Justine Wildöer 12254126 Master of Science: Conflict Resolution and Governance, research project University of Amsterdam June 27th 2019 [12.033] Dr. Anja van Heelsum Dr. Jeroen Doomernik
Thesis Justine Wildöer
“It’s part of the job”: how do human trafficking detectives cope with ‘prospectless police reports’?
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
Translations and Abbreviations 4
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
1.1 Motivation behind the Research Topic 5
1.2 Defining Prospectless Police Reports, False Police Reports and Research 6
Chapter 2: Setting the Theoretical Baseline 10
2.1 Human Trafficking Detectives as Street-Level Bureaucrats 10 2.2 Policy Alienation and Agency in the work of Street-Level Bureaucrats 13
2.3.1 Understanding Constructive Coping 15
2.3.2 Locus of Appraisal of Stress in the Work of SLBs 17
2.4 Conclusion Chapter Two and sub-questions 18
Chapter 3: Methodology 20
3.1 Design 20
3.2 Respondents 20
3.3 Research Contents and Operationalization of Concepts 21
3.4 Analysis 21
3.5 Ethics Statement 22
Chapter 4: Results 23
4.1 Perceptions on the impact of the B8 23
4.1.1 The use of the word “prospectless” 24
4.1.2 Perceptions on future implications 25
4.1.3 Perceptions on policy measures 26
4.1.4 Conclusion on the impact of the B8: a shared narrative? 26
4.2 Stressors 27
4.2.1 Suspicions of falseness of claims 27
4.2.2 Time consumption & capacity 29
4.2.3 Lack of fulfilment 31
Detectives that are frustrated with the victims and policy 31 Detectives that are frustrated with how victims and policy are perceived 32
4.2.4 Question of victimhood 32
4.2.5 Other 33
4.2.6 Conclusion: stressors 33
4.3 Coping mechanisms 34
How do human trafficking detectives cope with prospectless police reports? 38
Works cited 43
Reports and Publications consulted 47
Translations and Abbreviations
(Misbruik) Verblijfsregeling Mensenhandel = ‘Misuse Residence Permit Human Trafficking (RPHT; Misuse B8-chapter/Misuse B8-Agreement; misuse of residence permit etc.)’
Vreemdelingencirculaire = ‘Aliens Act’
Kansloze aangiften = ‘Prospectless Police Reports’ Valse aangiften = ‘False Police Reports’
Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Seksueel Geweld tegen Kinderen = NRMSGK
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Motivation behind the Research Topic
Some may call my family “blue”, in a quirky reference to the fact that it counts several members of the Dutch police force. My aunt and uncle, married, are both detectives and my brother as well as two cousins work as police officers. Most other family members, work in the public sector, too. This means that it is of great personal interest to follow actualities on Dutch public services and it has led to a general understanding of how Dutch public workers perceive policy decisions. Last Christmas, over the family dinner, my aunt brought a specific conflict to my attention. She explained that her department, human
trafficking, was suffering under the impact of something called ‘prospectless police reports’. When asked what it entailed, she explained that there is a European agreement, the B8, that dictates that when people of a foreign nationality showcase signals of having fallen victim to human trafficking, they are granted temporary asylum, protection, legal and psychological aid, housing and income support. Although theoretically a positive agreement, she said that rejected asylum seekers misuse it as a lender of last resort. The claims are deemed
‘prospectless’, because they lack researchable facts through which perpetrators can be traced and cases can be built. The reason they lack researchable facts, is allegedly because they are untrue; bear in mind the suspicion of misuse for asylum. It was presented as a fact that it was not only the unit of my family members that were struggling with the large amount of
prospectless claims, but that it was a national issue. One thing was clear and that was that human trafficking detectives and apparently officers from the broader police organ, are highly frustrated by these claims. It was expressed that it showed just how strongly politicians do not understand the strains police officers are under and heavy contra-EU arguments were made.
This raises several issues. It is not necessarily shocking that one’s professional experiences influence one’s political perspectives, especially not when these workers’ experiences take place on the dividing line between their private and public selves and their political life, as is the case for human trafficking detectives. It did appear striking, however, that officers from the police, often defined and generally perceived of as the very people to
execute policy and to embody the state’s monopoly on violence, express feelings of distance, disappointment and aversion with regards to these policies.
What will follow here, is a thesis that will answer to the main question “how do human trafficking detectives cope with prospectless police reports?”. The social relevance of this project, is that it will hear first-line implementers of conflicting policy, that, though covertly, are situated amidst a heated national asylum debate. Taking on Lipsky’s appraised Street-Level Bureaucracies, the academic relevance of this research is that it will (seek to) bridge a gap between studies on public administration and psychology, as it will theorize on psychological consequences of policy conflict.
First, prospectless police reports will be defined more closely and, as such, conclude Chapter 1. Chapter 2 will form the theoretical baseline by reviewing theories on Street-Level Bureaucrats and coping. Chapter 3 will define the methodology and sub-questions, Chapter 4 is comprised of all results sub-chapters and will answer the sub-questions. Finally, Chapter 5 will form the conclusion.
1.2 Defining Prospectless Police Reports, False Police Reports and
Research
First, it is imperative to more closely look at what prospectless police reports entail, which will be done under this section. Prospectless police reports are defined as follows. A claim of human trafficking is filed with any of the relevant institutions (not necessarily the Dutch police, it may also be with the military police, social workers, lawyers, immigration services, etc.), but the claim is, due to lack of clear leads or evidence, impossible to
investigate. For instance, the victims do not know how to describe what the name of their abuser is, or they do not know the name of the city or village in which they were held captive. Thus the chances of the criminal investigation being successful, are extremely slim; so slim that investigators are able to quickly determine beforehand, that perpetrators will not be found, tried and convicted at all and are, hence, prospectless (view Bijl & Pilon One World 2017, NRMSGK (date unknown), Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice 2014 and more). These claims are distinctly different from false police reports, the core of which revolves around the question of victimhood. A claim being prospectless does not mean that a crime
has not been committed and that there is no victim. However, there are many cases in which a false report is filed, with the direct intention being to misuse the residence permit (NRMSGK (date unknown), p3).
