continued this cooperation on a systemic basis.  

In  the  Council,  the  EUCPN  regularly  presents  its  activities.  In  2018,  the  EUCPN 
addressed the Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI) in 
relation to Community Oriented Policing. A position paper was drafted together with CEPOL 
to  explain  the  training  plans.  The  EUCPN  regularly  presents  its  activities  to  the  Law 
Enforcement Working Party (LEWP).  

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS  

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

4.1.1.  Effectiveness 
The section below analyses whether the four intended results as set out in the intervention logic 
have been obtained. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cooperation, contacts and exchange of best practices 
Since  2012,  the  EUCPN  created  new  and  more  varied  opportunities  to  facilitate 
cooperation,  contacts  and  exchanges  between  practitioners  and  policymakers  at  EU, 
national and local level. The National Representatives use their contacts in order to reach out 
to  practitioners,  and  some  events,  such  as  the  European  Crime  Prevention  Conference,  are 
advertised on the EUCPN website and social media.44 Furthermore, the Secretariat participates 
in a range of international, regional and local events in order to reach practitioners directly and 
present its products. The Network has strengthened its cooperation with several organisations 
working on crime prevention, notably by organising dedicated stakeholder meetings.  
  The different tools the EUCPN uses are valued differently and in a different way across 
categories of stakeholders: some products are seen as more useful than others. The capacity of 
the  Network  to  organise  meeting  opportunities  stands  out  as  favourite  output  among 
stakeholders.45  Interviewed  target  groups  praise  the  network  for  sharing  practical  toolkits, 
thematic  insights  and  best  practices,  and  for  providing  networking  and  knowledge-sharing 
opportunities. 
  However, there are some differences in the perceived benefits per stakeholder group. 
National Representatives and national authorities are generally satisfied with the opportunities 
provided  for  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information,  while  local  stakeholders  find  the 
services of the EUCPN comparatively less relevant and useful. Generally, the Network seems 
to  have  difficulty  in  reaching  target  groups  below  national  level.  Among  surveyed 
stakeholders, 41% of responding national, regional or local authorities declare to not receive 
any information by their National Representatives.  When looking at local policymakers and 
practitioners, the share jumps to 80%, which aligns with the increased dissatisfaction with the 
ability of National Representatives to interact with the local level compared to the past, when 
practitioners and academics were more involved in the activities of the Network.  

The development of knowledge and expertise on crime prevention  
Based on the positive responses received from stakeholders, the EUCPN effectively collects 
and  produces  qualitative  knowledge  on  crime  prevention  and  has  managed  to  raise  the 
quality  of  outputs  produced  through  the  continuous  collection  and  dissemination  of  good 
practices. Stakeholders also report indirect benefits resulting from the work of the EUCPN. 
They report using the Network as a platform to scout for partners for EU funded projects, they 
interpret EUCPN materials in order to know what the key topics of interest are when writing 
project proposals, and they use evaluated best practices shared by the Network for prevention 
activities within their own administration. 

Concerning the EUCPN’s efforts to develop a common approach to crime prevention, the 
2019  adopted  definition  of  crime  prevention  resonates  with  and  aligns  to  stakeholders’ 

44 European Crime Prevention Conference 2022 | EUCPN 
45 On a scale from 1 (Very low satisfied) to 5 (Very high satisfied): 54 responses received on average for each 
question.  The  average  rating  for  the  EUCPN  meetings  is:  4.3  Best  Practice  Conferences  (N=37),  4.1 
Workshops (N=40), 3.9 Seminars (N=32), 3.6 World café (N=22). 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
understanding  of  crime  prevention.  The  vast  majority  of  surveyed  stakeholders  (75%) 
recognised the contribution the EUCPN is making towards spreading the culture of evaluating 
crime prevention activities. 

  The  external  study  examined  whether  policymakers  and  practitioners  find  the  materials 
useful.  The  publication  of  national  crime  prevention  strategies  on  the  EUCPN  website  are 
considered to be quite useful by stakeholders, but reports are considered of less practical use. 
Respondents  have  a  clear  preference  for  practical  toolboxes.  The  target  group  that  finds 
EUCPN  materials  to  be  the  most  useful  are  the  national  authorities,  while  the  target 
group that finds them the least useful are local practitioners. 

Knowledge dissemination and implementation of crime prevention policies and tools  

The new EUCPN communication strategy has been effective in raising awareness about the 
Network, both at EU and national level, as concluded following interviews carried out in the 
external study. The website is the main gateway to promote the results of the Network and 
represents a drastic improvement both in terms of accessibility and production value over the 
one operating in 2012. Through its social media presence, the EUCPN Secretariat is able to 
reach  out  to  its  target  groups  directly.  This  is  corroborated  by  survey  responses,  as  21 
respondents out of 72 (30%) found social media channels as being “highly” or “very highly” 
effective  in  disseminating  information  on  the  Network,  with  an  additional  29  (40%) 
considering them moderately effective. Only 22 respondents considered the effectiveness of 
social media channels as having a “low” or “very low effectiveness”. Amongst the latter, about 
half  (10)  of  responses  came  from  academics.    The  website  was  also  positively  assessed  by 
survey respondents, with 46 out of 76 respondents (60%) considering it as being “highly” or 
“very highly” effective in disseminating information on the Network.   

However, these developments are not enough to reach all target groups. According to the 
outcomes  of  stakeholder  interviews,  problems  with  dissemination  are  attributed  to  a 
combination of factors, some linked to the Network itself, such as  the limited capacity for 
active involvement of the National Representatives in general, and the obstacles they face to 
efficiently disseminate materials and knowledge to the local level. Moreover, the Network’s 
limited  resources  to  translate  materials  in  national  languages  is  acknowledged  by 
stakeholders  as  an  important  factor  hindering  the  ability  of  the  EUCPN  to  disseminate  its 
products and is the most commonly reported impediment. 

Another factor hindering the Network’s outreach is the lack of feedback collection from 
their  target  groups  in  order  to  produce  output  tailored  to  their  needs,  such  as  support  to 
contextualising  best  practices,  guidance  on  evaluating  crime  prevention  projects,  or  simply 
translated materials. This explains in part why local stakeholders make the least use of EUCPN 
knowledge  products  and  consider  the  Network  to  be  adding  the  least  value  compared  to 
national and local initiatives.  

Here again, the EUCPN is not sufficiently equipped to reach its intended user base. Target 
groups that are more easily reached by the EUCPN are also the most satisfied by its activities. 

19 

 
 
 
Stakeholders would like the Network to provide guidance on how to replicate best practices 
in different contexts, and how to approach application at a local level.  

Some of the obstacles hindering the EUCPN ability to contact some of its target groups 
are external to the Network: they can be of cultural, administrative or organisational nature, 
and little can be done by National Representatives to overcome them. Not all Member States 
can count on National Crime Prevention Councils to facilitate the dissemination of EUCPN 
materials.  Another possible obstacle is  the fragmentation  in  administrative structures:  the 
more decentralised governments operate, the more difficult it is to reach the local level. When 
comparing  the  EUCPN  to  other  networks,  as  done  in  the  external  study,  the  EUCPN  is 
disadvantaged  compared  to  other  networks  due  to  its  weak dissemination  channels.  Other 
networks can count on more established national and local relays.46  

Finally, crime prevention as a topic can be of varying importance per Member State: if 
there is no strong prevention culture present, or if crime prevention is not as high on the political 
agenda as other security topics, this will have an impact on the amount of attention devoted to 
the EUCPN.47  

Contribution to EU crime prevention policies and actions  
The  EUCPN  has  been  working  on  building  the  foundations  to  become  a  stronger  point  of 
reference on crime prevention in the EU, by aligning its priorities to EU priorities, by taking 
part in EMPACT, and developing working relationships with EU agencies. Since EUCPN only 
started as coordinator of the preventive angle for the 2022-2025 Cycle, it is too early to see the 
results of its efforts as coordinating entity.  
  The Network has followed a structured approach to reach out and establish relationships 
with other EU actors in the field of security, and now mostly cooperates with EUROPOL in 
the  framework  of  EMPACT  and  joins  efforts  with  CEPOL  in  providing  information  and 
trainings on crime prevention.  

Still,  EU  stakeholders  indicate  that  the  Network  needs  to  improve  on  its  outreach  and 
expertise in order to successfully contribute to EU policy making on crime prevention. The 
Network’s contribution is generally appreciated by EMPACT stakeholders,48 but interviewees 
noted  that  the  EUCPN  does  not  always  bring  the  required  expertise  to  the  table,  therefore 
limiting the impact of its contribution. Based on interviews carried out in the external study, it 
was noted that National Representatives rarely offer inputs for the EUCPN in EMPACT.  

46 The external study included a comparison of the EUCPN with the following other networks:  Euroguidance, 

EDICs, ECN, EIP-AGRI, ENRD, EURYDICE, GSN. 

47   A) “Are there external factors that hinder the possibility to cooperate and exchange information and experience 
within the EUCPN?”: total responses: 24 of which: “No” NRs (N=16); “Yes” NRs (N=3), NCPs (N=2); “Do 
not know” NRs (N=3). 

B) “Are there external factors that hinder the capacity of the EUCPN to contribute to EU policymaking on internal 

security?”: total responses: 22 of which: “No” NRs (N=21); “Yes” NRs (N=1). 

C) “Are there external factors that affect the capacity of the Network to implement actions?”: total responses: 24 

of which: “No” NRs (N=14); “Yes” NRs (N=8), NCPs (N=1); “Do not know” NCPs (N=1). 

48  Interviews:  1  CEPOL,  1  EMCDDA,  1  Europol,  and  2  law  enforcement  authorities  involved  in  EMPACT 

consulted. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Even  so,  there  is  untapped  potential  for  the  Network  to  contribute  further  to  EU  crime 
prevention  policies  and  actions,  in  terms  of  coordinating  input  from  its  members  and 
intensifying contacts with relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, there is scope for further efforts 
to  increase  synergies  with  EU  policies  and  strategies.  In  stakeholder  interviews,  involved 
parties  appreciate  the  Network  for  bringing  the  prevention  perspective  to  the  table  and 
developing operative actions and quality outputs promoting EMPACT priorities.  

4.1.2.  Efficiency 
In order to establish whether the Network is efficient, the section below analyses the European 
Crime  Prevention  Network’s  cost-effectiveness  in  executing  its  tasks,  as  well  as  the 
appropriateness of the allocation of its resources to implement those tasks.  
  The assessment of the efficiency of the Network was influenced by  several limitations. 
Both  the  subject  matter  of  crime  prevention  (how  to  measure  whether  a  crime  has  been 
prevented?) and the limitations to the amount of data the external study was able to collect, 
made  it  extremely  difficult  to  quantify  the  EUCPN’s  cost-effectiveness.  Nevertheless,  an 
attempt was made to provide a qualitative overview based on stakeholders’ views. 

The main question to gauge the point of view of stakeholders concerning the overarching 
efficiency of the Network was the following: “to what extent costs and benefits of the Network 
are  proportionate?”.  In 
total,  29  responses  were  received  from  EUCPN  National 
Representatives  or  substitutes  and  EUCPN  Secretariat  members.  A  majority  of  EUCPN 
practitioners (19/29) which responded to the question reported that the costs and benefits of the 
Network  are  commensurate  to  a  high  or  very  high  extent.  In  general,  target  groups  of  the 
Network bear virtually no cost, which explains why the Network is unanimously considered 
good value for money. 

For the National Representatives and Contact Points, the picture is different: they can face 
costs unaccounted for by the EUCPN budget, such as overtime work and financial costs for 
dissemination activities. Moreover, several National Representatives indicate that their role is 
an additional task on top of other full-time commitments. There are also Representatives 
who  report  that  the  administration  they  work  for  does  not  allocate  budget  for  EUCPN 
activities, such as for translating and printing campaign materials. The effort and time spent 
by National Representatives to find the necessary financial resources is reported as a cost in 
itself.  

Moreover,  the  Network  struggles  with  operational  inefficiencies  stemming  from  its 
organisational setup. The EUCPN is an Internal Security Fund - Police funded project managed 
by  the  Belgian  Ministry  of  Interior,  so  the  Secretariat  has  to  navigate  both  the  financial 
regulations of Belgium and the European Union. Especially in the past, this has led to large 
parts of the budget remaining unspent (see p. 10 for the overview). The 5% contribution from 
Member States  to  the Network, is  also  subject  to issues. Member States’ delayed payments 
cause additional inefficiency.  

The implementation of EUCPN activities also encounters some inefficiencies, related to the 
division of roles and responsibilities within the Network. Even though the Council Decision 
and Rules of Procedure are clear in setting roles and responsibilities, the Secretariat takes on 

21 

 
 
 
  
a  disproportionate  part  of  the  responsibilities,  in  an  effort  to  compensate  for  National 
Representatives’ limited involvement. 

Notably,  the implementation of actions under the Multi-Annual  Strategy 2016-2020 
fell almost entirely on the Secretariat. National Representatives appear to be only marginally 
involved or not involved at all, despite the fact that there are several actions that identify them 
as responsible for the implementation. The  establishment  of a permanent  Secretariat  in late 
2011 and its further consolidation throughout the years might have initiated or compounded 
this behaviour.  

  This  causes  inefficiencies,  not  only  because  the  Secretariat  is  using  its  time  and 
resources  on  tasks  for  which  the  other  EUCPN  members  are  better  placed,  but  also 
because  the  National  Representatives  and  the  National  Contact  Points  are  the  key  to  the 
EUCPN’s network function. Without their active involvement and contacts, the EUCPN’s is 
not sufficiently able to reach its target groups. Furthermore, members of governance share the 
opinion that the high turnover among National Representatives entails considerable costs for 
the Network and influences its ability to pursue its objectives, since new Members need time 
to familiarise themselves with the work of the EUCPN, and the Network is less able to draw 
from past experience.  

4.1.3.  Coherence 
The  third  component  that  contributes  to  establish  the  Network’s  success  is  its  coherence. 
Internally, this entails examining how the Network’s activities relate to one another and to its 
legal  basis.  Externally,  the  Network’s  objectives  in  relation  to  other  EU  initiatives  are 
evaluated, in order to identify possible synergies, inconsistencies and/or duplications. 

Regarding the Network’s internal coherence, its objectives are sufficiently coherent with 
one another, and the actions carried out under the MAS 2016-2020 are generally consistent 
with and aligned to the objectives established by the Council Decision. 

However, interviews with stakeholders show that in the Annual Work Programmes, there 
is  a  greater  focus  on  achieving  administrative  tasks  mentioned  in  the  work  programmes 
(such  as  setting  up  the  website,  updating  the  database  of  contacts  etc.)  than  achieving  the 
more overarching goals of the Network. In general, the belief within the Network has been 
that the Multi Annual Strategy 2016-2020 is too inward looking, as current actions are often 
aimed at strengthening the Network itself rather than providing policy orientation.  Notably, 
both  National  Representatives  and  the  Secretariat  pointed  out  that  the  lack  of  cooperation 
between National Representatives influenced to some degree the ability to implement some of 
the actions of the Multi-Annual Strategy 2016-2020, indicating a lack of commitment towards 
achieving the Network’s common goals. 

