This contribution reports about a research in a medium-sized municipality on the possibilities of giving municipalities an instrument to determine at the earliest possible stage which neighborhoods are at (increased) risk of exposure to organized crime and its consequences. We are searching for indicators to measure that exposure to give direction to preventive measures. Our focus is on the erosion of structures and foundations of society as a result of activities of organized crime, eventually resulting in the infringement of the rule of law. It is therefore not about the phenomenon of organized crime itself, but about its effects on society. This requires clarification and measurability of the concept. In this first exploration, we focus on the following five manifestations of the effect of organized crime: The emergence of a subculture: not recognizing government authority; the emergence of takeover of power in the neighborhood; the emergence of vulnerable groups of citizens; the creation of the image: crime pays off; and the emergence of unfair competition.

An explicit goal in the Dutch victim policy is to offer protection to victims of crime. Based on a EU Directive all member states shall ensure that victims receive a timely and individual assessment, to identify specific protection needs. In this paper the question is: which victims especially do need protection? More specific, it examines whether the victim-offender relationship, controlling for the confounders ‘type of crime’ and ‘gender of the victim’, contributes to the extent in which protection is a reason for reporting crimes to the police. For victims of domestic violence (by partners, ex-partners and (other) family members), the need for protection is an important reason for reporting – not just for women and girls, but also for men and boys. The need for protection is an important reason for reporting for victims by partners, ex-partners and (other) family members of non-violent as well as violent crimes.

From a secondary analysis of data from a survey of victims of crime, commissioned by the WODC, it appears that more than occasionally the registration of the type of offence by the police, the Public Prosecution Service and Victim Support Netherlands does not match the victim’s own reporting of the offence. In this article, the differences between victims’ reports and registrations regarding the nature of the victimization are exposed and the background of the differences is explored. Some offences seem to have an increased chance of being classed by victims in offence categories which differ from those of the registrations.
Based on the secondary analysis, the authors conclude that it is important for the interpretation of future research among victims to identify the registered offence and explicitly verify this with the respondent. It is also good to consider what registration data is useful in samples to be able to identify differences between the registrations and the victims’ reports later. A practical implication of the discrepancy in the nature of victimization is that bottlenecks may occur in the connection between the support needs of victims and the supply.