However, there appears to be a deeper, socio-political understanding of prospectless police reports. First, there is the way in which they were brought forward as a research topic to this thesis. In it lied the assumption of asylum seekers seeking to misuse the B8-chapter of the Aliens Act and the frustration felt by professionals having to deal with it (in this case human trafficking detectives). The B8-chapter (or B8-agreement) specifies how victims of human trafficking will receive asylum under Dutch government. Asylum is granted when perpetrators are convicted, if the investigation takes more than three years or if there is reasonable suspicion of grave danger to the victim (broadly defined as “humanitarian reasons”). As long as the investigation is pending, the Agreement states that claimants are allowed to stay in The Netherlands and make use of governmental facilities. This is
irrespective of the legality of their stay - illegal asylum seekers are indiscriminately provided with these rights (Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice 2014, p2). Importantly, the B8 Agreement overrules the Dublin Agreement. The Dublin Agreement states that the first European country in which asylum seekers are formally registered, is the country that becomes responsible for their entire asylum procedure (Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, 2016). Added to this is the fact that the notion of misuse is not limited to the working field of human trafficking detectives. Many reports and analyses have been published on it and it is a well-known occurrence. For instance the NRMSGK expressly states how
noteworthy suspicions of falseness are but that it is also impossible to establish truth in this respect, as many are found to be rooted in assumptions (NRMSGK year unknown, p4). In response to this, REGIOPLAN has been assigned the task of investigating exactly how many of the prospectless police reports are actually false (Klaver et al, 2013). The report concludes that it is near impossible to answer this, as the prospectlessness of a police report does not mean that there is no victimhood. What it has been able to do, however, is stipulate that suspicions of falseness often arise due to a lack of credibility of claimants. It also explained which elements contribute to this: doubts on the truthfulness of claims rest on the basis of a lack of uniqueness of claims (several claims describing the same routes and scenarios), a lack of details (concerning the perpetrator, place of stay, the situation of exploitation), a lack of consistency in storytelling, false information (about identity or traveled route), behavior
during the police interview or intake, the moment at which the report is filed (e.g. when all other resources to asylum have been exhausted), the time between the alleged exploitation and the claim, plus the way in which this claim is then made (translated from Klaver et al, 2013, p2). Importantly, it also concludes that, when asked, detectives state that they do not let themselves be led by these assumptions (Klaver et al, 2013, p3). This appears to contrast with the fact that they do admit scepticism when victims approach them for protection, but that it is, simultaneously, understood that doubts about truthfulness do not equal actual misuse (Klaver et al 2013, p4&6). The same report is also clear when it states that it deems the likelihood of misuse to be low, as it compares numbers from before the installment of the B8 in 2000 to those after its installment, resulting in below 400 possible cases in 2013 (Klaver et al 2013, p1).
Whatever its definition and implications, most subsequent reports focus on either one of two options. First, several policy proposals are available that aim at making operational improvements in processing these claims. In 2012, a pilot was launched specifically to find ways to shorten procedures throughout the chain of involved institutions (see the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice’s “Evaluatie Pilot”, 2014, for more information). Secondly, several projects advise that human trafficking detectives and other officers that deal with victims of human trafficking, increase their sensitivity to the suffering of victims (NRMSGK year unknown; Klaver et al 2013). One specific remark following this point, is that the quality of police reports needs to be improved in order to further research the possible falseness of claims (NRMSGK year unknown, p4). Lastly, looking at transcripts and summaries of parliamentary debates (i.e. 2013 and 2017) and following a March 2013 verdict, in which a claimant was found guilty of filing a false report, the aforementioned notion of ‘humanitarian reasons’ adds to complexity in the matter (Arrondissementsparket Oost-Nederland, March 12th 2013).
Altogether, several preliminary observations can be made and questions asked. First, it appears that the deeper understanding of prospectless police reports depends on who is being asked. Previous research has involved policy readings, hearings, verdicts and political debate and it seems evident that there is a common sense of urgency and relevance to the matter. Much of policy is aimed at preventing misuse, but nowhere misuse is questioned on its occurrence. In other words, on the basis of reports, the question of whether or not misuse
exists, is considered true, but its extent, causes and possible solutions are heavily debated. This raises a rather simple question: what is considered truth and what is considered speculation on this topic? In the next chapter, I will contextualize the topic in a theoretical manner.
Chapter 2: Setting the Theoretical Baseline
To answer the central question “how do human trafficking detectives cope with prospectless police reports?”, this chapter will form the theoretical foundation of this project. As such, it will firstly focus on detectives as individual actors, because I believe that you first have to understand them as such, before being able to understand their actions. Therefore, in 2.1, it will firstly investigate whether human trafficking detectives could be seen as
street-level bureaucrats, as this will allow for a conceptual approach to the types of
obligations, relationships, strains and tensions to which they are subjected. Having done so, it will then elaborate on how these matters interplay and give way to the possibility of
something called ‘policy alienation’ and to how human trafficking detectives may deploy agency in their work, in 2.2. Subsequently, in 2.3, this will allow for a theoretical
understanding of coping mechanisms available to them and how this translates into how human trafficking detectives appraise stress in their work, with regards to prospectless police reports. As such, it will give way to the formulation of three sub-questions under 2.4.
2.1 Human Trafficking Detectives as Street-Level Bureaucrats
First, I will theoretically consider human trafficking detectives as actors. Lipsky’s renowned 1979 Street-Level Bureaucrats defines those working in the executive branches of public services as Street-Level Bureaucrats (SLBs). Put in other words, he refers to those who implement policy on the front-line (Sorg 1983, p392), examples of which are teachers,
nurses, police officers, social workers, etc. (Lipsky 1979, p3). SLBs hold the key to a specific dimension of citizenship, as their actions are often what constitutes the services delivered by the government. For this reason, citizens that interact with SLBs are depicted as ‘clients’ and SLBs play a considerable role in their lives (Lipksy 1979). Their actions are generally allocative and redistributive and their working environment is characterized and influenced greatly by clients’ personal reactions to the decisions made by them (Lipsky 1979, p9). The work of SLBs therefore takes place “in a micro-network of relationships” (Hupe & Hill 2007, 279).
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of this. The figure is divided in three ‘balloons’ that each represent one of Lipsky’s three determinants: the agency, the SLB itself and the client. The figure in its most basic form, is inspired by a drawing that David Laws presented, during one of his lectures for the course
Capita Selecta of this master’s program (September 19th, 2018). The three balloons illustrated, is what prof. dr. Laws has coined his ‘beleidsbroodje’ (‘policy sandwich’), but I will carry out the further theoretical exploration.
Though the arrows, drawn this way, suggest that the relationships are fully reciprocal, reality differs. First, there is the relationship between the SLB and the
agency. The agency may be embodied by management, but may also represent policymakers (which are often
situated outside the agency itself and have a strictly indirect relationship with SLBs). This relationship is generally characterized by a high degree of mutual cooperation. It is only when the SLB’s interests grossly differ from managerial or policy objectives, that they may showcase non-cooperative behavior (Lipsky 1979, p15). Such behavior can be anything from quitting their jobs, to the more subliminally observable sensation of policy alienation, which will be explained below (Lipsky 1979, p.17). It is for this reason, for instance, that it is of managerial interest to safeguard SLBs’ job satisfaction, as this is one of the factors that affects productivity (Lipsky 1979, p.18).
