1. The Importance of Prioritising Prevention Over Repression
1.1.Why Prevention Must Precede Repression?
Strong enforcement is important for keeping the public safe, especially during serious threats or crimes. However, many risks today, like radicalisation and related violence, grow slowly. They are shaped by feelings of injustice, identity issues, social isolation, and exposure to extreme ideas (Moghaddam, 2005; Borum, 2011). Policing that only steps in when a crime occurs often addresses symptoms rather than root causes. This can lead to a sense of injustice, increase division in society, and weaken community cooperation. Focusing on prevention does not reduce accountability or replace the need for enforcement. Instead, it aims to act earlier, before crimes occur. This helps prevent escalation while maintaining fairness and legitimacy. Concerns that preventive strategies divert resources from essential policing ignore evidence that early intervention can reduce repeat incidents, improve the quality of intelligence, and reduce the long-term need for reactive responses.
A prevention-first approach to policing is not a step back from authority. It is a strategic change. Enforcement is still crucial, but it works better when combined with early risk identification, appropriate responses, and strong partnerships between police and the community. Removing offenders at later stages without addressing the earlier underlying conditions leads to only limited long-term effectiveness. Reactive approaches may also have unintended negative consequences, including:
- Reinforcing perceptions of injustice
- Increasing social polarisation
- Reducing information
- Sharing within communities
Therefore, prevention should not be viewed as a “soft” alternative to enforcement. Instead, it is a strategic approach that:
- Identifies risks more effectively and earlier
- Applies proportionate responses
- Strengthens legitimacy
- Simplifies the ongoing enforcement process, reducing the workload over time.
2. Enhancing Our Capacity for Prevention
2.1 Legitimacy and Cooperation
Research consistently demonstrates that perceptions of fairness and legitimacy promote public cooperation (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006; Cram, 2024). When communities view the police as procedurally just, they are more willing to share early warning signs and comply voluntarily with law enforcement. Thus, legitimacy serves as an important preventive asset. Research shows that when people believe that the police are fair and trustworthy, they are more likely to report problems in their neighborhoods over time. This means that how citizens view the police can significantly influence their willingness to cooperate and share information with law enforcement (Kuen, 2024).
2.2 Community Policing and Intelligence Integration
Community-oriented policing enhances local knowledge and fosters trust within the community. However, its effectiveness relies more on institutional support than on informal goodwill (Gill et al., 2014). When community policing is integrated with intelligence-led policing:
- Community engagement generates contextual information.
- Analytical capacity aids in risk assessment.
Preventive interventions become more targeted and proportionate (Bullock, 2013; Carter & Fox, 2019). Community-oriented policing focuses on building connections and trust within neighborhoods. Research shows that its success depends more on how well it’s integrated into official practices than on individuals’ good intentions (Braga & Weisburd, 2022; Telep & Weisburd, 2019). When intelligence-led policing strategies are paired with organised community involvement, they can lead to better information gathering and a deeper understanding of local issues. This combination enhances the ability to prevent crime (Ratcliffe, 2022).
2.3 Radicalisation as a Social Process
Radicalisation should not be oversimplified to ideology alone. It encompasses:
- Push factors (such as grievances and marginalisation)
- Pull factors (including the desire for group belonging and status)
- Individual vulnerabilities (Borum, 2011).
Simulation models indicate that early contextual interventions are more sustainable than repeated late-stage removals (Pepys, Bowles, & Bouhana, 2020).
3. European Normative Approach
European security governance has evolved from a reactive approach to counterterrorism to a more proactive model focused on prevention. The EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy, established in 2005, marked this change with its four-pillar framework: Prevent, Protect, Pursue, Respond. This framework recognises that threats like violent extremism develop gradually, rather than appearing suddenly. More recent frameworks, such as the EU Security Union Strategy for 2020–2025, reinforce important principles like early risk identification, cooperation between agencies, building resilience, and taking balanced actions. These principles are based on evidence that security threats arise from complex social, psychological, and digital factors before they lead to criminal acts. The EU policies make a clear distinction between radical opinions and actual violence, which helps protect people’s rights and warns against excessive criminalisation—something that could worsen grievances and weaken public trust. The European Code of Police Ethics from 2001 supports this approach, emphasising the need for proportionality and public backing in effective policing. Legitimacy isn’t just an afterthought, it is essential because it fosters cooperation, improves communication, and boosts preventive efforts. Across Europe, community-oriented policing models are not only about visibility and engagement but are explicitly described as part of crime prevention strategies, where police officers work beyond reactive enforcement to proactively reduce crime and improve local safety and security (Bayerl et al. (2017). The EU Knowledge Hub on the Prevention of Radicalisation promotes the sharing of prevention expertise across sectors at the European level. These instances show a common theme: structured prevention works best when there is clear organisation, assigned roles, proper training, and measurable success. The main argument here is that prevention should come before repression in modern democratic policing. While enforcement is necessary for addressing immediate threats, a heavy reliance on reactive measures can be disruptive and costly. Prevention aims to strengthen security, not by replacing enforcement but by minimising the need for coercive actions and encouraging earlier, appropriate responses. To implement this prevention-first approach effectively, local contexts must be considered. The way this strategy is put into practice will differ based on: social cohesion and trust within the community, crime patterns and trends, the digital environment for threat, existing collaborations among agencies, legal and accountability frameworks etc.
