Conference Agenda

The police are the primary institution in our societies responsible for security tasks, including maintaining public order, investigating criminal offences, and providing assistance in emergencies. They are granted specific powers to collect information and use force legitimately in certain situations. Increasingly, police forces worldwide are collaborating with private and societal actors as part of an integrated security policy. This trend is driven by staff shortages and financial constraints, as well as a desire for a cross-sector approach and the benefits of partnerships, such as increased surveillance capacity and specific expertise which partners may possess.

Research into public-private partnerships (PPPs) in policing has identified various forms in which cooperation exists. However, the effectiveness of PPPs in supporting police tasks and the practical and ethical issues that may arise in these partnerships remain under-researched. This proposal for a panel presentation is based on a comparative case study of four PPP cases in policing from the Dutch context. This study was conducted as part of a research project funded by the Research and Data Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security which ran from May 2024 to February 2025.

We selected four heterogeneous cases of crime phenomena related to different police tasks, types of partners, and modes of cooperation: shoplifting, cybercrime, missing persons, and human exploitation. Based on 32 interviews with representatives from the police, private and societal partners, and non-partners, as well as observations during eight occasions, we analyze how tasks and responsibilities between external partners and the police are distributed, the conditions for collaboration, and the factors explaining their successes and failures through qualitative coding.

Our findings suggest that effective cooperation can develop particularly with a smaller number of partners who have regular personal interaction, develop trust and who share a common goal. The police play an important facilitative role and sometimes negotiate exclusivity in cooperation, though many tasks could also be performed without police involvement. Limited grounds for information exchange, particularly since GDPR, pose obstacles in some partnerships, and effectiveness often hinges on the power to pursue a criminal procedure

We also identify several risks of PPPs, including function creep, blue drain, and instances where PPPs result in higher caseloads for the police, thereby increasing work pressure rather than relieving it. We recommend several conditions that can help shape effective PPPs in policing.

Across countries, organized crime poses a significant threat, prompting governments to develop effective responses. Since the early 1990s, several European nations have established national collaborative bodies to combat organized crime. Given the increasingly transboundary nature of such crime - not only crossing geographical borders but also sectoral boundaries – joint, multi-agency responses are considered more effective than relying solely on the efforts of single agencies such as the police. Yet, this collaborative trend in the fight against organized crime remains underexplored in the academic literature, highlighting a broader disconnect between research on public management and governance and the field of policing studies.

This paper addresses that gap by examining the strategic choices involved in designing national multi-agency collaborations against organized crime across five European countries. Drawing on an 18-month participatory action research project, it analyzes data from interviews with country representatives, open-ended practitioner surveys, cross-country focus groups, and policy documents. Our findings show that there is no single blueprint for multi-agency collaboration in combating organized crime. Instead, depending on the national context, a variety of strategic design choices is made along three key dimensions of collaborative work: substantive problem-solving, the collaborative process, and accountability structures.

The focus of this study is on seaports – specific transport hubs through which illegal goods often enter or transit through a country. By taking a constructivist approach, the aim of this research is to understand the opportunities to counter and prevent crime in a seaport. Relying on the recent empirical accounts of different seaports, we use crime prevention and public management theories for additional guidance and insights. The contemporary research is lacking empirical knowledge of the seaports on the shores of the Baltic Sea. Aiming to reduce this gap in the literature, an empirical study of the main cargo port in Estonia – Muuga port – will serve as a necessay puzzle piece in explaining different rationalities and mechanisms for countering crime in seaports. Accordingly, the aim of this research is to provide an initial insight into, or assess, the current situation of an Estonian seaport from the perspective of crime and illegal trade and to analyse the possibilities for the law enforcement agencies (especially the police) to counter crime in a seaport.

This study investigates how rational planning activities relate to the use of strategic planning tools for organizational learning purposes and strategy alienation (George & Desmidt, 2018; Kools & George, 2020). Utilizing information gathered during a long-term police-academia collaboration (Miller, 2022; Schröter et al., 2023), we adopt an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design (Harrison et al., 2020), whereby qualitative data collected in Phase 1 informs the selection of items and the development of hypotheses tested by means of a quantitative survey in Phase 2.

Informal interviews and group discussions conducted in Phase 1 highlighted three key topics related to rational planning—effort, flexibility, and extent—across the phases of strategy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. The findings further revealed that, on the one hand, the strategy process can facilitate organizational learning by identifying issues that require attention and promoting inter-agency exchange. On the other hand, professionals reported feeling disconnected from the implemented strategy, expressing a sense of alienation, as illustrated by comments such as, “The strategy is ready for the stage, but not operationally valuable!”

Based on these results, we developed items and derived hypotheses regarding the effects of rational planning characteristics on the use of strategic planning tools for organizational learning and participants’ strategy alienation. We tested the hypotheses using a quantitative survey in Phase 2 (N = 207) and are currently analyzing the data. Preliminary results with respect to organizational learning indicate that, while the strategy process is primarily utilized for setting priorities and identifying problems, it is underutilized for fostering horizontal exchange and networking. Full results will be available for presentation at the conference.