Regarding the Network’s external coherence, there have been many developments in EU 
policymaking. The Network’s intention to align itself more to EU policy has fostered  more 
coherence with EU goals and priorities. From 2018, the preventive dimension became one 
of the Common Horizontal Strategic Goals (no. 7) of EMPACT, and in the EMPACT cycle 
2022-2025, the Network became the coordinator of Goal 7. However, due to the Network’s 
recent involvement, the EUCPN needs more time to get fully integrated in EMPACT, and 

22 

 
 
 
the  Secretariat  spends  considerable  time  on  trying  to  be  included  in  the  various  EMPACT 
groups.  Still,  the  Network’s  participation  in  EMPACT  has  further  potential  to  grow  and 
develop, as the EUCPN gets more and more involved in its working groups and  establishes 
contacts.     
  As the sole EU organization that exclusively focuses on crime prevention in all its aspects, 
the EUCPN is well positioned to complement the actions of EU Agencies active in the field of 
justice and security and works to build relationships with others. The relationship established 
with CEPOL and Europol, in particular, produced tangible results achieved in collaboration by 
the  parties.  However,  the  cooperation  is  not  used  to  its  full  potential  yet.  According  to 
interviews  with  the  EU  agencies,  this  may  be  either  attributed  to  the  early  stage  of  the 
collaboration or to an uneven level of commitment existing between the parties. Moreover, it 
was pointed out that the EUCPN may risk overlapping or duplicating the activities of other 
EU activities when setting out its priorities.  

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  EUCPN  has  generated  EU  added  value  as  far  as  it  achieved 
results that national or other EU initiatives would not otherwise have achieved:  

  The EUCPN provided uniform access to the same services and knowledge products on 

crime prevention to its target groups; 

  The Network facilitated exchanges between practitioners in the field, which would have 
not have otherwise occurred with the same regularity and to the same extent without EU 
intervention; When the EUCPN got involved in EMPACT, national and EU authorities 
could benefit from its readily available contributions to coordinated operational actions.  

Looking at possible alternatives to the EUCPN, interviewees49 report no other comparable 
forum for meeting and discussing crime prevention topics in a cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary 
way. The initiative with the most point in common with the EUCPN is the European Forum 
for Urban Security (EFUS), although EFUS is mainly addressed to municipalities. 

The EU added value is not uniformly perceived across all target groups. Stakeholders at the 
local level see less value in the EUCPN, either because they are not aware of the full extent of 
EUCPN products  and service or because they  consider them responding to their needs to  a 
lesser  extent  than  what  is  available  domestically.  The  same  is  true  for  stakeholders  from 
Member States with a strong culture of crime prevention, whose ‘domestic market’ already 
satisfies their needs.  

In  light  of  this,  the  most  likely  consequences  of  a  reduction  or  withdrawal  of  EU 
involvement, with an interruption of the functions carried out by EUCPN, would entail greater 

49  Stakeholder  groups  interviewed  were:  NRs;  NCPs;  EUCPN  Secretariat;  National  and  local  authorities;  EU 
Institutions/services; Academics and crime prevention experts; International Organisations; NGOs and CSOs. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
difficulties for users to find and access the same, relevant information and services and less 
opportunities to exchange best practices among EU Member States. The impact of no EUCPN 
will fall disproportionally on national stakeholders that do not have a strong culture of crime 
prevention.  

However, the potential for growth and development of the Network depends on the degree 
of political interest in Member States. Limited political interest can make it difficult for the 
Network  to  make  crime  prevention  mainstream.  Given  the  fact  that  the  National 
Representatives  strongly  depend  on  the  Secretariat,  the  cooperation  and  the  coordination 
between Member States would likely not persist in the absence of the Network. Even so, as an 
EU network, the EUCPN should respond to the needs and requirements of the Member States, 
and if it does not do that sufficiently, its EU added value is at risk. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Overall, the objectives of the Council Decision are still relevant to the EU needs of supporting 
the  development  of  crime  prevention  measures  in  the  EU.  The  framework  devised  by  the 
Council Decision proved to be sufficiently flexible to enable the EUCPN to remain relevant 
over the years. 

Compared to 2012, the EUCPN has increased its relevance at the EU level as it expanded 
the range of its activities to include emerging EU crime priorities in order to respond to the 
need to develop the various aspects of crime prevention at the EU level. All EU stakeholders 
recognise the EUCPN is making relevant contributions to EMPACT and works together with 
Europol and CEPOL in order to include crime prevention in EU activities.  

In order to stay relevant, the Network needs to respond to the needs of its target groups. 
However,  the  EUCPN  does  not  systematically  collect  input  or  feedback  from  its  target 
groups on their needs. Exceptions are the ‘EUCPN event feedback tool,’ which is limited to 
the participants’ opinions on the Best Practice Conference and the European Crime Prevention 
Conference. Similarly, there is no indication on activities or output produced by the Network 
which are tailored to the needs of national and local stakeholders. 

Aside from aligning to strategic priorities at the EU level, there is no evidence that can 
indicate whether actions implemented have been relevant to the identified needs. EUCPN 
members have identified new challenges in board meetings, such as migration,50 cybercrime,51 
big data52 and radicalisation.53 However, the topics chosen demonstrate that little attention is 
devoted to coherence with other EU initiatives. 

50  EUCPN  (2015),  Minutes  EUCPN  Board  Meeting,  Board  Meeting  23  September  2015  Luxembourg  City, 

Luxembourg. 

51  EUCPN  (2015),  Minutes  EUCPN  Board  Meeting,  Board  Meeting  16  December  2015  Luxembourg  City, 

Luxembourg. 

52 EUCPN (2016), Minutes EUCPN Board Meeting, 13 December 2016 Bratislava, Slovakia. 
53 EUCPN (2018), Minutes EUCPN Board Meeting, 14 March 2018 Sofia Bulgaria. Radicalisation was identified 
as an important theme where the prevention dimension could be further spurred and in 2019 another booklet 
“European Crime Prevention Monitor: radicalisation and violent extremism” was released. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
For the national  level,  70% of interviewees  consider the  activities of the  Network  to  be 
relevant to the development of national strategies on crime prevention.54 The respondents 
who  answered  positively  indicated  that  the  activities  of  EUCPN  play  a  significant  role  in 
gathering knowledge concerning crime prevention, and that the principles and recommendation 
of  international  documents  and  best  practices  of  EU  Member  States  in  the  area  of  crime 
prevention  are  taken  into  consideration  in  the  formulation  of  national  crime  prevention 
strategies. Stakeholders also mentioned that EUCPN activities such as conferences, meetings, 
seminars, campaigns and projects are extremely relevant in this field.  

  On the local level, the EUCPN’s activities had close to no impact on local strategies 
and projects, also due to the limited awareness of the Network at the local level Generally, the 
group  most  satisfied  with  the  work  of  the  EUCPN  is  also  the  most  represented  within  the 
governance, mostly consisting of representatives from national ministries and law enforcement 
agencies. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Since 2012, the EUCPN has put in motion a long-term process that gradually consolidated 
its activities on several fronts, in particular by setting out Multi-Annual Strategies and Annual 
Work Programmes that help steer the different activities.  

54 Total responses: 42 of which: “Yes” National authorities (N=14), NRs (N=12), NCPs (N=2), Academic and/or 
crime prevention expert (N=1); as for “No”, NRs (N=4); “Do not know” NRs (N=4), National authorities 
(N=4), Academic and/or crime prevention expert (N=1). 

29 out of 42 survey respondents. It is interesting to note that most “no” and “do not know” respondents were from 

EUCPN National Representatives or substitutes (eight out of 13).  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
On the evaluation criteria, the following conclusions can be drawn: 

  The EUCPN has been moderately effective in reaching its objectives and achieving the 
expected results. The EUCPN has been moderately effective in reaching its objectives and 
achieving the expected results in supporting the development of knowledge and exchange 
of best practices on crime prevention. The Secretariat has increased its efforts to facilitate 
cooperation and exchanges among practitioners and policymakers at the EU, national and 
local level. Furthermore, the Network has considerably developed its written output and 
increased  its  focus  on  research.  Necessary  steps  have  been  made  by  the  Secretariat  to 
increase the Network’s visibility, with the renewal of the website and its active presence 
on social media (LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter). The Network has aligned its activities 
with  EU  priorities,  built  relationships  with  relevant  EU  agencies  such  as  Europol  and 
CEPOL, and has worked on involving and embedding the preventive dimension within the 
EU,  in  particular  through  its  involvement  in  EMPACT  as  coordinator  of  Common 
Horizontal Strategic Goal 7 on crime prevention.  

However,  there  are  several  factors  that  prevent  the  Network  from  reaching  its  full 
potential.  Firstly,  outreach  to  its  target  groups,  mainly  to  the  local  level,  stays  behind 
expectations,  as  the  network  and  its  output  is  not  sufficiently  visible,  due  to  a  lack  of 
effective  dissemination  and  tailoring  to  specific  contexts.  A  second  important  factor 
hampering  effectiveness  is  the  lack  of  involvement  and  lack  of  structural  feedback 
collection  from  the  relevant  stakeholders.  Further  efforts  are  also  needed  to  increase 
synergies between the Network’s activities and other preventive initiatives at EU level. 

 

In spite of the limitations to data collection which influenced the study’s ability to assess 
the  Network’s  cost  effectiveness,  stakeholder  surveys  revealed  that  the  EUCPN  is  an 
efficient initiative as it provides direct and indirect value to its target groups with relatively 
modest funding. However, the EUCPN faces operational inefficiencies, due to the limited 
resources  available  to  enable  National  Representatives  to  fulfil  their  tasks.  Due  to  its 
organisational structure, the EUCPN faces administrative obstacles when aiming to comply 
with both the EU and the Belgian internal financial procedures. Moreover, even though the 
distribution of tasks is clear, the active involvement of the National Representatives and 
Contact Points is limited, due to a lack of capacity and prioritisation, and the high turnover 
among National Representatives leads to a lack of continuity and experience to draw from.  

  Regarding coherence, the Network is sufficiently internally coherent, in that its objectives 
and actions are aligned to the objectives of the Council Decision. Regarding coherence vis-
à-vis  other  initiatives,  the  Network’s  objectives  are  in  line  with  the  broader  EU  crime 
prevention  policy  objectives.  However,  both  its  involvement  in  EMPACT  and 
cooperation with other actors are not used to its full potential yet. The development of 
prevention  policies  in  the  EU  requires  the  EUCPN  to  increase  its  interaction  with  EU 
policymakers and to follow closely EU initiatives, set out in the different EU strategies and 
action plans as well as in EU funded projects. 

26 

 
 
 
  
  The  EUCPN  provides  EU  added  value  since  it  offers  access  to  knowledge  on  crime 
prevention to policy makers and practitioners across the EU and facilitates exchanges of 
best practices between policymakers and practitioners from different EU Member States. 
However, EU added value differs per target group. Since the Network is less visible at the 
local  level  due  to  a  lack  of  adequate  dissemination,  EU  added  value  is  lower  for 
practitioners and policymakers at this level. Furthermore, not every Member State has the 
same culture of crime prevention, so EU added value is higher for Member States with less 
developed crime prevention policies.  

  The objectives of the Council Decision are still relevant to address EU needs regarding the 
development  and  implementation  of  effective  crime  prevention  policies  and  measures 
while providing enough flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. Still, when deciding 
on  priorities  and  relevant  actions,  the  Network  does  not  sufficiently  take  into  account 
activities  conducted  by  other  EU  networks,  initiatives  or  projects  playing  a  role  in 
preventing  criminality.  This  diminishes  opportunities  to  complement  and  support  other 
initiatives and in the worst case, leads to duplication of efforts. In addition, the Network 
does not systematically ask for input and collect feedback from its target groups, to ensure 
that its activities and products are relevant to all. 

Overall,  the  EUCPN  has  progressed  towards  meeting  its  objectives,  but  stayed  behind 
expectations in several areas. Systemic issues persist that affect the overall performance of the 
network,  notably  related  to  the  involvement  of  the  National  Representatives,  as  well  as 
regarding the EUCPN’s engagement with its intended audience, to ensure that its products are 
targeted and valued.  

5.2.  Lessons learned and suggested areas for improvement 

While the Network is  expected to  deliver in  many  strands of work and activities, given the 
limited resources and other obstacles identified in this evaluation, the Network needs to better 
structure its priorities and activities to increase the impact and visibility and generate effective 
results. A starting point should be an active involvement of the National Representatives as 
core elements of the Network as well as other forms of cooperation with relevant stakeholders 
at European, national and local level. The design of such activities should be part of the Multi-
Annual Strategy, setting concrete actions as laid down in the Annual Work Programmes. Their 
implementation  needs  to  be  regularly  monitored  coupled  with  corrective  measures  where 
necessary. 

Existing dissemination and communication channels have proven to be insufficient and need 
to be strengthened. This  is where the National Representatives  and Contact Points are of 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
crucial importance. While their limited engagement  has been an issue over many  years and 
efforts have been undertaken to  increase the level  of engagement, the situation has still not 
significantly improved. Measures to address this could include: 

-  Commitments  to  implement  and  support  actions  as  outlined  in  the  Multi-Annual 
Strategy  and  Annual  Work  Programme,  for  instance  through  the  appointment  of 
National  Representatives 
leadership  and 
lead  specific  actions 
accountability; 

to  ensure 

to 

-  Measures allowing National representatives to fulfil their role, including guidance by 
the  EUCPN  Secretariat  on  the  intended  target  audience  of  EUCPN  deliverables, 
Member States making available the necessary resources and the development of an 
introduction programme for National Representatives and Contact Points. 

Facilitating  cooperation  and  exchanges  between  relevant  stakeholders,  providing  evidence-
based  knowledge  and  guidance  that  help  the  stakeholders  designing  and  implementing  the 
necessary crime prevention measures crucially relies on a proper assessment of the needs, 
expectations  as  well  as  feedback  channels  on  the  usefulness  and  added  value  of  EUCPN 
deliverables. It is therefore suggested that the EUCPN:  

-  Routinely maps Member States’ priorities and needs, with a structured approach that 
could  foresee  the  inclusion  of  up-to  date  information  regarding  national  crime 
prevention strategies to be available for consultation, on the EUCPN website; 

-  Provides  for  opportunities  for  feedback  from  National  Representatives  and  Contact 
Points on their use of EUPCN materials and services, to ensure that the Network meets 
the needs of its members; 

-  Collects and processes relevant feedback from target groups to develop better-tailored 

products and services.  

