Département Citoyenneté, Prévention, SécuritéAffaire suivie par : Ali HAROUNETél. : 33 1.49.17.46.54Fax : 33 1.49.17.45.65 E.mail : ali.haroune@ville.gouv.fr

STANDARD CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DESCRIPTION AND EXCHANGE OF GOOD PRACTICES

25th SEPTEMBER 2003.Paris –France

(draft version 13 th january 2004)

Chapter published as Ekblom, P (2004) ‘Le Cadre des 5 I’ dans Bruston, P et Haroune, A (éds.) Réseau européen de prévention de la criminalité: (REPC) Description et échange de bonnes pratiques. Paris: Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville. [English & français].

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Standard Conceptual Framework for the Description and Exchange of Good Practices

Paul Ekblom Home Office - Crime and Policing Group, Research, Development & Statistics Directorate Question and answer session Dr David Meddings, FRCPC (C) MHSc, Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health World Health Organization

Question and answer session The EMCDDA FrameworkAbigail DAVIDProject Manager, European MonitoringCentre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

Question and answer session

The UN-HABITAT FrameworkNicolas YOUBest Practices and Policies Section Co-ordinatorUN-HABITAT

Question and answer session

Workshop 1Tony HEALHead of the Voluntary Organisations andInternational Crime Reduction UnitHome Office, United KingdomThe possibilities and limits of the different frameworks for the description and the exchange of good practices

2

Workshop 2

IntroductionMichel MARCUSFrench Forum for Urban SafetyWhat could be the elements or criteria for the elaboration of a consensus framework for the description and the exchange of good practices?

SynthesisMrs Anne WYVEKENSDirector of Research, Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Sécurité Intérieure, FranceLiz Wicksteed, , Assistant Director, Crime Reduction Delivery Team, Home Office, United Kingdom

Concluding RemarksDennis ROSENBAUMDirector and Professor, Center for Research in Law and Justice and the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago, U.S.A.

3

CONTRIBUTIONS OF

Paul Ekblom1

Home Office - Crime and Policing Group, Research, Development & Statistics Directorate

I will first of all try and answer some of the general questions that the organisers of the seminar asked me and my fellow speakers to consider. Then I’ll get onto the 5Is specifically. This may mean some repetition.

Why a standardised framework?

Having a standard terminology is almost a canon of knowledge management, as is having known, and consistent, standards of evaluation. The advantages of standard terminology are efficiency and accuracy in the capture, organisation and retrieval of knowledge, and in communication and collaboration between practitioners – especially internationally. There is also a consistent basis for training. The advantage of a standard system of evaluation is that it helps practitioners, and those more strategically in charge of delivery, to make their decisions on the basis of information with known levels of reliability. But it is not enough to standardise in just any random way. It is necessary to standardise on terms that have been designed to do their job well, as precision tools for thinking and communication. We need terms that are clearly defined, that are not ambiguous, that do not overlap with other terms, and which are capable of translation. A standard set of terms is easier to remember, but if these terms are further organised into a complete and internally consistent schema they can do much more – organising training and guidance and helping people to evaluate and assimilate new knowledge throughout their professional career. Standardisation does not imply rigidity – but it does mean a discipline within which creative ideas can be expressed. (Try being creative in architecture without also being disciplined!) The vision is one of supporting practitioners who are like consultants, with a whole armoury of principles and practices at their fingertips to apply to specific problems, rather than technicians with limited diagnostic skills and a fixed repertoire of responses.

What should be the selection criteria for EUCPN good practice projects?

The selection criteria which are appropriate for EUCPN will differ according to the priority given to the various purposes of collecting good practice examples. Those purposes have been stated as: to showcase good performance on the part of local practitioners, to inspire others to implement good quality crime prevention in policy and practice, and to add value by exchanging good practice ideas which are replicable in other locations. We can extend this list to include: to extract generic principles and specific elements of practice which can support innovation in tackling a wider set of crime problems and contexts, both of which continue to evolve. The last two aims of course are the most demanding. They require selecting projects on the basis of high quality descriptions of successful good practice which is replicable or transferrable through innovation, and good evaluations which provide evidence reliable enough for practitioners to use, and for those responsible for more strategic delivery to decide to fund them. Good practice and evaluation both need defining in their turn, which I will discuss below. We also need information that is newsworthy – in other words, not another project based on a publicity campaign or target hardening, unless it has done something in a new way or has been implemented in a new context or against a new crime problem. We might even be interested in

1 "The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author, not necessarily those of the UK Home Office (nor do they reflectUK Government policy)".

4

projects which are not so interesting or which have failed overall, but which nevertheless have some good practice elements worth sharing.

The Aalborg/Rome experience has indicated the difficulty of finding existing evaluations of existing projects meeting these criteria. So a sensible position would be to encourage good evaluations but to realise that in the short term at least, we have to be satisfied with weaker ones. There is also the question of how far the EUCPN is interested in learning from success stories alone, or also in extracting constructive lessons from failure.

What is good practice?

We need to distinguish between the end-product – i.e. the quality of the output, the action delivered on the ground; and the quality of the process of developing that productThe end-product: is associated with a cost-effective outcome; is efficiently targeted on identified need – going beyond crime counting to identify, prioritise

and address the consequences of the crime problem for individuals, specific vulnerable groups, institutions and society as a whole;

is legitimate and acceptable to all parties – embodying the principle of proportionality in avoiding any unnecessary infringement of civil liberties;

is more widely designed to minimise undesirable side-effects on stakeholders (including offenders themselves) and on other policy areas, and to avoid making existing crime problems worse;

is sustainable in two ways – in terms of delivery (project doesn’t collapse when charismatic leader leaves); and in terms of impact (is resistant to becoming obsolete through offenders’ habituation or their ability to develop countermeasures, and through social/technological change); but can be closed down when it does cease to work or to be acceptable;

gives good coverage on the ground in terms of the proportion of crimes that need tackling, that are susceptible to this treatment; and

is potentially replicable in mainstream implementation – ie it can be implemented, and will work, in routine circumstances rather than being dependent on high-level academic input and intensive ‘greenhouse’ conditions and funding.

The process:

The process itself is a structured one. Some of you may have seen them before in a paper produced by the research workshop at the Leuven conference in 2000. Basically they assess whether the project in question follows something like the steps of the 5Is framework or its equivalent, and how well it does it. The process involves some degree of self awareness (‘why are we doing X, what are the issues and tradeoffs behind our decisions?’), an improvement orientation involving feedback and learning (‘how can we do this better next time?’), and demonstrable quality and innovation in the assembly and application of all kinds of crime prevention knowledge. These criteria should be visible at all stages of the process of doing crime prevention. 1. reliable and valid collection and analysis of data on

existing crime problem and its causes and consequences, risk factors at offender, institution or area level, or scanning for emergent crime problems or anticipating new ones;

2. more broadly taking account of stakeholder needs and views and achieving their understanding, acceptance and where possible, participation and partnership in the process;

3. selection or design of the principle/s of intervention in the causes of crime, and realisation of these principles in tangible methods of intervention, both of which involve:

5

collection of evidence of what works, specification of theories and/or causal mechanisms by which the intervention ‘works’, adjustment to context a priori and through a development process involving feedback, identification, and creative and proportionate resolution, of ‘troublesome tradeoffs’

between the priorities of prevention versus economy, convenience, aesthetics, safety, commercial viability, privacy and other human rights;

4. implementation – evidence of targeting of action on appropriate primary, secondary, tertiary basis, adequate quality assurance/ monitoring in delivery of interventions, alertness to risks, especially unwanted side-effects and offenders’ countermeasures, appropriate ethical principles applied and laws respected (for example to exchange of

operational information between agencies), and5. involvement

appropriate and efficient partnership arrangements to pool resources and share responsibility for tackling the crime problem/s; and appropriate and well-executed mobilisation of crime preventers in wider community;

6. impact and process evaluation – evidence of commitment to learning from success and failure and of taking practical measures to realise this commitment, including documentation and appropriate quantification of inputs, outputs and estimates of

outcome, impact evaluation designed to an appropriate level of sophistication and conducted to

appropriate standard to yield reliable and valid information on what works in what context (know-what), and preferably to test theories on which action was based,

process evaluation able to gather the four other kinds of knowledge, commitment to acting on results of evaluation in own organisation, to dissemination and to

wider, collective exploitation of all 5 kinds of knowledge, whether action was success or failure.

What makes a good evaluation?

Evaluations can be conducted, and their results applied, in different ways and at different levels. Ideally the evaluation results must be reliable and informative enough to guide a wide range of potential users – not just individual practitioners or funders making local decisions, but also national governments and EU bodies, in making strategic and tactical decisions on crime prevention policy and practice. Such evaluations should be:

technically sound, in two ways – internally valid – reliably identifies cause and effect, and distinguishes it from chance variation

and plausible rival explanations at an appropriate level of statistical significance, externally valid – results generalise to a known range of circumstances; relatively clear and unambiguous – whether positive or negative; quantified, ideally in terms of impact, cost-effectiveness, and wider costs and benefits (eg

effects on quality of life, regeneration etc) to aid strategic and tactical decision-making; uncertainty of findings (eg confidence limits, statistical significance, qualitative uncertainties); robustness should be declared;

linked to theory – to help build cumulative, structured knowledge of causes of crime and of principles of interventions in those causes, and described if possible in standard terminology;

and of course replicable, in terms of clearly and systematically describing the action in enough detail to help replicate specific methods or realise generic principles in new contexts:

via 5Is or equivalent process

6

with special reference throughout to practical difficulties, trade-offs and solutions at each stage, ethical, legal, social justice and political issues etc, which replicators would need to resolve afresh;

Evaluations should also address the interests of significant stakeholders, and should be communicable to them.

Who collects/fills in the information?

In the light of experience trying out the 5Is framework for the Aalborg and Rome conferences, and in the UK, I feel that some professional expertise is necessary. A capacity for analytic thinking, a familiarity with crime prevention and what is newsworthy, and a familiarity with the knowledge capture framework itself all contribute to producing a good description of a project. The ability to assess the quality of impact evaluations is also important, as is the capacity to place oneself in the position of a practitioner who wants to understand and use the description. An ability to interview the practitioners who originated the project, to get the best out of their experience and articulate their tacit knowledge without ‘inventing the truth’, is also vital. Who could do this? It could be a criminologist with strong practical experience, a practitioner with a good amount of criminological training, or an information professional who has become strongly familiarised with both aspects. A computerised guidance system could also give interactive, stage-by-stage help to people collecting the information, as well as capturing and storing the text electronically. This would be like a computer-assisted survey but providing definitions and examples to help the discussion.Retrospective collection of this information is possible – but not ideal. Experience shows that even in the best process evaluation reports, the relevant information is not always clear, may be located at different points throughout the report and may be incomplete (the disadvantage of not working to a systematic framework). The ideal condition would be where a project and its evaluation was planned with the knowledge capture framework in mind. Now I’ve covered these general issues, it’s time to turn to 5Is.

What is the aim of the 5Is framework?

What is the 5Is framework? The 5Is framework is a means of systematically, rigorously and consistently describing crime preventive action in a way which supports its replication in diverse contexts, and which promotes wider innovation through the extraction of generic principles. 5Is comprises a number of key stages in the process of doing crime prevention, and a language for describing what is done at each stage. As a brief reminder:

INTELLIGENCE – gathering and analysing information on crime and disorder problems and their consequences offenders and modus operandi causes of crime and (with longer-term, developmental prevention) the ‘risk and protective

factors’ in young children’s life circumstances associated with later criminalityINTERVENTION – the way the method works by blocking, disrupting or weakening those causes. The interventions cover the entire field: acting through both civil prevention and traditional justice/ law-enforcement addressing both situational and offender-oriented causes and tackling causation at different levels – immediate ‘molecular’ causes of criminal events,

higher-level causes in communities, networks, markets and criminal careers, and remote ‘upstream’ causes influenced by manipulation of risk and protective factors in children’ early lives

7

IMPLEMENTATION – managing the project and converting the intervention principles into practical methods that are: customised for the local problem and context targeted on offenders, victims, buildings, places and products, on an individual or collective

basis planned, managed, organised and steered monitored and quality-assured, with documentation of inputs of human and financial

resources, outputs and intermediate outcomes assessed for ethical issuesINVOLVEMENT – acting in partnership to pool diverse resources and share responsibility for a cross-cutting problem; and mobilising other agencies, companies and individuals to play their part in implementing the intervention, because crime prevention professionals must often work through or with others, rather than directly intervening in causes of crime. In both cases specifying: who were involved what broad roles or specific tasks they undertook how they were alerted, motivated, empowered or directed (eg by publicity campaigns,

financial incentives) how a broadly supportive climate was created in the community and how hostility was

reducedIMPACT : nature of evaluation (how the project was evaluated, by whom; whether this was a reliable,

systematic and independent evaluation; and what kind of evaluation design was used) impact results (what worked, how) cost-effectiveness, coverage of crime problem, timescale for implementation and impact process evaluation (what problems/ tradeoffs faced in implementation, how they were resolved

at each stage) replicability (which contextual conditions and infrastructure are helpful, or necessary, to

successfully replicate this project – or particular elements of it – at each of the 5Is stages) learning points – both positive and negative (what to do, what not to do)

There are plenty more details and examples in the publications from the Aalborg conference and the material for Rome. The wider aim of the 5Is framework is to help manage our knowledge of practical crime prevention – preferably focusing on that which has been properly researched and evaluated. The purpose of managing this knowledge is to improve mainstream performance by practitioners such that crime is reduced, and community safety enhanced, by means that are increasingly cost-effective and acceptable. More specifically this involves helping practitioners to select and replicate good practice, in contexts which may be rather different from the original projects; and helping them to innovate where existing experience does not provide adequate cover. It also involves facilitating communication, sharing, collaboration and partnership working between practitioners from different professional disciplines, different organisations and different countries, perhaps speaking different languages. 5Is is firmly located at the practice level. But it does have implications for delivery and policy levels. 5Is can focus the tasks of those people in local, regional and central government who are responsible at a higher level for the delivery of good practice through the provision of training, guidance and other capacity-building and infrastructural facilities; and perhaps (as in UK) through the establishment of a performance management regime. And policy on crime reduction and community safety needs an effective delivery chain for its successful execution. Policy makers, when deciding what to spend their finite funds on to reduce crime, need to know not just that a particular kind of crime prevention activity is cost-effective in principle, but that it is deliverable in practice.

