Our suggestions for ECRI questions to the Dutch government, 6th cycle

Briefing to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe, in view of its Sixth report on the Netherlands

Submitted to ECRI on 23 October 2024

The Dutch foundations/NGO’s Ocan and SMN would be thankful if ECRI would consider our recommendations for ECRI’s conversations with the Dutch government, in view of ECRI’s sixth monitoring cycle.

Contact person: Tom van Messel
This paper was sent to ECRI through an email to Ms. Laura-Maria Alexandroiu.

As you know from previous cycles, the Dutch authorities persistently publish crime rates of Dutch residents, for which those residents are categorised on the basis of country of birth, including the country of birth of one’s parents. The authorities publish both suspect rates and conviction rates per ‘country-of-origin’ (as well as victimisation rates).

Below, an example of a visualisation as is commonly published . More examples from government publications are included at the end of this document.

About this type of government communication, we would be very thankful if ECRI would consider asking the following questions to the Dutch government.
In their 2021 letter about the government practice of publishing crime rates per ‘country-of-origin-group’, three Cabinet Ministers wrote the following:

<<Since the 1980s, the Dutch government has conducted a policy aimed at combatting inequalities in opportunities and in social positions. The ultimate goal of the policy is to reach equal positions for all Dutch people, regardless of background. […]
For policy development, adjustments and instrumentation, there is also need for explanatory analyses that offer insight into the ‘how and why’ of the developments as observed. This could, for example, provide insight into whether generic policy instruments are sufficient to achieve the policy goals, or whether specific instrumentation is useful. The former is the case if there there is proportionality: after all, generic background characteristics then fully explain — just as with the group without a migration background — the differences in position. If this is not the case, on the contrary, there is a reason for specific attention. A good example of this can be found on the labor market: background characteristics such as education, age, gender and work experience explained only part of the unfavourable position that groups with a non-western migration background held on the labor market. Specific attention to ethnic background in data collection is needed in this case to explain the difference in position. This insight was the direct reason for the development and implementation of the policy program Further Integration on the Labor Market (VIA).>>

1. What is the overarching goal of reaching ‘equal positions’ and ‘proportionally equal positions’ in crime rates of ‘country-of-origin-groups’?
2. Can the Dutch government explain how it meets the requirements of article 8 (2) ECHR, when publishing the crime rates per ‘country-of-origin-group’?
3. Which policies exist for reaching the goal of ‘equal positions’ in crime rates? How is this goal of ‘equal positions’ achieved?
4. The previous Minister of Justice and Security and Minister of Social Affairs and Employment have written the following:
   “When reducing crime, it is important to identify relevant factors and groups, so that a targeted and effective policy can be pursued. This includes factors such as gender, multi-problems in families, upbringing, behavioural problems, early school leaving, no prospects on the labor market, degree of urbanisation, but also specific countries of origin, which correlate with a relatively larger representation in crime”.
   
   Can the Dutch authorities explain in detail for which ‘targeted and effective policy’ the data about ‘countries of origin’ have been a necessary ingredient for those policies?
5. Currently, the Research and Data Centre (WODC) carries out research about the question why over-representation (of certain ‘country-of-origin-groups’) increases in later phases of the criminal justice chain. This increase in over-representation, up the chain, could be a sign of (unconscious) biases or indirect discriminatory mechanisms. Therefore: good that WODC carries out such research.
   Could the authorities envisage a future in which the data-combining of crime and country-of-origin is limited to research into (unconscious) biases or indirect discriminatory mechanisms?
6. Through the long-term publication of crime rates per ‘country-of-origin’, the authorities have been actively attributing relevance of ‘countries-of-origin’ for the topic of crime.
   What do the Dutch authorities know about the effects of this practice on various groups in society? And how are these effects weighed in the overall weighing assessment?
7. The Cabinet has agreed to conduct new research about crimes aimed at LGBTQI+ persons. There is continuous (political) pressure to include peoples’ data about ethnicity and religious beliefs in this planned study and other research. Have the relevant ministries decided what kind of data will be included in their research?
8. Government bodies, for example Statistics Netherlands (CBS), occasionally show crime rates per ‘country-of-origin-group’ where the different groups have been made more comparable (in terms of for example family structure, family income level and urbanisation levels). A visual example of this is included below.
   Who is responsible for adding more data to these models, in order to make groups more comparable? How can data about unconscious biases or location-based police concentration be included?
9. Some government researchers think they have cracked the puzzle as to why some ‘groups’ are overrepresented in crime rates. Dutch people with Antillean background because of their relatively frequent ‘matrifocal family stucture’. Dutch people with Moroccan background because of ‘cultural dissonance’. How is this informative for government policies and what can you do with these — still hypothetical — theories for policy making?