PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR OF
BOA’S
A qualitative research towards the proactive
behavior of BOA’s in the public space domain in the
Netherlands
Master thesis
Author: Marijn Zumker Studentnumber: s2172798 Supervised by: Dr. J. Matthys 2nd Reader: Dr. G. G. De Valk Leiden University Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs MSc Crisis and Security ManagementIndex
1. Introduction ...4
1.1 Research objective ...6
1.2 Research question ...6
1.3 Societal and scientific relevance ...6
1.4 Reading guide ...7
2. Theoretical framework ...8
2.1 Provision of security...8
2.2 Proactivity ... 10
2.3 Behavior of security actors ... 13
2.3.1 Extrinsic personal factors ... 13
2.3.2 Intrinsic personal factors ... 14
2.3.3 Institutional factors ... 15
3. Methodology ... 18
3.1 Research design ... 18
3.1.1 Conceptual Framework ... 18
3.1.2 Justification conceptual framework ... 19
3.1.3. Unit of analysis... 20 3.1.4 Legal Framework ... 21 3.2 Case selection ... 22 3.3 Data collection ... 23 3.3.1 Content analysis ... 23 3.3.2. Interviews ... 24 3.4 Operationalization ... 24 3.5 Data analysis ... 27 3.6 Limitations ... 29 4. Analysis ... 30
4.1 Section I: Institutional factors ... 30
4.1.1 Case I Municipality of Amsterdam ... 30
4.1.2 Case II Municipality of Rotterdam ... 34
4.2 Section II: Intrinsic & extrinsic personal factors BOA’s ... 37
4.2.1 BOA I ... 38
4.2.2 BOA II ... 41
4.2.3 BOA III... 44
4.2.5 BOA V ... 47 4.2.6 BOA VI ... 49 4.2.7 BOA VII ... 51 4.2.8 BOA VIII ... 52 5. Conclusion ... 55 5.1 Conclusion ... 55
5.1.1 Intrinsic personal factors ... 55
5.1.2 Extrinsic personal factors ... 56
5.1.3 Institutional factors ... 56
5.1.4 Relation with academic knowledge ... 57
5.1.5 Recommendations ... 58
5.2 Reflection ... 58
5.2.1 Reflection on literature review ... 58
5.2.1 Limitations in empirical phase ... 59
6. References ... 60 Annex I Interview questions ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Annex II Coding sheets content analysis case I Amsterdam...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Annex II Coding sheets content analysis case II Rotterdam...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Annex IV Codes content analysis ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 1. Policy documents Municipality of Amsterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Ad 1.1. Raamconvenant Handhaving tussen Gemeente, Politie en handhavingspartners
Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 1.2. Handhavingsarrangement inzake Overlast openbare ruimte behorend bij het
Raamconvenant (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016a). ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 1.3 Een nieuwe lente en een nieuw geluid: Coalitieakkoord Amsterdam 2018-2022
(Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 1.4 Handhavingsprogramma 2017-2018 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016c). Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Ad 1.5 Vastgesteld Regionaal Veiligheidsplan 2019-2022 (Gemeente Amsterdam et al., 2018). ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 2. Policy documents Municipality of Rotterdam...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 2.1. Wegwijzer Stadsbeheer (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018d) ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Ad 2.2. Veilig @ Rotterdam: Veiligheidsprogramma 2018-2023 (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018c). ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 2.3: Een overzicht van de taken en bevoegdheden van de Rotterdamse handhavers (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018a). ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Ad 2.4 Rotterdam schone stad: Voortgangsrapportage september 2017 (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2017). ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Ad 2.5. Nieuwe energie voor Rotterdam: Coalitieakkoord 2018-2022 (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018b)...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Annex V Transcript interviews ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 1.1 Interview I case Amsterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 1.2 Interview II case Amsterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 1.3 Interview III case Amsterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 1.4 Interview IV case Amsterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 2.1 Interview I case Rotterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 2.2. Interview II Case Rotterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 2.3 Interview III case Rotterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 2.4 Interview IV case Rotterdam ...Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
1. Introduction
In our post-crime society, crime is often acted upon in a reactive, repressive way. After the criminal commits a crime, the criminal will be punished, police starts the investigation and the policy maker makes policy about the topic. Nowadays, a shift from post-crime to pre-crime can be perceived in the security domain. Pre-crime shifts the modern day definitions and phenomena out of the present criminological enquiry into a more proactive, preventive way. It shifts the temporal perspective to anticipate and forestall a crime or incident that has not yet occurred and may never do so. In a pre-crime society other enquiries are present such as: calculation, risk, uncertainty, surveillance,
precaution, prudentialism, moral hazard etc. (Zedner, 2007:263). Proactive security is focused on the intentions of a potential offender instead of the resources being used by these offenders to execute their actions. The philosophy behind this strategy is to intercept threats in the most early stage possible. Criminals always prepare their operations and actions following certain uniform steps: the Criminal- and Terroristic Planningcycle for example (Sosecure, 2016). One of the core elements in proactive security is how to spot these bad intentions and steps before an incident or criminal event occurs, and how to make these intentions visible for security professionals in order to anticipate on these threats (Van Pel, Verhagen, Wijn, 2012).
This trend is also present within Dutch law enforcement (Svensson, Sollie & Saharso, 2011). Dutch police officers are investing into a more proactive approach in their law enforcement (Rutten, 2018). The past two decennia multiple municipalities in the Netherlands have established their own
surveillance and law enforcement agencies to secure the public areas within their territory (Terpstra, 2012; Van den Vijver, 2004). They did this due to the raising attention on societal insecurity on the societal and political agenda. Furthermore, the police, as traditional monopolist in the public security domain, experienced an increasing pressure to focus more on their ‘core objectives’ instead of focusing on secondary tasks, such as parking fining and the livability of the neighborhood (Terpstra, Gunther Moor en Van Stokkom, 2010). The pressure on the municipalities to react decisive on social developments in combination with the increasing pressure on the Dutch police force regarding these developments lead to the establishment of other agencies to assist in the security of the public space domain (Terpstra, 2012; Winter & Mein, 2017; Terpstra, van Stokkom & Spreeuwers, 2013; Ministerie van Veiligheid & Justitie, 2010; Van Stokkom & Foekens, 2015; Van Steden & Bron, 2012; Van Steden, Schuilenburg, Leemeijers & Loots, 2012; Tollenaar, 2007). This development resulted into a more hybrid field of public security where the police does not have the monopoly anymore, but is assisted by multiple security professionals from different agencies. To increase the complexity of the field, all agencies have different juridical authorizations in the law, different gear & uniforms, and have different assignments regarding the law enforcement and livability of the
municipality. There are public, semipublic but also private security professionals involved in the domain. The Netherlands knows stadswachten, BOA’s, Governmental security officers (GOA’s),
Police surveillances, mall cops, private security officers and many more examples working together with the police in the domain. Because every municipality has their own responsibility to appoint their security officials and manage their public space domain, the range of numbers of actors present in the public area differs widely (Bicknese & Slot, 2003).
