Preventing Crime & Creating Safer Communities
Home | Distance learning | Information & news | Discussions | Join the network | Contact | Useful links

Crime Prevention Information & News

Crime prevention by community control in the Netherlands

The process evaluation

Original title: Criminaliteitspreventie en Buurtbeheer : De procesevaluatie / R.W. van Overbeke, P.F. van Soomeren. - Den Haag : Stafafdeling Informatievoorziening, Directie Criminaliteitspreventie, Ministerie van Justitie, Nederland.

In opdracht van de Directie Criminaliteitspreventie van het Ministerie van Justitie.

ISBN 90-5319-035-X.

Text by Marianne Moene, Directorate for Crime Prevention, Ministry of Justice, The Netherlands.

Summary

From the end of 1990 till the end of 1993 the temporary support regulation 'integral approach to crime at community level' by the Dutch Ministry of Justice was effective. Its objective was to examine under which conditions such an approach, in which all relevant agencies cooperate and problems are tackled interrelatedly, can be successful. By successful is meant the realization of a decrease of petty crime and fear of crime.

The neighbourhoods eligible for subsidy were the ones with a high concentration of petty crime or fear of crime, with primarily a residential function, with social organizations able to support the community-oriented approach, and with no short-term plans for drastic urban development.

Within the framework of the above mentioned regulation the Directorate of Crime Prevention of the Ministry of Justice has supported 18 projects in 12 municipalities throughout the country. This publication summarizes the final report of the process evaluation of the projects. The main questions to be answered were:

• which measures have been taken?
• how did the implementation and realisation of the crime preventive measures take place?
• which relation is there between the crime preventive measures and the broader community approach?
• which pre-conditions must be met for crime prevention to be successfully implemented in this type of neighbourhoods?

Measures

In the 18 projects most of the preventive measures were oriented towards high-risk spots or - groups and towards spots and groups that were already a problem. Preventive measures aimed at the whole project community were under-represented. In the projects action was particularly taken against drug trouble, criminal or problematic youth and neighbours causing disturbance. Also sanctioning measures have been taken relatively often, such as eviction, tit for tat approach or alternative sanctions.

Not only preventive measures, but also measures in the field of physical and social liveability have been taken. In most cases physical liveability was tackled first, some time later crime and social liveability was dealt with.

Relatively new, as regards physical liveability measures, is the appointing of teams for special maintenance, like clearing up garbage, removing graffiti or trimming shrubbery in unsafe spots. The teams were mainly made up of long-term unemployed, who proved to need more supervision than was anticipated.

As regards social liveability the measures taken mainly concerned youth and integration of population groups. On the one hand there were activities to prevent young people getting into trouble and on the other hand there were sanctioning activities to correct youth already causing problems. The integration of community residents, either of different age groups or of different ethnic groups, turned out to be hard to tackle.

An integral approach requires cooperation with and tuning in to various agencies and persons. This explains why relatively much attention has been paid to stimulating activities, such as creating consultative structures, establishing a complaints centre, coordinating activities, attuning agencies or informing residents and involving them in the problems.

An integral approach implies cohesion between the various measures. Joint implementation of control activities by agencies for physical control (department of public works etc.), for safety (like the police), and for social control (social welfare council, welfare work etc.), is an example of this cohesion. This has taken place in most of the projects. In more concrete cases, too, the measures refer to crime as well as social and physical liveability, such as the tackling of drug problems and youth issues, removing graffiti or quick repair of vandalized objects.

Results

Generally it can be stated that the projects have gone well and have also, in some areas, led to positive results:

• the integral attuning of control- and prevention activities is judged positively;
• crime prevention as part of community control is generally approved of;
• in at least half of the municipalities where projects were carried out it was decided, as the experiment came to an end, to start a structural implementation; almost all municipalities experience this approach as successful
• controlling agencies have now more attention for community safety;
• the special maintenance team achieves visible results in the eyes of the residents;
• the physical liveability (cleaner neighbourhoods, less nuisance by traffic, decrease of vandalism) has improved according to those directly involved, this applies to a lesser degree to the social liveability;
• the feeling of safety has increased in most projects, as regards actual safety this picture is less unequivocal; some types of crime have decreased, but drug crime in particular is hard to tackle.

These results are certainly positive considering that municipalities had little time to present project proposals for subsidy to the ministry of Justice. That made it more difficult to involve residents and project workers in the drawing up of the proposals, while this should be a very important element of community control. The municipalities already working -on their own initiative- on neighbourhood oriented control, before the subsidy scheme became effective, obviously had a head start. This also had an influence on the projects. In municipalities already working on community oriented control, projects were principally aimed at crime prevention and social liveability, while in others emphasis lay on physical liveability.

Apart from that the national social innovation policy and the increased attention for safety proved to be a stimulus for all projects.

Experiences

The preparation of such projects takes a lot of time. This holds good for the development of a basis within the agencies involved as well as for activating the residents. After all, activating residents succeeds if it involves concrete, practical activities and if population groups are addressed directly.

Crime prevention as an element of community control generally produces a reasonable amount of satisfaction. There is a lot of common ground. The support for crime prevention as part of community control is considerable. Crime is an important issue in problem areas. Within the administrative system enough support will only be brought about if politicians make it clear that they take it very seriously. The means provided by the ministry of Justice seem well-spent. There is no indication that it has been spent on non-preventive activities and it has even led to local councils investing more in community control and crime prevention.

Conditions for success

When planning a project it is important to give a lot of attention to the support among the project partners, as this is the basis of success. It is also important that agencies participating in the project are sufficiently authorized to determine the contents. Furthermore there should be, at the outset, strong support and control by the local government.

Taking some physical measures fairly soon after starting a project is a good choice, as these lead to visible results in the short term. This keeps participating agencies motivated and activates residents.

Moving on from the planning stage to implementation is not always easy. Agencies with a strong conference culture sometimes find it hard to put plans into action. Moving on from physical measures to social measures can be difficult, too. There is a certain timorousness to tackle these less concrete measures.

For crime prevention projects as an element of community control a more thorough preparation is needed than for 'conventional' prevention. Apart from listing and analysing problems it is also necessary to activate residents and generate support among many agencies. Familiar problems with the implementation of crime prevention in depressed areas, like distrust or opposition from participating agencies seem to be reduced by a community control approach, because in these projects emphasis lays on a thorough preparation. The limited participation by residents is not noticeably overcome or decreased by this approach. This also holds for continuity problems.

Surplus value

The majority of those involved think that crime prevention as an element of community control produces a surplus value in relation to 'conventional' prevention. Some points mentioned are: the small-scale approach, the equality of the participants, the fact that responsibility lies with the residents and that problems are solved where they arise.

The subsidy scheme 'crime prevention through community control' has therefore certainly be worthwhile. In municipalities already involved in community control, the neighbourhood oriented, integral approach has become more firmly-embedded and more extensive, partly due to the addition of crime prevention. In municipalities not yet involved in community control, many controlling agencies have become convinced that this is the right answer to the present control and safety problems.