8

5Is – designed to be fit for purpose

5Is has been developed both to satisfy the generic requirements of knowledge management and the specific peculiarities of crime prevention.The generic activities of knowledge management include the capture, organisation, synthesis and storage, retrieval and transfer of our knowledge of good practice to practitioners, by a range of means. These include training, advice by expert practitioners and on-line guidance. This is not simply a top-down process because the practitioners themselves should be contributing to developing the good practice, sharing it through horizontal networks, testing out the knowledge in new circumstances, and further refining the knowledge base. The peculiarities of crime prevention knowledge may not be unique (in fact there seems to be a lot in common with the ‘international development’ field described in the paper on UN Habitat). But the key features include the following: What works is highly dependent on the context. This is significant enough in one country but

far more so in EU, especially with the enlarged membership which increases the diversity of culture, legal and administrative systems.

Success stories cannot be replicated cookbook fashion. Superficial copying of an end-product rather than an intelligent process fails to adapt the action to the context, and to the specific, local nature of the crime problem being tackled. It also fails to focus on the intervention principles or theories which underlie the action. The more we know of tested theories, and how these interact with each other in real circumstances, the more we can generalise to entirely new contexts and have a reasonable chance of getting the action approximately right first time. In long-term programmes if the principles of the original action are badly-articulated or forgotten there is also a risk of drift. It’s a bit like photocopying a photocopy.

Crime prevention itself is complex. A crime prevention project may involve mobilising diverse people or organisations to implement a range of practical preventive methods. In turn each method may have its effect on crime through interventions which activate a number of different causal mechanisms operating in line with particular principles or theories. Causation of crime itself can act over both long-and short timescales, at different levels (eg individual, group, community); and what makes crimes happen is usually a set of causes that come together as a configuration, not a single cause or the linear accumulation of independent risk factors.

Evaluation is a slow, difficult and often expensive process, so specific knowledge of what works is building up equally slowly. There will always be many circumstances in which even familiar preventive methods have not been tested out. Innovation is therefore as important as replication.

Social, economic and technological changes affect crime, so much of the knowledge that we have now will not be valid for ever.

These features, among others, have challenged the implementation of crime prevention. It has proved extremely difficult to mainstream individual demonstration projects that have succeeded in one time and place, perhaps with the help of academics and expert practitioners. Implementation failure remains a serious problem for the delivery of routine prevention on the ground, in significant quality and quantity to make a noticeable difference to a country’s crime problems. Dennis Rosenbaum first wrote about this in 1986 and it’s still with us.The 5Is framework was designed to cope with these challenging features and the more general requirements of knowledge management. It covers all kinds of prevention (situational and offender-oriented), implemented at a range

of levels (individual, family or community), involving all kinds of institutional setting (both civil prevention, that is changes in the real world to make crime less likely, and prevention which is repressive or justice-based).

It is not linked to any particular theory of crime or prevention, although its focus on causes means that it is sensitive to theory in general.

9

Many project descriptions suffer from a specific lack of focus on causes and risk factors of the crime problem they seek to tackle, and interventions in these causes. How does the intervention work in principle, how can it be implemented in practice, who is best placed to implement it and how do we get them to do it? A description using 5Is makes these distinctions very clear.

It is based on capturing a process rather than a fixed and limited set of successful actions. Within the process, it breaks what other frameworks simply call ‘response’ into very distinct

stages (intervention, implementation and involvement). These are often confused and imprecise in project descriptions. (Many people consider a publicity campaign on home security, say, to be an intervention equivalent to designing a secure car park or treating offenders – but it’s not. It’s involvement of residents. The residents themselves may or may not implement the intervention, which in this case might be fitting and using window locks.)

Within its main stages 5Is breaks the process down into many smaller steps, each of which provides a clear focus for knowledge – and choice of alternatives to fit crime the problem and context. However, while it is rigorous, it avoids being too rigid – experience has shown that it is quite flexible when describing preventive action. It is more like a dynamic language for articulating prevention than a fixed classification system.

Dennis Rosenbaum’s earlier work distinguishing between theory failure, programme or implementation failure, and measurement or evaluation failure is useful for building up knowledge, and improving our practice. But we could extend this idea to use the 5Is in a similar way to systematically identify failures at each step – failure to mobilise people, for example.

It respects the hierarchical structure of preventive activity – managerial project, practical method, intervention principle or theoretical causal mechanism. We need information at each of these levels for successful replication of good practice in diverse contexts.

5Is aims to use, and to continue to develop, a standard terminology. The steps, the structure and the standard terminology make it efficient for storage and

retrieval in a knowledge base; they are also conducive to learning. Finally, 5Is has the potential to become the schema to organise crime prevention training and guidance materials.

The structure and process orientation of the framework mean it can develop beyond a method of describing individual cases of good practice, and into a toolkit which synthesises what we know (including theory) and provides a range of (evaluated) choices at each step. Toolkits have the potential to give practitioners a wide capacity to deal with a range of problems, new and old, in a range of contexts, provided they are organised around a suitable framework. Thus combining the generic principles and elements of practice that 5Is describes supports innovation.

Although 5Is was developed to capture good practice descriptions which can be linked within toolkits it also has the potential to become the backbone of an action-process to help guide practitioners through the steps of doing crime prevention. In other words, we can move from ‘record’ mode to ‘playback’. The Danish approach is one attempt to develop this, but there are others in the UK.

5Is and the issue of simplicity

A knowledge management framework has to be communicable, understandable and memorable in itself. Considered alone, this argues for simplicity. But more fundamentally, as we all know, crime prevention itself is complex. And simple frameworks do not so far appear to have succeeded in penetrating below the level of the slogan, to communicate seriously detailed knowledge which can be acted upon to deliver reliable results. There is no point in dumbing-down the language to describe and guide good practice so that more people can understand it, if what they understand cannot then deliver useful crime prevention. So we must make the language that we use to describe crime prevention, fit for purpose.

10

5Is of course is not simple. However, its complexity is not like that of quantum mechanics, but instead, like that of a tree – with simple branches that each split into further simple branches. 5Is has been designed to cope with the tradeoff between simplicity and complexity by ‘zooming’ in and out. First of all it is intended to be a memorable and simple idea to communicate at the Message level (the 5Is themselves). Then it becomes progressively more complex at the Map level (the steps or subheadings under each of the main stages); and the Methodology level as it gets to grips with the rich reality of prevention. For example, under Intelligence (Message) it describes the Causes of crime (Map) using the Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity (Methodology). Only experienced professional practitioners need concern themselves with the methodology. And on this particular case if practitioners want to be even simpler, they can describe causes and interventions using the Problem Analysis Triangle of Victim, Offender and Location. It’s probably the case that 5Is will work best if practitioners are trained in it quite intensively – once they have the schema in their heads, it should simply become their way of looking at the crime prevention world.

What have been the consequences of using the 5Is framework on policy and practice?

5Is is at an early stage of development – it is ‘work in progress’ and not yet officially adopted as a UK standard. There is no experience yet of using it practically, and prospectively, to guide preventive action in new projects – although it is planned to do so. So far it has been used experimentally to capture information on a range of crime prevention projects in the UK and the rest of EU; it appears at the ‘Message’ level in the UK Home Office’s Partnership Business Model, which is aimed at improving performance of local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and simultaneously collecting good practice information. The UK Youth Justice Board has chosen to use/ develop 5Is as their own standard reporting framework for preventive action by Youth Offending Teams.There is interest in a number of police forces to apply the framework and to link it with the National Intelligence Model, which is a business model for the whole of policing. The Home Office and the police service are currently reviewing the whole area of knowledge management in the policing and local partnerships fields and 5Is is currently being exposed to the competition of ideas in that environment. While the ultimate criteria for assessing the added-value of 5Is are obviously improved performance, and quality and innovativeness of action, we can demonstrate one modest, intermediate outcome. 29 practitioners in Birmingham were recently exposed to some descriptions of burglary projects using 5Is, and their judgements were largely positive. 83% agreed the case studies were clearly presented, 86% agreed they were easy to read and 79% that they were easy to understand. (However only 35% thought there was enough information to choose whether or not to replicate a given case study, indicating that even more detail could be helpful.)

How does the 5Is framework fit with EUCPN objectives?

EUCPN aims to share knowledge of good practice across member states and support the training and development of practitioners. In this international context we are striving to collaborate and communicate with each other, on the basis of different languages, different practical, legal and administrative frameworks, and a crime prevention lexicon which has been imprecise and inconsistent even within individual countries. It is a challenging requirement for a framework to support this. I hope I’ve persuaded you that 5Is can make a major contribution here. But it can only make that contribution if it becomes owned and developed by all, including practitioners themselves.While 5Is, or some equivalent framework to systematically describe preventive action, is necessary for EUCPN, it is not sufficient for a complete working system. But the language alone is not the answer. We have to view the development of a language and a knowledge management system as

11

part of a wider strategy for supporting crime prevention. This strategy would include fairly intense training to impart a sophisticated schema for thinking about and doing crime prevention; the creation of professional careers long enough and rewarding enough for people to invest in that training; guidance materials and organisational structures conducive to the use of that knowledge at a sophisticated level; and management of performance which gives priority to quality of action and success of outcome whilst not being hostile to innovation and intelligent risk-taking.Reading the other written contributions to this seminar I was struck by how well they complemented one another. The UN Habitat paper describes, as you will hear later, a real, practical system for collecting and filtering good practice knowledge, rewarding good practice and persuading and informing people how to apply it. It’s a model of a working, practical framework for knowledge capture and sharing within which 5Is could provide the core specialised language and schema to tune it to a crime prevention context. The Danish approach uses an action-oriented framework which helps practitioners to play back the knowledge recorded by 5Is when they start out on an entirely new project. And because 5Is is not yet complete, but is still open to development, there are specific detailed headings that it can pick up from other frameworks, for example the one on drugs. The philosophy behind 5Is is that a high level of investment in concepts, knowledge, training, guidance and other infrastructure is necessary for a high yield in terms of successful performance in crime prevention. The big question about 5Is, the UN Habitat system and others is whether people are prepared to make that investment. If they do, it could become a major collective asset for preventing crime in the EU and beyond. Who wants to join in developing it?

Bibliography

Ekblom, P. (2002). ‘From the Source to the Mainstream is Uphill: The Challenge of Transferring Knowledge of Crime Prevention Through Replication, Innovation and Anticipation.’ In: N. Tilley (ed.) Analysis for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies 13: 131-203. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press/ Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.Ekblom, P. (2002). The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity: A Framework for Crime Reduction Toolkits. www.crimereduction.gov.uk/learningzone/cco.htm Ekblom, P. (2002). Towards a European Knowledge-Base. Paper in Vol 1 of proceedings of EUCPN conference, Aalborg, Denmark, October 2002. http://www.crimprev.dk/eucpn/docs/EUCPN-AalborgReport200210.pdf (pdf) – pp 62-97 orhttp://www.crimprev.dk/eucpn/docs/EUCPN-AalborgReport200210.doc (Word) – pp72-123Ekblom, P. (2003). 5Is: A Practical Tool for Transfer and Sharing of Crime Prevention Knowledge – Introduction. www.crimereduction.gov.uk/learningzone/5isintro.htm Ekblom, P. (2003). Guidelines for using the 5Is framework to describe examples of good practice in crime prevention. Document circulated to EUCPN national representatives prior to Rome conference. Available from author. Examples of 5Is project descriptions from the Aalborg conference 2002 are at http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/practices.html. Further examples from the Rome conference 2003 may appear on this site, but are currently available from author. Links to UK burglary examples at www.crimereduction.gov.uk/burglary60.htm

12

Question and Answer Session

Michel Marcus (French Forum for urban safety)

Could Paul tell us a bit more about the Birmingham experiment? There was a little shortcut in the translation on that point.