The phenomenon described above is not only present in the Netherlands but also occurs abroad. Other countries have tackled this problem with different methods, suitable within their policies, politics and culture. The United Kingdom speaks of ‘plural policing’ and the ‘police extended family’. They have come up with a solution within their police force, with professions as the Police Community Officer and the Neighborhood Wardens, all present as public entities (Terpstra, van Stokkom, Spreeuwers, 2013). The Canadians have come up with a more private solution, which connects more to their security environment. They have professionals assisting the police such as By-Law enforcement officers, special constables, or paid duty police (Terpstra, van Stokkom, Spreeuwers, 2013). In the conceptualization of this research, these definitions will be discussed further.
In the Netherlands, the biggest group that assist the police in the public space domain is the
Buitengewoon opsporingsambtenaar (BOA). These BOA’s are specialized in a certain domain of law enforcement, varying from public transport to education. Unlike police officers, BOA’s only have the authority to maintain the law in one or two domains. There is a total of six BOA domains in the Netherlands, where the public space domain (I) is the biggest and therefore the most interesting in this research. The other domains are public transport, environment and infrastructure, labor and care, education and general detection (Ministerie van Justitie en veiligheid, 2017). Furthermore, BOA’s do not have the authority to maintain the general criminal law, but only the administrative law of the municipality or specialized criminal law within their domain.
With this complex field of public security, it is necessary to establish and maintain a clear and adequate approach of law enforcement which is in line with the greater security trend and connects with the (proactive) law enforcement of the Dutch police. The Dutch police invests greatly in
proactive law enforcement methods, combining intelligence in their daily working routine. Examples in the field can be found in methods such as intelligence led policing and predictive policing or predictive profiling (Kop & Klerks, 2009; Van Pel, Verhagen & Wijn, 2012). With the raising pressure on the police force described above, certain police tasks are outsourced to other non-police actors, such as the BOA’s. It is important that these other actors are trained in comparable ways providing them with the same skills and knowledge necessary to combat the problems in the public. In other words, these other actors may also need to enforce the law proactively in the public area.
Otherwise, the investments in the police force might not cover the full load of the problem, leaving other security actors in the public sector untrained. It is interesting to investigate if the outsourcing of
police tasks also means that the same set of skills and knowledge is outsourced, and that these other actors are working proactively.
To aid the professionalism of the BOA-sector, further research is needed to discover an approach of proactive policing suitable for the BOA’s law enforcement within the public space. The research field of proactive security and policing in the BOA domain is a relative unexplored and young field (Vrij, 2008; Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps & Vrij, 2013; Van Stokkom & Foekens, 2015). Therefore, to explore different policing models in the BOA case will add scientific value in both the greater security domain and the BOA security domain.
1.1 Research objective
The main objective of the research is to discover the relational elements which affects the proactive behavior of security actors, applied on BOA’s. When these elements are discovered, the present situation in the BOA case can be explored to see the current state of BOA’s regarding their proactive behavior. In addition, this research has also a descriptive objective, describing the present situation in the field of proactive security and policing of BOA’s.
These objectives will be realized by conducting descriptive research on the already known literature regarding the policing models, proactive behavior and the street level bureaucrat, and by conducting explorative research on two case studies in the Netherlands, regarding the cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam.
1.2 Research question
This leads to the following research question:
‘’What affects the proactive behavior of BOA’s in the public space domain (domain I) in the Netherlands?’’
To answer this question three factors will be examined: intrinsic personal factors (personal characteristics), extrinsic personal factors (education, training & practice) and institutional factors (present policing models). These three factors have been taken from the relevant literature in the field (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Lipsky, 1980; Ponsaers, 2001).
A key note has to be mentioned that this is a qualitative working approach, it is therefore possible that there are more factors to be considered. However, this research will be concentrated on the three factors mentioned above.
1.3 Societal and scientific relevance
The societal relevance is present in the investigation of the extent of professionalism of BOA’s regarding their policing tasks. Especially, in comparison with the traditional owner of these tasks, the police. The police is known to have invested in multiple methods of proactive law enforcement to prevent crime in early stages, such as predictive policing and prescriptive policing. Outsourcing these
tasks, does not necessarily have to mean that the same set of skills and knowledge is transferred as well. This stimulate societal debates about the professionalism of the BOA together with the exact need of this professionalism. Furthermore, this research can be used as input for policy making regarding the use of BOA’s in the municipality. The societal relevance of this research is expressed in the input they deliver in the policy making cycle of municipalities, aiding them with knowledge and expertise about the proactivity of BOA’s in this domain. Besides the municipalities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, other local and national actors can benefit from this research. In addition, the research is not only relevant for public actors, but also for private actors. Private actors in the security branch can use this research as input for their training programs in the public space domain, to train security actors in proactive law enforcement & security.
The scientific relevance can be found in the greater trend of the pluratization of the police tasks and the additional professionalism of these alternative actors in the policing field. This research will add value in mapping the present situation regarding the present proactive policing methods of non-police actors in the field of public security. It also adds scientific value in the discussion to what extent proactive policing methods are necessary for non-police actors in the field. In addition, it adds scientific value towards the discovery of relational elements, which indicators are affecting proactivity.
The research field of proactive security and law enforcement is a relatively young field. The scientific relevance of this study is visible in the context of Zedner’s proactive crime shifts (Zedner, 2007). In this context the perceived crime shift of Zedner can be tested with the empirical data found in this research. This empirical data is also valuable to test other theories, such as the theories regarding street level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003).
Finally, the scientific relevance can also be perceived in the research towards methods to detect deviant behavior. Proactive security is all about detecting crime before it occurs, the main goal is to detect deviant behavior (Van Nunen, Roelofs & Van Rest, 2014; Wijn & Vogels, 2015). There are different approaches to detect deviant behavior (Ormerod & Dando, 2015; Beckmann, 2010; Granhag & Mac Giolla, 2014; Burgoon et. Al., 2009; Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps & Vrij, 2013; Wijn et. Al., 2017). It is interesting to investigate whether or not these different methods correspond with each other and to which extent. In addition, it could be a solution to integrate methods as described above in the proactive behavior BOA’s. Previous research didn’t focus on these specific aims.
1.4 Reading guide
This thesis will continue with a theoretical framework in section 2. Followed up with the methodology being discussed. To continue with the analysis where the factors will be analyzed to answer the main research question of these thesis in the conclusion. The thesis will be ended with a discussion on the findings and limitations of this research.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Provision of security
Talking about security, several things can be meant. National security, ecological security or physical security for example. In this research the primary focus lays on physical security. The security provided by law enforcers in the public space domain.
