Creation of district safety and order committees is another step for local government and its bodies to be considered as the most important elements of coordination of all local preventive initiatives performed with the Police and all institutions involved in prevention programs and activities. District safety and order committees, lead by the district heads (starosta), must be considered to be the main and most important permanent center of institutionalized coordination of the prevention system in the district. In conclusion, we can formulate several de lege ferenda recommendations. First, the district-level local government must be provided with the necessary tools to make its responsibility for implementing crime prevention programs and ensuring order and safety of the citizens a real, not virtual, responsibility. As Bolesław Sprengel was right in observing, at present the Police is not required to perform tasks provided for in district programs and cannot in any way be forced to do so1. Second, it is necessary to properly select the members of the committees. Currently, the members (of course with the exception of representatives of uniformed services) are often inexperienced and incompetent persons who consider their involvement in the works of the committees as a necessary evil. It is also a bad idea to form the committees mostly of representatives of uniformed services, as the results of the works of such 1 Sprengel, 2009, s. 215 i n.312 | WSGEa group may be subjective. This is because the committees often evaluate the work of the services represented by those persons. Third, to give the committees greater influence on the laws, which, on the district level, are adopted by the district council, the committees must have the statutory right of legislative initiative. In my opinion, the current law enables vesting the committees with the right of legislative initiative. Of course a proper statutory regulation in this regard is required.