Paul Ekblom

There is not much else I can say. The Birmingham experiment consisted of one day devoted to the implementation of good practices. There were workshops for practitioners of crime reduction and for the creation of partnerships designed to help them look at problems like theft.

A large part of the day was devoted to listening to results achieved in the reduction of burglary obtained from professional evaluations of projects funded by our crime reduction programme.

Practitioners were given a number of 5Is-based descriptions of burglary projects, including the one I prepared for the Aalborg meeting last year.

There were presentations from researchers and expert practitioners specialising in this field..

The scoring I presented to you is based solely on an assessment questionnaire. There is more information available. But one thing that now needs to be done, is to provide some follow up to this experiment and say, now the practitioners have read all project descriptions, has this proved helpful in improving their performance in commissioning and running new projects?

Jukka-Pekka Talala (Finnish National Council for crime prevention)

I like the language used by Paul Ekblom, it provides us with several tools with which to describe crime prevention in a very precise way. But to what extend do you need those labels?

5I, is poetic, it is very pretty; in English it conveys a very pretty image (the five eyes), like two Big Brothers spooking on you, with two and a half, there are five eyes…

I must say that your 5 I do not translate very well into Finnish and perhaps not into other languages either. But even in English it does not give a feeling of…I do not understand what underpins this.

Concerning the second point, “Intervention”, it makes me think immediately of some kind of achievement, whereas your description of “Intervention” concerns the intervention principles.

Paul Ekblom

I agree to use new labels, I discussed this with a German and he said it does not work in German either. It works, more or less, in French if you use “Implication” for “Involvement”. Perhaps we should have a little competition for suggestions, or simply talk about the Five Steps.

But the word “Intervention”…I have defined crime prevention as ‘intervention in the causes of crime and disorder events, to reduce the risk of their occurrence and their potential seriousness of their consequences’. So, for me “Intervention” has a very specific, ‘cause-effect’ meaning. But if you have another idea, I am willing to take a look at it. We could create a little working group to look at the terminology.

13

Patrick Hebbrecht (Gent University)

What do you mean by “sensitive to theories, but not limited to theory”?

Paul Ekblom

In the frameworks that I have seen in the past – Ron Clarke has a framework on crime prevention, David Farrington and his team have also worked on this – most are restricted to the theories and processes that concern those individuals or ‘schools’ of crime prevention specifically. To some extent, this is more efficient, but it is very restricting from a practitioner perspective.I am trying to broaden the coverage and to encourage practitioners to consider the whole field of crime prevention. Therefore, if a project is being planned by a practitioner, he/she must not be restricted by a too-narrow a priori definition of the field. The framework must not prevent them from looking beyond their initial conception of the project. In particular I’m trying to get people to bridge the cultural divides between ‘civil’ and ‘enforcement- or justice-based’ prevention, and between ‘situational’ and ‘offender-oriented’ prevention. Therefore I did not want 5Is to be tied once and for all to specific theories of crime prevention. But as part of a rather holistic vision I do want the stakeholders to think theoretically – thinking about all the causes of crime requires this. If practitioners are to seriously think about how their intervention might work, and to describe this accurately to other people, they cannot escape theory. We are thus saying that theory is important, but we do not specify which theory. The 5Is framework is, strictly, a process for doing and describing crime prevention. But within it is another framework which explicitly does describe causes of crime and (equally causal) preventive interventions in those causes. This is the “Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity” (CCO). CCO attempts to map the immediate causes of criminal events, covering both offender and situation. But again, it tries to express these causes in generic terms. Nobody would dispute that (for example) motivation of offenders plays an important role in causing crime. That is a truism, a banality. But there are many theories about which factors in offenders’ environments and personalities interact to produce particular motivations to commit particular acts. CCO gives people a series of generic ‘hooks’ to hang specific theories on when explaining criminal events or attempting to control them. And it makes more ‘remote’ theories of crime (theories of social structure, etc) have to spell out how exactly those remote processes lead to changes in the immediate causes of criminal events.

.

14

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FRAMEWORK

Dr David Meddings, FRCPC (C) MHScDepartment of Injuries and Violence PreventionNoncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health

World Health Organization

I am very happy to have been invited to this meeting, especially because this gives me, as a health professional, an opportunity to talk to individuals who are active in a field with which I have relatively few contacts.

As a medical Doctor, specialised in epidemiology, I am becoming more and more interested in the issue of violence and the interaction between my subject and the realm of criminology. We have been working together more and more often, with success.

To talk about the work of the WHO in this field, I must start by outlining what you call crime prevention, our specific subject of interest.

I am a member of the Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention. My colleagues and I work on violence-related crime. My speech will perhaps not completely relate to the issue of crime prevention as you consider it, it will complement your area of interest; at any rate it is one of our common chief concerns.

I was asked to talk to you a little bit about Public Health and the WHO’s approach. We see violence or violence prevention as an issue, which is part of Public Health. The reasons may be obvious for us, but this is perhaps not so for everyone.

Every year, around 1.6 million people die due to acts of violence. It is the same number of people as those who die from tuberculosis and 50 % more compared to those who die of malaria. Although tuberculosis and malaria are undoubtedly considered as Public Health issues, violence is not considered as being part of this field.

In our work, one of the issues on which we have put a great emphasis is a greater awareness of violence as a Public Health problem. Beyond this, you know that some interventions have proved to be very efficient in reducing or preventing violence.

So, we could consider it is possible, to a certain extent, to remedy this problem if our interest, from a Public Health standpoint is to succeed in reducing the number of deaths related to harm caused by violence.

In the context of this morning’s discussions, the most relevant form of violence will be the violence described in the World report on violence and health published last year, which was considered as one of the most important reports published by the WHO in 2002.

This report takes into consideration several types of violence. There is interpersonal violence and self-inflicted violence. The report clearly demonstrates that the most common type of violence is interpersonal violence in families, between partners, against elderly people or children and community violence between strangers or people who have no contact outside home.

Some people have asked what a Public Health based approach meant. In this I feel very close to Paul Elkblom’s viewpoint. The logical starting point, if we are to deal with this issue from a Public Health standpoint, is to realise that health problems do not occur randomly and that violence has an

15

intricate link with the issue of risk. We must consider the causes. One part of the result is linked to risk level.

If you are saying that it is not a random event, some things can have an impact on the probability of violence. Therefore, some programmes can be implemented, some projects that can help reduce the incidence of violence.

To face up to the challenge of describing risk factors linked to violence, the World report on violence and health was drafted on the basis of a documentary study outlining a four-level framework for the protection against violence: the individual, his/her relationships, his/her community, the society in which they live.

Concerning best practises for the prevention of violence - what I call interpersonal violence - we have the feeling that these are very poorly understood. And if something is understood, this information is not properly shared between various fields and their sectors.

The WHO is working well beyond the European Union and rich countries; our geographical scope is very broad. We are active in many poorer countries where interpersonal violence is much more rife than in rich countries; there is less sharing of information on ways to reduce violence and therefore reduce the number of deaths due to interpersonal violence.

We have taken this unbalance into account and we have been working - I hope this will be of interest to you - to develop a tool, which, we hope, will have an international applicability and importance. We are trying to take the first step in reducing this gap and allowing practitioners to describe and document the violence prevention programmes that exist in countries as diverse as Cambodia or Brazil.

We know that a lot of programmes aimed at curbing interpersonal violence are being implemented. The very fact that we are holding this meeting today demonstrates the interest there is for this programme, and how to share more information on this programme and its efficiency in reducing violence.

Since this programme targets risk factors - various forms of risks, from those that have a direct impact on individual behaviour and decision-making up to the efficiency of Society’s reaction through legislation -, we need a certain framework that will provide good guidance for all the programmes operating at various levels.

Assessment is becoming very important to support programmes and evaluate their efficiency.

We have a guidebook on interpersonal violence. Before I start talking about this tool, I would like to define certain terms with which I may be more familiar than you for I have a Public Health background.

In our guidebook, we explain that it is possible to categorise violence prevention strategies around two axes:

First axis (time axis)

These strategies target a direct effect on the likely result of violence, long before the event.

Other strategies try to reduce the negative effect of violence after its occurrence.

16

These interventions and programmes focus on the reduction of the impact of violence, after the act has taken place.

So much for the time axis.

Second axis

The other dimension is a social welfare issue: to what extend does it make sense not to target a sub-section of the population but the whole population? For example, the legislation on firearms, the right to carry such weapons is not designed for a specific population but for the entire population.

It is conceivable to design more selective programmes to act on risk factors for a certain sub-section of the population. For example, in poorer neighbourhoods, we could envisage visits to the mothers of single-parent families.

Either targeted interventions or targeting a segment of the population, for example the authors of crime or the victims of crime.

So, some time-periods, before, during and after violence must be considered from a social and universal standpoint.

Another type of language, linked to vocabulary - primary, secondary and tertiary prevention - is also used in the guidebook.

The primary level. This means prevention of violence even before it happens. One example of preventive intervention would be visits at home in poor neighbourhoods and high-risk families.

The secondary level. The objective is to minimise the effects of violence, immediately after it has occurred. For example, it is about providing support to a woman who has been abused sexually. One part of what we do, in the case of an emergency, is to provide a prophylactic treatment to the woman to stop her from becoming HIV positive.

The tertiary level. It consists of reducing the possibilities of re-victimisation and organising rehabilitation activities for the perpetrators of the crime...

So much for the terms used in the guidebook.

Concerning our tools, we consider that prevention programmes must fulfil a number of criteria because a single intervention does not constitute a programme, as far as we are concerned. More likely, programmes will include a number of discrete interventions linked to formal mechanisms.

In the guidebook we provide a number of criteria that can be used to identify interpersonal violence and programmes to combat this type of violence. These programmes include a precise definition of the programme’s objectives, based on existing knowledge on the problem of violence.

We focus more specifically on primary and secondary prevention programmes. The programmes themselves are quite similar to what Paul Eklbom has said, not necessarily linked to a specific theory, but they derive from a logical model of violence prevention which has proved efficient or which, at least, possesses a theoretical rationale that makes its success likely.

These programmes aimed at specific target populations have to be precise. In the guidebook, we provide a definition of what a programme is. There is a question, which is still very much in the

17

open, which is how what we describe as a programme to combat interpersonal violence can link up with crime prevention programmes. I think that there is a substantial but not a full overlap.

Now I am going to talk about the importance of assessment and of our vision of assessment within the framework of tools we have developed. We think that assessment is absolutely crucial in order to increase the efficiency of violence prevention programmes.

The guidebook we have created acknowledges that it is likely that few crime prevention programmes give rise to a scientific assessment of their efficiency.

The long-term objective of this work is to provide a method to document, to systematically write down these programmes, to provide a catalogue containing specific explanations on a possible assessment of the programme and what the mechanisms of the programme are. Our objective is to increase the long-term probability that a much larger number of such programmes will benefit from assessment.

There is a whole documentation programme, a documentation objective and an assessment of the programmes, but this is not the conclusion. The guidebook starts with a description of the way programmes should be assessed.

Now I will give you an outline of objectives’ assessment. This is about the scope (national or international framework), the geographical location (the framework provides precise information on the location of the programme), the target population (is the programme focusing on an urban or suburban area, the countryside etc.), the social aspects.

We highlight risk factors, the types and nature of interpersonal violence the programme is trying to impact, the intervention and prevention level, the target (on one or several ecological levels), risk factors at an individual’s level, in his/her relationships, at the level of the community or society at large.

Target populations are very precisely defined in the guidebook.

Concerning the programme, there is a whole, quite detailed section on the programme’s implementation process. It looks very much like Paul Ekblom’s 5 I.

There is a paragraph on the assessment of results and the programme’s impact: has it been assessed? What type of assessment has been used? What methods? What interesting learning? Etc.

I think that, in the tools we have defined, on the basis of what I have understood about the first presentation, that there is a fair amount of overlap between this initial approach and our approach and the way in which you have included these ideas in your action framework. A lot of our objectives and action modes are very much in keeping with your own centres of interest.

One of the differences is that we consider that these programmes have to be implemented in very disadvantaged geographical areas. I have not given you any details on this issue, but there is a whole paragraph and various annexes which specify who should use these programmes and for whom.

