by Claude Vézina


Almost all countries have achieved remarkable progress in matters of public health over the last thirty years. Among the contributing factors to these successes are a more advanced knowledge of illnesses and their causes, the proper identification of illness-specific at-risk groups and the implementation of information and sensitization campaigns to modify at-risk behavior or develop more healthy life habits. In other words, the application of the old maxim: Prevention is better than cure.

However, it is troubling to note that in matters of public security the opposite is true. In large cities around the world, crime rates have dramatically increased; youth violence is now widespread and insecurity is the lot of growing numbers of citizens, especially women and the elderly.

How can we explain this bleak picture? Two key factors are to blame. On the one hand, we became conscious of the limits of traditional criminal justice (police, courts, prisons), responses to crime too late. On the other hand, we are only timidly supporting preventive responses which aim to reduce the number of victims and offenders by tackling the underlying causes of crime and insecurity.

Public security is increasingly recognized as a central aspect of the quality of life and of the economic and social development of communities. People from all walks of life, including those in urban centers who are most impoverished, demand more public security and safety. Public security should be considered as a public good that must be developed and promoted by all institutions and civil society. It cannot any more be the sole responsibility of the police and the justice system. Crime prevention requires a new urban alliance of all the stakeholders.


Preventive Measures

Why prevention? Answering this question is important in many respects. Among the reasons to choose prevention as an essential tool to sustainably reduce crime, violence and insecurity are:

• The preventive approach calls for a rigorous analysis of the causes of delinquency and violence and proposes a series of measures best capable of reducing, in the short- and long-terms, the numbers of victims and delinquents. Such measures include:
• a safer urban design (public spaces and public transportation systems);
• support to children, youth and families at risk;
• promoting responsibility and sensitizing the community;
• training and job creation for youth in poor areas;
• providing community-based public services, especially police and justice;
• social rehabilitation of young offenders;
• assistance to victims of crime.
• Preventive approaches encourage multi-sectoral and concerted actions involving cities, police, the justice system, social and health services, housing services, the private sector and community organizations, etc.
• Longitudinal studies conducted with control groups over many years point to the significant benefits of preventive approaches.
• The economic benefits of crime prevention measures compared to traditional responses involving law enforcement and incarceration. In some cases, analyses comparing these two responses demonstrate a ratio of 1 to 6 in favour of crime prevention.
• The astronomical costs of crime and violence for countries, cities and individuals. The 1994 United Nations Report on Human Development indicated that these costs were in the order of $425 billion for the United States or $4,000 per household per year. Costs include police services and prisons and costs incurred through deaths and injuries, economic decline and property damage.
• Prevention fosters solidarity, citizen participation and good governance. It reinforces democratic institutions and promotes increased accountability of public services, including the police and justice system.

Crime Prevention in Action

A key element of the success of crime prevention is the process through which it is put in action. Different models have been put to the test: institutional partnerships (like the municipal crime prevention council in France), public health approaches (like Philadelphia and Cali), community-based initiatives (like in the United States and Canada). Over the last few years, a series of benchmarks have started to emerge and are now regarded as the components of a common methodology. They can be described as follows:

• Local leadership. There is a strong consensus that crime problems should be addressed at the city level and that the municipal authorities are in a strategic position to initiate and coordinate action. Mayors and city councillors, as direct representatives of the population, have a large civic mandate to tackle crime and insecurity.
• Mobilization of key actors. The fabric of a city is made up of a network of institutions, economic partners, community organizations and concerned citizens. All of those should be invited and encouraged to take an active part in the development and implementation of the local crime prevention strategy.
• Rigorous diagnosis. Identifying the factors that foster crime and insecurity and understanding better the nature of crime and its impact are the first steps towards the development of a targeted and successful crime prevention strategy. All the partners should be involved in the diagnosis phase, bringing different perspectives to the analysis. Victim surveys could be very useful tools in this regard.
• Development of a targeted and challenging action plan. Based on the shared diagnosis of the situation, priorities for action should be identified. The plan could include many components related to different aspects of crime prevention, like better urban design, support for youth and families at risk, partnership policing, community justice, support for victims, etc. The specific nature of the initiatives and a calendar for implementation and the agencies and organizations involved should be included in the plan.
• Adequate support for coordination and seed money for projects. Local crime prevention strategies need strong coordination at all stages of their development and implementation. In this regard, resources should be provided for a position of coordinator of the crime prevention strategy and action plan within the municipal structure or any structure put in place to implement this action. Such a measure is essential for the continuity of the project, appropriate liaison with all the partners and promotion of the results of the initiative. Seed money also needs to be invested in order to start up pilot projects that will be financed in the long run by different partners. These demonstration projects are crucial to show the potential of any crime prevention strategy aiming at short- and long-terms results.
• Support from national and other levels of government. This support can be provided through sectoral policies that address specific issues like youth development or violence against women or through programs that aim at directly supporting Safer Cities networks or initiatives at the local level. Training courses for managers and practitioners are also important tools in this regard.

Choosing prevention is demanding. It requires a clear and explicit political commitment, a strong will to overcome corruption problems, a sustained mobilization of the institutional and community actors and the constant search for innovative and fair solutions. Conversely, it paves the way for significant and sustainable reductions of crime and violence in our countries and cities, improves to the quality of urban environments and promotes solidarity and justice for all.