The relationship with clients is much more imbalanced. In Lipsky’s words, “it is a relationship of unidirectional power”, though SLBs are restrained by the limits of their job (in other words, SLBs logically cannot act however they would want to, there are rules and regulations) (Lipsky 1979, p58). This power to act on the basis of personal judgment, is what Lipsky calls the SLBs’ ‘discretion’. The poorer the client, the more dependent they become on the SLB and so the greater the likelihood of increased use of discretionary power (Lipsky 1979, p54-55). However, the behavior of SLBs towards clients, is determined by their personal preferences (Lipsky 1979, p58). Now, jobs that are typically characterized by relationships from ‘outside’ the organization, require emotions to be strongly controlled. This phenomenon is understood as emotional labor (Mann 2004, p205). As in the case for SLBs, if
these relationships are not dealt with in an emotionally ‘correct’ way, they could be gravely harmed and work could not be conducted in an appropriate manner. It has been found that these emotional expectations often lead to increased experiences of stress for the worker and provide possible explanations of burnouts (Mann 2004, p205-206). In 1989, Steinross and Kleinmann actually researched the relationships between general investigating detectives and clients and criminals, to assess how exactly detectives’ self image and their job expectations influenced their emotional labor. It was there found that dealing with victims was considered a stressor to detectives, whilst handling criminals was viewed as ‘doing their real job’ and was even considered a relief amidst bureaucratic drag (Steinross & Kleinmann 1989, p440). This raises an interesting hypothesis for this thesis, namely, that the relationships with clients will be considered a stressor to the detectives. Maynard-Moody and Musheno offer a
complementary take on this, as they argue that there is a difference between SLBs that are more state-faced or more client-faced (Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2000). As already mentioned, SLBs will act at their discretion on the basis of personal judgement, which is strongly influenced by the need to help their clients (Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2000, p340). Relating to this research, then what will be seen in the behavior of ‘our’ detectives, when they believe that victims are untruthful?
Importantly and as summarized by Rice, policy hence only comes alive here: in the interaction between SLBs and their clients (Rice 2012, p1039). Part of a government’s legitimacy is built on the trust invested by clients in SLBs. After all, SLBs have to “make quick decisions under a lot of scrutiny” and define if whether or not clients perceive their actions, and therefore policy, as just (Lipsky 1979, p58, 60; Kelly 1994). As long as clients perceive SLBs’ actions as such, policy measures will be judged accordingly (Lipsky 1979, p60, p70; Kelly 1994;Tummers & Bekkers 2014). It is unilaterally agreed upon that it is for this reason that SLBs should stand at the center of policy decisions (Lipsky 1979, p24; Tummers 2012, p517; Rice 2012, p1040). However, this scrutiny also means that it is
inherent to the jobs of SLBs that they perceive some distance to the policies from which they act (Tummers 2012, p517). A police officer for instance may let a minor offender go if they are faced with more serious crime, or if they deem punitive measures too heavy for the specific circumstances. Similarly, one may imagine teachers letting their students go home early for good behavior, or a nurse short on time who gives a sponge bath to their client, instead of full showers. Pertaining to this thesis, human trafficking detectives are understood
as SLBs and claimants of prospectless police reports as their clients, yet ways in which ‘these’ SLBs may exercise discretionary power, are as yet unclear. Studies on government legitimacy and trust are plentiful and not integral to this thesis. Rather, several relevant issues have now been raised, two of which are most peculiar. First, there is the matter of distance felt by SLBs with regards to policy and second, the matter of agency of SLBs through their discretionary power. The former demands policy alienation to be further depicted, as the latter requires a take on agency.
2.2 Policy Alienation and Agency in the work of Street-Level
Bureaucrats
The above-mentioned distance felt by SLBs to policy can best be described as ‘policy alienation’. In his dissertation and building on Lipsky, Lars Tummers offers a robust
definition:
“Policy alienation is defined as a general cognitive state of psychological
disconnection from the policy program being implemented by a public professional who interacts directly with clients on a regular basis.” (Tummers 2012, p. 516)
Important to stress here is that, given its innateness to the work of SLBs, policy alienation does not need to impact their perceptions and actions notably and it does not always pose a strain of some sorts. However, it becomes something to consider when it is reinforced by
increased experiences of what Tummers refers to as ‘policy powerlessness’ and ‘policy meaninglessness’ (Tummers 2012, p517, 518). See figure 2: the former is susceptible at the operational, tactical and strategic level, where the latter is perceived at the societal or client level. What this categorization mainly does, is contextualizing both why alienation arises as the more subliminal considerations made and felt by SLBs. These considerations in turn range from the more
implicit sensation of lack of representation in decision making, to the rather explicit question of “are we really doing the right thing?” (Tummers 2012), as illustrated in figure 3 . 2
Literature on powerlessness is varied,
multi-angled and elaborate, however, besides Tummers work, there appears to be no clear narrative from the perspective of SLBs. Hoggett considers powerlessness to be that which is felt if, after reflection, individuals feel that they have to act in ways they do not support (2001, p42-43). In doing so, he takes a rather
psychoanalytical approach, even building on Freud’s concept of the ego (2001, p41). Taking his argument even further, Hoggett questions if whether or not Giddens’ structuration theory can handle the issues of 3
powerlessness, as it arguably leads to the neglect of people as objects of circumstance, rather than shapers of their own lives (2001, p46). Added to this is the fact that Hoggett focuses on ‘the welfare subject’, not its
workers. Related to this is Sorg (1983) in his Typology of Implementation Behaviors of SLBs. He starts with the notion that the individual implementer is too rarely considered in policy effectiveness (Sorg 1983, p391) and offers pragmatic advice on how to research this. Where Hoggett concludes that agency does not equal constructive coping (Hoggett 2001, p43), Sorg on the other hand considers whether or not behaviors “can be studied as concomitants or co-producers of the organizational processes” (Sorg 1983, p392). Hence now the following question can be asked: how can coping mechanisms be understood within the use of
discretionary power?
2 Figure 2 and 3 purely serve a schematic clarification of Tummers’ theoretical framework. Although the figures are drawn by me, their contents are entirely derived from his work.
3 Giddens sought to eliminate the classical dilemmas inherent to social sciences. Structuration theory specifically states that either micro- or macro-analysis of society does not suffice and that one should always analyze both structure and agency. As such, he attempted to overcome the pertinent debate of ‘are people rational actors?’ or ‘does structure determine everything?’ (Giddens & Pierson 1998).
2.3.1 Understanding Constructive Coping
To understand coping mechanisms in the use of discretionary power, this chapter will zoom in on ‘constructive coping’ more specifically. Constructive coping is generally
understood as those coping behaviors that result in preventing hardships from causing stress (Pearlin & Schooler 1978, p8) and is also referred to as ‘effective coping’ (see Pearlin & Schooler 1978; Carver et al 1989). It derives part of its definition from its juxtaposition to what is considered non-constructive, which is defined as those behaviors that do not lessen the experience of stress (Carver et al 1989, p267). These two depictions trickle down to two types of coping, namely that of problem-focused and that of emotion-focused (Carver et al 1989, p267). Problem-focused coping aims at altering the source of stress, where
emotion-focused coping manages the perception of distress, though it is often found that people act in combinations of both, making it challenging to study (Carver et al 1989, p267-268). Much of coping theory is moreover built on the notion that individuals actively reflect on their appraisal of distress, which in turn can alter the impact of a stressor: a certain type of stressor may invoke a specific coping response, but this coping response may lessen the impact of the stressor. Subsequently, the stressor may no longer be perceived as such and demand a different approach in its entirety (Pearlin & Schooler 1978, p5, 8; Folkman & Moskowitz 2004, p746).