There is very precise information on data entry into the database. And one of the long-term objectives is to get an electronic repository of interpersonal violence prevention practices, which would provide a platform for information exchange, in particular, with the objective of developing

18

networks of violence prevention practitioners. For example, we are currently working in Brazil on violence prevention programmes, particularly on armed-violence prevention.

There are a number of threats linked to this. Rio de Janeiro is a city where there are a lot of homicides linked to the use of fire-arms - with a rate of firearms use much higher than Japan’s or Denmark’s. This demonstrates the scope of the issue of violence related to the use of firearms in Brazil.

A programme based on the “Boston Gun Project” has been launched, you may have heard about it. This project involved a model of community policing.

An almost immediate 63 % reduction in the number of homicides in young people has been attributed to this programme. This reduction was sustained during the twenty months of programme assessment. Some may wonder whether this assessment really assesses the effects of the programme or if there was a wide-ranging decrease in the use of guns in the United-States.

But what is important to me and my colleagues is that, concerning our experiments in Brazil, this approach, combined with (…).

The best thing to do is to connect to www.who.org and then enter the key word “violence” which will direct you automatically to our page. There is a lot of information, reports on statistics in our area of work, violence prevention.

Thank you.

19

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION Paul Ekblom (Home Office)

What I found very interesting, intriguing, is the description you made of the primary, secondary and tertiary levels and of the inclusion network. A lot of people involved in crime prevention do not understand this very well, because this notion of primary, secondary and tertiary levels was introduced twenty years ago. But, according to what you said, the inclusion dimension is much more important.

All the things you are doing are of strategic importance for the European network. The question is whether we should align with the references of major international organisations such as the WHO.

David Meddings (WHO)

I do not think that our organisations should consider themselves as the owners of the primary, secondary and tertiary concepts; but if you wish to align with this correct concept, I would say, that for us, it would be interesting. I gave you a definition of the terms.

Nicolas You (UN-habitat)

You mentioned that in your guidebook, you give information to those who have to input documentary databases on the experiments. Who are these people?

David Meddings (WHO)

This is a work in progress and we are reaching the end of the work. It started nearly two years ago. Peers are currently revising this report and we think it will be finalised in mid-October.

The first implementation versions will be provided to Brazil and Mozambique, which are countries where we will have specific people on site who are currently attending training.

In the annexes we have provided precise information on training. It is not very complicated because these training sessions have to be organised with rather limited resources.

Nicolas You (UN-habitat)

Who will provide documents on these experiments? Leaders in the communities? Officials ?

David Meddings

No, it is a precise person. In Brazil, it will be the person in charge of co-ordinating the violence prevention programme. This person has a degree in epidemiology, is therefore highly skilled, and has been working in the field of violence prevention for many years and is well known for involvement in violence prevention in Brazil.

I think this will be the model we are going to implement in most countries. We will identify people who do not need a lot of training. A single person in each country can do this type of work.

It takes a few months to enter all the data. But these people will not have an overall vision of all the violence prevention programmes. For example, one of the things we have done over the last few years is a programme concentrating on various capital-cities in Brazil. This programme focused on crimes related to the possession of firearms.

20

What is very interesting is that there were very high rates at the beginning of the 90’s and that these rates have fallen dramatically. What happened? Is this linked to the violence prevention programmes that are in place? In a number of cases municipal authorities have implemented some programmes; in other State capitals the trend is exactly the reverse. So, one part of this inventory of data, which will be conducted by this person will concentrate on those capital-cities.

Liz Wicksteed (Home Office)

In the United Kingdom, violence is related to alcohol. I would like to know how your guidebook takes into account the work that has been done with the alcohol industry and on the licensing of bars. Is it mainly preventive action or are you concentrating on more specific, more precise interventions. Are there any generic campaigns or things like that?

David Meddings

One of the examples I have not mentioned is that of a multi-level programme which has been implemented in the city of Cali, in Colombia, by the mayor who himself has a public health background.

The programme’s approach is a multi-level approach. There has been a limitation on the opening hours of the bars that can serve alcohol (closing hour at 2am instead of 4am). There have been other prevention aspects, which are not communicated. This had a major impact on the reduction of armed-violence.

What you said is very interesting. Working with restaurant owners, the alcohol industry, etc., but to me, this is more about societal intervention.

The other approach is to involve the industry, perhaps through legislation on alcohol consumption and the way in which alcohol is consumed in some public places, stadiums for example. It is a different approach. You are trying to influence risks at the overall societal level.

If other countries have been able to test this approach, it would be very useful. In particular if this was tested at European level; we are very interested because we have reached a stage where we are trying to see if this approach is useful. If you can provide a standard approach on the collection of information in these types of projects, we are very interested.

21

THE EMCDDA FRAMEWORK

Abigail DAVIDProject Manager, European Monitoring

Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

I. What is EDDRA?

The Exchange of Drug Demand Reduction Action (EDDRA) was established in 1996 by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). EDDRA’s primary purpose is to detail the status of drug response programmes throughout the EU. Essentially, it is an online database, currently available in 11 languages. Each project has been made available in both its native language, and in English.

The EDDRA database was launched to help practitioners, policy-makers and decision-makers who needed expert assistance in planning and implementing drug demand reduction activities. It operates via a system of national EDDRA managers in each European Member State. EDDRA’s core focus has always been evaluation, and a key inclusion criterion for any project on its database is that it be able to demonstrate a commitment to evaluation.

II. EDDRA’s Contents

EDDRA currently comprises 420 (25/09/03) project entries from across the EU. These broadly cover four main categories.

Projects having a treatment element; Projects covering prevention work; Projects covering harm reduction, and Projects dealing with some element of the criminal justice system

The majority of EDDRA database entries presently have an emphasis on prevention. This is quite reflective of the status of demand activities across Europe, since funding tends to be made more available to prevention-based initiatives than to other types of intervention.

Forty-one current projects contain criminal justice elements, comprising over 10% of the database. Twenty-three of these are prison-based, primarily focussing on drug treatment for prisoners.

The database can be accessed through guided extended text searches. It can also be searched in a number of manners, depending on the nature of the project, and on the projects actual physical setting, (i.e., outpatient clinic, school, etc.)

The database can also be searched by target group, providing specific information for interventions involving families, children, adults, experimental drug users, non-drug users, or addicts.

III. EDDRA’s Inclusion Criteria

EDDRA has three key inclusion criteria, namely:

Anyone entering a programme on the database must commit to ensuring its regular updating

22

Anyone with a project available on the database must use the EDDRA offline tool. This is a specifically developed software programme for the overall system.

All projects must make formal commitments to full evaluation. This involves being subjected to objective control studies able to determine that the project in question conforms sufficiently to established projects intended to reduce drug abuse.

However, it quickly became clear to the EMCDDA that a strict application of these three criteria would result in a very small database. The main reason for this is that a well-founded, Europe-wide evaluation culture has yet to take root. Moreover, such evaluations are often prohibitively expensive.

This has meant that EMCDDA has needed to become flexible, including through supporting the evaluation process in many instances to help make sure that interventions are effective. We have produced a number of manuals to support these efforts.

We have also rethought how we view evaluation. Broadly speaking, these now fall into three categories:

Evidence-based projects: these now make up the minority of current projects. Such projects must have been subjected to objective control studies.

Fully evaluated projects: these have gone through an internal evaluation process, and can display the standards of widely employed methodology and results.

Partially evaluated projects: in these cases, only certain elements have been evaluated. Therefore, EMCDDA cannot fully ascertain their effectiveness, but we do feel secure in claiming that they are examples of good practice.

IV. How Does EDDRA Work?

EDDRA essentially works through national managerial networks in Member States. National managers distribute questionnaires to local project managers. The latter fill these in, before sending them back to the national managers. The two parties then work together to assimilate the information, which is then transferred to the EMCDDA. We then conduct checks on the submitted materials suitability, mainly involving scientific and language checks. Once approved, it is then placed on the database.

V. EDDRA’s Benefits for the User

EDDRA promotes evaluation, and has helped to increase the demand for information concerning evaluation, including on the various types of publications and training programmes available. It also provides the only database of its kind in Europe.

EDDRA does not, however, provide a comparable amount of detail regarding drug reduction activities across Europe. Instead, each Member State can decide independently what type of material, involving which projects, it wishes to see included in the database. Therefore, we regard the database as something of a reflection of the various types of drug-demand related project activities currently underway in Europe. We feel that it provides clear evidence of what does and does not work. It has also allowed the EMCDDA and the European Commission to make clearer and fuller recommendations to Member States on their drug demand reduction activities. It has also

23

allowed experimental project design, and has greatly aided a rise in the visibility of related activities across the continent, including adding political weight to such endeavours.

VI. Current Developments

The ongoing EU enlargement obviously necessitates new national manager recruitment for all of the ten imminent Member States. We have also been looking at means of diversifying our products, mainly through increasing the number of functions available on EDDRA, with an emphasis on providing greater user-friendliness as well as analyses of the information currently available.

Increasing EDDRA’s visibility is another priority. We have recently improved aspects of our website, while also adding to our email lists and sending out monthly bulletins.

Currently, we are also moving into a new development phase, which involves exploring new methods of streamlining and simplifying the tools at our disposal, including both software and hardware, and furthering our co-operation with Member States.

VII. Lessons Learned

Since 1996, EDDRA has needed to face the daily practical problems inherent to any comparable project. It is essential to have a holistic view when setting up such a database, including having a clear vision regarding what it is supposed to do. In my experience, there seems to be a big gap between the conceptual sense of the database system, and how it is practically employed. I would like to offer two examples of this.

First, some problems have consistently arisen in filling out certain electronic questionnaires, known as “offline tools”. The initial concept involved national managers distributing these tools to regional project managers. The project managers were to then fill these in, and return them to the national managers via e-mail. This has rarely happened, chiefly because of lack of e-mail access, reluctance to take the time to fill in the rather lengthy questionnaires, or both. The result has been that the national managers often need to fill these in themselves, often via telephone exchanges or personal visits to the regional managers.

Second, the availability of the web-site in different language increases database costs. This will obviously intensify with the upcoming addition of new Member States, and will necessitate a discussion on the issue of translation.

I would also like to emphasise the critical importance of good IT support and development. In EDDRA’s early days, we changed contracts to a IT support service that used a different systems to those currently used by the EMCDDA. Be sure to use software and hardware that is compatible with the infrastructure in place, and make it absolutely clear to any external contractor service providers what systems you are using.

Last, I also want to stress the importance of having some sort of quality assurance system in place. This is vital for assuring that users will ultimately be able to assess the practical success, or otherwise, of a given project. This system should also extend to a method of evaluating the quality of all information being provided on any database.

24

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

From the Floor

You ended by talking about the importance of having a quality assurance system. What is your method of measuring success?

Abigail David

That is why I chose to include this in the “lessons learned” category. We make sure that the information going into the database meets certain quality criteria. We have been reluctant to see the number of entries as being indicative of success. Each of the Member States has different production rates for projects. This makes it difficult to compare certain countries meaningfully, due to the large differences in population sizes, and sheer differences in the amount of information the various States wish to disseminate via the database.

As part of the EMCDDA website, web statistics are produced monthly, and measurements are made.

Liz Wicksteed, Home Office, UK

How do you make sure that database entries are user-friendly from the perspective of practitioners in each country? You mentioned the difficulties in filling in the electronic questionnaire. How do you make certain that the form is readable and accessible? Also, do you have any information about the extent to which projects have been initiated in each country as a result of the existence of this database?

The questionnaire has gone through a long develop period since 1996. Every couple of years, there have been adaptations and additions to it. In an effort to make it more user friendly, we chose to make the questionnaire available in all of the current Member State languages

In terms of initiatives taken as a result of the database, in Spain, Greece, Austria and other countries, it has been adopted and used as a basis for recent and current projects. There are other cases where the database has been used as a planning tool for projects that are obliged to follow the protocol set down within the set parameters.

Michel Marcus

Do you have an ongoing evaluation process with regard to the impact of your database? Are you able to say how many project leaders and field practitioners have been inspired by the database to launch projects in other countries, based on what they have learned from using your database?

This is a descriptive database. It was not designed to be an evaluation standard. Rather, it was intended to set the standard for what we think are good practices. We found out very early on, as I mentioned earlier, that the evaluation standards we originally set down were too restrictive. We encourage good standards, but we do not dictate what these are.

25

THE UN-HABITAT FRAMEWORK

Nicolas YOUBest Practices and Policies Section Co-ordinator

UN-HABITAT

I. The “Best Practices” Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for what are often described as “best practices” dates back to 1996, in preparation for an international conference on human settlements, HABITAT II, held in Istanbul that year. As the programme co-ordinator for this conference, I was responsible for contributing to setting its agenda. The first agenda point I chose to focus on was the notion of nurturing effective partnership structures. It is simply impossible for governments or agents of civil society to tackle the very complex problems of human settlement or sustainable development alone.