The effective implementation of crime prevention measures requires the development of tools 
that help adapting guidance developed at EU level to the relevant national or local context 
and that help assessing the effectiveness of any such measures. The EUCPN should further 
deepen the evidence base for crime prevention measures but also explore ways to facilitate the 
implementation of crime prevention measures at local level, while staying up to date and being 
responsive to new developments. This can be achieved in different ways, including through: 

-  Cooperation  with  other  relevant  organisations  and  EU  initiatives,  projects  and 
networks,  in  order  to  combine  insights  and  create  synergies  when  developing  and 
disseminating knowledge and best practices; 

-  Enhanced cooperation with relevant networks or crime prevention councils at national 

level, in order to improve the EUCPN’s outreach to target groups; 

-  An  increased  focus  on  responding  to  new  developments  and  converting  research 
products into practical knowledge and tools, geared towards practitioners’ needs, both 
in terms of content and form (including making available budget for translations). 

28 

 
 
 
 
The EUCPN plays an increasing role in contributing to the development of EU policies in the 
field of crime prevention, in particular through its involvement in EMPACT. The Network’s 
contribution to the various aspects of crime prevention at the EU level could be improved 
by: 

-  Deepening working relationships within EMPACT -notably with EMPACT drivers and 
EU agencies in order to broaden its active contribution to embedding crime prevention 
measures in operational actions. 

-  Establishing  closer  links  between  the  National  Representatives  and  the  National 
EMPACT  coordinators,  so  as  to  ensure  coherence  in  the  Network’s  contribution  of 
EMPACT and enhance awareness of EMPACT procedures and working methods; 

-  Fostering  its  cooperation  with  the  European  Commission,  to  ensure  alignment  with 

current and future EU policies, strategies, networks and projects. 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

The Evaluation Roadmap for the initiative was published by DG HOME on the Commission’s 
‘Have  your  say’  webpage55  in  February  2019.  The  Terms  of  Reference  were  drawn  up  for 
engaging a contractor to carry out the external study as part of the evaluation. A request for 
service was issued on 27 January 2019, and a contractor selected by an evaluation committee. 

55 European Crime Prevention Network - evaluation (europa.eu) 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The study began in March 2019 and ended in December 2020. The agenda planning (Decide) 
reference assigned to the evaluation is PLAN/2021/13100. 

2.  Organisation and timing 

As per the Better Regulation Guidelines, an inter-service steering group was used within the 
Commission  to  oversee  the  evaluation.  The  Secretariat  General,  DG  JUST  and  the  Legal 
Service were invited to nominate representatives to the steering group. 

The  meetings  of  the  steering  group  were  chaired  by  DG  HOME.  The  steering  group  was 
regularly consulted over the course of the external evaluation, typically in conjunction with the 
submission of specific draft reports by the contractor responsible for carrying out the external 
study. These consultations took place both in the context of regular meetings, via email and 
telephone.  

3.  Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

In conducting the evaluation, no exceptions from the usual procedural requirements described 
in the Better Regulation Guidelines were required. 

4.  Evidence and sources  

The evaluation drew on different types of documents. Firstly, the external contractor examined 
EU policy and legislative documents and guidelines, in order to provide the overarching policy 
framework to be considered when assessing the coherence of the Network and its actions, and 
to assist in designing recommendations for the future. In order to provide the evidence base for 
the analysis of the Network’s objectives and tasks since 2012, EUCPN outputs were examined. 
Outputs  include  the  Multi-Annual  Strategies  and  Annual  Work  Programmes,  but  also  the 
Reports, Toolboxes, Crime Monitors and newsletters. In order to complete the information on 
the  Network,  various  back-office  documents  were  included  in  the  list  of  sources.  These 
documents  include  meeting  minutes,  reports  on  activities  written  by  the  Secretariat  for  the 
members of the EUCPN, financial documents and stock-taking documents on the progress of 
actions under the Multi-Annual Strategy, among others.  
  The list of sources also includes relevant studies and reports, including scientific literature 
focusing on the current state of play of crime prevention in Europe. The previous evaluation of 
the Network in 2012 was also consulted. Finally, national and international measures on crime 
prevention, including legislative acts,  standards and procedures,  were consulted, in  order to 
gain insight on the extent to which EU Member States have benefitted from the outputs of the 
Network. 

Aside  from  a  review  of  the  relevant  documents,  the  evaluation  also  relied  on  extensive 
consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. These consultations served as opportunities to 
collect new data or to confirm the validity of already collected data. Additional information on 
the stakeholder consultations is provided in Annex V. 

30 

 
 
 
31 

 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

1.  Methodology 

The external evaluation study was carried out by Ernst & Young (‘EY’) following a call for services under a framework contract. The evaluation was conducted 
through a mixed methods approach and was informed by the triangulation of a variety of sources. A range of methodological tools and techniques were used. 

The  evaluation  study  included  a  broad  desk  research  that  focused  on  a  review  of  all  relevant  studies  and  literature.  It  covered  EU  policy  and  legislative 
documents  and  guidelines,  EUCPN  outputs,  EUCPN  back-office  documents,  relevant  studies  and  reports,  including  scientific  literature,  and  national  and 
international measures on crime prevention. In order to identify additional information that could contribute to framing and explaining the evidence collected 
on the performance of the EUCPN, the Team sought to understand how other European networks operate, with the aim of identifying what works best and what 
could be done differently.56 

A wide range of stakeholders were consulted as part of the external study. The consultations included an online survey with stakeholders, targeted interviews 
and  EUCPN  meeting  attendance  (see  Annex  V  for  the  synopsis  report  of  the  consultation  study),  and  a  public  consultation  carried  out  by  the  European 
Commission. Furthermore, EY carried out four case studies within the scope of selected actions within the Multi-Annual Strategy 2016-2020, to examine more 
in depth the key aspects of the evaluation criteria:  

- 
- 
- 
- 

the promotion of EUCPN output in Member States’ crime prevention campaigns and Projects 
collection and dissemination of methodologies to assess the impact of crime prevention 
the alignment of EUCPN’s crime prevention activities to EMPACT 
insights on the added value of EUCPN support to Member States 

Furthermore, the contractor carried out a traffic light assessment of all 25 actions foreseen in the EUCPN’s Multi-Annual Strategy 2016-2020.  

56 Comparison to the following networks: Euroguidance; Europe DIRECT - European Documentation Centres (EDCs); Europe DIRECT - Information Centres (EDICs); European Centre of 
Expertise  in the  field of labour law, employment and labour  market policies (ECE); European Competition Network  (ECN); European Innovation  Partnership Network (EIP-AGRI); 
European Network for Rural Development (ENRD); EURYDICE; Green spider network (GSN); Informal Network of ESF Information Officers (INIO); National Academic Recognition 
Information Centres (NARIC); National Europass Centres (EUROPASS). 

32 

 
 
                                                           
2.  Timing  

While the Evaluation Roadmap, which was published in February 2019, indicated that the external evaluation should have been completed in the first quarter 
of 2020, the actual completion date was in the second quarter of 2021. In order to allow enough time to process and analyse the outcomes, the Commission 
opted to extend the evaluation timeframe into the second quarter. As a result of the COVID19 pandemic, the contractor and the Commission agreed to extend 
the duration of the supporting study. In order to mitigate the temporal gap between the conclusion of the external study and this evaluation, developments after 
the completion date of the external study have been included in this evaluation, when relevant for the assessment of the development of the Network. The 
descriptions of the most recent developments are based on fact finding by the Commission, based on open sources and interviews with the EUCPN Secretariat.  

3.  Limitations  

The external study encountered some difficulties when performing the desk research, most of which have been addressed with adequate mitigation measures. 
In particular, difficulties relate to: 

- 

Information gaps on EUCPN: it was challenging to retrieve enough elements to evaluate efficiency. 

o  Solution:  the  contractor  reached  out  to  the  EUCPN  Secretariat  to  request  further  documentation  (i.e.  budgetary  documents)  and  asked  for 
documentation that would help addressing the evaluation questions on efficiency. Despite this, it was not possible for the contractor to measure 
the hours/days spent on each MAS goal and/or MAS action or compare Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) dedicate to communication activities. 

-  Lack of consistency in EUCPN documentation: some of the information needed to address the judgement criteria was available but scattered across 
different types of documents (e.g. number of participants to meetings, seminars and the Best Practice Conference (BPC) and European Crime Prevention 
Award (ECPA)), to the point that it was not possible to reconstruct the full picture.  

o  Solution: The Team collected the information available across all documents into partial tables and requested the Secretariat to fill the data gaps. 
The Secretariat was able to fill the information gaps only partially, as it does not collect some of the information needed do address the judgement 
criteria (e.g. N. of participants to BPC-ECPA, number of downloads from the EUCPN website). 

-  Not all indicators assumed to be relevant to meet the judgement criteria were adequate: As mentioned above, some of the information we expected 

to be able to retrieve from the Network in order to address the judgement criteria was not as relevant as expected. 

o  Solution: the contractor had to discard some indicators.  

-  Limited  comparability  of  information  found  at  the  national  level:  The  variety  of  source  types  identified  at  the  national  level  related  to  crime 

prevention strategies (e.g. national laws, institutional websites) resulted in heterogeneous information with a low degree of direct comparability. 

33 

 
 
o  Solution: The contractor developed a matrix of convergence structured around key areas of analysis in order to limit differences and ensure a 
common minimum ground of comparability. This template was slightly adjusted while progressing with the desk research in order to ensure its 
relevance to available information. 

The study encountered some difficulties when performing the consultations, most of which have been addressed with adequate mitigation measures. 

-  National Representatives: Not all NRs were able to provide informative input to our questions. As a consequence of the high turnover experienced by 
the EUCPN Board, several NRs or substitutes were relatively new to the EUCPN at the time of the interview and were not knowledgeable enough about 
the Network over the period covered by this study. 

o  Solution: While NRs remained the primary focus target of our stakeholder consultation strategy, the contractor devised some mitigation measures 

to compensate for the information gaps. 

  The contractor acted to identify, contact and interview knowledgeable stakeholders, formerly involved with the EUCPN, that could fill 

in the information gaps.  

  To gain a broader understanding of the Network as a whole, the contractor interviewed the former head of the Secretariat and the crime 
prevention  expert  who  developed  the  Standard  Conceptual  Framework  for  the  Description  and  Exchange  of  Good  Practices  for  the 
EUCPN. 

  The contractor decided to conduct a group interview with the Secretariat to gain specific information on questions that NRs were not able 

to answer. 

-  Stakeholder classification: When asked to present themselves, several interviewees fit more than one of the stakeholder categories identified within the 
scope of this study. This can be in part attributed to the multidisciplinary nature of crime prevention. In two occasions interviewees were not confident 
to say whether they could be considered NCPs of the Network, as their services have not been requested in years. 

o  Solution: While the original plan was to always use specific interview guidelines for every type of stakeholder, when facing an interviewee 
fitting  multiple  profiles,  the  contractor  opted  for  extending  the  questioning,  in  view  of  retrieving  the  information  the  interviewee  was 
knowledgeable about to the maximum extent possible.  

-  Unresponsive organisations for the benchmarking exercise: Despite multiple attempts to contact different members of these organisations, the Team 

did not receive any response. 

o  Solution: the contractor agreed to conduct desk-based research on relevant European networks instead. 

-  Limited responses to the public consultation: the public consultation only received two responses. 
o  Solution: the public consultation was deemed not to be an adequate basis for analysis. 

34 

 
 
 
As for the collection of information through the online survey: 

-  Survey  refinement  and  consequent  delay:  the  first  draft  of  the  questionnaire  was  not  exhaustive  enough  in  presenting  the  object  of  the  inquiry, 

especially for people unfamiliar with the Network.  

o  Solution: To make sure the questionnaire would collect meaningful responses from the stakeholders involved, the team reviewed extensively the 
questionnaire to prevent 1) inaccurate answers stemming from unclear questions 2) lower response rate resulting from ‘drop-outs’ who abandon 
the survey mid-way through.  

-  Survey fatigue: Several stakeholders approached by the contractor, either in person or via email, told us they had already been interviewed.  

o  Solution: The contractor included a specific alert in the presentation email to distinguish the survey from the others and sent targeted reminders 

that significantly increased the number of responses. 

Despite the difficulties encountered, the quality of the information gathered is generally satisfactory thanks to a combination of additional actions taken on 
the part of the contractor and the role played by stakeholders in validating the information that was collected. The information is satisfactory both in terms of 
quality and of breadth of representation from different categories of stakeholders, and Member State representation.  

4.  Commission assessment of the work of the contractor 

Overall, the Commission is satisfied with the work of the external contractor, and the solutions adopted when faced with limitations. Following the external 
study, the Commission chose to simplify and streamline its work, in order to get a more targeted set of conclusions and recommendations. The Commission 
opted to only use Council Decision 2009/902/JHA as the basis for the Network’s mission and objectives and regarded the MAS 2016-2020 as strategic document 
that sets out to achieve these goals. This led the Commission to simplify the intervention logic and base the evaluation on the four identified objectives and 
results set out.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX  

Sources 

PROGR 

OUTPUT 
OFFICE 
LIT 
NATLIT 
SOC 
OPC 
Stakeholders 
BOARD 
SEC 
NCPs 
ACAD 
EU 
NAT 
CS 
INT 

EU policy and legislative documents establishing the Network and setting its priorities 

Includes all outputs of the Network (e.g. Toolboxes, Crime reports, etc.) 
Backoffice documents from the Secretariat 
Any paper/study that can be relevant, including previous evaluations 
Documents at national level such as reports by public authorities and crime prevention bodies 
Online discussion forums/social media networks 
Open public consultation 

EUCPN NRs 
EUCPN Secretariat 
EUCPN National Contact Points 
Academics and crime prevention experts 
Representatives of EU bodies and institutions 
National and local authorities specialised in crime prevention 
civil society, including specialised NGOs, CSOs which deal with crime prevention 
International organisations which deal with crime prevention 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators and/or descriptors 

Baseline indicators/ POCs 
(From 2012 Evaluation and 

R
G
O
R
2016 Impact measurement report)  P

T
U
P
T
U
O

E
C

I
F
F
O

T
I
L

T
I
L
T
A
N

E
N
I
L
N
O

D
R
A
O
B

C
E
S

s
P
C
N

D
A
C
A

U
E

T
A
N

S
C

T
N

I

Y
E
V
R
U
S

C
P
O

Answer to the evaluation question 

EQ1  Effectiveness 1 

To what extent have the EUCPN activities contributed to achieving specific and general objectives laid down in the Council 
Decision 2009/902/JHA and the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020)? In particular in: sub-questions 1.A; 1.B; 1.C; 1.D. 

