Because my background was in broad social policy and social development, I relied on the crime prevention expertise of  ICPC staff, and some key members who had the long-run viability of the organization at heart. Together, we constructed a work-programme which established a set of priority areas.  It was important to construct this work programme together, make it public, follow it, and retain it for a few years, with the same basic format. It made our mission clear, and provided a basis for accountability to our funders.

 

The work-plan, and the process of building it, permitted ICPC to achieve another important goal: We convinced our government funders to provide their financial support for the work-plan as a shared agenda. This was important for organizational flexibility, since some previous arrangements involved contracted services from ICPC to a particular government.

 

During the process, it became evident that ICPC had developed a lot of useful analysis and tools, some of which had had very limited circulation. Since we had lots of information but little cash, we decided to develop and publish through the internet, The International Observer on Crime Prevention which could communicate our initiatives, disseminate our publications and help to build the international network.

 

Another challenge was to establish a high profile forum or event, which could be used to raise our profile and to advance our ideas for crime prevention. After some consultation we decided to hold an annual International Colloquium on Crime Prevention, which could serve as a venue for our AGM, be a forum for ICPC and member organizations, and allow us to do some marketing of the organization. By asking government members to take turns sponsoring and hosting the event, we were able to reap the benefits while being spared the substantial costs.

 

The task of building government and organizational involvement in ICPC is a tough one, but we were successful in “recuperating” the participation of the UK and South Africa, and in convincing other countries to join, including Australia, Argentina, Chile, and Norway, with New Zealand and Hungary joining as observer members. This was essential for ICPC to move toward being a truly world-level organization.  In the process we also discovered a way for countries with limited financial capacity to participate effectively, through providing solid in-kind contributions which relieved the ICPC budget but could be paid for in local currency.

 

Of course you would expect me to mention the positive milestones. There were also some disappointments, but we won’t dwell on them. I do want to underscore though, that ICPC works as a team, everyone supporting the others. That was essential to our success.

 

 

The knowledge of crime prevention theory has spread around the world. Important experimentation has taken place, and there have been substantial efforts to evaluate what works and how. ICPC has contributed to this evolving knowledge, and there have been other major contributions as well. They do not all point in the same direction, because some kinds of initiatives aim for narrower outcomes, and because long term complex undertakings are hard to evaluate. However it is clear now that HOW things are done is as important as WHAT is done.

 

I believe we are evolving from a mentality of short-term projects to one of long term engagement. Crime is part of society and won’t be eliminated by a quick fix solution.  Crime is easily politicized and demonized, and people’s fears and insecurity can be played upon.  Nonetheless prevention programs and strategies are being implemented throughout the world.  There is a lot of activity. It is not all effective. But progress is rarely constant. We have to learn together.

 

 

Crime prevention is in process of institutionalization. And ICPC’s role in organizing the crime prevention subject matter for the 2005 UN Congress in Bangkok, will make an important contribution to that process. I hope that all countries participating at Bangkok will see how important it is to have an organization like ICPC coordinating the international learning process.

 

On the ground, the process is slow and frustrating, and short term initiatives often leave a taste of dissatisfaction.  Governments engage with communities in hopes of achieving clear results. Often the governments then find that they are not capable of “going the distance,” or of coordinating their own systems to respond to the valid needs of the community.  National policies and local realities do not mesh easily. But crime prevention needs to be a permanent feature of every community, as much a part of it as the school and the hospital, and national policies need to support that.  The key here is integration - the most effective prevention is done through the institutions of society – families, schools, recreation, inclusive communities, active citizenship, and strict accountability of government and commerce. The cutting edge in this perspective includes building safe and caring communities.

 

At the same time, not all crime is preventable by communities. It is also organized, international, cyber-powered. It may grow on the margins of societies. It may also be integrated into legal institutions, businesses, and governments. Such crime, such as economic crime, is not well-measured, and it is driven by huge incentives. Crime methods and venues evolve constantly and use the opportunities of global markets and information technology. 

 

These are major challenges for future prevention efforts. To this point, ICPC has maintained a community focus, and in my view, rightly so. But the need for a larger scope for prevention is also facing us. The world needs an organization which characterizes the development and institutionalization of crime prevention globally, and in its various dimensions. To do that ICPC will need to expand its horizons and its resources. A daunting task, but a great adventure!