Reports by citizens are a great source of information for the police. Local residents often know well what is going on in their neighborhood and which situations are suspicious. In this study, an online survey was conducted to investigate what drives citizens to report to the police. A wide range of individual, social and institutional drivers were explored. The results show that the more often people have reported anything to the police in the past, the higher their risk perception, self-efficacy, citizen participation and police legitimacy. Furthermore, participants with a higher degree of self-efficacy, response efficacy, trust in the police and police legitimacy appeared to be more willing to report in the future. An open question regarding what motivates people the most to report show that response efficacy (the idea to what extent reporting has an effect on increasing safety and reducing crime) and altruistic values (justice, to help society and punish the perpetrators) were mentioned most frequently.

Several authors fear that the expansion of Dutch mayors’ executive powers in the field of safety and security will harm their position as non-partisan and consensus-oriented leaders. Empirical research into how mayors use their powers, however, is still rare. From a leadership perspective, the current article analyzes how mayors in the region of South East Brabant in Netherlands use their administrative power to close homes involved in drug-related crime. Drawing on Fischer’s framework of discursive practices, we analyze mayors’ considerations in terms of the argumentation they provide for closing homes. Our analysis, which draws on interviews and document analysis, covers 27 cases from the police region of South-East Brabant and includes 120 considerations. Our findings indicate that mayors vindicate home closures mostly through policy-derived technical and situational argumentations. Vindications that aspire a particular societal effect, such as the reduction of criminal activity, or ideological motivations are rarer, which is indicative of a non-decisive leadership style. In addition, mayors mostly respect the local closure policies. As such, they show very little decisive and individualistic leadership. And, to the extent that they deviate from agreed-upon regional policies, their motivation is to be able to take into account unique local circumstances. In the use of their administrative powers mayors, thus, show mostly situational and adaptive leadership, which, rather than as visionaries, positions them as caretakers. The leadership style of Dutch mayor in the use of this administrative power is, thus, much more in accordance with their traditional bridging-and-bonding leadership style than some authors suspect. Some of the limitations of our study are that we have analyzed closure decisions from one region only and that real-life decisions are susceptible to contextual influences. At the same time, our study provides a rare insight into real-world mayoral leadership in the Netherlands in the field of safety and security.

Since the 1970s social integration of the police has been considered as a key element of the Dutch police. This article focusses on the question of the relevance of social integration of the contemporary police. The article is based on interviews with present and former strategic leaders of the Dutch police. This study shows that social integration is still often considered to be a highly important value for the Dutch police, particularly with regard to the growing polarisation in society. However, some of the police chiefs also express their disapproval of the concept of social integration; in their view the concept reminds us of the past. Also, police chiefs are critical of the value of the concept because of its supposed geographical focus. The paper shows that this criticism can be understood as an interpretation of social integration in terms of ‘neighbourhood policing’ and as an operational police strategy.

This paper tries to answer the question why defendants use violence against police officers and whether, and if so how, they construct justifications for their own behavior. The study consists of an analysis of the situational aspects of violence against police officers and the characteristics of suspects. In addition, some suspects were interviewed about the incident in which they were involved. They were asked what their perception of the situation was, and what the background of the violence was. They were also asked for their opinion on the image of the police in general, and for their knowledge and perception of the relevant laws and regulations. The conclusion is that the motives for violence against a police officer lie in their belief that all men, police officer or not, are equal and should be treated with respect. Suspects feel treated unfairly and disrespectfully by police officers. Suspects feel that in such cases they are entitled to use force. Suspects are not aware of the differences between their own rights and responsibilities in such a situation and the authority that police officers legally have to use of force in order to perform their legal tasks.

The concept of positive security appears more and more often in academic and public discussions. It presents a normative agenda for a non-repressive approach of security. In the article, it is claimed that the concept and its implications lack fundamental clarity. First of all, it is illustrated that the meaning of positive security primarily develops on the renouncement of negative security. Second, a historical comparison between the discipline of international relations and criminology discloses that different meanings have been assigned to positive security that seem at times at odds with each other. These frictions substantiate the view that it is problematic to accept positive security as an unequivocal recipe for change. Finally, the consequences of the disseminated structure of meaning are discussed in relation to the ambition of reform that positive security represents. For example, advocates of positive security do not seem eager to commit themselves to very clear normative views. This makes it difficult to really pin down what the suggested changes underlying positive security, are truly implying. Moreover, positive security invites us to extend the horizon of security politics to include various kinds of positive needs and values. But doesn’t this take us back to the initial criticism that the reach of the security concept has extended too much, covering virtually every aspect of life?

Police officers sometimes use creative ways in deploying their authorities when they deal with obstacles that hinder the pursuit for higher organizational goals or the common interest. By doing this, the boundaries of legislative rules might be stretched or even exceeded. This article reports the findings of a Dutch case study within the police into this phenomenon, which the authors described as the ‘creative use of authorities’. By means of observations and interviews within the researched police forces 57 cases were described and analyzed. The cases enabled a first categorization of distinctive forms of creative use of authorities with 4 essential core elements, that is: abstain from use, abuse, improper use and selective use of authorities.

In the Netherlands ‘Safety Houses’ have been established, in which partner organizations in the field of criminal justice, crime prevention, law enforcement, public administration and social services collaborate in order to reduce crime and recidivism, and to increase public safety. This article examines why some Safety Houses are better in achieving these goals than others. The effectiveness of 39 Safety Houses is analyzed by means of QCA (qualitative comparative analysis). Results show two different paths leading to effective outcomes. Effective Safety Houses have been in existence for at least three years, show a high degree of stability and a centrally integrated collaboration structure. In addition, they either have considerable resources at their disposal or have been set up with a network administrative organization, where a neutral coordinator governs the network.

Lately, mayors’ powers for maintaining public order and safety have been considerably extended, and even more powers are in preparation. These powers must enable the mayor to act quickly against public order disturbances and security threats. The novelty is that the mayor may conditionally use and exercise these new powers preventively against groups of rioters. Their freedom of action and their privacy can also be considerably curtailed. This means these powers have to be used carefully and reluctantly. If the mayor overdoes the crimefighter role, he/she may lose the public’s confidence.