With the provision of security, the measures being taken to ensure the security in the environment are meant. An important aspect of these measures are the security actors. The traditional security actor known in society is the police. The police has the monopoly of using force to ensure public order and maintain justice (Svensson, Sollie & Saharso, 2011). But, as mentioned in the introduction, in the present time the police is not the only security actor in society anymore.
The past few decades have witnessed a far-reaching pluralization of policing. Many countries were confronted with the rise of new non-police providers of policing services (Devroe & Terpstra, 2015:235). The traditional monopoly of one public organization responsible for public security was over. The responsibility had to be shared with other, non- or semi-public entities in the public space. This phenomenon is described as plural policing. Although this trend is perceived world-wide, it does not necessarily mean every country is acting upon this trend the same way. Globally there are
differences between jurisdictions and present processes such as privatization and marketization. These processes often differ per continent. The American continent is more aimed at the commercial domain of plural policing, while the Western European pluralization often remains within the public domain (Devroe & Terpstra, 2015: 236). Plural policing does lead to fragmentation of the police system, but this does not necessarily need to lead to a raising complexity in the governance of policing. In the new, advanced forms of plural policing a network or nodal form of security governance is perceived. The most prominent form of plural policing officers in continental European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria) are municipal guards and wardens (their names differ, as do their formal powers) (Devroe & Terpstra, 2015:238). An important observation is that this form is thus not provided by the police but by the (local) government. These wardens or guards exists beside the police.
There are some challenges to mention about how this plural policing can be effectively governed and held accountable in the public interest. Speaking about the blurring distinction between public and private parties as an effect of this pluralization, some challenges can be highlighted.
According to scholars, one of the downsides of the current plural policing trends is the interplay between state and non-state actors in public policing provision (Stenning, 2009:10). This interplay is currently not adequate enough in terms of accountability and governance to ensure effective and accountable policing in the public interest. The traditional forms of accountability are too rigid for the new environment, as the ‘power’ is no longer centralized (Bayley and Shearing, 1996; Stenning, 2009)
but is now divided among the whole ‘extended policing family’ (Crawford and Lister, 2004). While the governance and accountability arrangements for both parties share some similarities (in terms as salary, licensing, jurisdictions, training etc.), they are not identical and even quite different from each other. The two sides do have separate positions in society, which results in different roles and
responsibilities. A clear example is that the ‘public’ police is sponsored and mandated by society with special powers and authority, while the ‘private’ side share none or less of these attributes towards the ‘public interest’ (Stenning, 2009:2). This dichotomy is visible within the terms of responsibility in ‘communal properties’ (such as gated communities) or ‘mass private property’, where the traditional association between private ownership and public property is disrupted. In these forms of property, there is a private ownership but the property is used as a public place. This undermines the clear distinction between what is ‘pubic’ and what is ‘private’ which poses challenges between the roles and responsibilities of public and private policing (Stenning, 2009:4; Jones and Newburn, 1999).
In terms of effective governing other challenges arise, challenges such as optimum use of available resources, maximum achievement of desired objectives, maintaining confidence among citizens, ethical values and compliance etc. Loader proposed a set of principles to guide policing boards in governing policing, which can be summarized as a change in mentality (Loader, 2000).
Yet there are leaders from both the public and private policing domain that resist this change of mentality. According to scholars, this changes in mentality is necessary to devise and implement institutions and mechanisms of governance and accountability that would be more suitable for the new environment (Stenning, 2009:10).
To conclude, patience is needed to overcome the obstacles present in the field of plural policing. However, multiple countries are trying to combat these problems with their own strategies, cultures and beliefs in the plural policing domain. Some of these countries will be briefly explained in the paragraphs below.
The United Kingdom managed to keep the solution totally public and under the responsibility of the police department. They have Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s) that assist police officers in small crime and livability issues. This is comparable with the Dutch police surveillances. They have less authority and training and count as ‘civilians’. Besides these PCSO’s there are Neighbourhood Wardens, or street wardens. They are inspired by the Dutch stadswachten, an older version of BOA’s. They have no extra authority than normal citizens. They can be better compared with social workers then law enforcers (Terpstra, Van Stokkom, Spreeuwers, 2013).
In Canada they have a security environment that is more commercial then in Europe. They had solutions such as the Special Constables and By-law enforcement. Special Constables are professional police officers that can be hired by a local police service board to maintain the order in a certain area.
authorized to control small crime and livability, they are private parties and have no strings with police departments. Security officers can be trained to be by-law officers(Terpstra, Van Stokkom,
Spreeuwers, 2013).
In the introduction can be read how the Netherlands responded to this phenomena and how they organized their plural police in the public space. Much research is conducted towards plural policing throughout the years. To be more precise, much research is conducted towards law enforcement of security actors in the public space domain. Yet, focusing on the actors rather than on the working approach leads to different insights. The operational coordination of the BOA’s falls under the responsibility of the police, while the municipality, or the employer, is responsible for the policy on BOA’s (Terpstra, van Stokkom, Spreeuwers, 2013 Van Steden, 2012; Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2017).
More detailed information about the Dutch case of plural policing will be discussed in the research design.
2.2 Proactivity
The research field of proactive security and law enforcement is a relatively young field to be
investigated, nevertheless we have almost 40 years of systematic research on the proactive crime shifts perceived in Zedner’s article (2007) focused on detection, deception and prevention (Vrij, 2008; Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps & Vrij, 2013). Despite the immaturity of the field, there is in fact a high quantity of rich, valuable data available. To investigate the research question the most central definition is ‘’proactive’’. Working with a proactive approach, the goal is to prevent crime before it occurred and to anticipate on future situations. Many authors write about this visible trend in the security domain and try to define this concept. A consensus is reached because all authors are saying more or less the same: Proactive security includes both the use of behavioral analysis methods to detect deviant behavior before a crime occurs, and the willingness and ability to mitigate risks early, for example by approaching individuals on the basis of their deviant behavior (Elias, 2009; Van Pel, Verhagen & Wijn 2012; Van Rest, Roelofs & Van Nunen, 2014; Wijn & Vogels, 2015).
The concept of proactivity had to be defined in the context of the security domain. In the security world, to be proactive means to have the ability to anticipate future situations and create modifications to ensure these future situations either will not happen or can be resolved as quickly as possible (Reportexec, 2014).