A notion broadly embedded in studies on coping efficacy is that, following from this, emotion-focused coping is considered the less effective alternative of the two, as it more often invokes passive mechanisms (Folkman & Moskowitz 2004, p761). Yet, the very invocation of coping responses means that they occur in an emotional context, so that emotion-focused coping can never be absent (Folkman & Moskowitz 2004, p762). Also, the unchangeability of stressors does not mean that all such stressors would demand equal
emotional responses. The death of a loved one for instance, logically poses a different type of powerlessness than does the aforementioned policy powerlessness. In Pearlin & Schooler’s words: “coping is not a unilaterally definable type of behavior [..]. Rather, it functions at different levels and is attained by a plethora of behaviors, cognitions, and perceptions” (1978, p7-8). Moreover, summarizing emotion-focused coping mechanisms as ‘less effective’,
appears to be based on the common notion of emotions being “chaotic, immature and irrational” (Baker and Berenbaum 2007, p95). This line of reasoning has been used widely throughout social sciences in valuing emotions as ‘mere’ indicators of stress, and that only problem-focused coping responses will be able to achieve sustainable outcomes. Yet more recent studies have argued that there is nothing ‘merely indicational’ about it. For instance Baker and Berenbaum (2007) underscore the role emotions play in the appraisal of stress and the invocation of forthcoming adaptational coping responses. This appears relatively new in coping studies. Thus far, these focus on coping repertoires, efficacy, activity and its
measurement, but somewhat lack attention for what happens when a situation is technically unchangeable, but the person involved in it may exercise a profound discretionary power nonetheless. One example of research into this was conducted by Stoneman and
Gavidia-Payne in 2006, when they measured to what extent marital couples were able to constructively adapt after having had a child with a disability. It was formerly assumed that such a situation (the disabled child and stasis of marriage) was thus unchangeable, that it would inevitably produce emotion-focused responses and that nothing could be done to effectively change the situation. Yet it was found here that these very same responses actually led to a profound adaptability and that active coping repertoires were deployed (for more on emotions in coping-adaptability see Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen and DeLongis 1986 and Folkman and Lazarus 1988). The same could be researched with regards to street-level bureaucrats suffering from policy alienation and policy conflict. Evert Vedung has created an initial approach to the coping strategies of SLBs in his Autonomy and street-level
bureaucrats’ coping strategies (2015), but remains rather descriptive and limits his relevance
to this. His work moreover lacks focus on the type of SLB he concerns himself with: although he acknowledges the existence of different types with different levels of discretionary power, he goes on to write his paper in general terms and without much theoretical support. It is exactly this gap in the literature, that requires elaboration.
Now, before doing that, one final remark. Thus far, I have considered the types of strains that SLBs have to work under and the fact that they may experience policy alienation under certain conditions. This brings to bear the matters of cognitive dissonance and Freud’s conception of ego preservation. Cognitive dissonance theory deals with the human need for consistency between beliefs and behavior. If the two appear dispersed, people will act in ways to overcome this gap: to achieve mental consonance (Cooper & Carlsmith 2015,
p2112). Now, I have placed SLBs in a context strongly shaped by emotional labor and the complexity of human relationships. It was found that the more dependent and impactful the relationship, the more discretion SLBs will exercise. This in turn will increase the extent to which their personal preferences influence their judgment and behavior. It is for this reason, that from now on I will argue that as the experience of emotional labor increases, policy alienation will eventually deteriorate in cognitive dissonance. This is because the fulfillment of work duties will not be able to be separated from ego conservation any more.
2.3.2 Locus of Appraisal of Stress in the Work of SLBs
To further clarify the above, it may be useful to express schematically how and when stress may be appraised in the work of SLBs, and in this case, in the work of human trafficking detectives. See figure 4 as a combination of figures 1, 2 and 3. It
showcases the different levels of policy
implementation while taking into consideration the “micro-network of relationships” as mentioned on page 10 of this thesis. Figure 4 is the driest
interpretation of what has been discussed so far. However, I have now also considered what may happen when this basic scheme is distorted and the experience of policy alienation by SLBs is increased, as drawn in figure 5.
This theoretically suggests that coping mechanisms will become implementing behaviors for SLBs, as work fulfillment and ego
maintenance cannot be considered apart from each other. The main issue with this, is that it is unclear
stressors, as it showcases conflict in the relationships that human trafficking detectives (as SLBs) maintain to fulfill their work duties. It also shows that these relationships will become distorted, which means that policy alienation may arise in two ‘places’ in the figure and therefore, the work of human trafficking detectives.
See figure 6. As human trafficking detectives receive orders, they will experience alienation and will employ coping strategies to overcome this. These coping strategies are used specifically during the implementation of these directives, and therefore in interaction with their clients. Their clients, in this case alleged victims of human trafficking, are heavily constrained by rules and
regulations and will act in compliance with these (it is impossible to file a police report outside procedural directives). This will increase the detectives’ sensation of policy meaninglessness and so give rise to alienation there, as well. The detective will then again act in ways to overcome this, as such perpetually escalating the distortion of relationships. 4
2.4 Conclusion Chapter Two and sub-questions
Now, several things have been done . Human trafficking detectives as street-level bureaucrats have been contextualized and so their their world of work has been defined in several ways. First, they are private individuals with a type of work that places them amidst political debate. This means that on the one hand, their actions are strongly limited by rules and regulations. They are the individuals that provide citizens with the implementation of government policy. On the other hand, however, their work is also characterized by the necessity to act on discretion. Not only to ensure personal safety in for instance risky situations, but also because their jobs impose emotional labor. To safeguard relationships
4 I consciously chose to use the word ‘distortion’, as it refrains from making a prediction or attaching value to it. If I were to use the word ‘deterioration’, I would already make assumptions on the practical outcome.
with clients and so in part legitimize government policies, their actions are generally constituted by their personal preferences. This means that there is always some sense of policy alienation apparent to SLBs. However, when government policy is considered unjust by them and policy alienation becomes too strong, SLBs might find themselves in an even more stressful situation.
So, the world of SLBs is complex. There is the stasis of work directions and rules and regulations; there is the ambiguity forthcoming from human relationships and difficult concepts of ‘justness’; there is the private individual with their own background and
experiences; there is a notion of risk to the nature of the job; there may arise policy alienation on as many as five explanatory levels. How does this public-private individual cope with all of this?
