Funds for security near Kærshovedgård deportation centre remain largely unused

Less than half of the government funds allocated to improve safety near Denmark’s Kærshovedgård deportation centre have been spent, with experts questioning whether the money is being used effectively, reports DR.

Since 2022, around 150 local families have received subsidies for home surveillance and alarms, funded by a 21.6 million kroner (approx. €2.9 million) parliamentary grant aimed at boosting security in communities near the centre. Yet only 9.5 million kroner—44 percent of the total—has been allocated to projects so far.

Henrik Engedal, a local council member and coordinator for the Lokaltryghed (“Local Security”) initiative, which administers the funds, acknowledged the slow uptake. “It would certainly be wonderful if we could use the full amount,” he told DR, adding that “big ideas” are needed to spend the remaining 12 million kroner before the 2025 deadline.

The largest expense to date has been a daily patrol service by security firm G4S, costing nearly 2.3 million kroner last year. Other funded measures include street lighting, bike locks, and subsidies for personal alarms—such as the one installed by Ove Bredvig Jakobsen, a retiree living 7 km from the centre. Though Jakobsen reported no direct issues with the centre’s residents, he took advantage of an 80 percent subsidy for a burglar alarm. “It was a good offer,” he said.

However, Line Lerche Mørck, a professor of educational psychology at Aarhus University, criticised the focus on surveillance and patrols, arguing it may reduce perceived safety. “If it’s just alarms and guards, it reinforces the feeling that we’re not safe here,” she said. Instead, she advocated for community-building efforts—shared meals, sports, or library access—to foster trust between locals and the centre’s residents.

Yet such initiatives are off-limits under Lokaltryghed’s mandate, which prohibits funding projects that “change conditions” for deportation centre residents. A proposed shuttle bus to limit their movement in Bording was rejected for this reason. Engedal called the restrictions a “plaster on a broken leg,” while Mørck described them as a “double bind”—a policy contradiction that undermines its own goals.

With time running out, Lokaltryghed continues to solicit ideas from residents, though Engedal admitted the challenge: “We’d need some major projects to hit the maximum.”