Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:24 am
Time: 3:24 am
Results for crime prevention (europe)
6 results foundAuthor: Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services Title: Evaluation of the European Crime Prevention Network: Final Report Summary: The evaluation of the European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) was carried out in 2008/09 for the European Commission’s DG Justice, Freedom and Security (DG JLS) by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES). The purpose of the evaluation was defined as being to assess the extent to which the aims of the EUCPN have been met with regard to: Identifying good practices in crime prevention and sharing knowledge and experience gained between member countries; Accumulating and evaluating information on crime prevention activities; Improving the exchange of ideas and information within the Network; Developing contacts and facilitating cooperation between Member States; Contributing to the development of local and national strategies on crime prevention; and Promoting crime prevention activities by organising meetings, seminars and conferences. The study concludes that, since 2001, the EUCPN has played a positive role in raising the profile of crime prevention at a European level and facilitating networking between Member States. Given the challenges the EUCPN has faced – in terms of both organisational issues and the environment it has been operating in – the EUCPN’s achievements should not be understated. Over a relatively short period of time, an EU-wide network has been set up that brings together crime prevention policy-makers and practioners to share experience and information in a way that would almost certainly not have occurred if the EUCPN had not been established. The rationale for cooperation at a European level in the crime prevention field, and the EUCPN’s role in this respect, is strongly endorsed by key stakeholders covered by our research. It has not been possible as part of this study to consult widely in Member States beyond those who are involved in the EUCPN’s activities. However, it is reasonable to assume that National Representatives and others representing the authorities that we spoke to articulate views that reflect the attitude of Member States towards EU-level cooperation on crime prevention. As far as the EUCPN’s role is concerned, there is generally positive feedback on what is has done so far to collect and disseminate information on crime prevention, promote networking, etc. The main criticism is that the EUCPN has not been active enough in tackling these and other aspects of its remit. Overall, the EUCPN’s impacts have so far been very limited and there is little awareness of its activities. In short, the Network’s potential is far from being realised. The performance of the EUCPN in relation to the specific goals set out in the 2001 Council Decision has been mixed. Several factors have influenced what the EUCPN has so far been able to achieve. Firstly, the EUCPN’s development has been held back by a lack of political will to develop crime prevention at a European level and the absence of a strong EU legal basis. At an EU level, various Communications have emphasised that preventing crime is important to the well-being and security of Europe’s citizens. But in the absence of the Lisbon Treaty’s ratification, the EU has only very limited competence in the crime prevention field. Secondly, the diversity of approaches to crime prevention at a national level, accentuated by EU enlargement, has also been a complication in the EUCPN’s development. Whilst some EU Member States have deeply-embedded strategies, in other countries the concept of crime prevention has only recently taken root. While the differences in national approaches do not in themselves preclude cooperation – indeed it is one of the justifications for it - this situation makes it more difficult to create a cohesive network at a European level with a clear and shared sense of purpose. Whilst these and other factors have been complications, the main explanation for under-performance lies with the EUCPN itself and in what can be described as an organisation failure. There are two theoretical possibilities that could explain underperformance – the EUCPN has functioned efficiently but its remit is unachievable, or conversely, the goals are appropriate but there have been shortcomings in the organisation required to pursue them. The report suggests that the latter case applies. Overall, the report argues that the EUCPN should continue to be developed as an EU network covering the 27 Member States. This is seen as being in the best long term interests of Member States and the EU as a whole. Details: Sevenoaks, UK: Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services, 2009. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2010 at: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/evaluation_eucpn_en.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Europe URL: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/evaluation_eucpn_en.pdf Shelf Number: 120322 Keywords: Crime Prevention (Europe) |
Author: Czapska, Janina Title: Sharing Good Practice in Crime Prevention: Polish National Report Summary: This report presents an analysis of the territory of Pradnik Czerwony and assesses good practices in crime prevention in various European cities that could be utilized in this area for the prevention of crime. Details: Krakow: Crime Prevention Carousel, 2006. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2011 at: http://www.e-doca.net/content/docs/National_Report_Poland.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Poland URL: http://www.e-doca.net/content/docs/National_Report_Poland.pdf Shelf Number: 122482 Keywords: Crime Prevention (Europe)Crime Prevention (Poland)Neighborhoods and Crime |
Author: Morbel, Richard Title: Prevention and Suppression of Organised Crime: Future Action Perspectives from a German and a European Angle Summary: According to Europol, there are some 4000 organised crime groups active in the EU with very differing organisational structures. Globalised and more intensive trade relations plus technological progress have made a considerable contribution to the internationalisation of their activities, which now transcend cultural, legal and economic limits. Yet the actual size of the threat posed by organised crime is difficult to asses; the greater part of criminal activities remains undetected. Criminal groups visualise Europe as a single area of action, which means that Europe needs a suppression approach which is correspondingly unified and in which the national policies of member states of the EU are integrated. This suppression approach should be both repressive and preventive in its focus and should be based on an overall strategy for internal security in the EU. A strategy of this kind should aim inter alia at a situation where transnational investigations are routine and where European institutions such as Europol and Eurojust are further strengthened. In the area of intergovernmental cooperation, a quantum leap is required: all law enforcement actors should be brought together in a broad European information and cooperation network. Priority must continue to be given to the reciprocal recognition of sentences, rulings and procedures, if necessary on the basis of further harmonisation measures for instance in the procedural area. Data protection should