Digging further into the topic proactivity, it is impossible to avoid terms like intelligence. To realize and implement a sufficient proactive approach of law enforcement an organization has to work with intelligence (Den Hengst- Bruggeling, 2010; Elias 2009; Van Pel, Verhagen & Wijn 2012; Van Rest, Roelofs & Van Nuenen 2014; Kop & Klerks, 2009; Van der Plas & Conijn, 2015; Oude Egberink & Van Raaij, 2013; Smit, De Vries, Van der Kleij, Van Vlie, 2016). Information that gives intelligence
provides input for the proactive approach of security officers (Den Hengst – Bruggeling, 2010). Unfortunately, it is a diffuse environment when it comes to the terms and definitions, especially the unambiguity of the terminology. There are authors speaking of protective intelligence (Fein & Vossekuil, 2000; Borum, Fein, Vossekuil & Berlund, 1999), while others are speaking of threat intelligence (Chismon & Ruks, 2015; Secdata, 2014; Solutionary, 2015) and others are speaking of just (traditional) intelligence (Brouwer & Scholten, 2012; Den Hengst- Bruggeling, 2010). In addition, there are authors who write about information based working (Oude Egberink & Van Raaij, 2013), while others call it an intelligence based or intelligence led approach (Kops & Klerks, 2009; Smit, De Vries, Van der Kleij, Van Vlie, 2016). A thorough examination reaches the conclusion that all the authors are talking about approximately the same thing, but give it a slightly different name. Yet a satisfying definition what works for all the authors has not yet been reached, apparently. An unambiguous, clear universal definition is not formulated yet.
One model that returns in a great deal of literature is the intelligence cycle (Brouwer & Scholten, 2012; Johnston & Johnston, 2008; Wheaton, 2011a; Wheaton, 2011b). This model is used to simplify the complex process of working with intelligence. The cycle focuses on every aspect from the
collecting towards the dissemination of intelligence.
Because it is strongly recommended to use a clear, unambiguous terminology to realize an effective approach in the security sector (Van Nunen, Roelofs & Van Rest, 2014: 17) the definition has to be found in the public security domain. Looking at the definition used by the Dutch Police academy, the following definition arised:
Intelligence is analyzed information and knowledge that forms the fundament of which decisions about the execution of police tasks are taken (SBGi, 2008; Van Den Hengst- Bruggeling, 2010; Kop & Klerks, 2009).
Because the police is the traditional security actor in the public security domain, the definition of the Dutch police is the most suitable definition in the context of plural policing.
The whole purpose of working with intelligence and working proactive is to detect crime before it occurs. The main goal is to detect deviant behavior (Van Nunen, Roelofs & Van Rest, 2014; Wijn, Van Rest, Burghouts & Lousberg 2012; Wijn & Vogels, 2015; Van der Plas & Conijn, 2015).
Although, there is much consensus about the definition of deviant behavior, the literature doesn’t seem to be satisfied about the ideal method to detect this behavior. Several authors have different
approaches to detect this behavior (Granhag & Mac Giolla, 2014; Burgoon et. Al., 2009; Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps & Vrij, 2013; Wijn et. Al., 2017), such interrogation techniques as Controlled Cognitive Engagement(CCE) (Ormerod & Dando, 2015; Beckmann, 2010).
After a literature review about proactive security and proactive policing certain elements can be distinguished to operationalize proactive behavior in the security context. One of the most basic changes that has to occur to implement proactive security or law enforcement is the change in mindset. A change in mentality is vital for the execution of a proper proactive security strategy. The shift has to come from the classical ‘penal mentality’ to a new ‘risk mentality’. This change in mindset will be visible in the daily work of the street-level bureaucrat in all his actions. (Johnston & Shearing, 2013). A relatively large part of effective proactive security consists of non-voluntary interaction with citizens. Scholars conducted research towards the practical applications of these methods by public actors, which is valuable for the operationalization of proactive behavior in the security sector (Portillo & Rudes, 2014; Çankaya, 2012). Questioning citizens can be identified as one of the elements for proactive behavior (Portillo & Rudes, 2014; Çankaya, 2012; Ormerod & Dando, 2015; Beckmann, 2010).
Furthermore, analyzing proactive behavior in the security context it is inevitable to mention the decision making progress. As a matter of fact, this might be one of the most crucial parts in proactive behavior; choosing your targets. Çankaya conducted research towards the selection process of police officers that executed proactive policing. He mentioned selection models that were based on objective selection criteria. Applying these models results in a selection of citizens for a proactive approach based on a set of deviant indicators that could form a ‘suspicious profile’ in the context with the norm of the environment (Çankaya, 2012).
While observing an individual to spot deviant behavior, a not to be underestimated risk is racial profiling. Racial profiling is the profiling of an individual only based on ethnical or racial appearances (Glaser, 2014). Racial profiling can wrongly bias the security professional into wrongly identified threats. This happened during the Ben-Gurion Airport attacks by the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine, through members of the Japanese Red Army (Hadidi, 2012). By focusing on Arabic looking threats they had no attention for the Japanese terrorists. They managed to easily circumvent the airport’s security measures. This endorses the ineffectiveness of racial profiling. ‘Behavioral profiling’ came as a reaction to this event, and can be seen as the origins of proactive security,
focusing on deviant indicators in the behavior of individuals (Hadidi, 2012). Glaser (2014) distributed specific practical ideas to reduce racial profiling and stimulate predictive profiling, or proactive policing.
When certain deviant behavior is observed and an analysis about the situation is done, the security actor can act in multiple ways. Questioning the citizen is one of these actions. However due to its rather self-contained nature in the context of proactive behavior, the choice is made to identify questioning as one element instead of attaching it to the element of acting. Besides questioning a security actor can stimulate (Prikkelen) citizens to make them show their deviant indicators. The
security actor can use this to test certain assumptions during his analysis or to intervene into the operation of the opponent (Van Pel, Verhagen & Wijn, 2012; Hadidi, 2012, Glaser, 2014). Besides these methods, the traditional methods of the security actor are also present in this element, think of methods as sanctioning, fining, searching etc. All measures that can be taken by a security actor to mitigate the threat can be linked to the element of acting (Portillo & Rudes, 2014; Fein & Vossekuil, 2000; Borum, Fein, Vossekuil & Berlund, 1999; Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps & Vrij, 2013).
The fifth element that can be mentioned to operationalize proactive behavior is the element of evaluation. After every operation, from acting towards towards questioning an individual the element of evaluation is crucial to implement a solid proactive security strategy. Executing a proactive security strategy has to be guaranteed within the organization, therefore having the right mindset is important (Johnston & Shearing, 2013). With a proactive mindset comes a continued process of evaluation. This process benefits the preventive side of the organization and can be visible in many ways. Reporting back towards the management level, executing Red-Teaming exercises, or having briefing and debriefings on a routine base are important forms of evaluation.
This five identified elements of proactive behavior in this research were inspired by the scholars in this literature review and are, in non-chronological order:
- Questioning; - Observing; - Analysis; - Acting; - Evaluating.
2.3 Behavior of security actors
The behavior of security actors can be divided by the three elements mentioned in the research question paragraph: Intrinsic personal factors, extrinsic personal factors and institutional factors (Maynard-Moody & Muscheno, 2003; Lipsky, 1980).