Understanding 

Sub-question 1.A 

The analysis will focus on the comparison between expected results as stemming from the objectives of the network and results 
achieved, as stemming from the outputs of the Network, documents impacted by the activities of the Network and opinions of 
stakeholders. The question is split in four sub questions (as per ToR) that have been matched with the strategic and specific 
objectives as resulting from the intervention logic. These have guided the selection of the judgement criteria 

See answers to the sub questions 

supporting crime prevention activities at national and local level; 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 1.A.1 

The activities of the EUCPN take 
account of the target group needs 

J 1.A.2 

The EUCPN has produced output 
tailored to the needs of national and 
local stakeholders; 

► N. of national documents based 
on EUCPN output and campaigns; 
► N. of key documents translated in 
national languages uploaded on the 
website; 
► Extent to which interview and 
questionnaire respondents report the 
EUCPN output to respond to their 
needs 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the level 
of translation of outputs to be 
adequate 

x   

x   

x  x  x  x  x  x  x 

EUCPN contributes only to a 
limited extent to supporting crime 
prevention activities at the 
national and local level. 

x  x   

x   

x  x  x  x  x  x  x 

J 1.A.3 

Target groups request and make use 
of the services provided by the 
EUCPN 

► same as J 4.4 

► Reported awareness of the 
services provided by the 
EUCPN to stakeholders 

x   

x   

x  x  x  x  x  x  x 

J 1.A.4 

The Network supported its target 
groups in finding solutions to 
finance crime prevention projects 

J 1.A.5 

J 1.A.6 

The Network has further explored 
issues of communication 
Crime prevention strategies in 
Member States have been 
developed or refined based on the 
work of the EUCPN. 

► Information on funding from 
crime prevention activities is 
satisfactory; 
► N. of respondents who declare 
having used the EUCPN website to 
find sources of funding for crime 
prevention activities, and their level 
of satisfaction. 

► See EQ3 

► Level of convergence between 
national strategies and the EUCPN 
strategy 

J 1.A.7 

The Network has supported in 
understanding how to implement 
good practices based on the specific 
context 

► Extent to which respondents 
consider the network to be making a 
positive contribution at the local 
level 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
network to be making a 
positive contribution at the 
local level 

Sub-question 1.B 

shaping the crime prevention debate at European level; 

37 

► Respondents level of 
satisfaction with information 
provided on funding 
instruments 

x  x   

x  x  x   

x   

x 

x 

x  x  x  x 

x 

x 

x  x  x  x 

x 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 1.B.1 

The EUCPN has enhanced its 
visibility among EU policymakers 
and practitioners in the security 
field; 

J 1.B.2 

The EUCPN has provided crime 
prevention policymakers and 
practitioners with meetings and 
discussion opportunities; 

J 1.B.3 

The EUCPN has aligned its activity 
to and contributed to defining EU 
needs and priorities in crime 
prevention. 

J 1.B.4 

The EUCPN has worked to 
establish relationships with other 
EU actors in the field of security as 
envisaged in its strategic 
documents/annual workplans; 

► N. of meetings organised by 
relevant stakeholders attended by the 
Presidency, the Board, or the 
Secretariat in representation of the 
EUCPN; 
► N. of GENVAL /LEWP meetings 
attended to present EUCPN 
activities. 
► N. of Newsletters published 
► N. of stakeholder meetings 
organised by the secretariat; 
► N. of thematic seminars organised 
by the Presidencies; 
► N. of participants to meetings, 
seminars and the BPC-ECPA; 
► Share of crime prevention experts 
among participants to Presidency 
thematic seminars and BPC-ECPA; 
► Reported satisfaction on 
opportunities for exchanging 
information with other stakeholders 
provided by EUCPN events 
► Reported satisfaction on content 
of EUCPN events 
► EUCPN has aligned its priorities 
to the those of EMPACT; 
► The EUCPN is involved in 
EMPACT; 
► N. of requests to EUCPN to 
provide expertise coming from 
Council or Commission 
► N. of protocols for cooperation 
signed with relevant EU and 
international partners; 
► N. of schemes of information 
exchange set up with relevant EU 

► N. of Newsletters 
published 

x   

x  x   

x  x  x  x  x   

The EUCPN has recently become 
more effective in shaping the 
crime prevention debate at the EU 
level by taking part in EMPACT. 
Recognition of the EUCPN 
presence at the EU-level is 
steadily growing. 

► Reported satisfaction on 
opportunities for exchanging 
information with other 
stakeholders provided by 
EUCPN events 
► Reported satisfaction on 
content of EUCPN events 

x   

x   

x 

x  x  x   

x   

x   

x  x   

x  x   

► N. of respondents who 
consider the collaboration 
between the EUCPN and 
other relevant entities to be 
sufficient 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
actors; 
► Representation ratio of identified 
EU stakeholders within participants 
to the Annual Stakeholder Meeting; 
► Level of satisfaction about the 
collaboration between the EUCPN 
and other relevant entities 
► Extent to which interview and 
questionnaire respondents report 
active collaboration with the 
EUCPN; 
► MoU or similar arrangement with 
Informal Network on the 
Administrative Approach to 
Combating Organised Crime or lack 
thereof. 
► N. of activities/deliverables  
developed together with other EU 
stakeholders 
► N. of participations of EUCPN 
representatives to activities organised 
by other organisations; 
► N. of identified stakeholders 
representatives engaged in other 
EUCPN activities (e.g. presentations 
to the Board meetings); 
developing a strategy of crime prevention; 

x  x   

x  x   

► Affirmative responses 

x 

x   

x   

► Extent to which respondents 
consider the EUCPN to be effective 
in providing leadership and strategic 
direction 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
EUCPN to be effective in 
providing leadership and 
strategic direction 

x   

x   

The EUCPN has developed a 
strategy extensively based on the 
recommendations of the 2012 
evaluation, which suggested 
developing the Network in an 
“incremental way”,  starting by 

39 

J 1.B.5 

The EUCPN has carried out its 
activities in coordination with 
other EU actors as envisaged in its 
strategic documents/annual 
workplans; 

Sub-question 1.C 

J 1.C.1 

There are ongoing efforts to 
develop an EU strategy for crime 
prevention 

J 1.C.2 

The EUCPN contributes to 
developing such strategy 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
addressing organisational 
shortcomings 

The EUCPN effectively collects, 
produces, and shares qualitative 
knowledge on crime prevention, 
however dissemination does not 
reach all intended target groups, 
particularly at the local level. 

J 1.C.3 

EU level strategies or policies 
including a crime prevention 
dimension can be traced back to 
EUCPN activities 

Sub-question 1.D 

► Occurrences of citations in 
relevant policy documents  

x 

x   

x   

disseminating qualitative knowledge on crime prevention 

J 1.D.1 

The EUCPN has collected and 
disseminated materials considered 
to be relevant by its target groups; 

► N. of references to EUCPN 
publications (monitors, manuals, 
toolboxes) in other publications; 
► N. of references to EUCPN 
publications and to the knowledge 
center online and on social media; 
► Extent to which interview and 
questionnaire respondents report the 
EUCPN output material to be 
satisfactory. 
► N. of Good Practices on the 
EUCPN website 
► N. of Member State policies on 
the EUCPN website  
► N. of systematic reviews on the 
EUCPN website 
► N. of Member States projects on 
the EUCPN website 

J 1.D.2 

The output of the activities of the 
network (recommendations, 
toolboxes) have been 

► N. of publications in the EUCPN 
knowledge center, disaggregated by 
type; 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
outputs of the network to be 
of good quality 
► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
network to be effective in 
collecting, assessing and 
communicating evaluated 
information including good 
practice 
► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
EUCPN to be sufficiently 
visible in terms of  
disseminating its outputs to 
wider stakeholders 
► N. of Good Practices on 
the EUCPN website 
► N. of Member State 
policies on the EUCPN 
website  
► N. of systematic reviews 
on the EUCPN website 
► N. of Member States 
projects on the EUCPN 
website 

40 

x 

x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x 

x  x   

x   

x  x  x  x  x  x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
disseminated/adapted at national 
and local level. 

► Incidence of external experts 
being engaged in the production of 
reports and toolkits 
► Incidence of relevant institutions 
being engaged in the production of 
reports and toolkits; 

J 1.D.3 

Accesses to the EUCPN website 
have constantly increased over the 
years 

► Frequency of website visits of 
respondents 

► Frequency of website 
visits of respondents 

x  x   

x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x 

J 1.D.4 

Target groups request and make 
use of the material hosted on the 
EUCPN website 

EQ2  Effectiveness 2 

► N. of downloads per type of 
document 
► N. requests to the Secretariat for 
specific documents or documents on 
specific topics 
► N. of requests to the Secretariat of 
support in adapting ECPA winning 
projects 
► Respondents make use of 
website material, disaggregated by 
section 
To what extent and how have external factors influenced the effectiveness of the implementation of the Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020)? 

► Respondents make use of 
website material, 
disaggregated by section 

x  x   

x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x 

J 2.1 

External factors influence the 
ability of the Network to achieve 
the objectives of Council Decision 
902/2009; 

► List of external factors 
influencing the ability of the network 
to achieve its objectives 

J 2.2 

External factors influence the 
ability of the Network to implement 
the actions listed in the MAS 2016-
2020. 

► List of external factors 
influencing the ability of the network 
implement its actions 

x  x  x  x 

x  x  x  x 

x  x  x  x 

x  x  x 

x 

x 

External factors have a small 
influence on the overall 
effectiveness of the EUCPN. 
Their influence is mainly 
connected to operational aspects 
and is seen as disruptive only for 
one specific objective of the 
Network: when it comes to 
dissemination, external factors can 
considerably hinder the ability of 
NRs to reach the target groups of 
the Network. 

EQ3  Effectiveness 3 

What steps have been taken to increase the visibility of EUCPN and its activities and have they been effective? 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 3.1 

Specific communication actions can 
be identified 

► List of actions 

x  x 

x 

the EUCPN has managed to 
substantially enhance its visibility 
compared to 2012, by raising the 
quality or outputs produced, 
through the continuous collection 
and dissemination of good 
practices, through a renewed 
website, by increasing its social 
media presence and its newsletter 
frequency. 

x 

x 

► N. of respondents who 
follow the EUCPN on Twitter 

x 

x 

x 

J 3.2 

The Network’s visibility has 
increased among:  
- EU stakeholders (EU services and 
agencies); 
- national actors. 

J 3.3 

The visibility of the EUCPN on 
social media has increased over 
time (in 2012-2016 and 2016 to 
date). 

► Level of visibility 
► N. of relevant partners’ websites 
linking to the EUCPN; 
► N. of newsletter subscribers; 
► N. of subscribers participating to 
the newsletter ‘interactive 
dimension’; 
► Overall N. of downloads from the 
EUCPN knowledge centre, 
disaggregated by type 
► N. of downloads by registered 
users from the EUCPN knowledge 
centre, disaggregated by type;  
► N. of views/likes/shares of 
EUCPN social media posts over 
time. 
► N. of mentions of/references to 
the EUCPN in online conversations 
► N. of respondents who follow the 
EUCPN on Twitter 

J 3.4 

There is a clear link between the 
Network’s actions taken to increase 
its visibility and the assessed 
variance in visibility; 

n.a. 

x 

x  x 

EQ4  Effectiveness 4 

J 4.1 

The EUCPN is involved in 
EMPACT on Serious and 
Organised Crime; 

J 4.2 

EU policymakers in the field of 
crime prevention and Policy Cycle 
stakeholders deem the EUCPN 
contribution to the Policy Cycle to 
be meaningful; 

What has been the impact of the Network’s actions on crime prevention policy in the European Union? 
► N. of EMPACT groups the 
EUCPN takes part to on the number 
of EMPACT groups with a crime 
prevention component 
► Extent to which interview and 
questionnaire respondents report the 
EUCPN contribution  to EU Policy 
Documents on security matters and 
to EMPACT to be meaningful; 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
network to be supporting EU 
policy making 

x  x 

x  x 

x 

x 

42 

x 

x 

x 

l
o
p
o
r
u
E

l
o
p
o
r
u
E

The activities of the EUCPN have 
contributed to a limited extent to 
crime prevention policy across the 
EU, as Member States continue to 
set their own priorities and 
strategies independently. EU 
actors praise the contributions of 
the EUCPN in EMPACT, but also 
note that the EUCPN would 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
benefit from more experience and 
expertise. 

The 2012 recommendations have 
been adequately translated into the 
Multi-Annual Strategies and 
Annual Work Programmes 

The EUCPN is not sufficiently 
equipped to reach its intended user 
base, and there is no structural 
feedback mechanism in place. 
Furthermore, stakeholders lament 
the limited possibility to adapt 
output to the local context, and 
translation capacity is limited. 

EQ5  Effectiveness 5 

To what extent and with what result has EUCPN drawn lessons from the recommendations of the 2012 evaluation? 

J 5.2 

J 5.3 

There is a clear link between MAS 
and its actions and the 
recommendations from the 2012 
evaluation; 
There is a clear link between AWP 
actions and the recommendations 
from the 2012 evaluation; 

EQ6  Effectiveness 6 

J 6.1 

The EUCPN has undertaken an 
assessment of the needs of its 
stakeholders; 

J 6.2 

The EUCPN has the capacity to 
collect and analyse feedback from 
its target groups on their needs; 

► % of recommendations taken on 
board 

► % of recommendations taken on 
board 

n
o
i
t
c
A
/
S
A
  M

s

W
P
A

L
A
V
E

L
A
V
E

Is EUCPN sufficiently equipped to reach its target group in an appropriate manner? Is it clear what EUCPN is seeking to 
achieve towards each of the target groups? 
► N. of Member States’ crime 
prevention institutional set-ups 
analysed; 
► Extent of coverage of Member 
States and administrative levels by 
EUCPN feedback collected 
► Extent to which interview and 
questionnaire respondents report the 
EUCPN has requested them to 
provide feedback on their needs, 
► Extent to which respondents 
consider the EUCPN able to collect 
feedback from target groups with 
current structure/resources 

x  x 

x  x 

x   

x   

x  x  x  x  x  x 

J 6.3 

A communication strategy that 
takes into account the needs of the 
EUCPN target groups has been 
developed 

► Existence of a communication 
strategy tailored to target group 
needs 

J 6.4 

EUPCN target groups consider the 
work of the EUCPN to be 
responding to their needs; 

► Extent to which respondents 
consider the outputs of the network 
to be of good quality 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
outputs of the network to be 
of good quality 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 6.5 

National representatives 
disseminate information to different 
target groups. 

► Extent to which respondents 
consider the Board members to be 
effective in interacting with the local 
level 
► Extent to which respondent 
consider NRs to be appropriate in 
terms of type and performance 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
Board members to be 
effective in interacting with 
the local level 
► Extent to which 
respondent consider NRs to 
be appropriate in terms of 
type and performance 

x  x 

x  x 

x 

J 6.6 

The EUCPN has the capacity to 
translate its work in the national 
language of its members; 

EQ7  Effectiveness 7 

Sub-question 7,1 

J 7.1.1 

The EUCPN output reaches all 
intended stakeholders at the local 
level; 

J 7.1.2 

J 7.1.3 

All target groups provide feedback 
to the EUCPN; 
NRs facilitate the provision, 
maintenance and exchange of crime 
prevention material at local level 

► % of communication activities 
translated in Member States’ 
languages 
► % of EUCPN documents not 
translated in all Member States’ 
languages by default 
► % of EUCPN documents not 
translated in Member States 
languages at request 
► Extent to which respondents 
consider the translation of outputs to 
be adequate 
Is there a sufficient flow of information, in an interactive manner, between board members and the local and regional level as 
well as between board and secretariat? 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
translation of outputs to be 
adequate 

x  x 

x  x 

x 

Between board members and the local and regional levels 
► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
EUCPN to be sufficiently 
visible in terms of 
disseminating its outputs to 
wider stakeholders 

► Level of satisfaction by NR about 
the capacity of the network to reach 
the national and local level 

x  x   

x   

x   

x   

x  x  x 

The capacity for outreach to the 
local and regional level is limited, 
resulting in output not reaching all 
intended stakeholders. 
Possibilities for feedback are also 
limited. 