At the local level, applying the principle of Prevention Before Repression requires three key changes:
- Integration into Police Work
- Prevention should be incorporated into everyday planning, staffing, and evaluation in police stations rather than treated as an afterthought.
- Collaboration Across Agencies
- Police need to connect with schools, social services, and civil society organisations, especially to support early intervention and help reintegrate individuals.
- Police resources should be allocated to allow time for early engagement and problem-solving while remaining prepared for necessary enforcement actions.
In summary, while prevention is a fundamental goal for security, it is essential to tailor its design to fit local circumstances. The underlying strategy remains consistent: fostering early detection, implementing appropriate responses, and encouraging cooperation can lead to more effective long-term safety outcomes than waiting for issues to escalate before enforcing the law. Thus, embracing the concept of “Prevention Before Repression” is not only an ideal to strive for but also a practical approach. When customised to reflect local realities, it significantly enhances security and supports democratic values.
4. Advancing Prevention: A Collaborative Model for Station-Level Operations
Effective prevention requires more than informal community engagement or reactive enforcement. It requires a structured station-level model that clearly distinguishes intelligence functions and aligns them with community policing objectives. Agencies developing Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP) capacity should establish formal information-sharing systems, analytical products, and dedicated communication channels rather than attaching intelligence tasks to existing community policing structures without strategic clarity (Fox, 2018). A conceptual distinction between Community-Oriented Policing (COP) and ILP enhances effectiveness: community policing strengthens local legitimacy and information flow, while ILP structures and analyses that information to guide prioritisation and intervention.
To operationalise prevention, each police station should embed a Community/Prevention Cell consisting of a team lead and designated prevention officers with territorial accountability. Core functions include regular community contact, identification of local priority risks, early recognition of escalation, safeguarding referrals, and structured multi-agency coordination. Digital prevention functions should complement, not replace, community engagement and remain clearly separated from investigative cybercrime.
Training forms the institutional backbone of this model. Officers require competencies in communication, de-escalation, cultural awareness, radicalisation processes, and safeguarding pathways, while leadership must be equipped to manage multi-agency cases, conduct evaluations, and implement digital prevention strategies (CEPOL, 2021). Prevention must also be measurable. Quarterly monitoring should track partnership activity, community trust indicators, repeat incident trends at micro-locations, safeguarding referrals, de-escalation outcomes, and digital engagement metrics (Sherman, 2013; Hinkle et al., 2020). This model does not eliminate enforcement; rather, it changes our approach to it. Focusing on prevention before enforcement is a more effective strategy. This involves integrating early intervention, thorough analysis, and teamwork into police station operations. When prevention is built into the system, monitored, and adequately funded, it reduces the need for forceful actions over time. Additionally, it enhances public safety and strengthens trust in democratic processes. Prevention serves as both a strategy and a tactic. Emphasising the micro level is crucial, as radicalisation and crime are always linked to specific local contexts.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation
To enhance crime prevention efforts, police agencies should adopt a structured monitoring framework that goes beyond verbal commitments. Evidence-based policing research shows that systematic assessments are crucial for effective and sustainable preventive strategies (Sherman, 2013; Hinkle et al., 2020). Measurable prevention is key to achieving real results. Quarterly evaluations can focus on clear indicators, including the quality of partnerships with community stakeholders, community trust surveys on perceptions of procedural fairness (Jackson et al., 2012), trends in repeat incidents at crime hotspots (Weisburd, 2015), safeguarding referrals for at-risk individuals, documented de-escalation outcomes (Engel et al., 2020), and the effectiveness of digital engagement strategies (European Commission, 2020). Additionally, continuous investment in education and professional development is essential. Ongoing training for all levels—from frontline officers to leadership—will ensure a shared understanding of risk indicators, procedural fairness, and community engagement strategies. Integrating prevention competencies into recruitment and training is crucial for fostering a prevention-oriented culture. By embedding performance indicators and training requirements within accountability frameworks, police agencies can value prevention outcomes alongside enforcement metrics, leading to a more proactive and effective approach to community safety.