2.3.1 Extrinsic personal factors
Lipsky writes about the street level bureaucrat and how they make decisions. The street level bureaucrat is a policy or security officer that works on the operational (‘’street’’) level and has the authority to make certain (policy) decisions. This individual disposes a high amount of discretion in the execution of his job. The execution of certain policies, makes him a ‘’bureaucrat’’ on the ‘’street level’’. Street level bureaucrats can be social workers, police officers, teachers and other professionals operating on the ‘’street level’’. This street level bureaucrat makes decisions according to a certain framework (Lipsky, 1980:3). Maynard-Moody & Musheno (2003) conclude that the background of a street level bureaucrat certainly matters. The background of an individual can be identified as extrinsic personal factors. Education, training & practice (also while on the job: experience) can be categorized
as extrinsic personal factors. These external factors can influence individuals in their development while executing their jobs. ‘’Moreover, experience and expertise make workers’ judgments superior to their citizen-client’s insights and preferences. Street-level workers’ pragmatism and experience undergirds their moral reasoning and justifies (or to the critic, rationalizes) their assertions of power and authority relative to both their hierarchical superiors and their citizen-clients’’ (Maynard & Musheno, 2003: 156). These factors do not have a uniform effect on all individuals but are different for every person. Everyone has a different background, with different experiences, skills and knowledge that leads to different judgments of street-level workers on certain situations during the job. ‘’Street-level workers learn from peer accounts, observations, and conversations how to intuitively navigate the moral dilemmas of their work. While essential, this moral intuition is not enough’’ (Maynard & Musheno, 2003: 160). This quote endorses the difference between intrinsic personal factors (moral intuition and intelligence) and extrinsic personal factors (learn from peer accounts, observations and conversations). Due to this high level of discretion, it is important that the street-level bureaucrat is trained and educated properly beforehand. ‘’Street-level work is guided by many texts; cops, teachers, and counselors spend much time divining and learning the meanings of the rules, regulations and procedures that infuse their work’’ (Maynard & Musheno, 2003: 161).
In the extrinsic personal factors the focus is on the training, education and experience of professionals on the street level, this influences the decision making process of the street level bureaucrat and improves the skills and knowledge of the professional to make better decisions and to perform better on their jobs.
2.3.2 Intrinsic personal factors
Secondly, there are intrinsic personal factors to mention. Lipsky (1980) and Maynard-Moody & Musheno (2003) all reached consensus that in the context of the street level bureaucrat, it matters who you are. The personal characteristics of the individual influences the decision making progress on the street. These personal characteristics are categorized in the intrinsic personal factors. Maynard- Moody & Musheno (2003:160) are speaking about the use of one’s moral intuition while facing certain
dilemmas on the job. ‘’most scholars acknowledge that the nature and norms of street-level work diminish the prospects for bureaucratic and democratic control over front-line workers’ judgments and actions. Furthermore, most scholars recognize what the stories reveal: workers’ beliefs and values are formed in rough-and-tumble interaction with peers and citizen-clients, not in regulated formal interaction with supervisors’’(Maynard-Moody & Musheno (2003:157). This signifies the overlap between the intrinsic en extrinsic personal factors, as certain skills, beliefs and values are present by a street-level bureaucrat from the beginning (intrinsic, nature), while other street-level bureaucrats need to develop and form these skills, beliefs and values during their work (extrinsic, nurture). An
important element in the intrinsic personal factors is one’s identity. The decisions being made on the street-level are based on both the identity of the street-level worker, as for his citizen-client. ‘’these
identities shape the nature of street-level workers’ responses, from bending the rules and providing extraordinary assistance to allowing only begrudging and minimal help and at times to abuse‘’ (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003:154). As they conclude, ‘’responsible action demands the analysis of both the self and the context’’ (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003:150).
Lipsky identified certain intrinsic personal factors that are useful for the street level bureaucrat in executing their job. Two psychological perspective of street-level work are considered by Lipsky: persistence and relative job satisfaction (Lipsky, 1980:140). Street level bureaucrats do need to have careful judgments of situations, not just-rule following. Therefore a certain amount of discretion is necessary to improve the legitimacy. Other elements that influence the effectiveness of the work of street level bureaucrats are the creation of routines in their working environment, to simplify the environment. Secondly, changing their own expectations of the work is also an effective coping mechanism being used. Third, the adaptation of the opinion on clients is considered an effective coping strategy (Lipsky, 1980). These coping strategies are used to ‘’modify their objectives to match better with their ability to perform…Thereby making their jobs psychologically easier to manage’’ (Lipsky, 1980:141). These psychological coping strategies are influencing the behavior of street-level bureaucrats on the job.
2.3.3 Institutional factors
The last factor that influences the behavior of security actors is the context. Maynard-Moody & Musheno (2003) concluded that the context matters in the decision making of street level bureaucrats. ‘’Responsible action demands analysis of both the self and the context’’ (Maynard-Moody &
Musheno, 2003:160). This context can be categorized as institutional factors. The institutional factors are the organizational culture, the social norms and culture of the organization (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003:157, 159). ‘’It has long been recognized that organizational stories play a key role in the initial and continuing socialization of organizational actors… organizational culture, not hierarchy, supervision, or accountability, is of ‘’overwhelming importance’’ in ‘’determining the subordinates’ levels of compliance.’’ (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003, 159).
These institutional factors can be distinguished into different policing models inside relevant organizations. Ponsaers (2001) mapped different policing models in his research. He defines police models as ‘’central entities of thoughts and ideas on policing, entities with the same underlying assumptions, which include an observable internal coherence in their conceptualization’’ (Ponsaers, 2001:1). In his distinction between the models he answers questions like: What is the objective? What is the meaning of prevention? How should we evaluate the police-discretion? And maybe, the most important one: What kind of policing do we want? In this sense, a police model always implies statements concerning values, objectives and norms (Ponsaers, 2001:1). According to Ponsaers pure police models are never translated into practice. Each police force has different frames of reference
towards which they react. Therefore, there is always a kind of contamination or osmosis from other models (Ponsaers, 2001:2).
Ponsaers identified several police models where four models survived his criteria for being a sufficient police model. He categorized these in Modern, Postmodern and Globalizing models. Within these categories you have the military bureaucratic model, the lawful policing model, community (oriented) policing model and public-private divide policing. This last model endorses the academic discussion whether it is appropriate to talk about ‘policing’. The public-private divided policing model is linked to the interaction between private and public entities. Therefore, some authors prefer to use notions such as ‘security’ or ‘guarding’ instead of ‘policing’.
The military bureaucratic policing model is centered around the notion of discipline and reacting against corruption and politisation (Ponaers, 2001:3). It knows a hierarchical system of command and control with supervision and discipline of individual officers as a solution to corruption. Within the police the same basic hierarchical rank system is seen to insure this internal discipline and control (Ponsaers, 2001: 3). This is the most prominent indicator of the policing model, in comparison with the other models. Besides the ranks of command and control, the level of discretion is zero with a top-down approach. Every decision can and should be reviewed by a supervisor. Furthermore, the gap between the public and the law enforcers is big. The police organization is considered as a state itself. This can be made visible by showing their monopoly to use force and physical power (Ponsaers, 2001:4).