► Trend in feedback received 

x  x   

x   

► Level of satisfaction by 
stakeholders about the capacity of 
NR to reach the local level 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
Board members to be 

x  x   

x   

x   

x   

x  x  x 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-question 7.2 

Between board and secretariat 

J 7.2.1 

Board and Secretariat members are 
satisfied with the flow of 
information. 

► Level of satisfaction 

effective in interacting with 
the local level 

► Extent to which 
respondents who consider the 
Secretariat to be effective in 
supporting the Network 
► Extent to which 
respondent consider NRs to 
be appropriate in terms of 
type and performance 
► Level of performance 
attributed by respondents to 
the Secretariat 
► Level of performance 
attributed by respondents to 
Board members 

J 7.2.2 

J 7.2.3 

J 7.2.4 

J 7.2.5 

The Secretariat is open and 
responsive to input coming from 
Board members; 
Board members are adequately 
informed by the Secretariat on all 
relevant matters; 
Board members are open and 
responsive to input coming from 
the Secretariat; 
The Secretariat is adequately 
informed by Board members on all 
relevant matters; 

EQ8  Efficiency 1 

instances identified as related:  
► responsiveness of the Secretariat 

► information provided by the 
Secretariat 

instances identified as related:  
► responsiveness of the Board 

► information provided by the 
Board 

The flow of information works 
particularly well in one direction, 
from the Secretariat to the board 
members. Vice versa, the 
communication flow from the 
board members to the Secretariat 
is less interactive. 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

What are the benefits and the costs of the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out under the Multi-Annual 
Strategy (2016-2020)? 
To what extent has the implementation of the strategy been cost-effective? 

J 8.1 

It is possible to clearly identify 
costs and benefits 

► List of costs and benefits 

x  x 

A
V
E

L

x  x   

x   

x 

Council Decision 2009/902/JHA 
and the actions carried out under 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
J 8.2 

The target groups of the Network 
praise the Network’s activity for 
yielding additional benefits 

J 8.3 

The target groups of the Network 
lament the Network’s activity to 
entail unintended costs 

J 8.5 

J 8.6 

There is a clear definition of roles 
and responsibilities; 
Clarity of scope and objectives for 
the envisaged actions (SMART-
ness: Several actions are 
recommendations from past 
evaluation, were they SMART?) 

J 8.7 

The EUCPN reached the foreseen 
results by deploying reasonable 
financial and human resources; 

J 8.8 

There are no alternative approaches 
that would deliver the same output 
of the MAS that require fewer 
resources  

EQ9  Efficiency 2 

► Unexpected benefits reported by 
Network stakeholders (benefits not 
foreseen by the EUCPN legal basis 
or strategy); 
► Unintended costs reported by 
Network stakeholders (costs not 
accounted for by the EUCPN legal 
basis or strategy); 
► Unintended costs reported by 
Network stakeholders (costs not 
accounted for by the EUCPN legal 
basis or strategy); 
► Level of clarity of roles and 
responsibilities 

► Level of clarity of scope and 
objectives 

► Level of satisfaction of interview 
and questionnaire respondents about 
the appropriateness of the resource 
allocated to the EUCPN and the 
realisation of actions under the MAS 
2016-2020 

► Extent to which interview and 
questionnaire respondents report the 
existence of alternatives 

the MAS yield both direct 
benefits, those deriving from the 
fulfilment of the objectives set by 
the Council Decision, and some 
indirect benefits, as stakeholders 
report making use of the EUPCN 
for activities unaccounted for the 
Council Decision and the MAS 

x 

x 

The implementation of EUCPN 
activities encounters some 
inefficiencies, mainly related to 
the unbalanced distribution of 
roles and responsibilities within 
the governance. The 
implementation of actions falls 
almost entirely on the Secretariat, 
despite clear roles are assigned to 
all members of the governance 

x  x   

x  x   

x  x   

x  x   

► N. of respondents who 
consider the funding to be 
commensurate and value for 
money 

x 

T
E
G
D
U
B

L
A
V
E

x  x   

x   

x  x   

x   

x 

What are the factors that have influenced the efficiency of the actions carried out under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-
2020)? 

J 9.1 

Existence of factors hindering 
efficiency 

► Description of factors hindering 
efficiency 

x 

T
E
G
D
U
B

x  x 

The Network’s organisational 
setup requires it to adhere to both 
EU and BE rules. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ10  Efficiency 3 

J 10.1 

J 10.2 

J 10.3 

Budget allocations to MAS actions 
are proportionate to the objective 
they aim to achieve; 
The Network did not achieve some 
of its objectives or some MAS 
actions due to insufficient funding; 
The Network could not add to 
AWPs new priority actions falling 
within the scope of the objectives of 
Council Decision 2009/902/JHA 
due to insufficient budgetary 
flexibility. 

To what extent have the resources allocated to the Network through the Internal Security Fund been sufficient for reaching the 
objectives of the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020)? 

► Level of adequacy of budget  

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

EQ11  Relevance 1 

To what extent has the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-
2020) been relevant in view of the EU needs/challenges? Is it still relevant in view of current needs and challenges? 

J 11.1 

Each action in the MAS 2016-2020 
can be clearly traced to one or 
more crime threats/EU political 
priorities 

J 11.2 

Actions implemented have been 
relevant to identified needs 

J 11.3 

J 11.4 

The EUCPN has mapped emerging 
needs and challenges 
The objectives of the EUCPN as set 
out in Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA and in the Multi-
Annual Strategy 2016-2020 leave 
room to address future challenges; 

EQ12  Relevance 2 

► Matrix of correspondence 
between goals/actions set in the MAS 
2016-2020 and specific strategic EU 
goals and policy priorities (e.g. EU 
Policy Cycle on SoC); 
► Indicators from questions on 
effectiveness 
► Level of satisfaction about the 
capacity of actions to meet needs and 
challenges 
► Description of future needs and 
challenges identified 

x  x 

x   

x   

x  x  x   

x 

x 

x  x   

x   

x   

x 

x 

x  x   

n.a.  

x  x  x  x   

x   

x   

To what extent has the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-
2020) been relevant in view of specific needs of stakeholders, in particular Member States and civil society? 

47 

The resources allocated to the 
EUCPN through the ISF have 
been sufficient to deliver on the 
objectives of the Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA and the MAS. 
However, the EUCPN is unable to 
make efficient use of the entirety 
of its budget, as allocated 
resources remain unspent due to 
cumbersome administrative 
procedures. 

The Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA is flexible enough 
for the EUCPN to adapt to 
emerging needs and challenges, 
and the actions successfully 
carried out to contribute to the EU 
policy and strategy of crime 
prevention and to contribute to 
various aspects of crime 
prevention at EU level in respect 
of the strategic priorities of EU, 
set the Network on the course to 
address current EU need and 
challenges, particularly through its 
participation in EMPACT. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 12.1 

The EUCPN has undertaken an 
assessment of the needs of its 
stakeholders; (same as 6.1) 

► same as J6,1 

J 12.2 

National and local stakeholders 
consider the outputs of the Network 
relevant to their needs 

► Level of satisfaction  

x 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
network to be making a 
positive contribution at the 
local level 

x 

x  x 

x  x 

x  x 

EQ13  Coherence 1 

To what extent are the actions carried out under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020) coherent with the objectives of the 
Council Decision 2009/902/JHA? 

J 13.1 

J 13.2 

There are no objectives set out in 
the Multi-Annual Strategy 2016-
2020 which are contradictory to 
objectives set out in Council 
Decision 2009/902/JHA; 
There are no actions carried out 
under the MAS misaligned with the 
objectives set by Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA; 

► Matrix of coherence between the 
objectives of the Council decision 
and the goals set in the MAS 2016-
2020; 

► Matrix of coherence between the 
actions of the Council decision and 
the goals set in the MAS 2016-2020; 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x  x 

x 

EQ14  Coherence 2 

J 14.1 

J 14.2 

MAS actions are consistent and 
aligned with EU policy 
developments in the field of 
security, name the priorities and 
approach set by EMPACT; 
The objectives of the EUCPN can 
be aligned to EU policy 
developments, namely to the 
priorities set by EMPACT, within 
the scope of the mandate 
established by Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA. 

To what extent are the objectives and activities determined by the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out 
under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020) coherent with other relevant EU policy developments, in the fields of security, 
including notably EMPACT on Serious and International Organised Crime? 

► Matrix of coherence between 
actions and priorities of EMPACT 

x 

x 

x 

x 

► Matrix of coherence between 
objectives and priorities of EMPACT 
► List of inconsistencies 

x 

x 

x 

x 

The EUCPN does not design its 
activities based on the needs 
voiced by its target groups, as it 
lacks the capacity to collect 
feedback at the national and local 
levels. Nonetheless, the analysis 
shows that stakeholders are mostly 
satisfied with the work of the 
EUCPN. 

Actions carried out under the 
MAS are generally consistent with 
and aligned to the objectives 
established by the Council 
Decision 

The objectives and activities 
determined by the Council 
Decision 2009/902/JHA enable 
the EUCPN to remain coherent 
with EU policy developments in 
the field of security. MAS actions 
and their corresponding 
operationalisation in AWPs are 
designed to ensure this coherence 
is retained, especially with 
EMPACT. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ15  Coherence 3 

To what extent are the objectives and activities determined by the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out 
under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020) coherent with other objectives and activities of EU agencies, including notably 
Europol, the EMCDDA, CEPOL, and of MS? 

J 15.1 

MAS actions are consistent and 
aligned with the activities of EU 
agencies (Europol, EMCDDA, 
CEPOL) or services (ATE within 
DG HOME); 

► Matrix of coherence between 
objectives of the EUCPN and 
objectives of other institutional 
initiatives at EU level 

J 15.2 

MAS actions are consistent and 
aligned with national strategies in 
the field of crime prevention; 

► Matrix of coherence between 
objectives of the EUCPN and 
national strategies 

J 15.3 

MAS actions are consistent and 
aligned with other initiatives at 
national level 

► Matrix of coherence between 
objectives of the EUCPN and 
national initiatives 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider crime 
prevention priorities 
addressed by the network to 
be relevant from a National 
perspective 
► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
network to be making a 
positive contribution at the 
local level 

x 

x 

x 

M
O
H
/
s
e
i
c
n
e
g
  a

E

x 

x 

x 

x  x 

x 

x 

x 

x  x 

The objectives and activities 
determined by the Council 
Decision 2009/902/JHA and MAS 
actions are coherent with the 
objectives and activities of other 
relevant EU Agencies. The 
coherence with the objectives and 
activities of the Member States is 
limited, as the EUCPN made a 
conscious decision to align to EU 
priorities rather than to the ones of 
Member States. 

EQ16  Coherence 4 

To what extent are the objectives and activities determined by the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out 
under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020) coherent with other objectives and activities of stakeholders active in the field of 
crime prevention? 

J 16.1 

MAS actions are consistent and 
aligned with the activities of other 
stakeholder active in the field of 
crime prevention 

► Matrix of coherence between 
objectives of the EUCPN and non-
institutional initiatives in the field of 
crime prevention 

► Extent to which 
respondents consider the 
network to be helpful to their 
own organisation 

x  x  x 

x  x 

EQ17  Coherence 5 / Relevance 3 

J 17.1 

There are no instances of activities 
carried out under the MAS 2016-
2020 which are obstructed by the 
legal framework set by Council 
Decision 2009/902/JHA; 

Is the Council Decision 2009/JHA/902/JHA still an adequate basis of the actions of the EUCPN and a comprehensive European 
crime prevention policy? 
► Extent to which interview 
respondents report alignment and 
complementarity between the 
EUCPN framework and mandate and 
the goals and actions set in the MAS 
2016-2020. 

x  x  x 

E
M
O
H

x  x 

x 

Target groups of the Network 
suggested other relevant initiatives 
that the Network could engage 
with and align to. However, there 
is no active push for alignment. 

The legal framework designed by 
Council Decision 
2009/JHA/902/JHA proved to 
provide sufficient room for 
flexibility to adapt to new 
priorities in crime prevention. If 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 17.2 

J 17.3 

J 17.4 

J 17.5 

The EUCPN legal basis provides 
the Network with a sufficient 
mandate to adequately fulfil its 
current objectives; 
The EUCPN legal basis provides 
the Network with sufficient 
resources to adequately fulfil its 
current objectives; 
The EUCPN legal basis provides 
the Network with a sufficient 
mandate to adequately respond to 
emerging objectives and priorities 
in crime prevention; 
The EUCPN legal basis provides 
the Network with sufficient 
resources to adequately respond to 
emerging objectives and priorities 
in crime prevention. 

EQ18  EU Added Value 1 

J 18.1 

The results achieved on a common 
strategy and standardised solutions 
on crime prevention at the EU level 
would not have been achieved at 
all, would have been achieved to a 
smaller extent, or would have taken 
more time to materialise without 
EU intervention and funding. 

J 18.2 

EU, national and local crime 
prevention stakeholders would lack 
a forum for discussion in the 
absence of the EUCPN; 

the will to scale up the activities 
and elevate the profile of the 
Network arises, the legal basis 
might have to be adjusted to fully 
serve this purpose. 

► Level of satisfaction by 
respondents 

► Level of satisfaction by 
respondents 

► Level of satisfaction by 
respondents 

► Level of satisfaction by 
respondents 

► N. of respondents who 
consider the mandate of 
Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA appropriate 

x 

x  x  x 

x  x 

x 

x  x  x 

x  x 

► N. of respondents who 
consider the mandate of 
Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA appropriate 

x 

x  x  x 

x  x 

x 

x  x  x 

x  x 

E
M
O
H

E
M
O
H

E
M
O
H

E
M
O
H

What is the European added value of the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out under the Multi-Annual 
Strategy (2016-2020)? Could the main findings (results/outputs) presented in the evaluation have been achieved without EU 
intervention? 

  x 

x 

  x  x 

  x  x  x 

  x 

x 

  x  x 

  x  x  x 

  x 

The Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA brings concrete 
added value to its target groups 
across the EU that would not 
otherwise find comparable 
alternatives providing the same 
services. These results – EU wide 
sector specific knowledge sharing, 
meeting and exchange 
opportunities – could not have 
been achieved without EU 
intervention and funding. 