All of the above, including its figures, comprise the theoretical foundation of this research project. Considering coping theories, relevant literature on coping with emotional labor or situations that invoke adaptive coping repertoires has been identified. Yet I believe that coping constitutes more than merely the actions deployed in the pursuit of mental consonance and the relief of stress. Coping is all-encompassing, as it considers the full valuation of stress. It should not only analyze acts that serve to eliminate or lessen the experience stress; it should also consider the type of stress and how the role of the individual may specifically influence this. I argue, in the case of human trafficking detectives handling B8 claims, that coping can only be understood as a product of policy impact, stressors and coping mechanisms. It is exactly this that will be researched, using the following model and sub-questions.
1.How do human trafficking detectives view the B8 and its consequences?
2.What are stressors to human
detectives when dealing with the B8? 3.Which coping mechanisms can be identified with human trafficking detectives handling the B8?
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Design
Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews. This is because
semi-structured interviews allow for a predetermined focus, but also permit the interviewee to explore emotions and reflections in a conversational manner and so maintain flexibility (Clifford et al 2016 p144, 145). The predetermined focus and conversational style are specifically helpful in small-scale research, as specific details and facts can be extracted that could be overlooked in surveys, or under-emphasized in open interviews (Drever 1995). Moreover, they are generally considered a non-intrusive way for outsiders to contact a specific, relatively closed community (Galetta 2001, p2). However, there are also some downsides to this method. They need to be extensively prepared in order to maintain
relevance to one’s research topic, but this same extent of preparation may imply biased data analysis; one may construe too much (Keller & Conradin 2019). Generally, this is why it has been suggested that researchers complement semi-structured interviews with a focus group, to avoid bias or inconsistencies (Clifford et al 2016, p148). Unfortunately however, it was not possible to arrange a focus group as respondents did not always feel comfortable sharing their insights with others.
3.2 Respondents
A total of ten human trafficking detectives of different rankings were interviewed. They all worked in the same unit (Alkmaar) but differed in seniority and expertise. Three interviewees were part of management, the seven others were in active duty as human trafficking detectives. They were contacted using the snowball-method and interviews were held at location in conference rooms and also by phone.
3.3 Research Contents and Operationalization of Concepts
As mentioned already, the interviews served to answer the three sub-questions. Based on figure 5 and 6, questions were inspired by several elements. First, sub-question one pertains to three levels of policy impact: policy creation, policy adoption and policy implementation. Examples of questions were how detectives viewed policy; if they knew who was responsible; if they had ever explored policy measures to solve their problems; if they felt as if there was anything they could do about the policy and what they sawas the exact, real issue at hand.
Stressors may arise on two levels, namely interaction and relations with policy makers and management and interaction and relations with clients. Sub-question two was approached on this premise. Examples of questions were how they felt under certain situations; how they viewed clients; if they felt represented by management and if they felt that they could do their job well. It was often found that questions relating to stressors were connected to how
interviewees viewed their relationships, which meant there was overlap. Answers pertaining to how detectives view their work relationships therefore flowed forth from conversation and were less directly asked about.
The last sub-question, which coping mechanisms were at play, was not directly asked about but rather deduced from what detectives shared about their experiences. If a detective would say that they had done a specific thing, I asked if they could elaborate and how they viewed their actions.
3.4 Analysis
The interviews will be transcribed. To ensure full anonymity, the transcripts will be edited language-use patterns and commonly used expressions from which one may identify a respondent, or personal details. Also, at the request of respondents, pieces of the interview will be redacted in case of sensitive information. After this, they will be manually coded on the basis of relevance to this thesis. One form of coding will therefore be done in terms of perceptions on policy; one form of coding will pertain to the types and causes of stressors; the
last form of coding will consider the coping mechanisms at play.
3.5 Ethics Statement
I have researched this topic for the sole purpose of completing a socially relevant academic project. In this, I have ensured to act on the principle of informed consent. I explained to all respondents that I am researching them for a thesis and that I allow them to read and comment on its final draft version. I have also taken necessary precautions to act on the principle of “do no harm”. All interviews are completely anonymized, and transcripts, saved on my laptop, have been coded in a way that only I know which interview belongs to which respondent. I have saved these codes on a different device and will never share them. I will also not share the details of private interviews with anyone on a personal basis. All findings will solely be used for academic purposes and all references made will be along anonymized lines and in terms relevant to academic findings.
Chapter 4: Results
In this chapter I will answer the three sub-questions, on the basis of the interviews. As such, chapter 4.1 will relate to the first sub-question, “how do human trafficking detectives view the B8 and its consequences?”. Chapter 4.2 will answer “what are stressors to human trafficking detectives in handling ‘purposeless police reports’?” and lastly, Chapter 4.3 will answer “what are the coping mechanisms that human trafficking detectives employ when handling ‘purposeless police reports’?”.
To support the findings in the following chapters, quotes from the interviews will be used. They will be written down as follows:
X: “something the respondent said”. (A.1)
‘X’ stands for the anonymized respondent; that within quotation marks is the literal quote from the transcript; ‘A’ stands for the letter I have assigned the interview in random fashion and the number 1 stands for the line in the transcript. If at any point, a quote is preceded by
J: “something I asked?”
then, the ‘J’ stands for me and something I asked the respondent. This will only be done when the question asked and the answer given relate directly to the purpose of clarification.
4.1 Perceptions on the impact of the B8
This section will answer the first sub-question of this thesis, which was how human trafficking detectives view the B8 and its consequences. First, the use of the word
‘prospectless’ will be looked at more closely, as well as its forthcoming ambivalence. Second, the perception on future implications will be underlined. Lastly, attention will be paid to views on policy specifically. I have chosen this division, because they all came forward distinctly from each other. Inversely, some account for certain stressors, whilst
others may be explained differently. Putting them this way, allows for a better conceptual understanding for how detectives view the impact of the B8.
4.1.1 The use of the word “prospectless”
Whilst talking to the respondents, it was surprising to find that even the use of the word ‘prospectless’ triggered different reactions among them. This is why this is the first topic that will be analyzed. Generally, aside personal views, all detectives agreed that it was not up to them to decide which cases were deemed ‘prospectless’ and which were not. However, that is where the similarity stops. Respondents often contradicted themselves. For instance B first stated that
X: “well, alright, the prospectless police report as it is debated, is the story that there are people that testify similar experiences, sometimes up until the closest detail, and then use that
to find room to wiggle in an asylum procedure that has gotten stuck, with an agreement that permits their stay in The Netherlands. Or to maintain it.” (B.16) 5
but further on, they declared that
X: “yeah, if it’s really is a prospectless claim, or at least, if the claim lacks researchable facts, because that’s essentially what it’s about.” (B.90) 6
This discrepancy was not restricted to this particular respondent. In fact, some degree of seemingly internal contradiction, often times not actively perceived by the respondents, was in many cases present. Again, the ways in which this develops, differs per person. Some respondents claim that they are highly bothered by the use of the word ‘prospectless’,
because it supposedly harms their neutrality, but they do acknowledge suspicions on the legitimacy of claims. Similarly, one respondent (A) was openly frustrated about the claims and saw them as having a highly negative effect on the department. However, when I tried to
5 X: “nouja, goed, de kansloze aangifte zoals hij besproken wordt, dat is het verhaal dat er mensen zijn die een gelijksoortige
ervaring neerleggen, soms tot op detail, en die dat gebruiken om een vastgelopen asielaanvraag of iets dergelijks toch te kunnen ondervangen, met een regeling om verblijf te krijgen in Nederland. Of te houden.”
