ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ

The Dutch police work together with various private parties and societalpartners on enforcement, emergency aid and investigation. These partners possess capacities, technical knowledge and information that are useful for the police organisation. Examples of partnerships include the handling of the 181 euros in compensation for shoplifting,  cooperation with banks against cybercrime or, for example, the Veteran Search Team that helps in the search for missing persons. In recent years, there has been a lot of experimentation with such forms of public-private partnership. This has led to good results, but sometimes also to questions about the limits of partners' authority and transparency for citizens.

A team of researchers concludes that it is time for more vision and strategy for this form of cooperation. The courage and urge to experiment must remain, but a public-private partnership with the police is only of lasting, added value if it also fits within the way in which accountability is organised within a democratic constitutional state.

Researchers from Utrecht ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ and Radboud ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ have been commissioned by the WODC to explore the extent to which the police organisation can work together with private parties on a broader scale, and whether existing collaborations can be intensified. The societal and private parties can relieve police work in the domains in which they are active and the police would also like to be able to make use of their capacities, expertise and networks. They are looking for that added value, says Joep Lindeman, one of the researchers.

Consider regulation and oversight for those partners as well

The police are allowed to do more than civilians, says Rianne Dekker. At the same time, citizens and companies can do more and more themselves. And that's where it starts to wring. If your bike is stolen and there is a chip in it, you can see exactly where it is. Something similar applies to the use of cameras, or digital data that banks collect as a by-product of their regular work. Companies and individuals tend to use these types of technologies to solve problems such as theft or scams themselves, while the police are subject to a strict system of surveillance. In short: consider regulation and supervision for those partners as well.

Joep Lindeman adds: The moment such a collaboration goes well, there is a tendency to expand it, but there must be someone who keeps those involved on their toes. It is nice if banks are able to collect data on the basis of which we can detect more criminal offences, but if this results in a fundamental change in the original aims of the cooperation, the partnership will also have to go back to the drawing board.

So look for the added value. Don't lose sight of your goal. And as police, think about which domains you want to 'leave up' to parties that you are less able to control. On the one hand, there are great opportunities and, on the other hand, there is a potential risk that such a collaboration will become an untameable monster that will take on a life of its own. That citizens no longer know what happens to their data, and what rights, obligations and appeal options they actually have.

On the one hand, there are great opportunities and, on the other hand, there is a potential risk that such a collaboration will become an indomitable monster that will lead a life of its own.

Four example cases

On the basis of four example cases, the research provides insight into the added value, but also into the sometimes divergent interests, dilemmas and issues related to the rule of law in public-private partnerships with the police. The researchers analysed collaborations against shoplifting, bank fraud, human trafficking and the search for missing persons.

Five pieces of advice

In their report, the researchers give five recommendations to the police organisation for the development of vision and strategy in the further development of public-private partnerships (PPPs):
 

1. Develop a policy vision with regard to PPPs on specific police tasks and specify the goals that the police organisation has in mind with this
    
2. Maintain low-threshold opportunities to start a PPP, but require an explicit strategy to perpetuate or scale it up
    
3. Organise regulation and oversight around the responsibilities of private and societal partners, without legitimising disproportionate action
    
4. Clarify the mandate of private partners, especially in civil  settlements
    
5. Look for opportunities for data sharing within PPPs and consider (limited) expansion of laws and regulations in this regard

Towards a vision and strategy for further development

It's a balancing act. Give partnerships space to flourish and prevent them from proliferating, Joep Lindeman summarises. Our advice to the police is therefore: find those domains in which you expect public-private partnerships to be fruitful for all partners. Without suffocating regulations but with the necessary preconditions. For example, that it should contribute public interests; that there is a common goal; whereas there must be limits to the commercial advantage that one of the parties can gain; And: realize that a collaboration based on unlimited data sharing is doomed to fail because of laws and regulations.

First look at what is already possible before you start looking for more opportunities to share information, says Dekker. This is because it is quite drastic, and: are you actually going to do something with it?

On the basis of the various cases we have analysed, we observe that these partnerships have taken on such serious forms that the time has come for the police to develop a somewhat firmer vision and strategy about them, she continues. At what point do you work with which partners, and on what safety tasks? We say: think about that thoroughly. Choose partners with a shared interest, develop a vision and make agreements so that slightly diverging interests do not cause friction.

It is also a fundamentally political question whether the police perform tasks themselves, or more in cooperation with other parties: what is a government task and what is not?

It is also a fundamentally political question whether the police perform tasks themselves, or more in cooperation with other parties, as a public administration scholar I ask: what is a government task and what is not? Public-private cooperation takes place in many domains, but in this case it is particularly precarious because the police have very specific powers in the use of force and in gathering information within criminal investigations. So you have to think very carefully about how those powers can be in good hands, both legally and practically, in cooperation with private partners.

More than the sum of its parts

Mutual curiosity and exploring each other's interests are important prerequisites for starting a PPP. At the same time, in order to be of added value in the long term, PPPs must also fit within the usual structures of checks and balances that belong to the democratic rule of law, the researchers argue. This means accountability and independent oversight. This should prevent private interests and priorities from prevailing over the public interest.

By developing a vision on PPPs, the police can prevent opportunism and ensure transparency and adequate accountability mechanisms. To ensure lasting success and smooth cooperation, the result of PPPs must be more than the sum of its parts – and benefit the police tasks at the service of society.

Research team

The research team consisted of Rianne Dekker, Yinthe Feys (Radboud ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ), Marie-Louise Glebbeek, Joep Lindeman, Kim Loyens, with the cooperation of Joly-Eline Himpers and Quirien Grip. Their collaboration was made possible in part by the Network for Interdisciplinary Policing Studies.

In the media

Opinion article on Sociale Vraagstukken (in Dutch):