► Extent to which survey 
respondents and interviewees 
consider the EUCPN adds value that 
could not be achieved otherwise in 
its absence. 

► N. of networking events in the 
field of crime prevention catering to 
the same stakeholders targeted by the 
EUCPN; 
► Instances of overlapping topics in 
published material by other 
organisations; 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 18.2 

J 18.3 

J 18.4 

J 18.5 

National/local best practices on 
crime prevention would have 
remained unknown to other 
Member States in the absence of the 
EUCPN, 
MS would have not found 
alternative adequate support on the 
‘market’ to develop their crime 
prevention institutional set-ups or 
upgrade their crime prevention 
activities in the absence of the 
EUCPN; 
The EU strategy on crime 
prevention would lack consistency 
and alignment with other initiatives 
in the security field in the absence 
of the EUCPN;  
EU wide cooperation and 
coordination on crime prevention 
solutions would have not occurred 
or would have been smaller in 
scope without EU intervention and 
funding; 

19 

EU Added Value 2 

Understanding 

EQ20  EU Added Value 3 

► N. of research projects in Member 
States which received support under 
the EUCPN work programmes; 
► Reported usage of 
recommendation on assessing the 
impact of crime preventive work; 
► Extent to which survey 
respondents and interviewees 
consider the EUCPN adds value that 
could not be achieved otherwise in 
its absence. 

► Reported usage of EUCPN 
information on funding for crime 
prevention by national and local 
stakeholders; 

► Extent to which survey 
respondents and interviewees 
consider the EUCPN adds value that 
could not be achieved otherwise in 
its absence. 

► Trend in participants to the events 
of the EUCPN 
► Level of satisfaction about 
cooperation across MS 

  x 

x 

  x  x 

  x  x  x 

  x 

x 

  x  x  x  x  x  x 

x 

  x  x  x  x  x  x 

x  x   

x 

x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x 

What is the additional value resulting from EUCPN activities, compared to what could be achieved by Member States at 
national, regional or local levels? 

Deleted due to overlap with the previous question 

To what extent are the outcomes of the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020) 
sustainable? Are the effects likely to last after the intervention ends? 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 20.1 

J 20.2 

► Extent to which CP practitioners 
collaborate on other initiatives 

Crime prevention practitioners who 
got in touch through the Network 
keep in touch and collaborate 
without the support of the Network;  
The prevention perspective is now 
embedded in the EU policy debate 
on security and in the activities of 
EU services and agencies working 
in the security field; 

J 20.3 

Assessing the impact of crime 
prevention activities is mainstream 
practice across the EU; 

► Level of usage of indicators on 
crime prevention 

ev
al 

x  x  x   

x 

x 

  x 

  x  x 

  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

EQ21  EU Added Value 4 

What would be the most likely consequences of not having an EU-wide crime prevention policy and a EUCPN? 

J 21.1 

Consequences of not having a 
EUCPN can be identified 

► List of consequences 

L
A
V
E

x  x  x  x  x  x 

  x 

The outcomes of Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA and the MAS 
display sustainable traits. Some of 
the activities of the EUCPN have 
a lasting effect beyond their 
original scope, mainly by setting 
up exchanges and collaborations 
which evolve outside of the 
perimeter of the Network. One 
stronger effect is the 
dissemination of the evaluation 
culture. 

Without EU intervention the target 
groups of the EUCPN would not 
have a comparable transnational 
and multidisciplinary forum to get 
access to analogous services and 
information. Only some of them 
have a clear alternative at the 
national level, in those Member 
States with a NCPC. In light of 
this, the most likely consequences 
of a reduction or withdrawal of 
EU involvement, with an 
interruption of the functions 
carried out by EUCPN, are either 
greater difficulties for users to 
find and access the same 
information and services, or the 
complete impossibility to do it. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ22  EU Added Value 5 

Could the results, delivered through the implementation of the Council Decision 2009/902/JHA and the actions carried out 
under the Multi-Annual Strategy (2016-2020), have been achieved with no European funding? Could the use of other policy 
instruments or mechanisms, on European and/or national level, have provided better cost-effectiveness? 

J 22.1 

J 22.2 

J 22.3 

Results would have been achieved 
without EU funding 
Existence of funding opportunities 
at national and local level 
National and local initiatives on 
crime prevention are more cost- 
effective 

► See answers to EU AV 1 

► Level of availability of financial 
resources at national and local level 
► Rating on cost effectiveness of 
other initiatives (compared to 
EUCPN activities) 

x 

x 

x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

J 22.4 

There are alternatives to the 
EUCPN that allow to reach the 
same results 

► List of alternatives 

x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

  x  x 

When it comes to alternative 
support for crime prevention 
activities provided at the national 
and local level, over 50% of 
stakeholders report the other 
sources of funding such as 
Ministries and other national 
agencies (e.g. national agency for 
research), National Crime 
Prevention Councils, regional 
authorities and municipalities. EU 
funding is also mentioned among 
alternatives, including ISF, 
Hercule III, Customs 2020, 
EMPACT, Horizon 2020. 
Looking at possible alternatives to 
the EUCPN, interviewees report 
no other comparable forum for 
meeting and discussing crime 
prevention topics in a cross-
cutting, multi-disciplinary way 
(Finding 45). Other initiatives 
mentioned are theme-specific (e.g. 
Confederation of European 
Probation) or many addressed to 
specific profiles (e.g. academics, 
European Society of 
Criminology). The initiative with 
the most point in common with 
the EUCPN is EFUS, although 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ 23  Coherence 6 

J 23.1 

J 23.2 

Objectives determined by Council 
Decision are consistent and aligned 
with the relevant EU legal regime 
as identified by the Steering 
Committee 
Activities determined by Council 
Decision are consistent and aligned 
with the relevant EU legal regime 
as identified by the Steering 
Committee 

To what extent are the objectives and activities determined by Council Decision 2009/902/JHA coherent with the relevant EU 
legal regime? 

► Matrix of coherence between 
objectives of the Council Decision 
and the objectives of the EU legal 
regime 

► Matrix of coherence between 
activities of the Council Decision and 
the EU legal regime 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EFUS is mainly addressed to 
municipalities. 

The Council Decision ensures 
sufficient mandate to guarantee 
the EUCPN can coherently pursue 
a comprehensive European crime 
prevention policy. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Type of 
benefits/costs 

Stakeholders 
impacted 

Qualitative description of 
costs/benefits  

Limitations in quantification/monetisation  

- 

It is not possible to calculate the number 
of  individuals  and  organisations  using 
the services of the EUCPN. 

-  The  intangible  nature  of  the  identified 
benefits  (relating  to  new  insights  on 
crime  prevention,  implementation  of 
measures/practical tools) 

-  Difficulty to measure whether EUCPN 
output  has  (directly  or 
indirectly) 
contributed  to  crime  prevention  policy 
development in the EU 

Direct benefits:  

-  Platform for the 
exchange of best 
practices on crime 
prevention 

-  Uniform access to 
services on crime 
prevention 
-  Theoretical and 

practical insights on 
crime prevention to 
be used to guide 
national and EU 
policies  
-  Practical 

tools/measures for 
crime prevention 
practitioners  

Indirect benefits: 

- 

the Network is used 
as a platform to scout 
for partners for EU 
funded projects   
-  EUCPN materials can 
be interpreted to 
determine the key 
topics of interest to 
the Commission, in 

55 

Economic and 
social benefits 

  Direct & 
Indirect 
  Recurring  

Individuals 
(Victims), 
policymakers 
and 
practitioners on 
crime 
prevention at 
EU, national 
and local level, 
society as a 
whole 

Individuals 
(Victims), 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Society as a 
whole 

- 

order to inform 
project proposals 
evaluated best 
practices shared by 
the Network are used 
as leverage for 
lobbying internally in 
favour of prevention 
activities within 
members’ their own 
administration. 

Economic costs  

  Direct 
  Recurring  

Public 
Administrations 
(at EU and 
national levels)  

While the direct costs to the EU budget 
were easy to quantify, indirect costs 
incurred by the Members of the EUCPN 
were not, due to: 

-  Varying  national 

administrative 

structures and networks 

-  Differences  in  translation  burden 

depending on the language 

-  Differences  in  time  spent  and  costs 

of this time 

Direct costs 

- 

ISF funding to support 
the EUCPN, currently 
amounting to approx. 1 
million euros per year 
(5% co-financed by 
EUMS)  

Indirect costs 

-  Costs incurred by 
participation of  
EUCPN members 
(translation, 
attendance of 
meetings, preparation 
of contributions to 
EUCPN output)  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1.  Objectives of the consultation  

A series of consultations with key stakeholders was carried out in support of the evaluation 
to help assess the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and relevance of 
the European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN).  

The overall architecture of the study is based on several activities that are closely linked to 
each other. These are, accordingly:  

  The  development  of  an  evaluation  framework,  which  consists  in  setting  up  and 
operationalising the overarching methodology for the study, and which has been 
undertaken in the “Inception Phase” of the study; 

  Undertaking a Literature review, Consultation activities and Case studies, which 
are aimed at gathering evidence to answer the evaluation questions, as part of the 
“Fieldwork phase” of the study; 

  Completing  the  data  Collection  and  analysis,  which  is  mainly  focused  on  the 

analysis of the evidence gathered. 

The evaluation focused,  inter alia, on the structure, functioning, performance and more 
generally at the work of the EUCPN. It assessed the performance of the Network against 
the objectives laid down by its legal basis, vis-à-vis the five evaluation criteria mentioned 
above.  In  doing  so,  the  study  covered  the  MAS  and  the  Annual  Work  Programmes 
(AWPs); Outputs of the Network, as well as Policy documents mainly  related to  crime 
prevention at EU, national, and sub-national levels. 

2.  Consultation methods and tools 

Involvement  of  the  EUCPN  Board,  EUCPN  Secretariat,  EUCPN  National 
Representatives/National  Contact  Points  (NRs/NCPs)  was  ensured  throughout  the 
Study. These provided input through exploratory and targeted interviews, helping to both 
set  the  expectations  of  the  external  study  and  to  help  validate  and  triangulate  the  desk 
research,  also  helping  to  fill  in  any  gaps  with  regard  to  the  assessment  of  the  baseline 
situation.  

Moreover,  individual  interviews  were  conducted  with  key  stakeholders  (National, 
Regional  and  Local  authorities,  EU  officials,  practitioners,  Non-Governmental 
Organisations/Civil  Society  Organisations  (NGOs/CSOs),  selected  benchmarking 
organisations (such as European Migration Network (EMN), European Forum for Urban 
Security (EFUS), International Juvenile Justice Observatory - IJJO) and academia). 

A survey was deployed using the contractor’s survey tool, addressed to all the stakeholders 
mentioned  above,  along  with  relevant  international  organisations  involved  in  crime 
prevention activities. In total, 87 responses were received, 22 from academics and experts, 

57 

 
 
 
8  from  EU  Institutions  or  Agencies,  24  from  EUCPN  NR  /  NCP,  7  from  EUCPN 
Secretariat,  4  from  international  organisations,  20  from  National,  Regional  or  Local 
authorities, and 2 from NGOs and CSOs. 

Consultation of the general public was ensured by means of a public consultation in all 
EU official languages.  

3.  Results of the consultation activities 

4.  Interviews and attendance in workshops 

Given the priority attributed to face-to-face interviews, interviewees were mainly selected 
based  on  their  availability  at  events  organised  by  the  EUCPN.  In  December  2019,  the 
contractor  attended  the  Board  meeting  and  Best  practice  Conference  in  Helsinki  to 
interview EUCPN NRs, while in February 2020 the contractor travelled to Brussels for the 
National  Crime  Prevention  Councils  (NCPCs)  meeting  and  the  European  Crime 
Prevention  Conference,  with  the  objective  of  engaging  a  mix  of  crime  prevention 
practitioners and NRs. 

These  meetings  provided  a  great  opportunity  to  address  the  stakeholders  directly.  The 
European Crime Prevention Conference in particular, was effective in attracting suitable 
respondents, both in terms of quantity and variety of profiles, but created a disproportionate 
availability of  Belgian nationals,  which,  at  some point, the  contractor had to  discard to 
avoid ending up with an unbalanced sample of respondents. 

In addition to the 4 exploratory interviews, a total of 54 interviews were performed (some 
individual,  some  interviews  involving  more  than  one  stakeholder);  several  individuals 
(including key EUCPN stakeholders) were interviewed more than once. The figure and the 
table below provide a breakdown of interviews performed by stakeholder category. 

Figure 1 - Distribution of stakeholders involved in the interviews 

Distribution of stakeholders involved in interviews by category

25

20

15

10

5

0

23

13

4

6

5

3

EUCPN
Secretariat

NR or
substitute/NCP

Authority
specialised in
CP

Academics
and/or experts

NGO or CSO EU Institution

or agency

International
organisation

0

58 

 
 
 
 
Table 4 - Stakeholders targeted in the interviews 

Tool 

Categories of stakeholders 

Interests represented 

Nr of 
stakeholders 
targeted 

s
w
e
i
v
r
e
t
n
i

y
r
o
t
a
r
o
l
p
x
E

s
w
e
i
v
r
e
t
n
I

s
w
e
i
v
r
e
t
n
I

Chair of the EUCPN Board 

EUCPN Member States 

Commission representative on the EUCPN 
Board 

European Commission, DG 
HOME 

EUCPN ExCom member 

EUCPN Member States 

EUCPN Secretariat 

EUCPN management  

EUCPN Secretariat 

EUCPN management  

EUCPN NRs/ 

NCPs 

Local authorities specialised in crime 
prevention, including: 

Member States 

Local stakeholders involved in 
crime prevention activities 

Various specialists dealing with 
crime prevention 

Not-for-profit organisations 
dealing with crime prevention 
activities 

Various European agencies or 
bodies dealing with and involved 
in activities related to crime 
prevention  

 

Law enforcement;  
Judiciary authorities; 

 
  Other governmental (e.g. National 
Crime Prevention Councils) 
Academics and crime prevention experts 
(other than NCPs) 

Specialised NGOs/CSOs 

EU Institutions, Bodies and Networks, 
including: 

  European Union’s Law Enforcement 

Agency (Europol); 

  European Union Agency for Law 
Enforcement Training (CEPOL); 
  European Monitoring Centre for 
Drugs and Drug Addiction 
(EMCDDA);  

  European Network on the 

Administrative Approach (ENAA) 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

23 

13 

6 

3 

5 

The  following  sections  provide  a  summary  of  the  views  expressed  on  the  different 
evaluation criteria.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Effectiveness 

The Network improved sensibly its effectiveness by building on the recommendations of 
the  2012  evaluation,  however,  this  progress  is  uneven  across  the  board.  Visibility  has 
improved,  both  at  the  national  and  EU  level,  the  network  is  gradually  stepping  up  its 
collaboration with  EU stakeholders,  and the quality of outputs is  generally  appreciated, 
both in terms of materials and networking opportunities. The Network is contributing to 
policymaking at the EU level; however, this is not mirrored by greater influence on crime 
prevention policies at the national and local level. Dissemination still lags behind and the 
Network struggles to reach the local level, due to both internal and external factors.  