6 X: ja, of het een kansloze aangifte betreft, of althans, of er een gebrek aan opsporingsindicaties bestaat, want dat is in
summarize their concerns, they immediately nuanced them and stated that it would not be up to them to determine a claimant’s credibility and victimhood. Yet another (H) began the interview with the remark that I as a researcher should refrain from the word ‘prospectless’ at all, but eventually did state:
X: “So that’s why I do not like the word prospectless. You may say that in hindsight, but really, not beforehand.” (H.36) 7
Hence, the word could be used in a descriptive manner, but not when it dominates the narrative.
4.1.2 Perceptions on future implications
The second theme that will be looked at, is the different perceptions on future implications. Again, there is a notable distinction to be made in the perceptions on future implications. There are those anticipated consequences that are explicitly formulated and warned of, and those that can be extracted from more implicit concerns. Overall, all detectives warn against occupational deformation but at the same time are aware of it and influenced by it to different degrees. Then, there are also some detectives that specifically state that they would change their job if they would only have to process B8 claims:
X: “of course I’m fooling around, but I’d rather flip burgers at McDonald’s [in that case]. That way, at least you’ll make some people happy, still.” (F.358) 8
The more implicit concerns are plentiful. They are often connected to perceptions of societal cost and a feeling of political alienation. Moreover, in dealing with B8s and
reflecting on it, it came out that respondents increased their use of discretionary power. Though again, actions differed, nearly all respondents testified of acts they had undertaken to cope with the impact of the B8s. Naturally, this thesis will stipulate further on the coping
7 X: “Dus dat is het kansloze wat ik niet zo'n fijn woord vind. Dat kan je achteraf misschien zeggen, maar goed, vooraf vind
ik dat je dat niet kunt bepalen.”
mechanisms of the detectives, but the fact that they find ways to exercise this power more effectively, is noteworthy here. Another example of an implicit concern is that some detectives feared that, by ‘wasting’ time on faux cases, national statistics on crime would become faulty. It was said that if they cannot work on real cases, data would show that crime in The Netherlands decreases, while in reality, it would merely become invisible.
However, it is also imperative to state that anticipated implications of the B8 were not all considered dark and gloomy. One respondent shrugged their shoulders and concluded that, if the B8 claims didn’t decrease in number, eventually the ‘bureaucratic mill’ would be forced to a stop organically. Added to this the fact that most respondents stated to be able to avoid the experience of severe stress, future implications of the surge of B8s seem manageable.
4.1.3 Perceptions on policy measures
The third topic of analysis, is the different perceptions on policy measures. It was found that all seven active-duty detectives (hence not those part of management) did not feel connected to policy measures. All detectives seemed to be able to define for themselves the causes of problems stemming from the B8 as well as think of possible solutions, but when asked why these solutions were not yet installed, none could decisively answer. Generally it was felt that the creation of policy occurs at a level much higher than they can reach from their position and some detectives indicated that they did not know how policy creation works, let alone how to influence it. One of the three detectives in a management position, went as far as to state that the B8 should not be applicable to countries such as The
Netherlands, where the police organization enjoys trust and esteem and where police officers are not corrupt. They felt that the EU has lost track of its original purpose and that the B8 is symptomatic of this.
4.1.4 Conclusion on the impact of the B8: a shared narrative?
In conclusion, the answer to the question “how do human trafficking detectives view the B8 and its consequences”, is that there is no clear narrative to be derived from it.
impactful. Other than that, conceptions differ greatly. Earlier on, it was predicted that cognitive dissonance would be one of the effects of the B8, but this did not emerge clearly throughout the interviews. Something that did come forward instead, was that the detectives would at times describe sentiments that would closely relate to Tummers’ concept of policy alienation. It is now time to view where in their work, the human trafficking detectives appraise stress.
4.2 Stressors
Under this section, I will answer the second sub-question, namely: “what are stressors to human trafficking detectives handling the B8?”. Throughout all interviews, it became evident that the impact of the ‘prospectless’ B8-claims was deemed frustrating. However, causes for this sentiment differed. Chapter 4.2 will be comprised of a categorization of the different causes of frustrations. As such, 4.2.1. treats the suspicions of falseness of the claims, 4.2.2 deals with the more practical implications of the claims, as it looks at the time they consume and the capacity they demand. This will be followed by a seemingly shared sensation of lack of fulfillment (4.2.3), the apparent relevance allocated to “true” and “non-true” victims (4.2.4) and a category named “Other” (4.2.5). This last category serves those frustrations that appear profound, but may not be mentioned by all respondents, may be clarified for different reasons by respondents or may be validated differently per respondent. Lastly, before treating 4.3, a brief conclusion on the stressors and their causes will be given.
4.2.1 Suspicions of falseness of claims
The first stressor is that claims might be false. Generally, this was a stressor mentioned by most respondents, two examples of which are as follows:
““I woke up in a house in Amsterdam and don’t know where, but it was a house with a kitchen and a roof.” Literally like this. You almost begin to laugh, like, are you serious? “Did
you use a phone number at the time”, you ask, and about other researchable things, but absolutely nothing.” (Transcript F, line 19). 9
“And they have already talked to a victim’s lawyer before talking to us, you know, and so, because of the similar stories, I start to think like, you know, here we go again. So yeah, that
does make it… to me, it does feel like… well, I do try to treat them the way I’d want to be treated, and I do try to assume that there may be truth to it. But yeah, you do get, with these
claims, like, here’s one, and another one… and another...”(C.12). 10
Similar statements are made in all interviews, though perceptions on the lack of truth differ. One respondent spoke of how claimants often lie about sexual preference, in order to motivate their asylum, while research consequently proved the opposite to be true (J.7). Another explicitly stated to believe that claimants are advised to lie, in order to increase their chances of asylum (A.35). Some were more reserved, but did openly question the truth of claims.
“They are always rejected asylum seekers, it’s already done for them. And suddenly, almost… the stories are identical. You could… they always give nicknames in their stories, those you can change in a different nickname, but the travel stories are nearly identical, the
events told…” (G.7). 11
The remark that you can interchange the different stories, was confirmed in interviews A (e.g. A.81), C (e.g. C.18), F (e.g. F.170), H (e.g. H.76), I (e.g. I.45) and J (repeated several times). Moreover, not all respondents are equally worried and some do not even mind these
9“Ik werd wakker in een huis in Amsterdam en ik weet niet waar, maar het was een huis met een keuken en een dak”. Echt
letterlijk zo. Je begint bijna te lachen, van ja, meen je dit nou serieus. “Heb je een telefoonnummer gebruikt destijds?”, vraag je dan, en naar andere rechercheerbare dingen, maar gewoon nul komma nul te rechercheren.”