My second idea was seeking solutions. In my opinion, so many previous conferences fell short of their expectations by the fact that some extremely important issues were being discussed, often by leading experts, in the absence of lessons learned from experience.

There is no definitive concept of what a “best practice” is. What works today may be totally ineffective tomorrow. Any attempt to document good practices would be an exercise that would need to evolve over time, both in terms of criteria and the utilisation of these terms and concepts.

II. The Documentation Process

The documentation process for good practices should be as close as possible to the people who are directly affected by its implementation. We have always tried to ensure that the people who are directly involved in implementing the practices are the ones who draft the documentation. We at UN-HABITAT do not enjoy the wealth of resources at the disposal of bodies like the EU, and cannot therefore provide technical assistance. Instead, we try to provide a simple framework with clear and transparent guidelines and criteria to allow the practitioners to document their practices. This documentation process can thereby also become an exercise in self-appraisal and assessment.

III. Crime Prevention Applications

We feel that the documentation process is an integral part of capacity building for institutions responsible for the implementation of certain practices. With regard to crime prevention, we can see that, globally, most crimes occur in urban areas. Crime in rural areas, however, do tend to be quite different in nature, so we feel that one of the most important “end users” for good practice principles must be agents at the local authority and community level.

The ultimate aim, however, is to change the way in which decisions are taken, thereby effecting normative changes in public policy. The key question must be which resources should be allocated, be this at the state, federal or more local level.

After local level authorities, the most important partners working towards crime prevention are agents of civil society. Local communities are the stakeholders most likely to be able and willing to enforce best practices. Accordingly, they are also the ones that bear the most risk if nothing is done or changed.

26

IV. The Use of “Knowledge”

One unanticipated consequence of the increased global trend towards democratisation is that, more and more often, important policy decisions must be made in a very short time period. For any newly elected local authority, the first year in office tends to be a learning process, involving building up capacity and getting familiar with the institutional framework. The second year tends to centre on idea formulation, and the third around implementation. If the policies are popular, Year Four will most likely be given over to re-election campaigning!

This means that any policies put into practice must be demonstrably useful within this window of opportunity. This impacts on the way in which we should look at knowledge. For UN-HABITAT, “knowledge” is information derived from experience combined with the human know-how and expertise that can adapt lessons learned from experience to a given social action or programme. This is not to say that we have chosen to reject theoretical principles, or empirically based studies derived from data analysis or indicators, but the latter tend to be more useful and applicable to longer-term planning .

At some point, one needs to merge the two. This means, on one hand, one needs to have objective indicators, and immediately applicable information on the other. Both, moreover, must be useable and readily accessible by policy-makers as well as civil society agents.

One needs to differentiate the different types of tools for different purposes. I fully understand the complexities detailed by the previous speaker with regard to databases. The temptation is often very powerful to try to expand the database so that it can serve every conceivable purpose. This, in my view, is very difficult to achieve and may not be cost effective. . The lesson that we have learned over the past six or seven years is that one needs different products and different tools for different purposes.

V- The Documentation of Best Practice

One such tool is the documentation of best practice. The documentation framework should really be as simple as possible. This is not a question of “dumbing it down”, but if a great deal of energy and resources must be spent having to guide users through questionnaires , then it defeats the purpose of getting a critical mass of useful experiences from which more can be learned. We therefore need a reporting format simple enough for individuals involved in civil society organisations– and not only specialists or practitioners – to be able to tell their story.

Databases should be seen primarily as means of exchanging information, and for networking. We have that it more useful to have separate products for well-defined target audiences, such as specialists and practitioners. These products include case studies and case histories focusing on lessons learned as well as documents focusing on policy and capacity building implications.

VI-In-depth Evaluation

Another product is in-depth evaluation. This involves taking a single practice, and analysing why it succeeded or failed. This is a distinct product that the documentation of a good or best practice could provide. It requires a different perspective and working method.

We have developed terms of reference for how to produce a case study or casebook, as well as on how to undertake an in-depth evaluation. Different partners around the world have used these terms

27

of reference to conduct such activities. They, in turn, provide us with feedback to constantly improve our terms of reference and analytical tools.

Over time, we have modified these tools, and established a set of references as to what these tools are capable of generating in terms of value-added products.

Last, I would like to mention evaluation. We routinely conduct evaluations for normative purposes. These tend to revolve around what has been learned from the information in question, and how this can be useful in determining changes or new developments in public policy. I feel that, in this regard, we have come to realise that we need yet another set of tools. One of the most successful tools we have come up with in this area is the documentation of good, effective policies.

VII-Guidelines for Internationally Applicable Policy

Naturally, we are constantly being challenged to demonstrate patently effective policies or legislation that could have international applicability. To this end, we have developed a new, three-stage process.

“Unpacking” laws and policies: this involves synthesizing what are often several-hundred-page-long documents, often written in impenetrable “legalese”, and make these more easily acccessible to both the practitioner and the general public .

Mapping the institutional framework and identifying the key actors responsible for formulating, monitoring, or implementing a given law or policy .

“Stakeholder review”: this is being initiated in connection with a crime-prevention law in Tanzania. After studying the national law, we are presently mapping out the institutional actors and presenting it to the stakeholders concerned, such as central and local governments, the Ministry of Justice, various police forces, NGOs, etc. The review takes the form of a two to three-day workshop, focusing on the perceptions of different stakeholders on the effectiveness of that law. We ask the different actors to offer their assessments regarding the what, in their view, works or doesn’t work, the obstacles they face and possible means fr improvement.

We have implemented this process now in 12 different countries, primarily focussing on urban issues, such as crime, housing, health, etc. We have found that this type of assessment is very germane to the political decision-making process. It is useful to central governments to be able to see very quickly how the same law is being viewed by authorities in different cities. It is also immediately useable by local decision-makers, allowing them to see how a given law is perceived by the different social actors within a same respective jurisdiction.

This is, however, all currently “work in progress”. We have a database, containing 1 600 good and best practices from 140 countries. This is now being linked to other databases, and eventually will expand to 2000 good and best practices documented in 180 nations. It is a wealth of information for analysing emerging trends and policy options. I feel strongly that such a system of knowledge gathering is a necessity. However, such a system requires clear and transparent criteria, and must encourage people to submit their own experiences.

Such a system should also only be seen as a beginning, not as any sort of end in itself. It is a means towards normative policy work, and towards generating useful capacity building tools and instruments, such as training.

In conclusion, I would like to analyse the question of how one goes about instigating changes in attitudes and behaviour through the practices I have described. I feel that a key element of this is

28

never to overlook the importance of awareness building. We work very intensely with the media in terms of packaging compelling stories that can be easily disseminated to the general public. Without the public’s knowledge of what one is trying to do, one cannot expect strong public support. I feel this is particularly relevant in crime prevention. If people do not perceive that their neighbourhoods are safer, they will not change their behaviour, regardless of what official data sources may indicate.

VII-Intangible Factors for Policy Implementation

Another key consideration is one that a crime prevention expert will not be able to answer: what could the political risks be of any given policy decision? Only another politician can answer this. This is mirrored at the community level: not even the best sociologist can fully convince a social leader that he fully understands the latter’s risk level in deciding to initiate what quite often might be fundamental and far-reaching changes.

What is absolutely essential, therefore, is to be able to appreciate the means by which we can incite or facilitate such changes. For the UN, conferences or seminars are essential in this process. Sometimes, it is utterly remarkable how quickly these can help bring about palpable results.

In conclusion, while one should not overlook the general public, never forget that your key partner in crime prevention is the local authority. Without their support, changes will either never happen, or prove difficult to sustain over time. Finally, consider the normative dimension: how do we best integrate the lessons learned via best practices back into the policy-forming process?

29

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

David Meddings (WHO)

Please expand on your remarks on engaging with authorities and stakeholders around legislative approaches. One of the obvious attractions of some of these society-based interventions is that they hold the promise of making a normative change within all of society. This in turn can have very broad implications. But in innumerable societies, very well-intentioned legislation is passed which is largely unenforceable, and is meant to be enforced by agents who have no real vested interest in seeing it succeed – in fact, often quite the opposite.

Nicolas You (HABITAT-UN)

This is actually a problem in most countries. You have legislation that is passed, and never assessed, let alone evaluated. What we are proposing as a method is a “quick and dirty” assessment: one that provides rapid and cheap perceptions from the main social actors concerned how effective a given law or policy actually is. Most of the time, it points to these capacity questions, such as an eventual realisation that the institutional “map” that was the foundation for deciding who was responsible for what, has gone completely awry in some way.

In the developing world, the main challenge is that in-depth evaluations are simply too expensive. The World Bank’s evaluation of Sao Paulo’s urban development, for example, was US 250 000. We cannot replicate that, even in a middle-income country. The methodology that we are now testing costs about US10 000. The Brazilian Ministry of the City is now envisaging implementing this over 20 cities in order to arrive at a cognitive map of how well the same map is being perceived in urban areas around the country.

30

WORKSHOP 1: THE POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITS OF THE DIFFERENT FRAMEWORKS FOR THE DESCRIPTION AND THE EXCHANGE OF GOOD

PRACTICES

Introduction: Tony HEALHead of the Voluntary Organisations and

International Crime Reduction UnitHome Office, United Kingdom

My perspective is chiefly that of someone concerned with policy development and implementation, rather than that of a scientific expert. The question before us is: what are the primary advantages and disadvantages of the various frameworks?

In all the frameworks presented and discussed so far, certain strengths and weaknesses have become evident.

I-The Five I’s Framework

For example, the five I’s framework is conceptually strong, has a rigorous process orientation, and can be applied at different policy-driven and practical levels. It may, however, be too complicated for some applications. Also, it is not yet a fully developed method with an established track record.

II-The UN HABITAT framework

The UN HABITAT format: by contrast, has accumulated roughly 1 600 good practice examples. It is also well established and well organised, with a sound reputation. It has the advantage of being highly flexible. On the other hand, its breadth of scope may mean that it loses the specificity and depth of a framework dedicated more precisely towards crime prevention. It is also as much a political as a social science framework.

III-The EDDRA Framework

The EDDRA framework does not claim to be a universal system. It is, specifically a drug-focussed framework. Its key benefit is its extensive database in that field. It also offers a highly welcome emphasis on comparability. However, questions must be asked about its applicability to crime prevention activities, and the time and effort involved in translating it into a framework best suited to this end.

IV-The WHO Framework

The WHO framework provides some of the characteristics found in both EDDRA and the Five I’s frameworks. These are important crossovers. It does not, however, offer a holistic framework for crime reduction.

V-Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Discussed Framework

In order to arrive at a fuller appreciation of the various advantages and disadvantages of each framework, we shall have to measure each of them more systematically against agreed criteria. Without offering any prejudgement, I suspect that one of the frameworks will, in time, come to be selected as a basis, and that the most appropriate elements of the others will be incorporated into it;

31

probably with some further developments in certain areas also inserted to bridge any discrepancies.

What should these assessment criteria be? The expert-led approach being taken today is essential at this stage. But we need to keep in mind that a key consideration for any chosen framework will be its practical applicability for use by non-expert practitioners.

I suggest that the product development process used in the commercial world offers us guidance for future decisions in this respect. By this, I mean primarily that we should try to make sure that a customer focus, not a producer focus, is our priority. Obviously, I am not suggesting that principles determined by experts do not need to be built into any framework.

As a starting point on how we could develop these criteria, I have devised my own methodological framework, which, with tongue in cheek, I call “the three D’s”: Demand, Diversity and Difficulty:

The Three D’s Framework

1. Demand:

The chief concerns in this category include:

What do users really want? Who are these users? How much will they want a set framework? Will they be able and willing to provide the case material to make the framework viable? Will they use the output to improve their own practice? Above all, how much will decision-makers be willing to pay for development of a framework

and training of policy-makers and practitioners to use it?

2. Diversity:

No single framework can provide a “one size fits all” product. Any chosen methodology must have wide-ranging appeal on a number of levels. It needs to appeal to both policy-makers and practitioners with varying levels of resources, in different agencies in different countries. Creativity and ingenuity in being able to adapt any given standard is also a key factor in this category. We can already see this in practice in how the Danish and Swedish authorities have been able to adapt the five I’s model. This adaptation is inevitable; it is human nature to change things and we must ensure that the framework takes account of this fact.

3. Difficulty:

The key concerns in this category include:

How difficult will the standards be to implement and market within any chosen framework? How can the awareness raising discussed earlier be effected? What are the risks and obstacles involved? Could any methodology realistically be expected to be universally applicable throughout the

EU of the future? If it is something less, precisely what is it?

I fully endorse the view expressed earlier that following this seminar we need to move to a similar practitioner event. I also believe that these criteria now need to be built into a systematic process of

32

evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the various frameworks after the practitioner event has taken place.

