In this article data derived from observations and interviews are used to examine private methods of investigation as used by corporate security providers in the Netherlands, and the private settlement options which follow those investigations. It is argued that, rather than leadership being exercised by public actors and institutions (police, prosecutors, criminal courts and also civil courts), those actors are selectively and strategically mobilised by corporate security, on behalf of their private sector clients. Corporate security and its clients have a ‘pick and choose’ approach when searching for an optimal solution for the incident at hand (forum shopping).

Social network analysis (SNA) has taken its place in the field of criminology, although among Dutch criminologists the emphasis remains on conceptual contributions. Meanwhile, the world of criminal investigation and intelligence has witnessed the development of a blossoming SNA-practice. The emergence of big data makes SNA an indispensable tool to exploit the oceans of data in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, when it comes to employing SNA, academia and the investigations and intelligence domains remain separated. While Dutch analysts adopt scientific ideas and concepts, they rarely contribute to the body of literature; confidential SNA reports remain inaccessible. Shedding light on over forty SNA related internal police studies, this article bridges the gap between Dutch academic criminologists and ‘pracademics’ in law enforcement.

Using officially registered conviction history data, this study examines the criminal careers of 601 members of Dutch outlaw motorcycle gangs, identified as such by the Dutch police. We find that the average 1% er in our sample is a 44-year-old, Dutch-born male. The large majority of these 1% ers have been convicted for a crime at least once. One in four convicted 1% ers can be classified as a chronic offender accumulating over ten convictions from age 12 until 2013. The large majority of 1% ers experiences an adult onset of their officially registered criminal career, with almost half acquiring their first conviction when they are aged 30 or older, challenging the generality of criminology's accepted conclusions about criminal career development.

This article discusses the complex relations between the organizational fields of safety (i.e. disaster and crisis response) and security (i.e. crime prevention and public order), and the ways in which disciplinary and organizational boundaries make it difficult to come to a better integration or coordination in the safety and security domain. Based on results of a research project on cooperation and information-sharing between organizations in the fields of safety and security, the authors argue that it is not realistic to refer to safety and security as relatively independent fields. Instead, it would be more useful to approach it as a connected domain, encompassing both safety and security disciplines. Yet, the separation of the two fields is strongly embedded in the culture and responsibilities of organizations in these fields, which reinforces the disciplinary boundaries in the domain. Nevertheless, in the last few years it seems that there is an increasing recognition of the need for multidisciplinary collaboration in the safety and security domain. This paper explores possible directions for creating more coherence and integration in the safety and security domain. The authors believe that much progress can be made if key stakeholders in the safety and security domain are able to adopt a broader, multidisciplinary perspective when approaching safety and security events.

How do organisations collaborate in the daily practice of law enforcement? And what role plays autonomy of government agencies within this cooperation? In this article the authors answer these questions on the base of two case studies: two large scale projects in which a partnership approach was used to combat human trafficking in the Netherlands. Collaboration between city administration, investigation services and tax authorities seems to be very hard to put into practice. This is understandable from the theory that government agencies, while performing their tasks, are focused on achieving autonomy.