Live

Imported strategy with local impact

GVI is not originally a Swedish idea. It was developed in the United States in the 1990s in response to waves of deadly shootings in large cities. The concept is simple: combine a firm stance against violence with a clear path to change for perpetrators. In practice, this means meetings between police, probation officers, local authorities, and community leaders with individuals linked to criminal gangs. The message is clear – continued violence will have inevitable consequences, but the door to leaving gang life is open.

The words of Malmö’s police chief to gang members – “I don’t want you to die” – capture the strategy perfectly: a firm approach to violence, paired with recognition that gang members are people who can be reintegrated into society.

But is importing this model fully justified in the Swedish context? Countries differ in crime structures, legal systems, and public attitudes toward state intervention in citizens’ lives.

Impressive statistics – but do they tell the whole story?

The Malmö pilot, conducted between 2018 and 2020, delivered striking results. City data shows that shootings dropped by an average of 25% per month during the program. Compared to other large Swedish cities, Malmö showed a clear, sustained downward trend in gun violence.

Yet questions remain: how much of this success is directly due to GVI, and how much comes from other simultaneous preventive and operational measures? Malmö authorities themselves acknowledge that it’s impossible to precisely separate the factors influencing safety improvements. In other words, the program’s success is partly based on correlation, not strict causation.

Additionally, these statistics don’t account for a key risk – displacement. Could reducing gang shootings in Malmö have pushed the violence elsewhere? The fact that cities like Gothenburg, Örebro, and Uppsala have adopted GVI suggests both the method’s appeal and the potential shifting of the problem to new areas.

EU funding – is it money well spent?

GVI is not cheap. The first phase (2018–2020) cost around €1.2 million, with the EU contributing nearly €900,000. The next cycle (2024–2027) is expected to cost €1.49 million, with over €1.1 million from the EU, funded through the Internal Security Fund as part of organized crime prevention policies.

This raises questions about the rational use of public funds. Is financing a program in a single city – even a successful one – the best way to tackle organized crime across Europe? Could these resources be more effective if invested in systemic solutions, such as migration policy reform, radicalization prevention, or social programs?

Between hope and pragmatism – the future of GVI in Sweden

Sweden has made GVI a permanent part of Malmö’s security policy, and its adoption in other cities reflects confidence in the method. But its long-term effectiveness depends on several factors. First, continued coordination among multiple institutions – police, local government, prison services, and community organizations. Second, the ability to adapt strategies to evolving crime patterns, especially cybercrime and online drug trafficking, which challenge the effectiveness of traditional street-level interventions.

Social factors cannot be ignored either. Pressure on gangs may increase tensions between police and migrant communities, which are often overrepresented in statistics on gun violence in Sweden. Can GVI operate inclusively, without deepening social divisions?

Will these results last?

GVI in Malmö shows that organized, coordinated intervention can reduce violence in the short term. At the same time, it raises a fundamental question for policymakers: is this just a temporary “firefighting” measure, or a real step toward lasting crime reduction? EU funding behind the project demands not only tracking decreases in shootings but also evaluating whether the investment truly leads to safer communities – not just in Malmö, but across Europe.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article

Same serie articles

Migration in Europe — cutting through the myths