We have to build from the bottom up. In this regard, I wonder where the starting point for the other frameworks was? Did the initial impetus for the HABITAT Framework come from a demand at the highest level of the United Nations or from practitioner appeals? The answer to this question should indicate our direction. I agree with Nicholas that one has to expand coverage of the framework to accommodate a range of demands. Even though we may apply our framework mostly at policy level, we mustkeep the process closely aligned to the practitioners point of view. The most demanding and the most rewarding aspect of our chosen framework will always be how me make it relevant to practitioners. Regardless of its origin and course of development every framework must aspire to assist practitioners as it main goal

33

WORKSHOP 1:THE POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITS OF THE DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE DESCRIPTION AND THE EXCHANGE OF GOOD

PRACTICES

From the Floor

In England, a plethora of crime and crime prevention practices exists. Is the database concerned with trying to capture the essence of this problem or not at all?

Paul Ekblom

At present, there is no universal database. Several individual attempts to establish databases or knowledge bases have occurred: a crime reduction college in the policing sphere, police training, police standards units and big city partnerships. Obviously, since initiatives continue to emerge, demand for knowledge exists. However, although people agree that a common framework or a set of compatible frameworks would be ideal, this process has yet to evolve into a common framework. The idea of knowledge management has only emerged in the past few years. As with the new format for audio or video, we have noted strong competition between various interests for a dominant position. Consequently, we are witnessing uncertain times. Unlike the video case, where beta max was the best system but VHS won, I hope these issues can be resolved.

Daniel Sansfaçon

What would be the perception of representatives from other countries with respect to the issue raised by Paul? Namely, is demand for databases coming from the bottom up, from practitioners in each country, or from the top? Denmark and Sweden were mentioned as examples of countries having accepted the Five I’s. Maybe we could start with them.

Charlotte Vincent ( Danish crime prevention council)

I am a little confused about whether we are discussing frameworks or databases. Although I can see the connection, they are slightly separate issues. However, if we are referring to frameworks, I do not believe that we have totally adopted the Five I’s. Instead, we have made an effort to understand the concept and seen how it fits into our context. When I saw the note for the Rome conference on the exchange of good practices, I thought that I understood the Five I’s. As the Finnish representative stated, rather than adopting the Five I’s, we have to try to fit in what we have learned in the Nordic countries and adjust. In terms of demand, in the Nordic countries, I believe that the cost effectiveness concerns from higher levels have become the major driving force in the social and criminal justice fields.

Jerzy Sarnecki (University of Stockholm)

Sweden remains in a fortunate position. A well established state agency, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, supports our crime prevention schemes and has the ability to emphasise the importance of some systematic assessment of what is happening in the crime prevention area. In practice, the Council is using a form of the Five I’s, supporting programmes that demonstrate a systematic approach. It also provides a form of economic support.

In my opinion, people involved in crime prevention in Sweden, and elsewhere, are enthusiastic about programmes without thinking systematically about them. Indeed, if one encourages a systematic approach, they become frustrated. Usually, they believe in the usefulness of the existing programmes. However, some of our approaches to crime prevention are harmful. Unfortunately, it

34

is difficult to convince these enthusiastic people of this fact. Although the initiative comes from above, one has to educate people to think systematically about this issue. In my opinion, the approach being discussed today is possible to implement. However, it could take a long time to evolve.

Daniel Sansfaçon

Are there any other comments on whether this demand should come from t he top or the bottom?

Nicolas You

In the context of the HABITAT Conference of 1996, which remains the only UN conference to involve open government and civil society, the initial demand originated at a high level among all social actors. Since we took the first step to adopt a unified reporting format, we found that it responded to a lot of pent up demand, which we did not even suspect existed at the time. About 40% of our database users are “.edu” users, including higher learning and research institutions, which use the database to study emerging trends. The remaining 60% are part of government and civil society.

The exact demand of the users may only be discovered after the framework launch. At that point, it becomes a question of catering to user demands and to absorb these demands into the conceptual framework. Equally, the database or framework has to grow and cater to these demands. If one remains transparent in the process, a product will evolve. Another major application of our database relates to training: most professional training today is case study-based. Once a framework exists within which experiences can be documented, many spin-off applications will occur.

In our experience, it is impossible to use the same instrument for different purposes. Different bi-products from the same framework will suit the researcher or the practitioner. Eventually, feedback will result from different streams to the overall framework, allowing it to improve and to respond more effectively to the various demands. In this regard, trial and error is preferable to prolonged discussion. Finally, an inclusive approach to the framework will increase the feeling of ownership and contribute to its success.

Dennis Rosenbaum

I would like to make a few comments. First, I believe that there is room for multiple databases within a general framework, where each one serves a specific purpose. During today’s discussion, I have learned a lot about HABITAT. In my opinion, it is more of a political process than a social science process As a social scientist, I am most concerned with the issue of best practices and its definition. Yet after many years of study, I have reached the conclusion that social scientists do not hold a monopoly on knowledge. I used to believe that we knew “the truth” and all other opinions were merely expressions of ignorance. Hence, we must be open to input from all data sources and all stakeholders when seeking to determine the effectiveness and importance of particular interventions.

Regardless of one’s approach, legitimacy is essential. Academic researchers tend to be associated with legitimacy. Our version of knowledge is based on validity and reliability, using certain methods that are increasingly being challenged. If one applies high social science standards to the ability of a programme to achieve its primary objectives, we have established that few programmes will qualify. Although they may look good, no data are available. Alternatively, data may exist within a programme that does not look good. In my experience, due to a large gap between

35

program theory and program implementation most programmes that are rigorously evaluated do not succeed. This suggests, when it comes to impact evaluations, that we need to focus limited resources on programs that show promise and for which strong data are available.

Given all the countries involved and the resulting notion of flexibility, I am most concerned with the danger of the entire process falling victim to political considerations, where one can choose any element. Regarding the debate between politics and social science research, many present have heard of the Drug Abuse Resistance Programme (DARE). For the past 10 years, I have been battling with the authorities in Washington about this programme, using research that challenges the case for widespread implementation, (Most studies show no preventive effect on drug use and one large study shows an increase in drug use among suburban children). All too often, we assume that social programs and criminal justice policies can do no harm and can only have beneficial effects on society. This is a naïve assumption. For example, we now know that urban police arrests of young people tend to increase the probability of re-offending rather than have the desired deterent effect. In sum, increased controls, including the Five I’s, could be applied across the board to insure that important questions are being addressed and relevant data are being collected to measure both process and impact (including potential adverse effects)

Equally, one should always retain the possibility of completing more serious systematic evaluations of particularly promising demonstration programmes. As we are all aware, controls are both costly and time-consuming. Alternatively, the case study method has become very popular in the social sciences and can yield useful information about program dynamics and implementation obstacles

Finally, once we recognise that academics do not enjoy a monopoly on knowledge, we should realise that many stakeholders are involved in the evaluation process, which has to reflect this state of affairs. Consequently, I believe that many of our current problems will be solved.

Daniel Sansfaçon

This morning, I heard a delegate claim that the Five I’s framework may not translate very well into other languages. Could you comment on this? To what extent is a common framework possible within the EU?

José Rosa, Portugal

The translation implications of the Five I’s are self evident. The five initials will not always remain the same in translation into different languages. It would be a little too optimistic to assume that this aspect of the Five I’s remained in other languages. When I help people to identify the restrictions of crime prevention projects, Paul’s framework is very helpful regarding many details. However, I have trouble translating some of the major labels in this framework. On the other hand, I liked Nicolas suggestion that people write their story in their own words.

In my view, the identity of the initial framework is not really important. In Borges’s short story, entitled, “El Idioma Analitico de John Wilkins”, or, “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins”, he looks at the different classifications of the world. Eventually, because “we do not know what kind of thing the Universe is” he reaches the conclusion that it is impossible to decide on an ideal classification method. Equally, although we know many of the elements of crime prevention projects, we do not know the details in advance. Consequently, we should prioritise a flexible working framework before adding specific practices.

36

Daniel Sansfaçon

I have already noticed the discussion of criteria. I have heard calls for flexibility, legitimacy and openness. I would prefer to keep this discussion for the second part of this round table. Regarding the adaptability of elements in a framework, I presume everyone would agree on the ability of English to encapsulate an idea in few words. However, we also face cultural and historical difficulties with elements of the framework.

Annie Kensey (France)

I would like to return to the question of a single or several frameworks. If we retain a single framework, it should be comprehensive. Despite being comprehensive, the Five I’s model is too cumbersome, especially for local level application. In terms of terminology, we need a common language and simple terminology. Otherwise, communication at national and international levels will prove difficult.

Maria Grazzia Vivarelli (Italy)

I do not believe that the problem relates to terms or words. The problem concerns the content adopted by each country.

From the floor

Although I am not a real expert, I would like to wait for the Rome meeting in November on good practices before deciding on the validity of the Five I’s system.

German representative

In Germany, we are trying to introduce evaluation for the police force. However, even though they are working on their crime prevention programmes, the practitioners have made no demand for evaluation. As social scientists, we have imposed evaluation guidelines based on 14 points.

Patrick Hebberecht (Belgium)

This is a very relevant question and we have debated the organisation of a seminar. Following the Alborg meeting, we thought about a national representative meeting to discuss a common framework built on a consensus. However, since many countries and regions operate different frameworks, we felt the absence of an EU framework made discussions became complex. Therefore, we are planning to build a unifying framework on the Five I’s idea. In this regard, this meeting is designed to provide an open discussion on an idea that maintains potential.

We have seen that the analytical tools are well developed in Europe. Indeed, many countries and regions have already established their own evaluation tools. Consequently, I would propose a discussion on these instruments. Countries with existing tools should continue to use them and build on them before agreeing on a minimal tool for use in all EU countries.

Daniel Sansfaçon

As an external observer, I have heard ideas from one extreme to the other. While some delegates have proposed the foundation for an operational framework, others have expressed a desire for further debate. My understanding is twofold. First, delegates from different countries received questionnaires asking information about existing frameworks, which has been integrated into the

37

documents presented today. Second, a group of experts was convened to discuss the lowest common denominator to include within a framework. Subsequently, any points of consensus would then have to be submitted to the normal processes of approval, even including another seminar with practitioners. These steps are neither contradictory nor determinative: they represent a discussion to define the elements and criteria of a network framework.

Once a collection of practices has been defined, one has to decide for whom they are of use. Does one apply the same criteria to policymakers and practitioners? Then, how are these practices to be selected? Does the state decide, or, as in the EMCDDA, a system of local correspondents? These questions need to be addressed. Although I do not expect a perfect consensus on all these elements during today’s meeting, I would at least expect to hear proposals moving in this direction.

Jerzy Sarnecki (University of Stockholm)

I would prefer to adopt a more pragmatic approach. Overall, we need to look at the process. Today’s discussion will never produce a final description. However, we need to start and develop a simple model. In this regard, the Five I’s model offers several advantages. First, it is adapted to crime prevention. Second, it is presented in English, the most common second language. During today’s discussion, we may have to simplify the Five I’s model, to see if it fits the situation in each country. Otherwise, we will never reach a decision in the near future.

From the Floor

I agree that the Five I’s programme is more complete and designed to prevent crime. Consequently, it represents a suitable starting point.

Nicolas You

After several tests, we will be able to improve the instrument. In my experience, the cultural question is more relevant to government and spheres of administration that it is between countries. Civil society may interpret it differently to local government. In both the EU and UN, we know that linguistic barriers can be overcome.

Tony Heal

This discussion has helped me to understand that we need to move away from the selection of a given framework. As participants in the crime prevention business, we need to decide how to convey knowledge to those involved in crime prevention. In this regard, a framework does not represent the only option. Case studies and more rigorous evaluations also play a role. While I would support the development of a framework, other forms of knowledge need to accompany it.

Paul Ekblom

We should distinguish between the framework designed to capture and describe crime prevention knowledge and the dissemination of that knowledge. In Medical Science, there is one common framework with several different expressions, depending on the reader. I favour a single framework over multiple frameworks in different areas of crime prevention. The problem-oriented approach starts with a particular problem before studying the widest possible variety of solutions. However, if the frameworks are disconnected, this broad scope is impossible to find and a holistic approach to crime prevention becomes difficult.

38

Regarding the labels and meaning of the Five I’s, I proceeded to enter so much detail to better define Intervention or Implementation. Although Intervention alone includes flexibility and ambiguity, the precise headings under this word provide clearer definitions. If we only offer the headings to practitioners, in the form of slogans, I fear that, when confronted with a real situation, the lack of detailed steps will fail them. If we store information too simplistically, specific information, like clothing in a poorly organised wardrobe, will become lost in the sea of data. Once practitioners have become accustomed to the idea, a certain level of structure will help them organise their framework. Clearly, the initial period is essential to gain their confidence. Therefore, let us remain open minded about the correct level of structure. In any case, we can only define the optimum level through practice with real practitioners and real problems.