The lawful policing model is a policing model that is mainly focused on legal and illegal action and juridism. The police is, as in the military-bureaucratic model, functioning distant from the population and has a strong specialization in the domain of crime fighting. The organization is strongly oriented on the law and the proper execution of it. Therefore there is no discretion present. The state of mind is that without the law, the police cannot operate and the primary focus is on law enforcement, not on peace keeping and public order. The most prominent indicator of this model is the strong focus on the law, together with a strong specialization in the domain of the (mis)use of the law and crime
fighting(Ponsaers, 2001: 5). The military-bureaucratic model and the lawful policing model are both reactive of nature.
The community (oriented) policing model works proactive on community resources and is focused on a great accountability of the police. It has a greater public share in decision-making and has greater concerns for civil rights and liberties. The most important key notion in this model is that the public is strongly involved or/ and considered in the decision making process, and that the professionalization of the law enforcers is strongly oriented towards the societal embedding of the police, in order to ‘’understand the nature of social problems before formulating the police reaction to them’’(Ponsaers, 2001:7). This model is more proactive than reactive and knows a high amount of discretion.
The public-private divide policing model focuses on the main characteristics of private policing: civil and commercial policing. These are policing techniques such as private investigations, consultancy businesses and private security firms that provide (technical) security solutions on a contract basis (Ponsaers, 2001: 13). The most prominent indicator in this model is the interaction between public and private bodies. It is a fragmented model with a high amount of privatization of the policing tasks with a more commercial point of view. The organization is strongly focused on commercial activities and making profit. Therefore, the public is considered as consumers, employees or possible underminders of the commercial imperative. They are rather focused on minimizing harm than on delivering justice. Their priorities are defined in terms of interest of the client and aimed at the ‘’continuity of services’’ and ‘’safety’’ and ‘’customer satisfaction’’ (Ponsaers, 2001:14).
Besides these four models there are other models being discussed by Ponsaers (2001). These are the models that didn’t met the criteria of Ponsaers. One of these policing models is the technological led policing model (computer assisted policing). The reason that this model is not classified as a solid policing model is that, according to Ponsaers, the technological led policing model can be
implemented in every policing model. The use of computer databases for example is acceptable in the lawful policing model as well as in the community oriented policing model (Ponsaers, 2001: 12). However, in this research this model will be used as the fifth model, due to the nature of the research and the link between predictive behavior and proactive behavior (Smit, De Vries, Van der Kleij & Van Vliet, 2016). The technological led policing model is a model that executes policing with the
assistance of computer systems, algorithms and the use of big data to prevent and predict crime in a proactive way. Besides using these systems, another prominent indicator is the information
management within the organization both internal and external. The model is focused on the prevention on crime and is therefore proactive of nature. The discretion can be found in the
mathematic of the algorithms of the data they use, in the end the discretion is executed by the street-level bureaucrat (not blindly followed)(Ponsaers, 2001; Smit, De Vries, Van der Kleij & Van Vliet, 2016).
3. Methodology
In this section the research design is justified. Furthermore, the case selection is explained together with the conceptual framework, the method of data collection and the data analysis. This section is ended with a brief discussion about the limitations of the research.
3.1 Research design
The research question is:‘’What affects the proactivity of law enforcement by BOA’s in the public space domain (domain I) in the Netherlands?’’
To answer this research question a non-experimental research design is used. Qualitative methods were used and two cases were studied: two cities in The Netherlands with BOA’s from Domain I (the public space) working in the these cities. It is a qualitative, comparative case study, where a dual case study design is used. While conducting this research the reality was observed instead of manipulated, which is a non-experimental design.
The main aim was to discover what affects proactive behavior of BOA’s in the public space of the Netherlands. To discover this, the present situation was mapped. Therefore, the choice for a cross-sectional design was justified. The three factors that are analyzed are intrinsic personal factors
(Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Lipsky, 1980; Van Rest, Roelofs & Van Nunen, 2014), extrinsic personal factors (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Lipsky, 1980; Van Rest, Roelofs & Van Nunen, 2014) and institutional factors (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Ponsaers, 2001; Lipsky, 1980).
3.1.1 Conceptual Framework
Conceptual framework for proactive behavior (Lipsky,1980; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Ponsaers, 2001).
3.1.2 Justification conceptual framework
The conceptual framework is explained through the four variables identified: the dependent variable together with the three independent variables and their relations to one another.
3.1.2.1 Proactive behavior (dependent variable)
Having the most interaction with civilians in society, street level bureaucrats or, to be more precise, security actors can be the decisive factor in an adequate provision of security. Therefore, the proactivity, or proactive behavior, of this security actor is rather important as perceived in Zedner’s crime shift (Zedner, 2007). As Zedner also mentions, policing is not only a traditional monopoly of the police anymore, but shifts into a more plural form of police. To that end, the security actor does not necessarily have to be a police officer but can also be another entity of the street level bureaucrat, such as the Dutch BOA.
Within the framework, proactive behavior is categorized as the dependent variable. To work proactively in the security domain certain elements are necessary. Only when the independent variables have a positive influence on the dependent variable, the proactive behavior is visible. When the independent variables have a negative influence on the dependent variable, there will most likely not be proactive behavior, but rather (unintended or intended) repressive behavior.
3.1.2.2 Extrinsic personal factors (independent variable)
The background of a street level bureaucrat matters. There are multiple training and practice documents that aim on proactive security and try to trigger and develop proactive behavior on street level bureaucrats (reportexec, 2014; Van der Plas & Conijn, 2015; Kop & Klerks, 2009; Wijn & Vogels, 2015; Adam, Beck & Van Loon 2000; Van Pel, Verhagen & Wijn, 2012). In these programs the focus is on observing and disturbing deviant behavior in the earliest stages in their planning cycle (Sosecure, 2016). Specific models are already discussed above in the theoretical framework in the section of proactivity. In the extrinsic personal factors the focus is on the training and education security actors receive and how they, as individuals, react on these trainings. In order to behave proactively the BOA need to have the right knowledge about the methods being applied, such as the method of questioning civilians or about the indicators to recognize deviant behavior. The BOA also need to know how to connect these indicators to the right forms of crime. In addition, they need to know how to communicate proactively in a team. He or she should know the difference between observing deviant behavior and ethnic profiling and has to know the dangers behind ethnic profiling and the awareness of these dangers. Besides knowledge, certain skills regarding proactive behavior can be learned. The skills of having an effective conversation with a civilian, the skill to observe and to see changes in behavior. And finally, the skills to make a threat decision. All these forms can be trained, educated and practiced and therefore can be categorized as extrinsic personal factors to
influence proactive behavior. This is endorsed by Maynard-Moody & Musheno (2003) and Lipsky (1980), as can be read in the theoretical framework.