6. Policy Recommendations
Prevention is increasingly recognised as a strategic priority within European security governance and, more broadly, in contemporary risk-oriented societies. However, formal recognition alone is insufficient. It must be matched by consistent implementation, institutional integration, and the ability to demonstrate measurable impact.
To effectively prevent crime, radicalisation, and violence, policing systems require structured monitoring mechanisms. Evidence-based policing research confirms that systematic assessment tools are critical for sustainable prevention (Sherman, 2013; Hinkle et al., 2020). Regular evaluation—preferably on a quarterly basis—should include indicators such as levels of cooperation with community partners; community trust measured through procedural fairness surveys (Jackson et al., 2012); repeat incident trends in crime-concentrated locations (Weisburd, 2015); safeguarding referrals; de-escalation outcomes (Engel et al., 2020); and digital engagement metrics aligned with contemporary security strategies (European Commission, 2020). Prevention must be measurable to avoid remaining rhetorical.
Prevention before repression is not a call for softer policing, but for smarter sequencing of interventions. While the precise balance between preventive and enforcement measures may vary across Member States depending on societal conditions and legal mandates, all democratic policing systems should ensure that prevention is structurally embedded, strategically measured, and institutionally valued.
To make prevention a core function of modern policing, the following measures are recommended:
- Institutionalise prevention within strategic planning and performance frameworks, ensuring it is recognised as an essential and measurable component of policing.
- Integrate preventive objectives into existing resource allocation and staffing models to reflect prevention in operational planning without always requiring new funding streams.
- Establish clearly designated prevention roles at the station level, with defined territorial accountability and reporting structures.
- Align community policing and intelligence-led policing through governance coordination, maintaining conceptual clarity while ensuring functional complementarity.
- Formalise multi-agency referral and safeguarding pathways, particularly for youth and vulnerable individuals, including cooperation with schools, social services, probation, and prison authorities.
- Enhance digital prevention capacity, incorporating early-warning monitoring in online environments while maintaining separation from investigative cybercrime functions.
- Embed prevention competencies in training and professional development, including communication, de-escalation, safeguarding, analytical reasoning, and digital literacy.
- Ensure preventive work is formally recognised within performance systems, including indicators that capture prevented escalation, stabilisation trends, and community trust outcomes.
- Integrate prisons and reintegration processes into the prevention ecosystem to ensure continuity between custodial and community-based interventions.
- Engage civil society in the design and evaluation of prevention strategies to strengthen objectivity, legitimacy, and alignment with shared community needs.
Strategically, the challenge is no longer to justify prevention as a priority—it is already acknowledged as such. The real task lies in strengthening implementation capacity and demonstrating its operational value through structured metrics and visible outcomes. Only by embedding prevention within governance, resource planning, professional education, and evaluation systems can policing institutions move from declarative commitment to sustainable practice.
7. Conclusion
Sustainable public safety cannot be achieved through enforcement alone. Extensive research in procedural justice, intelligence-led policing, and radicalisation consistently demonstrates that legitimacy, trust, and early intervention are critical determinants of long-term security outcomes. Policing systems that intervene only after criminal thresholds are crossed operate at the most disruptive and costly stage of risk development. While reactive enforcement remains indispensable, disproportionate reliance on coercive measures may unintentionally deepen grievances, weaken cooperation, and reduce the flow of early-warning information essential for prevention.
Prevention-led policing should therefore not be misunderstood as a normative aspiration or a softer alternative to enforcement. It represents a strategic, evidence-based recalibration of contemporary policing. By institutionalising structured police–community partnerships, integrating analytical capacity with frontline engagement, and embedding proportionate early intervention mechanisms, police organisations can enhance operational effectiveness while reinforcing democratic legitimacy.
The central issue is no longer whether prevention matters. It is whether policing systems are structurally designed to prioritise it, measure it, and allocate resources accordingly. Aligning prevention with governance, performance frameworks, professional education, and resource planning is essential to moving from declarative commitment to operational reality.
Emphasising prevention before repression is not only consistent with European security governance; it reflects a fiscally responsible, strategically sound, and socially stabilising approach to public safety in risk-oriented societies. The future resilience of democratic security institutions depends on their capacity to act early, proportionately, and collaboratively.