Michel Marcus (France)

Without wishing to jump to immediate proposals, I would like to share some ideas. Working in an urban setting, I have adopted a more pragmatic approach. However, I realise that the political approach is also important. 20 years ago, as part of the Inter-ministerial delegation for urban matters, I participated in a similar meeting. At that time, we were discussing the potential for dialogue and exchanges between practitioners in urban areas. Given the time that has passed and the thousands of people involved in this sort of meeting, I wonder why the EU has not reacted faster in building a general database on crime prevention and other social issues.

Our desire to establish a common framework or database on crime prevention provokes many questions, such as what does crime prevention mean? The WHO terminology of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention are different from the terms used by practitioners worldwide, many of which date from the 1950s.

Any network framework should facilitate diplomatic communication, covering government, civil and research levels. Looking at the countries involved, in terms of contact people, we have failed to fulfil all three levels. Dialogue has not been prioritised. Paradoxically, the United Kingdom, which tends to retain its distance from most EU initiatives, is writing the agenda on this issue. Resulting from a movement to change the framework, this has represented a positive development. However, we have to consider how to handle the information. In my opinion, this framework provides an opportunity to standardise the dialogue between our countries.

On a political level, the construction of the EU is passing through an interesting phase. In this regard, many countries have accepted that crime prevention should become a community-wide policy. In the future, the tool that we are constructing will become the EU crime prevention pillar. Therefore, will all NGOs have to pass through this framework? If this is the case, I believe that we need more democratic participation from civil society. Otherwise we run the risk of a framework being built by the governments of the Member States.

In conclusion, we need to distinguish between the tools needed. As a practitioner, I am dissatisfied with the methods of dialogue being used in this discussion. As a representative of civil society, my voice is not being heard. This framework has failed to gather civil society and researchers. We need to create other tools and I will have some proposals.

David Meddings (WHO)

It has been interesting to hear some of these comments on the other models. Of the variety of models presented today, I believe that only one addresses the prevention of criminal behaviour. Clearly, the WHO does not address all of your concerns. The benefit of being exposed to

39

HABITAT or WHO’s work lies in the mental processes undergone to arrive at a framework that suits our needs. We spent a long time considering the ultimate use of our framework.

As mentioned earlier, demand for a framework on violence prevention originated from both the top and the bottom. Formerly, we had little idea specific violence prevention processes, particularly in low income settings. Similarly, our counterparts working in areas of high violence experienced the same problem. Therefore, once the proposal was tabled, significant pent up demand for network frameworks emerged from all sectors. In our case, standardised agreement for describing crime prevention methods allowed us to increase our knowledge of what is being practiced. In addition, we wished to see effective examples of crime prevention expanded. I imagine that this wish is also of interest to most countries.

Consequently, our framework provided a lot of detail on crime prevention. From Paul’s presentation, I gather that the Five I’s approach is quite similar. Overall, as the framework has to define a target audience, we will probably find several types for several audiences. A simple structure allows the rapid correlation of information but does not facilitate a rigorous evaluation. Therefore, while I would favour the Five I’s model, the study of alternatives may provide useful tools. For example, the ecological model for violence risk factors included in our model does not feature in the Five I’s model. Therefore, alternative models are worth discussion.

Daniel Sansfaçon

ICPC are concerned by this issue. However, I would like to know if there is a selection process for best practices. Clearly, these two issues are linked. Once a framework offers a number of best practices, to what extent could one offer standardisation downstream? Would a selection process apply through the framework or would there be a mixed bag of best practices? Second, within any proposed framework, we would like to achieve a balance between flexibility and rigour. However, today, we are not discussing specific criteria. While I am not suggesting leaving this issue for another forum, we should be prepared to answer politicians’ questions.

Charlotte Vincent

I would like to fully support the standardisation of dialogue to ensure mutual comprehension and the structure proposed by the UK to understand the system. However, the slogan, Five I’s still seems a little simplistic. With this structure, national variations can still be added to suit local needs. In this regard, the pragmatic nature of this framework has helped its implementation. In terms of evaluation, it should be examined at different levels. Are we discussing evaluation carried out by the national crime prevention unit or practitioners working on their own? Depending on the answer, the model could be either simplified or complex. One way of getting practitioners to fill in forms is to attach financial incentives. If funding is linked to detailed documentation of crimes, practitioners are encouraged to document accurately.

Daniel Sansfaçon

Before the break, I would like to invite Nicolas YOU to answer the question that I posed, followed by Yar DEVARS.

Jaap de Waard, EUCPN

I have a pragmatic proposal to make to the experts gathered around the table. I have noticed some complaints about the lack of expert participation. In this regard, the Commission is about to publish a communication on crime prevention, which, among other issues, addresses a common

40

methodology to gather and disseminate information. As this proposal will be discussed in all types of working groups within the Council, it should carry some weight. Therefore, I would like to propose that the EUCPN make a substantial bid for funding to implement this framework. Since the Commission has prioritised these issues for the coming five years, I am hopeful of success. Indeed, the Five I’s framework is named in our document. This represents an opportunity to move forward on this issue and to answer the criticisms.

I propose the establishment of a sub group within the EUCPN, with a clear target and timeframe. Once we pinpoint the experts required, we could bid for up to EUR 500 000. Significant money is available. If we receive the funding, we can showcase examples of practical successes. To date, as the Alborg and Rome seminars demonstrate, this initiative has been based on a voluntary subscription, limited to a few Member States. However, under my proposal, within a year, we could showcase examples that fit the framework presented by Paul EKBLOM and attract experts of quality. Although it is just a proposal, I hope to present it at our next national representative meeting in Italy on Monday. In this regard, I would like to receive support from Member States in my pursuit of this idea.

41

WORKSHOP 2: WHAT COULD BE THE ELEMENT OR CRITERIA FOR THE ELABORATION OF A CONSENSUS FRAMEWORK FOR THE DESCRIPTION AND

THE EXCHANGE OF GOOD PRACTICES ?

Michel MARCUS has prepared an introduction to the second part of this meeting. I will then remind Nicola YOU that I asked him a question before opening the discussion.

IntroductionMichel MARCUS

French Forum for Urban Safety

My presentation will outline our work at the European Forum over the past 12 years. This is an urban network that selects a certain number of themes each year and invites cities to participate. Depending on our success rate, we run several networks covering themes such as family problems, schooling and delinquency. Over the past 12 years, the networks have published a large collection of publications and have created considerable connections between network members.

I. Background

In the beginning, we focused on the subject of best practices, which was a major topic at the time. Nicolas has already mentioned this issue. In the Forum, we discussed the best method of building a set of best practices. Often, people needed access to procedures in other cities around Europe regarding specific problems. Building a database of best practices would have required the compilation of best practices on a continuous basis. Given the cost involved in this approach, it was not an option for our small NGO. Furthermore, the practitioners were the best equipped to describe the practices.

Eventually, we decided to draw best practices from our exchange programmes. In this manner, the best practices from each programme in entered on a database. Only those paid members of the Forum enjoy access to this database. At present, the database contains about 600 forms, related to almost every aspect of crime prevention. However, due to their age and evolution of practices, of the 600 forms, about 75% are useless. Consequently, we have decided to eliminate all forms of which we are unsure. All forms of three years and over are eliminated. At that point, they are either outdated or are not worth tracking. For example, although the team and practices in Barcelona have changed, the database provides the practices in use seven or eight years ago on drug addiction and drug addict rehabilitation.

II. Recent Initiatives

In terms of practices, I noticed that no database exists on local knowledge. Within the organisation, there is no memory of what happened. Therefore, if one asks the social services what they have done in relation to the reintegration of certain delinquents four or five years ago, there is no trace. Unfortunately, local policy is based on memory. Could an EU tool be used as a source of memory on the local level or do we have to work at the local level to develop a tool at that level?

In addition, we wanted the practitioners to write the actual documents. We do not intend to become a consultancy office to write the practices. However, we did provide a minimum format. Although it does not include all the Five I’s, it does include some, such as the nature of the problem encountered the nature of the action taken and the distinction between two situations. Once people fill in the file, they are free to alter any aspect of their action. This becomes their own responsibility. As Nicolas mentioned this morning, this represents a direct dialogue that we

42

maintain with the practitioners in the field. This file card be updated whenever required and the main author is the practitioner.

III. Drawbacks of Databases

By nature I am sceptical of international databases. First, there are too many filters. The files are very dry and uninteresting after a certain length of time. For example, file cards on community policing or released prisoners contain the same vocabulary and eventually become uninteresting. The challenge consists of adding substance to a dialogue that has become stagnant. Even an international database should provoke dialogue with the people carrying out the actions. The database cannot continue to function effectively if the practitioners are denied an opportunity to state their actions. In this regard, state representatives cannot channel practitioner good practice. Consequently, I am always sceptical when the state provides forms on burglary, prisons or the relationship between crime prevention and urbanisation. They are usually of poor quality and uninteresting. As a rule, we discard them as they contribute little to the stimulation of dialogue within the network. The next assembly meeting in Rome should meet with more success.

In contrast to Paul’s statement, I do not believe that one can make a file on everything. Some actions are impossible to describe. Instead of just discussing burglary, we should suggest other topics. What should one expect to find on street crime if called upon to consult the database that we are to construct? This morning, Nicolas described how the timeframe imposed by the politicians was not the same as that from the evaluation. Thee collision of timeframes has to be overcome. As we pick and choose among the themes, a major bottleneck is inevitable.

In this regard, I hope the UK will attend the Rome meeting with an alternative proposal to that concerning burglary or car theft, such as opening night courts in London, which is currently in operation. Instead of files on petty crime, files on more important crime could stimulate dialogue among us. We should avoid describing the actions of other parties, focusing on actions falling within our own area as a part of public services. In this manner, civil society and practitioners can open a dialogue.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to make a more tangible proposal. We have discussed the process of evaluation at length. Let us hold a cross-examination process between states on a certain number of topics. This step has already been discussed at an EU level. In relation to street crime or night courts, why not have two or three states within the network complete an audit of the London experience? They could then report to the other states. Certainly, this would enliven our dialogue.

Regarding the methodology, we cannot escape the compilation of a lexicon. The Danish representative addressed the issue of intelligence this morning. Although this term, for some countries, refers to secret services, it can also refer to scientific knowledge. Consequently, we need to commission a lexicon to avoid misunderstanding. Finally, in most European cities, technical specialists, in charge of local partnerships, could set up an EU funded technical college, where they could gather to establish a training module. Indeed, they could test the Five I’s. after the training session, they could develop certain technical specifications to be adopted by the state. Down to earth, this modus operendi could be scheduled for the near future.

43

What Could be the Elements or Criteria for the Elaboration of a Consensus Framework for the Description and the Exchange of Good Practices?

Nicolas You

We have also opted for a system where the people who implement their practice also document their practice. It is then peer reviewed under an elaborate award system. The first stage consists of a validation process, where a person close to the practice can verify what has been documented. Secondly, a technical evaluation gathers a panel of experts on the Technical Advisory Committee. This remains one of the most complex tasks that I have ever organised. Members have to be regionally representative, gender balanced and cover the main thematic areas. As part of the trade off, we have a female expert in social affairs and a male expert in another domain. Despite the complexity involved, it is quite fun.

The process is evaluated on the basis if two simple criteria. Otherwise, it is impossible to implement. In any event, a good or best practice enjoys a limited shelf life. Within three or five years, it may become a bad practice. The nomination criteria demand a tangible impact and economic or social sustainability, its absolute value in state of the art crime prevention and its relative values. How does it compare with other processes in the same geographical or thematic area? It is important to consider the different social, cultural and economic contexts. Given the context, a normal process in Sweden could be considered as an exceptional one in Mozambique. Every two years, the Technical Advisory Committee receives between 500 and 750 submissions. After taking the best 100, the remainder are either eliminated or considered good. In the context of an award driven system, 40 practices of equal value are put forward for nomination. Today, this system is being adopted by several award and recognition systems worldwide. However, it assumes that a good practice in 2003 may become of little value in 2007.

We keep the processes on the database for five years as active practices. Those that are not activated appear on the database with a proviso stating that we can no longer guarantee the validity of the practice nor the contact people. Even when good practices fade in importance, the ideas and processes engaged are still valid. Regardless of the label, it should only last a limited time. With every round, we add benchmarks to cope with the celebrity of the database. From the beginning, the criteria are clearly known: tangible impact, partnership value and sustainability. After the second round, we added gender equality and social inclusion. In the third round, we introduced empowerment and local leadership. Finally, after the fourth round, we added potential for replication.

As a constantly evolving process, our two main successes have been outreach to the media, where we reach almost 200 million people through international television or local coverage. As ideal candidates for an independent evaluation, journalists are extremely valuable. Furthermore, the harmonisation among half a dozen international award programmes has created a mutually beneficial feeding process. We are present to share our lessons learned with you. However, we feel that there is little time to waste: you have to test your methodology with representatives of civil society, governments and academics. As a step by step process, much will be discovered after launching.