10“En ze hebben al eerder een slachtofferadvocaat gesproken, voordat ze ons spreken en je merkt, toch, door diezelfde
verhalen, dat ik denk van ja, weet je, oh daar gaan we weer. Ja, en dat maakt het wel... ik heb wel voor mezelf het gevoel van, nouja, ik behandel ze natuurlijk wel zoals je zelf ook behandeld wil worden als je slachtoffer zou zijn, en er toch wel van uitga dat het toch mogelijk zo kan zijn. [...]Alleen, ja, je krijgt gauw, met al die claims, zo van, hier heb je er weer één, daar heb je er weer één [...].”
11
[...]omdat het dus eigenlijk altijd mensen zijn die uitgeprocedeerd zijn, asielzoekers, het is al klaar. En er wordt opeens eigenlijk... bijna... de verhalen zijn bijna identiek. Je kan er een... het zijn altijd bijnamen die genoemd worden door mensen, die kan je eigenlijk wel veranderen, dan, in een andere bijnaam, maar de reisverhalen zijn praktisch identiek, de
reports at all. However, even respondents that were less bothered by its implications, did share the assumptions on falseness:
“But I can tell already that they are composed of the same storyline. And of course, you hear colleagues talk about it.” (G.42) 12
and
“Yes. From the beginning of the year up until now, we have a lot of cases that we still need to treat. The story goes around, so to say. If you do this, you can stay. If you say you’re a victim,
the police have to file a report. Because that’s it, if you indicate that you’re a victim or suggest that you’ve been through something, about which you want to tell to the police, you
tell the people at the center that.” (D.92) 13
are exemplary of this. This shows that falseness is not a worry for everybody.
4.2.2 Time consumption & capacity
The second stressor is the amount of time and capacity it takes to follow required procedure at the required level. This was confirmed by all respondents. One interview clarified that on average, handling a B8 takes approximately 40 hours (I). Also, the length of the required process was mentioned several times. This is generally directly interlinked with the lack of capacity and budget cuts, as shown in the following quotes:
“But you can’t avoid it, there’s also been a national research on it, showing that per prospectless B8, on average -there may be longer or shorter ones too- but it takes you 32
12 Maar ik merk nu al wel dat diezelfde verhaallijn erin zit. En je hoort natuurlijk van collega's.
13 ja. Vanaf het begin van het jaar tot nu toe, hebben we een heleboel zaken liggen die nog behandeld moeten worden. Dat
verhaal gaat een soort van rond, zeg maar. Als je dit doet, mag je blijven. Als je zegt dat je slachtoffer bent, dan moet de politie aangifte doen. Want dat is het, als je aangeeft slachtoffer te zijn of je suggereert dat je iets hebt meegemaakt, dat je
hours. With only one. Well, we’ve accumulated about 40 in three, four months. Well, you do the math.” (A.27) 14
“So that way, yeah, it has become part of your daily job. Or, for the department, that is. And an intake quite quickly takes… well, a day, it takes a day, because it is also often
times in Den Helder, where you have to be, at the AZC.” (F.154) 15
In particular, the practical side to scheduling translators and traveling back and forth to the center was mentioned and repeated by all respondents (e.g. A.106, B.72, D.114, F.201, G.106, H.68, I.3, J.97-98 and J.127), and the bureaucratic process and lengthiness are
generally considered painstaking, but for different reasons. Some quite plainly consider it in terms of invested time and man-hours (view e.g. G.5), others relate it to the amount of hours they work and see it relative to that (A.37) ). Yet another stated: 16
“X: yeah, but also. The biggest problem is bureaucracy. It takes too long. The machine is too slow. And yeah, that’s convenient to some to make use of.” (F.321) 17
Hence, frustration felt due to time spent can be explained along different lines, but is a stressor to all. Some even see it as intrinsic to the process of a B8-procedure, as a period of three months is granted to victims in between the intake and actual report, and that this in itself leads to more misuse (E, F, I and J).
Noteworthy here, is that some fear that a lack of time leads to a deterioration of quality, again explained along different lines but amounting to the same essential sentiment. One respondent states that without enough time, the quality of delivered work will grossly deteriorate, as detectives will not be able to take some distance to reflect and seek
cooperation among each other and other institutions (J.108-114). Another speaks of not being
14 “Maar je ontkomt er niet aan, er is ook landelijk onderzoek naar gedaan, dat je gewoon per kansloze B8, zijn wij
gemiddeld, er zitten wat minder lange maar ook echt langere tussen, 32 uur als verbalisant ermee bezig bent. Met één kansloze B8. Nou, we hebben er nu bijna veertig liggen in drie, vier maanden tijd. Nou, reken maar uit.”
15
“[d]us in die zin is het wel, ja, een deel van het dagelijks werk. Voor de afdeling dan. En een aangifte kost gauw... tja, dan heb je het toch wel over een dag, ben je een dag mee kwijt, want het is ook vaak nog in Den Helder, moet je dan zijn, het asielzoekerscentrum.”
16“ ja. En ik werk 24 uur per week. Dus eh... als ik één kansloze B8 neem, ben ik vier, vijf dagen niet beschikbaar voor het
[eigen team] [...]. Dus daar heb je al meteen de crux, zeg maar.”
17 X: ja, en. Het grootste probleem zit hem in bureaucratie. Dat het te lang duurt. De molen is te traag. En ja, daar kunnen
able to understand each other well enough to fully service victims (G.106), and yet another explains that if they do not take enough time, they will have to re-do their work, while experiencing comments from their managers that they need to spend less time per client (C.122). Respondents A, E, I and J furthermore spoke of how strains on their human capital and therefore capacity and time, meant that there was less opportunity to optimize their work and apply innovative ways of working, that could ultimately help improve the quality of work.
4.2.3 Lack of fulfilment
A third stressor is that the B8 leads to a sensation of a lack of fulfilment.The B8 claims give way to a sensation of lack of fulfillment to the detectives for several reasons. One indicator that came to the fore in all interviews, was that it is frustrating to work on cases in which no suspects can be arrested (the catch phrase “we are here to catch crooks” (in Dutch = ‘boeven vangen’) is repeated everywhere). The other explanations for lack of fulfillment may mainly be categorized along two lines. On the one hand, there are the detectives that are openly frustrated about the claims and that are very negatively positioned towards them. On the other, there are those who do not mind the claims so much and therefore experience a lack of fulfillment that is explained differently.
● Detectives that are frustrated with the victims and policy
J: “But does this also mean that when you work on a B8, you feel as if you’re not really doing your job?”
X: “yes. Of course.” (A.135-137) 18
This group of respondents feels unsatisfied, because they feel that, when working on B8 claims, they are not carrying out their true profession. They also feel that all efforts are wasted and pointless, as they indicate that they know beforehand that the prosecution’s office
18 “
will decide not to investigate the claims (due to lack of researchability). In addition to this, they emphasize that every time they work on B8s, time to work on real cases is lost, and that by listening to the repetition of stories, some sharpness is lost and that they experience fatigue (true for respondents A, B, E, F, I and J).
