From my point of view as a GM, there are two options if you want players to be proactive. First, you can give them more problems to solve and let them know that they can't solve them all. Secondly, you can make suggestions of ways in which they can be proactive and reward them when they find ways to surprise you.
The simplest solution is to simply give them more problems to solve than they can solve immediately. Crises don't necessarily happen all at the same time. Sometimes, the team is investigating a series of serial murders and considering ways in which they can prepare for their upcoming audit by the government on how they're spending their grant when a bank robbery happens on the other side of town. I would personally recommend juggling multiple long-term events rather than having five banks robbed at once unless you want to follow Dan B's suggestion that they're not actually winning. Otherwise, your players can get frustrated that they never seem to be able to get all of the bad guys. On the flip side, that could lead to them getting frustrated enough to target root causes, but that's on the more advance side of things. Personally, I usually have 2-3 storylines going on. My players have learned that, if they don't jump on a plotline right away, it will generally hold for a session or so, but if they ignore it entirely, it resolves itself, not always in their favor (e.g., if they ignore the tales of homeless people disappearing the sewers, they might get blindsided when the cybernetically enhanced mole-men come out to take over).
Propose proactive strategies to the players
This can feel a bit more like railroading, but another possibility, if you want them to be more proactive, is to suggest strategies, for example mentioning (or having an NPC say) that for all the bank robberies that they're foiling, it seems like it's not stopping the actual criminal activity. If they're not certain where they want to go with it, you might suggest that they go after the leaders of the crime cabals in town, or investigate why the criminals don't seem bothered when they're arrested (maybe there's a brilliant defense lawyer who's been getting the convictions overturned. Or the "criminals" in question are actually clones or robots who are left to occupy cells while the real mastermind takes his successes and chortles over how the prisons are so close to overflowing that soon, they'll start letting people go because they don't have a place to keep them). By suggesting to them that there are things they can do other than wait for the villain to strike, you let them know that there are other options.
Is it really a problem for the players? Or for you?
Reading through your question, I get the impression that you're the one not satisfied with the situation, not your players. Now, as a GM, it's important that you enjoy your experience, but I'd caution against making changes without first talking to your players. Do they want to be proactive? Or are they happy foiling bank robberies? I know it's one of the go-to answers here on the boards, but really, talking is one of the best ways to solve problems in the game, particularly since all sides may not agree that there is a problem.
One other thing to consider is the possibility that the current heroes might not be a match for the type of campaign you're running. If you want superpowered people who might decide to rob a bank, it's probably not going to be the four-color group you've been having foil said robberies. Maybe propose to the players trying it out for a bit, seeing if it works. If you want to avoid making new characters, just play on Anti-Earth or some other sort of mirror universe with the "evil" or at least "morally ambiguous" versions of the team. If your players don't enjoy it, well, we're back where we started, whether you want to run a campaign that they like, or one that you like. But at least you'll know.