Daniel Sansfaçon

Agreement is growing on the need for some sort of framework. As Yar DEVARS mentioned, thanks to Commission funding, a group of experts may wish to work on applying this framework on a certain number of practices to see the advantages. Subsequently, Michel MARCUS and Nicolas YOU have stated that participants, other than experts have a role to play. Given this

44

tentative agreement on the need to advance on this framework, what should be the following steps? In this regard, I would like to open the floor to those present in the assembly.

Dennis Rosenbaum

Regardless of the methodology adopted, several tasks remain, including finalising the concepts and agreeing on the terms of the framework. Finalising a data collection plan is a different requirement but includes implicitly and explicitly, the criteria mentioned. In parallel, a development implementation plan should explain how to use this data collection plan, including updates and who verifies the data. Personally, I would not be too concerned about combining frameworks. The Five I’s framework is not just a theoretical proposition, it is based on a solid understanding of how people in general think about, and engage in, solving problems. Historically, our society has identified problems, analysed them, formulated a plan implemented it, observed its effects, and taken corrective action if necessary. Fundamentally, regardless of the detail, it is a sound concept and reflects how most people think about solving problems. Importantly, these frameworks can be combined to guide data collection. However, with different target audiences, it is necessary to define the goals of a framework. On one level, people would like to learn the current state of practice, an inventory common to all interested parties.

Understanding the processes involved in more detail allows us to share lessons learned, and this understanding requires the documentation of processes using a common set of measures. Without the ability to replicate across sites, nothing has any scientific base. In this regard, case studies provide important information about implementation successes, but comparison groups are needed to establish “counterfactual” information (i.e. how the problem would have changed in the absence of the program) Unfortunately, it is difficult to evaluate if changes in crime result from programmes or some other variable. Due to limited funding, evaluations of effectiveness should be restricted to those programmes that already show promise. If the theory makes sense and the implementation is strong, there is good reason to expect program effects. In data analysis, the needs of various target audiences are also to be considered.

Daniel Sansfaçon

The next steps for EUCPN include finalising the framework, determining the identity and meaning of each element and the creation of a common vocabulary.

Dennis Rosenbaum

Does the question relate to the setting up of a group?

Daniel Sansfaçon

No, it relates to the following steps for the network. For example, if you agree, how will you finalise the contents of a framework?

From the Floor

According to the EUCPN rules, if the proposal is voted by the national representatives in Venice next Monday, it can be placed on the agenda and discussed by the national representatives.

45

Daniel Sansfaçon

A report will result from this seminar. However, it does not represent a decision making body. This is a scientific seminar designed to gather expert views that will be submitted to the network, which will make a decision. This does not represent a decision making instance.

Today, I have heard at least three potential steps. First, a group of experts would test out the existing framework to test to what extent it works. Second, we could finalise the framework and the common understanding of the various terms. Indeed, these may represent the same exercise. Finally, we could build an implementation manual with rules. Who will be involved? What is the role of civil society or of stakeholders? If one is to test the Five I’s approach, what does the term “expert” mean? This is for you to define.

Patrick Hebberecht ( University of Gent)

I would like to make a comment on so called scientific experts. Looking at the list, most of them appear to be non-governmental experts working in universities but not in government scientific centres. Therefore, if we are to include scientific experts in the future, I would like to recommend using not only those working for the Home Office,... We should also include academics working in universities. I believe that this would add meaning to our discussion.

Michel Marcus

I agree with this proposal and hope it will be discussed in Venice. In the future, we should include practices expressed by the international organisations. This is not a decision making assembly to give total freedom to the countries. In the future, we should include practices as expressed by the international organisations and discuss whether the EU should adopt international readings of standards.

Nicolas You

We are prepared to reconsider and apply this system of crime prevention. In addition, the UN will examine it in the laboratory before providing feedback on these trials.

From the Floor

I did not see many differences between the frameworks. Why not start with the lowest common denominator and add according to our specific requirements. While editing is necessary, we should start with the common framework and consult experts to decide the additions required.

From the Floor

In terms of a tangible test, do you all share a common definition of experts and expert understanding? Are they researchers from research institutes or from the academic world? If so, who are they to be entrusted with the validation of the reference framework?

From the Floor

I think we need to question the experts’ fields of expertise. A part of the answer is the scientific research qualifications and the theory of how to construct a good framework of this kind. It is also vital that practitioner expertise be involved in creating a user friendly framework. People have

46

other things to do and this process is quite cumbersome. Therefore, incentives for vibrant mechanism are essential. In this regard, practical expertise is as important as theoretical expertise.

Daniel Sansfaçon

Are there any comments or suggestions from around the table?

From the Floor

We should consider using this framework as a tool for local evaluation. A provision should enable practitioners to express the problems encountered in applying the tools. In this manner, we can also highlight bad practices, which can either trigger good practices or hold them back. Besides the life cycle of a good practice, not all good practices will transfer cross cultural and national borders. If we are targeting a Europe-wide framework, these considerations are not insignificant.

From the Floor

As an independent researcher, I get scared when I hear about projects being deleted within five years. We need to realise that many elements are more permanent than we may realise.

From the Floor

It is worth including the work of an expert group to develop a vision of how we should evaluate the benefits of establishing this framework. What would European crime prevention resemble if the framework is a success? This would provide evaluation criteria and a clear goal

Daniel Sansfaçon

I would like to thank all the participants and the Inter-ministerial Delegation. We hope the meeting has been informative and has provided inspiration.

47

SYNTHESIS

Mrs Anne Wyvekens Director of Research, Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Sécurité Intérieure, France

As a scientist, I do not consider myself a specialist in this matter and it is difficult to prepare the summary immediately after the other speakers have finished. Inevitably, the discussion will revolve around the pragmatic approach of the UK and the more theoretical approach of the French. However, other countries are involved and other sectors of interest, such as practitioners and researchers. My synthesis will consist of three parts.

- First, what are all the questions underlying this one concerning what is a good practice? - Second, how can we use the tool suggested by Paul EKBLOM ? - Third, who does what in the following stages? -

1-What are all the questions underlying to this one concerning what is a good practice ?

There is a certain ambiguity regarding the term « best practice », which is found in the various files used to make an inventory. Whether it is objectively or intuitively assessed, a good practice will always work and it takes us to a grid that is different from the one used with the Five I’s. A good practice is morally and politically good because it changes an aspect of one’s way of working in relation to something external. This applies to the HABITAT grid, which sends this type of definition although it contains underlying criteria and descriptive grid that takes us closer to the grid of the Five I’s.

What is the point in compiling an inventory of good practices before deciding on what tool to use? In response, I will describe a random list of functions and objectives. Ultimately, did we ever answer how many people got good ideas du to these best practices? In this regard, I will not discuss the evaluation question, as it will take too much time. Judging practices is related to another function, which is correlary, as Michel MARCUS stated, the financing of practices. From an economic point of view, an inventory of good practices provides a rationalised use of available resources.

The application of good practices should trigger change. Traditionally, this approach has been more commonly used in less developed countries. On a subject of deeper reflection, filling in a grid on best practices forces practitioners and stakeholders to think about what they are doing. Clearly, when one completes Paul EKBLOM’s grid, one has to consider actions carefully. Inevitably, transparency and accountability become more apparent.

Under the function heading, I would like ot mention a negative one. We have to keep in mind the negative effect of describing for the pleasure of describing. The forms require a more in depth knowledge of the reasons for filling them in. Sometimes, the tool decides one’s actions.

Obviously, discussion on good practices lead to assessment. Although this exercise benefits all parties, most people tend to dilute this aspect. As support for an evaluation becomes quite expensive, why not support it?

2- How can we use the tool suggested by Paul Ekblom ?  

Having decided on the need for a framework, the method of use also have political and practical applications. Should the grids be completed by the practitioners, the administrators or scientific

48

experts. The answer to this question has different implications. How does one descibe accurately social prevention measures? On several occasions, delegates mentioned a complimentary tool for the grid, such as a lexicon. Even if the Five I’ s are not always translated the same, this demonstrates the importance of words.

3- Who does what in the following stages ?

I shall leave my final comment as a question because I think that the answer are ours.General question: Who is going to do what ? What are the consequences of the involvement of the representatives of the civil society, more or less present or active, that the experts appear as academics working in universities or in government scientific centres, that the national representatives will have or not more or less influence.

And instant question, this one that Daniel Sansfaçon asked, who will be the experts, Who is going to carry on the work?

In conclusion, a summary is always arbitrary. I have probably skipped any aspects and it is for that it is interesting to receive the second synthesis.

49

Mrs Liz WICKSTEED, Assistant Director, Crime Reduction Delivery Team, Home Office, United Kingdom

My presentation will attempt to join some of the common issues that have emerged from today’s debate and to highlight some questions that deserve to be considered for the future.

I get the impression that most people are interested in a single framework with a diverse range of products feeding different range of aims. However, I am not sure if we have succeeded in identifying the key priorities of such a framework. As this discussion progresses, these issues need to be developed. Regarding the importance of simplicity and the range of evaluations, I was impressed with the UN-HABITAT workshop approach to a rapid assessment of how people feel. In this regard, good practices should address people’s genuine concerns about problems on their doorstep.

Throughout the meeting, I heard strong support for involving practitioners in development, policy and peer review. In this respect, the Finnish delegate suggested using the Rome meeting to test out some ideas to a gathering of practitioners. Following the debate on the definition of the term “expert”, I feel that there is a strong need for a common lexicon.

On several occasions, I heard the desire to involve the media in highlighting the end product of this framework. The existence of good practice needs to be highlighted and practitioners should be encouraged to learn and use it. Furthermore, the elements of the framework need to be organic, nothing is written in stone. As crime and economic circumstances evolve, some aspects of the framework require modification and should respond to feedback.

Finally, I thought of several questions worth underlining. First, Nicolas referred to the importance of community engagement in ensuring the successful delivery and sustainability of products. Although we did not explore this issue in detail, it is worth returning to at some point. Equally, Paul EKBLOM raised the question on what we want crime prevention to resemble in five years. The more we articulate this goal, the clearer our priorities will appear.

50

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Dennis ROSENBAUMDirector and Professor, Center for Research in Law and Justice and the Department of

Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago, U.S.A.

First of all, I would like to state that I am impressed that this meeting has taken place. It demonstrates that the EU is communicating on all different levels. Due to contrasting values and cultures, partnerships are quite difficult but rewarding. Personally, I am convinced that this is a good idea and the advantages of creating a standardised framework far outweigh the disadvantages.

Many types of experts exist and everyone enjoys an expertise in a particular area. Academics have certain knowledge of methodology, statistics and concept in a particular field. However, we need the input of practitioners to expand our knowledge base. In my area, most of what I have learned has been acquired by accompanying police officers.

Obviously, you need to define your goals. In this regard, I sense that you share common goals. This process needs to be a group effort. In my opinion, these frameworks are quite complimentary and you need to take the best aspects from each one. Success is a strange animal, and it will mean different things to different communities. However, some good practices will remain true across settings, times, and persons. A key goal should be to identify these robust interventions and then specify the theories behind them

In the social sciences, we care less about making precise causal statements than determining the generality of effects that build knowledge. In your case, the fact that some common measurement points exist and specific additions can be made is a positive sign. I would like to believe that policies and decisions are more data driven than they are. At least in the US, taxpayers’ money is being wasted on projects that do not work. However, I have learned that, even evaluation is an inherently political process and all participants have different agendas. Hence, to correct for multiple biases, you need multiple goals and multiple methods to evaluate crime policies and programs.

Finally, you should avoid the academic tendency to discuss for long periods and move ahead. Over time, refinements will occur. Eventually, they will either be accepted or rejected. First, empirical evidence is necessary from people at ground level. Then common patterns can be identified across settings.In conclusion, I am delighted that you have organised this meeting and wish you luck in your endeavours.

Nicolas You

In five years, I would like this group to be in a position to help us implement crime prevention on a worldwide scale. In this respect, the UN needs the EU as a source of data and expertise to solve problems worldwide.

Mrs Pascale Bruston

Thank you for setting objectives for the whole network. There has been a sharp contrast between this morning’s presentations and this afternoon’s debate. These are complex issues. When we first organised this seminar, we lacked an objective, it was neither the time nor the place. However, we

51

felt that experts and non-experts needed to express themselves in the company of EU representatives, who will organise the future network.

As part of the framework of national representatives, the UK, Sweden and France will reflect on the discussion and will offer operational proposals on a reference framework. After two years of operation, the working method in our network remains an issue. However, the Venice meeting occurs too soon to discuss this. We need more time to formulate practical recommendations. Despite the technical nature of our meeting, we can see close ties between technical and administrative issues.

52