3.1.2.3 Intrinsic personal factors (independent variable)
These are personal characteristics of BOA’s that contribute to proactive behavior. Certain
characteristics are proved to be useful in executing proactive security (Van Nunen, Roelofs & Van Rest, 2014). The theory of the street level bureaucrat does also apply in this case, investigating public space security officers as BOA’s. Lipsky identified certain intrinsic personal factors that are useful for the street level bureaucrat (Lipsky, 1980). Two psychological perspectives of street-level work are considered by Lipsky: persistence and relative job satisfaction (Lipsky, 1980:140). Street level bureaucrats, such as BOA’s, do need to have careful judgments of situations, not just-rule following. Therefore a certain amount of discretion is necessary to improve the legitimacy. Within this legitimacy the BOA need to take full responsibility for their actions. Other elements that influence the
effectiveness of the (proactive) work of street level bureaucrats are the creation of routines in their working environment, to simplify the environment. Secondly, changing their own expectations of the work is also an effective coping mechanism being used. Third, the adaptation of the opinion on clients is considered an effective coping strategy (Lipsky, 1980), operationalized by having an attitude based on hospitality and having conversations with this mindset. Other personal characteristics necessary for proactive behavior are a proactive mindset and attitude and the ability to observe correctly. Maynard-Moody & Musheno (2003) also endorsing the fact that the identity of the individual matters in terms as moral intuition and personality, such as beliefs, norms and values.
3.1.2.4 Institutional factors (independent variable)
The last potential element to link with proactive behavior are the institutional factors. The context matters and this is visualized in the BOA domain with the present policing models inside their organization. A policing model might influences the proactive behavior of the BOA’s. In order to realize proactive behavior of BOA’s the policing model need to be strongly focused on proactivity. The sufficient use of intelligence or information is important. To be more precise, a stable intelligence-based or intelligence led organization is required for a proactive approach of BOA’s. A proper policy on evaluation and information management is a form of an institutional factor that attributes to proactive behavior within the organization. The BOA’s need to be informed with the right knowledge discussed in 3.1.2.3 Extrinsic personal factors, this can be by training or by briefing for example. The proactivity must be ensured in the organization, with the use of Red Teaming for example.
3.1.3. Unit of analysis
The justification of these BOA’s is already discussed in the introduction and the research objective. In most of the academic literature about street-level bureaucrats, other actors such as the police are already taken into consideration. Therefore, it is interesting to conduct research towards other,
non-police, street-level bureaucrats that are involved in law enforcement. The BOA’s operating in the public space area (domain I) were the units of analysis. Within the public space domain the focus was on one specific kind of public space area. A requirement is that in both cases the public space area have to be constant. Previous international comparative research towards BOA’s also focused on the BOA’s from Domain I (Terpstra, Van Stokkom, Spreeuwers, 2013), as it was the biggest and most logical domain to choose. The used timeslot is the present time. A present definition of Domain I is written below:
‘’The public space domain has a broad range of competences, which means that the local security policy is aimed at dealing with nuisance and minor annoyances and other illegal acts that affect the livability within the public space and can be maintained’’ (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2017). This domain contains all the public areas within the municipality.
Furthermore, a BOA can be defined as Dutch sworn civil servant in The Netherlands who is authorized to investigate certain, usually a limited number or a specific group, criminal offenses. In many cases, BOA’s have a function that includes enforcing the law and maintaining the public order, safety and livability‘’ (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2017). This thesis focuses on BOA’s with this job description (enforcing the law and maintaining the public order, safety and livability), namely the BOA’s in Domain I, the public space domain. This means that the definition given by the Dutch government is the right one and fits within this thesis.
The following must be added to the definition above: A BOA is a collaboration partner of the police and can have, in some cases, the authority to use violence or can be equipped with special gear, such as handcuffs or police batons (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2017).
The policy definition above endorses the theoretical definition given by Terpsta, Van Stokkom and Spreeuwers: ‘’A BOA is an investigating officer under article 142 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure to whom certain police authorizations and means of violence have been granted. As a rule, the BOA has limited investigative powers, related to the job title and job description’’ (Terpstra, Van Stokkom & Spreeuwers, 2013). Yet, this definition is too broad, therefore the first definition given is more suitable for this thesis, due to its specificity.
3.1.4 Legal Framework
In the unit of analysis section the policy definition of a BOA is presented. The work of BOA’s is legitimized by article 142 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure. A BOA is an investigating officer with certain police authorizations and can be authorized to use violence. This officer finds his origins in 1994 with the Dutch policy decision on extraordinary agents (‘’Besluit Buitengewoon
Opsporingsambtenaar’’) (Terpstra, Van Stokkom & Spreeuwers, 2013). In 2017 this policy document is updated towards the latest version in the Policy rules regarding BOA’s (‘’Beleidsregels
Buitengewoon Opsporingsambtenaar’’) (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2017). This policy determined the requirements and the forms of control on BOA’s. In the case of the use of violence, there has to be an immediate necessity to authorize BOA’s on this jurisdiction. This policy also determines the requirements of the skills and knowledge of BOA’s along with their reliability. BOA’s can operate in six domains knowing:
- Public space area (Domain I);
- Environment and infrastructure (Domain II); - Education (Domain III);
- Public Transport (Domain IV); - Labor and care (Domain V); - General Detection (Domain VI);
A BOA in the public space domain is aimed at dealing with nuisance and minor annoyances and other illegal acts that affect the livability within the public space and can be maintained (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2017).
In the rule, a BOA can only work in one Domain, sometimes in two, but that is the absolute maximum. This officer is authorized to stop a citizen and request information, including proof of identity. In addition, a BOA can draft an official report and can fine citizens with administrative fines. The ministry of Justice and Security can decide if a BOA should be authorized to use means of force and can be equipped with handcuffs, a police baton or pepper spray. These authorizations differ per municipality. The Beleidsregels Buitengewoon Opsporingsambtenaar indicates the Ministry of Justice and Security as supervisor in the role of watchdog to grant permission of certain authorizations of BOA’s. They pay attention to the requirements, authorizations and their necessity, and the permanent education and training of the professionals (public and private BOA’s).
In the latest update of this policy document, the societal wish to expend the possibilities to hire BOA’s and to endorse the cooperation between the police and BOA’s was fulfilled. Where in the old
document the focus was laid on operational control by the police (on BOA’s), the updated document defined this as operational cooperation between the actors (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2017). The administrative control is executed by the municipality, as employee of the BOA’s.
3.2 Case selection
To determine whether or not it is appropriate to use a case study to analyze this question, Yin identified requirements to determine this. The following requirements were identified: The research question is a how or why question. Yes, this research aims to discover how it is that BOA’s are working proactive or not. It does not require control over behavioral events. No, there is no control on the BOA’s themselves. And it focuses on temporary events. Yes, the BOA case is a present day
phenomenon, as is written in the introduction (Yin, 2002:6). Therefore, it deserves the recommendation to use a case study design above other research methods.
