This study aims at exploring dilemmas that child protection workers cope with in daily practice, concerning noticing and acting on suspicions of child abuse. More specifically it addresses the tensions between a growing pressure on a formalisation of practice and sharing information on the one hand, and professional values of child protection work, like autonomy and professional confidentiality, on the other.

This article demonstrates on the basis of a representative survey among the Dutch population (N=1,892) that it is not necessarily politically ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’ to resist the toleration of illegal activities (‘gedoogbeleid’). Even though, generally speaking, political conservatives are most likely to be critical, this is merely because they unconsciously associate the latter with practices of tolerating illegal activities by marginal individuals. Whereas conservatives hence oppose the latter more than political progressives do, the latter for their part are more critical than conservatives about tolerating illegal activities by official agencies. These findings illustrate that gedoogbeleid does not have a universal legitimacy in the eyes of the public, but that its legitimacy is determined case by case by the concrete aims and targets addressed by this policy instrument.

The Belgian Customs Administration has taken the lead on the federal level to elaborate an anti-corruption policy. Up till now the initiatives of the administration D&A consisted of: anti-corruption training for the complete staff, a distribution of the relevant regulation concerning corruption and the setting up of an internal complaints desk. These measures suggest that mainly the individual employee has to take responsibility to prevent corruption. Based on three related research stages we conclude that the social-economic context and the organisational characteristics also contribute to the explanation of corruption which implies to go beyond the micro-level when developing an anti-corruption policy. The structure of our analysis is based on the five key variables of Gobert and Punch: the social, economic and cultural characteristics, the nature and structure of the organisation, rationality, neutralisation techniques and moral disengagement and crime facilitative characteristics. This contribution is the first section of a research project on the responsibilities of the public sector and the private companies for public corruption.

There is a large – and still growing – body of criminological literature on the relationship between crime and work. However, the exact nature of that relationship often remains diffuse. In this article we explored the relationships between organized crime and work. Based on analysis of the forty most recent cases of the Organized Crime Monitor we distinguished between two types of relations connecting organized crime and work. First, crimes can be based in the occupation of the offender when the occupation provides concrete opportunities to offend or facilitates the crimes of others. Secondly, the occupation of the offender can also be used as a shield concealing the illegal behavior or identity of the offender.

Employment and crime are commonly assumed to be negatively correlated. Those employed are less likely to commit crimes, and conversely, those who have a criminal record are less likely to become employed. Criminological research has provided strong empirical and theoretical support for the link between employment and crime, but also suggests that a complex set of mechanisms may be at play. Additionally, studies show that employment can also increase the risk of criminal behaviour. In the introduction of this special issue, three causal relationships in the work-crime nexus will be discussed: employment causing crime, employment preventing crime, and crime blocking future employment.

A period of labor market absence decreases the chance to get a job. Previous research showed that labor market positions of both incarcerated and temporarily unemployed people are worse after compared to before the (forced) time out of the labor market. It remains uncertain which mechanisms cause the negative association between labor market absence and employment outcomes. In this paper we investigate whether incarceration affects the time to employment differently than regular unemployment. Using an unique quasi-experimental design we conduct event history analyses in order to estimate to what extent job opportunities differ for a group of ex-prisoners (N=1,790) and a group of unemployed future prisoners (N=266). The results show that ex-prisoners find a job more quickly than unemployed future prisoners. Possibly, training, aftercare and the prison experience (deterrence) have a positive effect in the period right after release.