Ten Key Aspects of the National Public Security Policy

This analysis identifies ten conceptual keys that structure the recent publication of the National Public Security Policy (PNSP) 2025-2031. This instrument, approved by Supreme Decree in October 2025 and published in the Official Gazette on January 30, 2026, represents a guiding framework for the new Public Security System—created by Law No. 21,730. Its analysis reveals both paradigm shifts and structural challenges for its effective implementation in the current complex security landscape.

Strategic Keys and Implementation Challenges

1. An approach that seeks to be systemic and comprehensive

The PNSP transcends purely police or punitive views by adopting a systemic approach to security—one that involves a range of actors in the security system—recognizing it as a multicausal phenomenon. This model coordinates the integration of prevention, control, criminal prosecution, victim support, and social reintegration. However, its success will critically depend on the real capacity to articulate a fragmented institutional ecosystem, overcoming sectoral competition and fostering a true culture of public-private collaboration, which is key to success.

• Diagnosis Based on the Evolution of Violence and Fear

The diagnosis is accurate in identifying a transition towards more violent and organized crimes. Between 2018 and 2022, the homicide rate increased by 48.9%, accompanied by a sustained rise in kidnappings (from 360 cases in 2014 to 868 in 2024). This trend contrasts with a 25% decrease in non-violent property crimes. At the same time, the policy acknowledges the challenge of citizen fear: 87.7% of the population perceives an increase in crime, a destabilizing factor that erodes social cohesion and institutional trust.

• Guiding Principles and Their Operational Challenges

The policy is governed by principles of legality, security as a human right, a gender perspective, and special protection for vulnerable groups. The operational challenge lies in translating these values into action protocols, targeting criteria, and concrete evaluation metrics for the institutions within the security system. The legitimacy of the model will depend on these principles informing every stage of the security management cycle. Additionally, some key aspects are lacking, such as institutional organization and effectiveness, shared responsibility in security, and effective integration and coordination.

• Results-Based and Evidence-Based Management Model

A fundamental pillar is the transition to evidence-based and results-oriented management. This involves developing an integrated information system with high standards of interoperability, cybersecurity, and protection of sensitive data. For public policy, this objective will require sustained investment in analytical and technological capabilities, standardization of systems, as well as an institutional culture that values rigorous evaluation and continuous learning.

• Operationalization Through Biennial Strategies and Risk of Dilution

To ensure the relevance of a six-year framework, the PNSP establishes the development of biennial strategies with defined indicators, goals, and responsible parties. This mechanism aims to facilitate monitoring and accountability. However, the risk of bureaucratization and disconnection is high: if these strategies are not linked to budgetary decisions and are not subjected to rigorous independent evaluations, the policy could dilute into a planning cycle without tangible impact on the ground.

• Focus on Early Prevention and the Complexity of Intersectoral Coordination

The priority is to interrupt criminal trajectories in childhood and youth through a national early warning system. This preventive approach is on the right track. It requires effective intersectoral coordination with social ministries. However, it is also necessary to include municipal and police information as agencies in this early prevention system. This coordination needs to align objectives and action logics that do not always naturally converge in security priorities, making higher inter-institutional articulation relevant.

• Adaptability to Transnational Organized Crime and Necessary Interagency Coordination

The PNSP addresses organized crime with a focus on border control, combating illicit markets, and financial intelligence. Given its transnational nature, this phenomenon again requires intense professional coordination that transcends police efforts, involving the Armed Forces in border protection tasks, the National Customs Service, and financial intelligence agencies. Effectiveness will again depend on a structure beyond police institutionalism.

• Critical Approach to the Penitentiary System and the Political Viability of Reintegration

The policy directly acknowledges the prison crisis (overcrowding, intra-prison violence, dominance of criminal organizations). It proposes various technical measures, such as segmentation by criminogenic profiles and strengthening penitentiary intelligence. However, these reforms clash with budgetary constraints and a public and media narrative often opposed to rehabilitative policies, which also lack effectiveness studies. The political viability of prioritizing social reintegration will constitute a significant test of the sustainability of the comprehensive approach.

• Victim Support: towards a national service

The policy considers improving timely support and protection for crime victims through specialized assistance and access to information about the progress of judicial processes. It is crucial for this objective to operationalize the recently approved National Justice Access and Victim Advocacy Service (Law No. 21,780, published in November 2025). This is a crucial advancement to rebalance a system that has historically prioritized the perspective of the accused and to overcome existing inequalities in access to such services.

1. Governance Mechanisms: between innovation and the risk of dysfunctionality

The policy institutionalizes complex governance with national and regional councils chaired by the Ministry of Public Security. This design seeks to ensure strategic coherence and adaptability through a cycle of continuous improvement. The critical risk is dysfunctionality: that energy is consumed in coordination processes and reporting, to the detriment of operational agility and effective response on the ground.  

Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift with Challenges

The National Public Security Policy 2025-2031 represents a paradigm shift in the Chilean state approach, transitioning from a primarily reactive and fragmented logic to a vision that seeks comprehensiveness, based on rights and with aspirations for technical management, although with enormous challenges in coordination. Its strengths lie in a clear diagnosis and the definition of priority axes.

However, its publication is the beginning, not the culmination of the process. The critical challenges are:

1. Real coordination and overcoming silos. Translating the complex design into effective action, overcoming historical bureaucratic inertia; especially considering the hierarchical parity among institutions, particularly between ministries.
2. Financial and political sustainability. Ensuring resources and ongoing political will for preventive and reintegration components, which are less visible and popular.
3. Building a credible accountability system. Implementing an evidence-based management model, with independent measurements that allow adjustments based on results rather than perceptions.

On paper, the PNSP is a document with an adequate diagnosis of public security issues. Its true critical judgment will come in the coming years, as it measures its capacity to reduce not only crime rates but also citizen fear and institutional distrust, transforming the state’s ability to address current security phenomena. However, its publication is noteworthy, occurring just over a month after a new government took office. Will these priorities be the same as those of the next government? Certainly, it could become dead letter if this policy, which should be a state policy, was not consensual with the new government.

Finally, doubts arise regarding its operationalization and programmatic implementation. Not only because there is no national policy that aligns public security policy with national defense policy, but also because the role of intelligence is vested in the Ministry of the Interior, making it seem complex to assume that organized crime is merely a public security issue.