not be ignored in this process, but it needs to be modernised: all technological options should be fully exhausted to guarantee on the one hand adequate scope for weighing up alternatives while at the same time making possible the identification of misuse. What must then follow is the effective mobilisation of the political, economic and public sectors, which must be brought together in a broader opinion-forming process. For this reason the political sector must, in its own vital interest, not only support the combating of organised crime but give it active support. The funds made available by the EU will increase tenfold between 2006 and 2013 to around 150 Mio. Euro and can make an effective contribution to intensifying the efforts required. Finally, cooperation between law enforcement bodies should not stop at borders. Where criminal groups operate on a global basis, every effort should be made for countermeasures to be globally effective. The EU, with its specific experience in intergovernmental cooperation on security, can in the future and in its own interest adopt a pioneer role. Details: Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2007. 24p. Source: Compass 2020, Germany in international relations, Aims, instruments, prospects: Internet Resource: Accesssed March 10, 2012 at http://www.fes.de/kompass2020/pdf_en/Crime.pdf Year: 2007 Country: Europe URL: http://www.fes.de/kompass2020/pdf_en/Crime.pdf Shelf Number: 124414 Keywords: Crime Prevention (Europe)International CooperationInternational Law Enforcement CooperationOrganized Crime (Germany)Transnational Crime (Europe) |
Author: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia Title: The Impact of 7 July 2005 London Bomb Attacks on Muslim Communities in the EU Summary: The report analyses the impact of the bomb attacks on the EU's Muslim communities, examining government and police responses to the events, the reaction from Muslim communities, media reporting, and the possibility of an anti-Muslim backlash, in the EU and in the UK in particular. The Agency finds that the strong and united stand taken by the UK Government, police and community leaders, including Muslim community representatives, in condemning both the bombings and any retaliation, has played a major part in preventing an anti-Muslim backlash. This joint action was decisive in countering a short-term upsurge in anti-Muslim incidents in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. Such incidents have now dropped back to levels before the bomb attacks. The report finds that across the EU, the firm stand taken by Governments, communities and Muslim organisations has had a similar effect. The report concludes with recommendations on how in the longer term Islamophobia can be countered and community cohesion is strengthened. Details: Vienna: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), 2005. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2012 at http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/London-Bomb-attacks-EN.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/London-Bomb-attacks-EN.pdf Shelf Number: 126031 Keywords: Crime Prevention (Europe)Hate Crime (Europe)Islamophobia (Europe)Police-Community Relations (Europe) |
Author: European Crime Prevention Network Title: Public Opinion and Policy on Crime Prevention in Europe Summary: The first report in the European Crime Prevention Monitor series gave an overview of general European developments in crime and crime statistics, based on international cross-country statistics, surveys and reports (EUCPN, 2012a). Four different data sources were highlighted, with focus on recorded crime rates, victimisation data, self-reported delinquency measures and qualitative data. In this second monitor report the focus is put on people’s perceptions and attitudes on the one hand, and on priorities in crime prevention policies across Europe on the other hand. What does the general public think about the police: their relationship with the communities, their effectiveness in preventing crime, their fairness with which they wield their authoritative power, their integrity,...? What do Europeans think of the effectiveness of policies on the different levels (national vs. European)? What do they believe to be the challenges to the security in the prevention and fight against crime? These are some questions approached in this report. The information and data used to answer these questions come from the Trust in the Police & Courts Module of the European Social Survey and from the Eurobarometer surveys conducted by the European Commission. Besides these existing survey data, the EUCPN Secretariat collected some additional data from the EUCPN members on the priorities in the crime prevention policies in their countries. More specifically, questions were asked about the country’s top three priorities in crime prevention policy/strategy and compared to the country’s three most prominent crime problems based on crime statistics. Also, it was examined whether or not the top three priorities in the country’s crime prevention policy were based on statistical or recorded data, or – if not – what other basis was used to pick these priorities. And finally, some questions were added about any remarkable or new developments in the Member States over the past five years. Details: Brussels: EUCPN, 2012. 35p. Source: Internet Resoruce: European Crime Prevention Monitor 2012/2: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.eucpn.org/research/reviews.asp Year: 2012 Country: Europe URL: http://www.eucpn.org/research/reviews.asp Shelf Number: 128278 Keywords: Crime Prevention (Europe)Police-Community RelationsPublic Opinion |
Author: European Crime Prevention Network Title: Priorities in crime prevention policies across Europe Summary: In the European Crime Prevention Monitor 2012/2 (EUCPN, 2012b), the EUCPN Secretariat collected information from the Member States on their main priorities in the crime prevention policy/strategy in their countries. Obviously, each country has its own strategy and approach regarding crime prevention. Whereas some countries pay specific attention to certain crime types in their prevention strategy, others - like e.g., the Czech Republic, Denmark and the United Kingdom - have a broad and general preventative approach at the national level, with more room to focus on local crime prevention priorities. Overall, the crime types which were considered most in the various prevention policies are: 1. Property crimes (i.e. burglaries, theft); 2. Crimes against the person (i.e. violence, domestic violence); 3. Juvenile delinquency; 4. Drug use; and 5. Violent crime. In this third Monitor, we will have a closer look at some of these crime types which are currently prioritised by the Member States and which were identified in the previous Monitor (EUCPN, 2012b). For this, we will draw upon some of the findings of the International Crime Victimization Survey of 2005 and 2010, Eurostat's Statistics in Focus 2013, the Statistical Bulletin 2013 of the European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction and the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs 2011 (ESPAD). Details: Brussels: European Crime Prevention Network, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: www.eucpn.org/ Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: www.eucpn.org/ Shelf Number: 132994 Keywords: Crime Prevention (Europe)Crime Prevention ProgramsCriminal Justice Policy |