Then, the use of a dual case study deserves the recommendation because the evidence from multiple cases is considered more compelling and therefore, the overall study is perceived as more robust (Yin, 2002:45).
The dual case study is conducted on two cities in the Netherlands, the municipality of Amsterdam and the municipality of Rotterdam. This choice is justified because these cities are the two biggest cities in the Netherlands. Therefore, a stronger case can be made where the results will be generalizable to other big agglomerations. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands and located in an urban area with a high concentration of cities and industries, called the randstad. It is interesting to conduct research towards a city located within this area. The other case being studied is Rotterdam, a city located in the province of South Holland (also in the randstad), a big industrial city with one of the biggest harbors in the world. Another reason is the feasibility of the research and the contacts present within these cities.
3.3 Data collection
3.3.1 Content analysis
Qualitative methods were used to collect the data. The existing policy documents of both cases were examined through a qualitative content analysis to discover which institutional policing models were present in these documents and which indicators could be identified in the texts that represents the reality. The relevant policy documents can be found in the municipalities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, as employer of the BOA’s. These sources are considered as relevant data, because they represent the reality which makes it able to harvest the empirical data of the cases.
The codes of the marked documents for case I, Amsterdam, can be found in Annex IV: Codes content analysis under Ad 1. The used policy documents for case I are:
Ad 1.1: Raamconvenant Handhaving tussen Gemeente, Politie en handhavingspartners Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016b).
Ad 1.2: Handhavingsarrangement inzake Overlast Openbare Ruimte behorend bij het Raamconvenant (gemeente Amsterdam, 2016a).
Ad 1.3: Een nieuwe lente en een nieuw geluid: Coalitieakkoord 2018-2022 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018).
Ad 1.4: Stedelijk handhavingsprogramma 2017-2018 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016c).
The codes of the marked documents for case II, Rotterdam, can be found in Annex IV: Codes content analysis under Ad 2. The used policy documents for case II are:
Ad 2.1: Wegwijzer stadsbeheer (gemeente Rotterdam, 2018d).
Ad 2.2: Veilig @ Rotterdam: Veiligheidsprogramma 2018-2023 (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018c). Ad 2.3: Een overzicht van de taken en bevoegdheden van de Rotterdamse handhavers (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018a).
Ad 2.4: Rotterdam schone stad: Voortgangsrapportage september 2017 (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2017). Ad 2.5: Nieuwe energie voor Rotterdam: Coalitieakkoord 2018-2022 (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018b).
3.3.2. Interviews
Interviews were conducted with BOA’s on the operational level in every municipality. The case selection is done with the use of convenient sampling. The aim was to interview five respondents per case. Unfortunately, two respondents were not able to be interviewed due to personal health issues. Eventually, four respondents per case were interviewed. This makes a total of eight interviews. Interviews were open with semi-structured questions. Probing questions were asked to harvest data with the main aim to reveal mechanisms between the variables in relation to each other.
During the interviews, saturation was achieved. Therefore, there was no need to implement more than eight interviews. The answers of the respondents were generalizable towards the more abstract levels of comparison, due to this lack of differences, saturation was achieved to provide conclusions. The interviews are discussed per case, starting with case I, Amsterdam, followed up by case II, Rotterdam. The original interview questions can be found in Annex I: Interview questions. The transcripts of both cases can be found in Annex V: Transcripts interviews.
3.4 Operationalization
To operationalize the concepts, dimensions are described to narrow down to concrete indicators that will make the concepts measurable. This table is used as input for the interviews and as coding scheme for the content analysis (institutional factors).
Core concepts: Dimensions/ Promps: Indicators Proactive
behavior
Prevention, precaution, (behavioral) analysis, risk mitigation,
observation, questioning, acting, intervening, evaluation.
- Are the BOA’s aware of the norm within their working environment?
- Are the BOA’s aware what deviant behavior is?
- Are they well informed about the latest trends, threats and the Modus Operandi of the
- Do they concretely react on crime or also try to prevent crime?
- Do they question a citizen properly to identify a threat in time?
- Are they able to identify changes in behavior? - Do they act proactively to
mitigate or prevent certain threats in early stages? - Do they make a proper threat
analysis before acting? - Do they communicate
proactively?
- Do they evaluate their actions? - Do they have a proactive
mindset and attitude (based on preventing rather than reacting)? Institutional
factors
Military bureaucratic policing No discretion, military-like ranks, hierarchy, distance between citizens and organizations
- Are there military ranks in the organization?
- Is there a strong distance between the public and the organization in terms of authority?
- Is there no discretion within the organization?
Lawful policing
no discretion, strong focus on the law, high specialization in crime fighting and law
- Is there a strong focus on the law?
- Is there a high specialization in crime fighting, using the law? - Is there no discretion present? Community (oriented) policing
High discretion, high involvement of the public in decision making, professionalization towards the societal embedding of the police
- Is the public involved or considered in the decision making process?
- Is the BOA specialized in the societal function
(‘’understanding the social problem before reacting to them’’)?
Public private divide policing High fragmented, high amount of privatization of policing task, interaction between public and private, commercial point of view
- Is there a commercial point of view present in the
organization?
- Are there private entities present?
- Is the focus more on customer satisfaction than maintaining order?
Technological led policing Intelligence based, information management, intelligence led-policing, algorithms, big data, preventive.
- Do the organization use SOP’s (Standard Operational
Procedure) or something similar?
- Is there a form of information management/ cooperation
- Does the organization use big data or algorithms or something similar to prevent or react to crime?
Extrinsic personal factors
Training, education, knowledge about proactivity, practice, experience
- Did you learned how to report back?
- Did you learned to make independent (threat) decisions and take responsibility for it regarding deviations and threats?
- Did you learned to take action to mitigate the threat in an
approach that suits the environment?
- Did you learned how to question a citizen to identify a threat? - Did you learned which
indicators determines deviant behavior?
- Did you learned to observe citizens correctly?
- Did you learned how to disturb a deviant person correctly in their operation?
- Did you learned to communicate correctly in a team?
- Did you learned the difference between ethnic profiling and predictive profiling?
- Did you learned to be aware of the dangers behind ethnic profiling?
- Did you learned how to observe changes in behavior?
Intrinsic personal factors
Nature, skills, personality - What is the intrinsic motivation of executing the job?
- Are you able to use your senses adequately in recognizing deviant behavior (and changes in behavior) in the public space (skills in observing)?
- Do you have a mindset and attitude based on hospitality? - Do you have a mindset and
attitude based on proactivity? - Are you comfortable with
confronting citizens?
- Are you able to make a threat decision?
- Are you able to have a conversation with a citizen to identify the threat?