The  visibility  of  the  Network  has  increased  in  Member  States  in  recent  years.  The 
communication strategy  which combines  a new  visual identity with  visual  assets, well-
crafted campaigns and special events such as the ‘focus days’ on specific crime topics were 
mentioned as effective activities in raising the attention.  

The visibility has also increased at the EU level, as the Network pursued and established 
relationships with key partners, notably Europol and CEPOL. The extent of collaboration 
is described as limited yet baring high potential. The Network is also actively contributing 
to  EMPACT  groups.  Involved  parties  appreciate  that  the  EUCPN  has  brought  the 
prevention perspective to the table.  

The output of the network is generally appreciated by the great majority of interviewees, 
with a clear preference for practical materials (e.g. Toolboxes) and informative sessions 
on concrete crime prevention projects (e.g. Best Practice Conference and European Crime 
Prevention  Award  -  BPC-ECPA).  However,  stakeholders  lament  the  lack  of  support  to 
contextualise  best  practices,  which  is  seen  as  a  priority  to  support  crime  prevention 
activities at the national and local level.  

In  general,  the  Network  encounters  difficulties  in  reaching  beyond  the  national  level. 
Stakeholders reported no instances of feedback requests, and the Network recognises it 
does not have the capacity to collect, nor process, feedback from the local level.  

Problems with disseminations are attributed to a combination of factors. Some linked to 
the Network itself, namely lack of proactivity from NRs and lack of capacity to translate 
materials in national languages. Others depending on external factors which obstruct the 
work  of  NRs,  including:  clash  of  competences  between  NRs  and  other  public  bodies; 
fragmentation in administrative structure; lack of a national relay network able to reach 
intended  stakeholders  (e.g.  national/local  crime  prevention  councils);  cultural  and/or 
political factors, namely the lack of interest in prevention tout court or, conversely, strong 
confidence in national resources on crime prevention which leads stakeholders to disregard 
what comes from the rest of the EU. 

While  the  membership  is  internally  split  about  the  extent  to  which  the  evidence-based 
criterion  should  dictate  what  is  shared  by  the  Network,  stakeholders  overwhelmingly 
recognise the meaningful contribution the EUCPN is making towards spreading the culture 
of evaluation of crime prevention activities across the EU, even when they disagree with 
the proposition itself. 

60 

 
Efficiency 

The Network is unanimously seen as positive initiative, yielding more benefits than costs. 
To the target groups of the Network the balance could not be any different. No matter how 
little  they  make  use  of  the  services  of  the  Network  and  how  small  the  benefits  they 
reap/gain, no unintended costs emerged from the stakeholder consultation. All interviewed 
stakeholders ultimately agree that the Network is good value for money. 

Target  groups  of  the  network  list  several  benefits.  Some  are  aligned  with  the  Network 
stated  objectives  while  others  are  spill  over  benefits.  Within  the  first  category,  target 
groups praise the network for sharing practical toolkits, thematic insights and inspirational 
best practices, and for providing networking and knowledge-sharing opportunities which, 
some say, give form to  substance as they embody the multidisciplinary nature of crime 
prevention. Within the second category, some see the Network as a platform to scout for 
partners for EU funded projects. Some reported using EUCPN materials to interpret what 
are  the  key  topics  of  interest  to  the  Commission  when  writing  project  proposals,  while 
others  use  evaluated  best  practices  shared  by  the  Network  as  leverage  for  lobbying 
internally in favour of prevention activities within their own administration. 

While recognising these benefits, NRs also report costs connected to their position. The 
majority  indicate  that  their  role  as  NRs  is  just  an  extra  task  on  top  of  other  full-time 
commitments, among them some consider it still a manageable activity, others share the 
opinion that their role requires a bigger time investment than expected. NRs also report 
financial costs connected to the dissemination of Network materials that they are unable to 
cover, namely translation and printing costs, for which no resources have been earmarked 
by the body they represent. 

All  stakeholders  involved  in  the  EUCPN  governance  share  the  opinion  that  the  high 
turnover of NRs entails a considerable cost for the Network. The lack of continuity within 
the Board results in an inefficient use of time during Board meetings and impoverishes the 
quality of discussions since newer NRs are less inclined to provide their contribution.  

The  Secretariat  itself  faces  a  number  of  administrative  hurdles  which  make  its  work 
considerably less efficient. With the Network being an Internal Security Fund (ISF) funded 
project managed by the Belgian Ministry of Interior, the Secretariat has to navigate two 
financial regulations which result in considerable resources spent on untangling red tape. 
The obstacles to budgetary flexibility have emerged as a key factor hindering the efficient 
management  of  a  financial  envelope  otherwise  considered  adequate  by  the  majority  of 
stakeholders  consulted.  The  current  funding  mechanism,  which  renews  the  grant  to  the 
Network on a yearly o bi-yearly basis, has reportedly another negative side effect. Relevant 
stakeholders approached by the Network are less willing to invest in a relationship when 
there is no guarantee that the EUCPN will still be there in a couple of years. 

Coherence 

When looking at internal coherence, according to stakeholders consulted the Network was 
able to pursue the goals and implement the actions of the MAS within the framework set 
by its legal basis. Questions arise on whether the responsibility borne by the Secretariat to 
represent  the  Network  within  EMPACT,  a  task  considered  to  be  out  of  scope  of  the 

61 

 
Secretariat’s  mandate  set  by  the  legal  basis  could  represent  an  exception.  None  of  the 
interviewees opposes the choice to have the Secretariat fulfil this role. There appears to be 
tension on whether the mandate, as laid down in Council Decision 902/2009/JHA, might 
have to be adjusted to the current needs and expectations of the governance of the Network. 
One shared opinion across the board is that to fulfil current expectations, the next MAS 
should reflect the level of ambition of the Network and that the legal basis could be an 
impediment to that. 

When looking at external coherence, the governance of the Network highlights the efforts 
made  to  explore,  establish,  and  cultivate  mutually  beneficial  relationships  with  key 
stakeholders to ensure coherence and complementarity of the objectives and activities of 
the Network with the objectives and activities of relevant EU Agencies, namely Europol, 
EMCDDA, CEPOL, and other relevant initiatives in the field of security (e.g. European 
Network  on  the  Administrative  Approach  -  ENAA).  The  counterparts  report  positive 
however  limited  scope  of  collaboration,  while  noting  that  the  level  of  ambition  of  the 
Network is greater than what has been accomplished so far. 

When looking at coherence with Member States’ initiatives, it could be argued that these 
vary from unique and context specific – therefore leaving no room for any real alignment 
but  presenting  no  issue  of  duplication  as  well  –  to  initiatives  that  are  so  aligned  that 
potential for complementarity, but also duplication, are extremely high. The latter may be 
the case of NCPCs, which often fulfil at the national level what the Network aims to do at 
the EU level. Since 2018 the Network works more closely with NCPC to explore areas of 
complementarity and demarcation. 

EU added value 

The value of having an EU-wide initiative dedicated to crime prevention which provides 
networking opportunities, develops relevant materials, collects and shares best practices, 
is recognised by all consulted stakeholders, even by those who declare that the level of 
support  does  not  meet  their  expectations.  The  Network  covers  topics  otherwise 
unaddressed by many Member States. Stakeholders agree that these activities, at this scale, 
would have not been achieved without EU intervention. 

Interviewees  report  no  other  comparable  forum  for  meeting  and  discussing  crime 
prevention topics in a cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary way. Other initiatives mentioned 
are  theme-specific  (e.g.  Confederation  of  European  Probation)  or  many  addressed  to 
specific profiles (e.g. academics, European Society of Criminology).  

Several interviewees report ongoing collaboration with people met through the EUCPN on 
initiatives not connected to the Network. Some, for instance, report entering in project-
based collaboration loops lasting over the years, indicating that the exchanges set in motion 
by the Network have a sustainable component. 

The  collection  and  sharing  of  best  practices  on  crime  prevention,  however,  is  not  an 
exclusive monopoly of the EUCPN. Several stakeholders report using alternative sources, 
often from countries with a more developed culture of prevention (e.g. Sweden, the UK, 
Canada), regional similarities (e.g. Nordics, Baltics, Luxembourg with bordering regions) 

62 

 
or  sharing  a  common  language  (e.g.  Austria,  Germany,  Switzerland).  Some  states  are 
sufficiently served by national production." 

Interviewees  overwhelmingly  agree  that  the  absence  of  the  EUCPN  Prevention  would 
bring negative  consequences, as crime prevention would lose its voice  at the EU level. 
Some  are  confident  that  something  else  would  take  its  place  explaining  that  crime 
prevention is a necessity that would require to be addressed anyway, however losing the 
EUCPN would mean staring over, less developed and with a lower level of ambition. 

Relevance 

Interviewed  stakeholders  unanimously 
systematically align its priorities to the ones identified by EMPACT. 

recognise 

that 

the  EUCPN  worked 

to 

The Network started by contributing to three European Multidisciplinary Platform Against 
Criminal  Threats  (EMPACT)  groups  in  the  2018-2021  EMPACT  Policy  Cycle  – 
Organised Property Crime (OPC), Trafficking in human beings (THB), and Child Sexual 
Exploitation (CSE) – and further expanded its output to cover other EMPACT priorities 
such  as  environmental  crime  and  synthetic  drugs.  As  mentioned  in  the  section  on 
effectiveness,  evidence  suggests  that  the  EUCPN  still  needs  to  get  accustomed  to  the 
EMPACT internal workings. However, involved parties consider the contribution of the 
Network to be relevant as it brings the prevention perspective to the table. 

Opinions  are  mixed  on  the  Network’s  alignment  to  EMPACT  priorities,  and  to  EU 
priorities in general. Some strongly support it and would like to see this trend even further 
reinforced,  as  they  consider  the  alignment  as  vital  for  an  EU  network  to  stay  relevant. 
Others lament the Network’s new direction as a shift in focus away from crime priorities 
more  commonly  addressed  at  the  national  and  local  level  by  prevention  activities 
(examples  mentioned:  domestic  violence,  youth  crime,  prevention  of  re-offending, 
restorative justice), making its work less relevant for its target groups. Another common 
opinion falls somewhat between the two; stakeholders in this third group recognise that the 
priorities the Network is focusing on can vary sensibly from the ones in the Member States, 
however,  they  consider  this  to  be  an  advantage  as  it  guarantees  a  broader  coverage  of 
topics. Member States can continue to work on their national and local priorities, while the 
Network  addresses  topics  that  have  a  stronger  cross-regional  dimension,  making  the 
Network even more relevant.  

Opinions  also  differ  on  the  impact  of  the  rotating  Presidencies  on  the  relevance  of  the 
Network.  The  choice  of  a  new  topic  to  focus  on  every  six  months  is  seen  either  as  an 
effective tool to  reconcile EU and national  priorities, or as a forced  compromise; some 
Member  States  do  not  feel  completely  free  in  picking  the  desired  topic  during  their 
chairmanship,  as  they  feel  pressured  to  select  something  falling  within  the  scope  of 
EMPACT.  

Some target groups describe the rotating Presidencies as an asset that provides the Network 
with the necessary flexibility to adapt to current and emerging needs in crime prevention. 
Others contest the very notion of “emerging needs” in crime prevention, as they consider 
it an abused term to indicate old issues newly elevated to a political priority. 

63 

 
 
5.  Stakeholder survey 

At the cut-off date 13 March 2020, the survey totalled 78 responses. However, at the time 
of the analysis, 87 completed questionnaires were received, and used as source of input. 
The Team restructured survey responses into a working dataset to conduct the analysis of 
responses  contained  in  this  report.  The  online  survey  was  designed  so  as  to  invite 
respondents to answer only questions related to their stakeholder group.57 The identity of 
respondents was determined based of the responses given to the introductory section of the 
questionnaire. The table below provide a breakdown of survey respondents by stakeholder 
category. 

Table 5 - Stakeholders engaged in the survey 

Categories of stakeholders 

Interests represented 

Nr of stakeholders 
engaged 

EUCPN Secretariat 

EUCPN management 

EUCPN NRs or substitute 

EUCPN Member State 

EUCPN NCPs 

EUCPN Member State 

National and local authority 

National and local stakeholders involved 
in crime prevention activities 

Academics and crime prevention 
experts  

Various  specialists  dealing  with  crime 
prevention 

NGO and CSOs 

EU institutions/services 

International organisations 

Non-profit  groups  dealing  with  crime 
prevention activities 

Various  European 
and 
services  dealing  with  and  involved  in 
activities related to crime prevention 

institutions 

Various international bodies dealing with 
and involved in activities related to crime 
prevention 

7 

21 

2 

20 

22 

3 

8 

4 

The  following  sections  provide  a  summary  of  the  views  expressed  on  the  different 
evaluation criteria.  

57  Stakeholder  groups  were:  NRs;  NCPs;  EUCPN  Secretariat;  National  and  local  authorities;  EU 
Institutions/services; Academics and crime prevention experts; International Organisations; NGOs and 
CSOs. 

64 

 
 
 
                                                           
Effectiveness 

The first issue explored in the survey concerns the definition of crime prevention58 within 
the  EUCPN,  to  understand  whether  it  aligns  with  that  of  the  Member  States.  73 
stakeholders  answered  this  specific  question.  The  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  (75%) 
reported that this was the case, with only 14 (19%) stating that there was no alignment 
between the definition of crime prevention of the EUCPN and that of their Member States. 
It is interesting to note here that responses indicating an alignment with the new definition 
of crime prevention adopted by the EUCPN are spread fairly equally across the different 
categories of stakeholders considered, despite the different orientations of, for instance, 
practitioners and academics towards knowledge. With regard to the activities performed 
by  the  network,  the  questions  posed  to  stakeholders  were  aimed  at  understanding  (i) 
whether they are aware of the tools and materials made available by the EUCPN and (ii) 
whether they find such materials useful and effective. The list of materials for which these 
questions were posed is as follows: 

 

Initiatives/best practices from EU Member States; 

  National crime prevention strategies; 

 

Information on European Crime Prevention Award candidate and winning projects; 

  Campaign materials; 

  Toolboxes; 

  Research papers; 

  Policy documents; 

  Training materials; 

  Reports; 

  Booklets; 

  Monitors. 

In total, 80 stakeholders responded to these questions, with the results reported below.  

58 Crime prevention are ethically acceptable and evidence-based activities aimed at reducing the risk of crime 
occurring and its harmful consequences with the ultimate goal of working towards the improvement of 
the quality of life and safety of individuals, groups and communities 

65 

 
                                                           
Figure 2 - Responses to question “Are you aware of the following materials provided by 
EUCPN?”
the 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

78%

73%

74%

74%

73%

70%

73%

58%

54%

46%

37%

Yes No

From the Figure above, it is clear that there is significant heterogeneity within practitioner 
responses in the overall knowledge concerning the tools made available by the Network. 
While more than 70% of respondents  are aware  of best  practice dissemination, reports, 
policy documents and research papers, fewer than 60% of respondents were aware of more 
operational  material  such  as  booklets,  training  material,  national  crime  prevention 
strategies and monitors. 

