Law Enforcement Council: Progress remains insufficient, key risks persist

GREAT BAY--The Council for Law Enforcement’s third follow-up review of St. Maarten’s Crime Fund concludes that, in 2025, substantive progress still lags. The fund remains limited by weak governance, unfinished legal arrangements, and thin operational capacity. Earlier commitments to repair the legal basis, professionalize management, and make funding decisions traceable are not completed. As a result, the fund cannot consistently finance crime-reduction initiatives in a lawful, transparent, and timely manner. The risk that public money is not used optimally remains.

The 2025 review checks whether previous recommendations are implemented and whether the fund operates under clear rules of law with adequate controls, forecasting, and reporting. Critical building blocks are still incomplete. The legal and policy framework is not fully updated, procedures from intake to award and monitoring are not uniform, and project selection still relies on ad hoc judgments rather than published criteria in an approved policy plan. Where steps were taken, they are partial and not embedded, leaving the fund exposed to delays, challenges, and audit risk.

The Council expects a closed chain, from revenue, to budget, to a prioritized annual plan, to award decisions with reasons, to measurable outputs, to review. In 2025 that chain is still broken at several points. Files are not uniformly documented, ex-ante risk assessment and ex-post evaluation are not consistently required, and public reports do not yet present a consolidated picture of what the fund finances and the results achieved.

The fund needs a small, skilled backbone for legal compliance, financial control, and program management. Staff turnover and incomplete standard operating procedures mean knowledge is not institutionalized, and compliance depends too much on individuals. This fragility slows approvals and reduces quality.

According to the report, St. Maarten faces youth safety concerns, trafficking risks, and community impacts of organized crime. It stresses that the Crime Fund should be a practical tool for prevention and enforcement projects. Instead, in 2025 there is still misalignment between that purpose and day-to-day functioning because the policy plan is not anchored, the legal footing is unfinished, and cooperation with other ministries is not formalized through binding procedures. These structural gaps contribute to slow or inconsistent delivery of projects that communities expect.

Recommendations:

1. Finalize the legal basis: set out purpose, eligible activities, revenue flows, decision authority, conflict-of-interest rules, procurement, and audit requirements; publish in one accessible instrument.

2. Approve policy and annual plans: link both to public selection criteria with weights; require a written assessment for each award showing how criteria were applied.

3. Install lean governance: name the accountable authority; define roles for secretariat, finance, legal, and line ministries; minute every award, amendment, and cancellation to create an audit trail.

4. Build operating capacity: issue standard operating procedures from intake to close-out; train staff in due diligence, risk scoring, and results-based management; digitize workflow so files are complete and searchable.

5. Mandate monitoring and evaluation: set measurable outputs and outcomes in every grant agreement; collect data quarterly; publish an annual results report that aggregates spending, delivery, and impact.

6. Ringfence and reconcile funds: separate Crime Fund revenues and expenditures in the ledger; reconcile balances quarterly; disclose them in plans and reports.

7. Formalize inter-ministerial cooperation: execute agreements with Justice, VSA, and Education for prevention priorities such as the child safety code and youth programs; define co-financing and data sharing; assign clear lead responsibilities.

The Council says that without a lawful, transparent, and staffed mechanism, the Crime Fund cannot support the scale and mix of prevention and enforcement projects St. Maarten needs.

‍