Local safety and crime prevention contracts

In Belgium, the federal department responsible for crime prevention is the Permanent Secretariat for Prevention Policy (SPP), located in the Ministry of the Interior.  This article examines the local city contract policy which is the very core of the crime prevention policy.  This approach rests on three key principles:

• Importance of the local: cities are best placed to effectively fight against insecurity.
• Subsidiarity: implemented locally, crime prevention action must be funded federally (and also from the Regions) in order to ensure a sufficient level of funding and greater coherence of interventions.
• Integrated approach: the federal government promotes integrated approaches in all domains related to safety always involving prevention, police and justice.

There have been several changes to the policy since it’s development in the 1990’s.  Until 2001, it distinguished between different types of contracts:

• Safety contracts were the main instrument of integrated crime prevention at the local level.  They distinguished between a policing and a preventative component, the latter targeting groups at risk (drug addicts, drop outs) or vulnerable (older persons).
• In 1996, some city contract integrated an urban renewal component.  These were named safety and society contracts.  The goal was to ensure both transversal intervention and the inclusion of measures to reduce poverty, improve urban environment and life conditions in difficult neighbourhoods and implement integrated social development approaches.
• More restrictive than the other two, the prevention contracts only dealt with crime prevention measures.

In 2002, many factors led to the modification of this tiered approach, most important being the overhaul of police organisation across the country, itself prompted by the famous Dutroux case.  The Octopus (1998) agreements between the various democratic political parties led to the adoption, in December that same year, of legislation to create an integrated police service at two levels: Federal and Local.  Given this re-organisation and the fact that many police services were merged and now provided services to more than one locality, the police component of the safety and society contracts had to be abandoned.  Currently, there is only one type of city contract- safety and prevention.

In order to qualify for a safety and prevention contract, cities must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
- have a population over 60,000;
- have a crime rate among the highest, especially for thefts (including cars but excluding bicycles), vandalism as well as aggression (other than intra-familial);
- Present a low average income per capita and a population over 10,000 persons and a crime problem (albeit not necessarily among the highest).

The contractual mechanism will likely be modified soon so as to include, beginning in January 2006, the following characteristics:
- A duration of four years bringing more stability.
- A result-based strategic orientation.
- Maximum synergy with preventive policing.  Ongoing discussions between federal departments and other tiers of government to develop a coherent and concerted safety and prevention policy aiming at better integration.
- Enhanced financial control.

Further, the selection mechanism will likely be modified in order to achieve greater coherence between the means available and the selected communities.  More cities will be able to integrate the contractual policy and  each of them will be requested to produce a local safety diagnosis and determine their priorities.

The key priority areas targeted by the contracts will likely remain the same.  In July 2003, the government agreement has identified the following priority areas: techno-prevention, public nuisances, road safety, drug related nuisances, protection of vulnerable groups such as the aged, and and action to reduce specific crimes.

It is important to note that these priority areas are not all targeted equally.  Examined according to their allocation of resources, the 2002-2003 safety contracts show for example that, priority areas were: more integrated intervention targeting at-risk groups (priority 2), drug addiction (priority 4), strengthening local intervention (priority 1), functional surveillance, technoprevention, and reducing insecurity (priority 3), and action to reduce specific crimes (priority 5). 

While safety and prevention contracts are more oriented towards social prevention, recent changes in governmental priorities tend to accord greater importance to technical prevention approaches.

The following text provides a more detailed description of the federal government’s crime prevention policies.  In this document, Olivier Barchechat, Analyst at the ICPC, provides a much broader community safety portrait in Belgium.  While not an exhaustive list, he describes the local city contract policy, in addition to other policies which have crime prevention implications such as: the Federal Security Plan, the Orientations on Drug Policy, and the Policy on the Prevention of Violence and Psychological and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace.

Crime Prevention in Belgium: A Focus on National Policies.
(Available in French only).