Figure 3 - Responses to question “To what extent do you make use of the following 
materials provided by the EUCPN?” 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

Initiatives/best
practices from
EU Member
States

Information on
European
Crime
Prevention
Award
candidate and
winning
projects

Campaign
materials

Toolboxes National crime

prevention
strategies

Research
papers

Training
materials

Policy
documents

Reports

Booklets

Monitors

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Besides  the  knowledge  of  the  material,  the  survey  was  also  used  to  gauge  whether 
practitioners make an effective use of the tools made available by the EUCPN. Results are 
reported in the Figure above: the primary axis provides a normalised59 average of responses 
for each of the materials listed above, while the secondary axis indicates the number of 
respondents. In order to magnify differences, the scale in both the primary and secondary 
axes is not set to zero. These results lead to some expectable conclusions but also to some 
surprising results. For instance, it is to be expected that the most know tool (best practices) 
is also the most used, and that Monitors, of which stakeholders are least aware, are the tool 

59 Respondents were asked to provide their responses on a scale going from one (do not make any use at all 
of the material) to five (extensive use of the material). In order to achieve a normalised average the point 
scores  were  multiplied  by  the  number  of  responses  and  then  divided  by  the  overall  responses.  For 
example, if three respondents answered “1. Not at all” and three respondents answered “2. To a small 
degree”, the normalised average would be calculated as ((1*3) + (2*3)) / 6 = 1.5.  

66 

 
 
 
                                                           
that tends to be less used. However, it is surprising to see that, on the one hand, national 
crime prevention strategies, while not widely known, are considered quite useful by the 
stakeholders that are aware of them; and that, on the other hand, reports, which are widely 
known amongst practitioners, tend to see less practical use. 

Another interesting point explored in the effectiveness dimensions concerns the extent to 
which  the  division  of  roles  and  responsibilities  between  the  Board,  the  Executive 
Committee,  the  Secretariat  and  the  National  Contact  Points  clear.  Open  responses 
concerning this point clearly indicate that the issue at stake is not so much the clarity of 
roles;  rather  it  concerns  the  active  engagement  on  the  part  of  Member  States  (or  lack 
thereof). For instance, one respondent mentioned that “roles are clear, but except during 
their  presidency,  most  national  representatives  are  not  much  involved.  Information 
exchange  on  Board  Meetings  is  unidirectional,  from  Secretariat  to  Board.”  Other 
responses echoed this sentiment: “roles and responsibilities are clear, the implementation 
thereof is however lacking or skewed. […] National contact points are almost non-existing. 
The Secretariat drives the Network.”  

This  perceived  lack  of  engagement  on  the  part  of  Member  States  also  seems  to  drive 
responses to the question “to what extent is the information flow between the Secretariat 
and the Board effective?” Open responses focused on mentioning that the current workload 
of  the  Board  is  quite  low,  as  the  Secretariat  performs  most  activities.  This  is 
understandable,  given  the  high-ranking  functions  of  our  Board  Members  and  the  more 
operational role of the Secretariat. A more active role of Member States was called for, 
mentioning that two face to face meetings per year between Board and Secretariat might 
not be sufficient to keep the Network up to date with all the ongoing initiatives. Member 
States also reflected this point of view, mentioning that such meetings should focus less 
on “giving information” to the participants, making board meetings more interactive. 

Efficiency 

The  main  question  included  in  the  survey  to  gauge  the  point  of  view  of  stakeholders 
concerning the overarching efficiency of the Network was the following: “to what extent 
costs and benefits of the Network are proportionate?” In total, 29 responses were received 
from EUCPN National Representatives or substitutes and EUCPN Secretariat members. 
As reported in the Figure below, a convincing majority of EUCPN practitioners (19/29) 
which responded to the question reported that the costs and benefits of the Network are 
commensurate  to  a  high  or  very  high  extent.  Looking  specifically  at  the  areas  for 
improvement concerning this dimension, respondents reported a few main points: 

  The Network should work on further improving coordination activities, with a view 
towards  avoiding  the  risk  of  potential  overlaps;  on  this  matter  respondents 
mentioned  that  Member  States  would  need  to  inform  the  Secretariat  more  often 
concerning they expect from the Secretariat and from the Network as a whole; 

  Building on the point above, respondents mentioned that a more active involvement 
of all Member States would be desirable, as some activities only make sense if a 
“critical mass” of respondents is reached (this is especially true for the stocktaking 

67 

 
of policies: if only a limited number of Member States provide data and complete 
the templates, the Network will only be able to leverage partial information and 
will only be able to provide an incomplete picture, reducing overall efficiency and 
added value).  

  To  address  the  common  points  raised  above,  one  respondent  suggested  to  start 
using national focal points paid directly by the EUCPN, mentioning that while this 
would cost more it would solve gaps and other difficulties which now results in 
often limited analysis, as discussed above. In general, EUCPN meetings should be 
made more effective and value adding, focusing on the exchange of ideas on crime 
prevention with between Member States and providing a more complete picture of 
the situation.  

 

Figure 4 - Responses to question “To what extent costs and benefits of the Network are 
proportionate?” 

Coherence 

A  proxy  for  the  overall  internal  coherence  of  the  Network  concerns  the  MAS  and  the 
implementation of the AWPs. Three questions were asked on this point, concerning: 

  The extent to which the MAS provides adequate policy orientation; 

  The extent to which the MAS outlines the activities which are necessary to achieve 

the Network’s objectives; 

  The extent to which the Network is able to implement the actions of the AWP. 

Results are reported in Figure 5 below. The questions received 29 responses from members 
of the EUCPN Secretariat and EUCPN national Representatives or substitutes. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5 - Focus on Multi-Annual strategy and Annual Work Programme 

20

15

10

5

0

12

9

4

1

1

0

19

19

14

6

2

0

Not at all / low extent

Moderate extent

High / very high extent

Do not know

To what extent does the Multi-Annual strategy provide adequate policy orientation and strategic goals to the
Network?

To what extent does the Multi-Annual strategy outline the activities necessary to achieve the objectives of the
Network?

To what extent is the Network able to implement the actions of the annual Work Programme?

As  can  be  gleaned  from  the  Figure,  responses  tended  to  cluster  on  moderate  to  high 
alignment with regard to both the Work Programme and the MAS. However, responses 
(both  to  the  question  and  the  subsequent  open  comments)  tend  to  show  that  there  is  a 
greater attention to achieving the “tactical/operational” goals contained in the annual WPs, 
while there is less focus on achieving the more overarching framework contained in the 
MAS. In general, consensus amongst respondents has been that the MAS have been too 
inward looking, and that in the future greater policy orientation and co-operation amongst 
Member States are key policy vectors to be sought. This highlights the tension between the 
coherence  of  the  Secretariat’s  long-term  role  against  the  Member  States  political 
requirements to respond operationally to immediate policy problems that arise. 

With  regard  to  external  coherence,  the  same  stakeholders  responding  to  the  questions 
above mentioned that risks of overlap may be present with the following EU policies and 
initiatives: 

  EFUS; 

  EMCDDA; 

  EMPACT's Activities (x2); 

  EMPACT (x2); 

  A new initiative of the Commission to organise a network that focuses on child 

sexual exploitation.  

The view amongst surveyed stakeholders is that in general it is better to leverage existing 
Networks for new initiatives, instead of creating a new one.  

With regard to complementary networks and activities, the following were mentioned: 

  EFUS; 

  EMCDDA; 

  EMPACT (x4), with specific reference to horizontal goal 3 of EMPACT; 

  EMPACT’s activities; 

  Radicalisation Awareness Network. 

69 

 
 
Note that, as expected, many areas of potential overlap are also areas where synergies are 
present. 

EU added value 

The responses addressing this dimension mainly concern the question “Overall, to what 
extend to you think the EUCPN brings value compared to what exists at national and local 
level?.”  46  responses  were  received  to  this  question  and  overall,  close  to  80%  of 
respondents answered that the EUCPN brings a moderate to high added value compared 
to the national and local level, as can be gleaned from Figure 6. 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

25

7

1

11

2

1. None

2. Low

3. Moderate

4. Significant

5. High

It  is  interesting to  note that this result is  also  robust with  respect  to  answers individual 
stakeholder categories, indicating convergence in responses. Among the respondents who 
selected  “Low”  or  “None,”  there  are  only  National,  regional  or  local  authorities  and 
Academic and/or crime prevention experts. However, given the low number of responses 
to this question, no inference can be made, as these two categories are also the ones which 
tended to respond to this question to a greater degree compared to other stakeholder groups. 

Figure 6 - Responses to survey question “Overall, to what extend to you think the 
EUCPN brings value compared to what exists at national and local level?” 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

25

7

1

11

2

1. None

2. Low

3. Moderate

4. Significant

5. High

Stakeholders  that  replied  that  at  least  moderate  added  value  can  be  associated  to  the 
Network (38 out  of 46)  were then asked to  identify specific  elements  from  which such 
added value derives. In particular, respondents were asked to gauge the added value of the 
following elements: (i) access to best practices, (ii) access to relevant information on crime 
prevention (iii) alignment of crime prevention activities between the national and EU level, 

70 

 
  
 
 
(iv) alignment of crime prevention concept/activities across Member States, (v) support to 
crime prevention activities at the national and local levels and (vi) EU-wide co-operation 
and  exchange  of  information.  Results  are  provided  below  in  Figure  7.  To  simplify 
interpretation, responses were grouped in two groups: low/moderate and significant/high. 

It is interesting to note that respondents tended to highly rate the added value of the EUCPN 
with  regard  to  information  sharing  and  dissemination  activities;  for  examples,  76%  of 
respondents  reported  high  added  value  concerning  the  ability  to  have  access  to  best 
practices from other Member States, and likewise 67% of respondents identified the ability 
access relevant material on crime prevention as a pivotal element of the network that might 
not be present in its absence. On the other hand, respondents were more lukewarm on the 
ability of the EUCPN to deliver added value with regard to operational aspects, for instance 
in terms of supporting crime prevention activities at the national and local level (with 64% 
of respondents indicating a low/moderate added value) or with regard to fostering EU-wide 
co-operation (56%). Finally, respondents were evenly split with regard to the added value 
of  the  EUCPN  in  facilitating  the  alignment  of  crime  prevention  concepts  between  the 
national and EU level. 

Figure 7 - Added value of specific components / services 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

76%

67%

24%

33%

0%

0%

 Access to best
practices

Access to relevant
material on crime
prevention

49%

47%

58%

56%

64%

38%

33%

31%

4%

4%

4%

11%

Alignment of the
crime prevention
activities between
the national and
the EU level

Alignment of the
crime prevention
concept/activities
across Member
States

EU wide
cooperation and
exchange of
information

Support to crime
prevention
activities at
national and local
level

Low/moderate

Significant/high

Do not know

Relevance 

The survey was also aimed at gauging the relevance of the EUCPN. This was achieved, 
inter alia, by asking respondents whether in their view the activities of the Network are 
indeed relevant to the development of national strategies on crime prevention. 42 responses 
were  received  to  this  question,  22  of  which  from  EUCPN  national  representatives  or 
contact  points,  18  from  national,  regional  or  local  authorities  and  two  from  academic 
and/or crime prevention experts. Close to 70% of respondents mentioned that the activities 
of the EUCPN are relevant to the development of national strategies on crime prevention. 

71 

 
 
 
Figure 8 - Responses to question “Are the activities of the Network relevant to the 
development of national strategies on crime prevention?” 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

21%

Do not know / no answer

10%

no

69,0%

yes

In order to further explore this aspect, respondents were asked to elaborate on the ways in 
which  the  Network  supports  such  strategies.  Respondents  mainly  mentioned  that  the 
activities of EUCPN play significant role in gathering knowledge for formulating national 
strategies of crime prevention and/or research projects concerning crime prevention, and 
that during the formulation of the results of assessments of the national crime situation, the 
principles  and  recommendation  of  international  documents  and  best  practices  of  EU 
Member  States  in  the  area  of  crime  prevention  are  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
formulation  of  national  crime  prevention  strategies.  Moreover,  stakeholders  mentioned 
that EUCPN activities such as conferences, meetings, seminars, campaigns and projects 
are  extremely  relevant  in  this  field.  However,  stakeholders  also  mentioned  that  such 
activities tend to focus on specific topics, which do not necessarily always feed into the 
development of national strategies. Moreover, the stakeholders also elaborated on the fact 
that there is an indirect, rather than direct link between the EUCPN and the development 
of national strategies. This is because the development of National strategies tends to be 
linked to national priorities which are aligned with EU priorities. EUCPN is aligned with 
EU priorities. 

With a view to further explore the relevance dimension, stakeholders were also asked to 
report, in their view: 

  To what extent the EUCPN contributes to co-operation, contacts and exchanges of 
information and experience between actors in the field of crime prevention; and 

  To  what  extent  does  the  approach  of  the  Network  address  their  needs  for  co-
operation and exchange of information with other stakeholders active in the field 
of crime prevention. 

Findings are reported in Figure 9 below. Each question received 80 responses, which, as 
can be gleaned from the results, are so far quite similar across the two dimensions, with 
respondents reporting a moderate to high relevance. 

Figure  9  -  Responses  to  questions  concerning  the  extent  to  which  the  EUCPN 
contributes to co-operation, contacts and exchanges of information and experience 

72 

 
 
between actors in the field of crime prevention as well as other stakeholders active in 
the field 

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

40

37

29

27

9

4

10

4

Not at all / low extent

Moderate extent

High / very high extent

Do not know

To what extent does the EUCPN contribute to cooperation, contacts and exchanges of information and
experience between actors in the field of crime prevention?
To what extent does the approach of the Network address your needs of cooperation and exchange of
information with other stakeholders active in the field of crime prevention?

5.  Public Consultation  

The Public Consultation lasted from 25 June to 24 September 2020 and it remained open 
for a total of 13 weeks. The purpose of the Public Consultation was to gather stakeholders’ 
feedback on the EUCPN and the importance of crime prevention policy in the context of 
internal security.  

The research team got a total of 2 responses from: 

  A Swedish business association actively involved in crime prevention activities at 

local level supporting municipalities in their crime prevention work; 

  An EU citizen (a Dutch national person). 

In  general,  both  stakeholders  consider  crime  prevention  to  be  an  important  pillar  of  an 
internal  security  strategy  to  a  fairly  large  or  a  large  extent,  while  considering  that  not 
enough  is  done  at  European  level  regarding  the  prevention  of  criminal  activity.  This 
opinion may be also the result of the fact that only 1 out of 2 respondents affirmed to be 
familiar with the EUCPN. 

73