● Detectives that are frustrated with how victims and policy are perceived
The other group of detectives, however, is frustrated because they dislike it when the claims are depicted as ‘prospectless’ in general (as already looked at under 4.1). They feel this hurts professionalism and professional capability, but they also feel that their
responsibility to hear victims without prejudice, is hurt in that way. Moreover, as policy decisions often result in ways of shortening time spent per case, they feel that they are limited in conducting required actions. It is for instance stressed that, in working with victims of human trafficking, it is imperative to build a good relationship with them. Yet as the time permitted for each victim is cut, they indicate that they cannot meet this fundamental part of their work obligation (view D and H and to some extent, G).
4.2.4 Question of victimhood
A fourth stressor is the question of victimhood. This section shares overlap with all of the above, but did come forward distinctively in all interviews. It appears that feelings of frustration are reinforced, as suspected claims are put in juxtaposition with those that are ‘real’ (F.13: “X: the first one I dealt with, actually. [...] There was a… a man… it was… [...]
from an African country, for sure. And before this, I had already done many “real”, quotation marks, cases.” ). But the question of victimhood adds complexity for more 19
reasons. As the detectives can never be entirely sure that there is no victimhood at all, they indicate that they struggle profoundly. They are constantly placed between personal
considerations and grievances on the one hand, and the responsibility to perform and comply
19 “X: de allereerste keer, eigenlijk. Ik weet niet meer precies hoe lang dat geleden is, maar wel een aantal jaren. Toen had ik
al te maken met een.. een man, was dat, en land weet ik niet eens meer precies, maar een Afrikaans land, in ieder geval. En daarvoor had ik al veel “echte” verhalen, tussen aanhalingstekens.” (F.13)
on the other. Simultaneously, some of the victims they talk to are supposedly clearly the victim of “something” (J.47) or “may well be [victim] after all” (G.138). Thus, the question of victimhood is that which all of the above accumulates in, and so either enlarges
frustrations, or inversely, is that which gives way to them.
4.2.5 Other
Lastly, there are some seemingly residual stressors. Several detectives mentioned that they are bothered by the supposed lack of integrity of immigration lawyers. They declare to have spoken to lawyers, who have allegedly stated only to care for their hourly fees, and also that, more from a matter of decency, they do not understand why lawyers do not uphold certain levels of honesty toward their clients. Quite a few detectives also described how cooperation between the involved institutions is urgently in need of improvement. On this remark, again there was some nuance in perception. Some explain the bad quality of cooperation on technical matters (the lack of a shared information center, or gaps in institutional and international data-exchange), yet others talked about not even knowing where they could begin any level of higher and more thorough cooperation. The former argument can be drawn from respondents with different ranks, the latter mainly stems from respondents at lower ranks. Lastly, some detectives bordered on frustration when describing their lack of understanding of the reasons behind the migration of the victims in the first place (i.e. matters of extreme superstition such as voodoo or the fact that some victims seemingly trust complete strangers when told in their home country that a better life in Europe awaits them).
4.2.6 Conclusion: stressors
In sum, sub-question two, “what are stressors to human trafficking detectives dealing with the B8?” can be answered. Plainly, the lack of legitimacy and/or credibility of claims is a central feature, and it is clear that the claims consume a lot of time and capacity for a team that is already strained in these respects. Institutional cooperation is also generally deemed limiting and in some instances even annoying, but is felt and explained differently per
seniority level. Then, there is the divide between those detectives that are frustrated with assumptions on falseness and forthcoming consequences, and those that are frustrated with deteriorating professionalism.
4.3 Coping mechanisms
Lastly, the third sub-question is “which coping mechanisms can be identified with human trafficking detectives handling the B8?”. This question will now be addressed.
Mainly, three forms of coping became evident: resistance, cooperation and avoidance. These coping mechanisms occurred both at the individual as the organizational level. Interestingly, they often occurred in combination of each other, which is why this chapter will not be further divided.
One detective testified that, when they felt that they were being lied to, they refused to follow all required steps:
X: “But I just so strongly felt like, they’re messing with me… [...] so yeah, I basically just didn’t do my job. Or, ignored the law, yeah.
[...]
or well, haha, I did do my job of course, but I also just tried to see what would happen if I wouldn’t do anything.” (F.18-19 [..] F.67). 20
If anything, this would quite evidently pose as an example of overt resistance.
Similarly, some detectives admitted to prioritize their work obligations and put B8 claims on the bottom of that list, which is a clear form of resistance:
20 X: “Maar ik had zo het gevoel, ik word in de maling genomen hier… [...] dus ja, ik heb eigenlijk gewoon mijn werk niet gedaan. Of de wet genegeerd, ja.” (F.18-19)
[..] X: “ten minste, haha, ja ik heb gewoon mijn werk goed gedaan, maar ik heb gewoon geprobeerd: ik wacht wel af wat er gebeurt.” (F.67)
J: “And who determines priority [...]? Do you do that yourself?”
X: “Yes… in agreement with [management]. But I… I know what to pay attention to. That’s pretty clear. [...]” (A.43-45) 21
This specific statement clarifies that individual coping mechanisms may be attributed to organizational coping, or that at least some sense of justification is derived from it. However, there is a nuance between overt resistance and the type of resistance that follows procedure. One respondent explained how they once discovered a pattern of claimants, whose visas all accumulated. So they found that in one week, several claims came from different asylum seeker centers, but the claims were all filed by people whose visa numbers followed each other consecutively. This raised the suspicion that all claimants had arrived in the
Netherlands simultaneously and that therefore, their claims would be false (as they would have had the time to ‘get their stories straight’). This specific respondent went out of their way to notify all senior officials, both local and national, of this instance. As such, they did follow all procedural requirements, but as such, seemingly acted on a type of organizational discretion, rather than discretion based on personal preferences. Hence, through cooperative behavior, they find ways to resist: a schoolbook example of adaptive coping behavior.
As mentioned, there was also a clear form of organizational resistance. One of the respondents that was in a leadership position, was specifically tasked with strategizing their department’s handling of the claims. They testified that they had decided to first hand out all other cases and to prioritize those above B8 claims. They also invested discretionary power in their subordinates, by allowing them to decide for themselves which cases to process. Their respondents in turn supported this fact when they spoke of departmental decisions (as is shown in, for instance, the last quote here above, A43-45). Added to this is the fact that some interviewees explained how ‘management’ continuously pressed them to spend less time on the claims, but they all made clear that that had become impossible (the process could not be shortened any more). Interestingly, if due to capacity issues, procedure could not be followed in a timely manner, standard requirements would be dropped entirely. For example, each
21 J: “En wie bepaalt de prioriteit [...]? Doe je dat zelf?”
