Researchers: Ard Barends and Elina van 't Zand-Kurtovic

One intended effect of integrity screening in job applications is preventing crime in society. However, some unintended effects can have a serious societal impact. For example, integrity screening can be an obstacle in the successful reintegration of ex-prisoners. They may decide to avoid being screened, therefore missing out on employment opportunities. There is even a large group of job applicants with no criminal record who also choose to avoid screening. As a result, society is facing the consequences of rising costs and inequality. Individual differences, such as personality and intelligence, may explain who is most affected by screening since they are clearly related to career choices and a person's ability to get by in life.

This project examines screening practices and the intended and unintended consequences it can have. Input is drawn from fields including criminology, organisational psychology, personality psychology and law. This interdisciplinary approach leads to innovations in theory as well as research data and methods. This project is funded by a starter grant from Ard Barends.

Researchers: Elina van 't Zand-Kurtovic and Ard Barends

Screening is increasingly used as a method to assess the integrity of employees and job applicants in staff selection procedures. The aim is to prevent integrity violations that could have a negative effect on the organisation or society. Past research has shown that screening can sometimes exclude employees and potential employees from opportunities in the labour market. However, academic knowledge is lacking on how a potential risk to individuals, organisations or society as a whole can be derived from the wide range of screening instruments that exist, such as the Dutch Certificate of Good Conduct (Verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag, VOG) and other integrity tests. Knowledge is also lacking about the attitudes and considerations of both public and private screening professionals and employers when using and implementing screening procedures. This mixed methods research project will broaden interdisciplinary knowledge on integrity screening in two ways: first, through an initial structured analysis of the unique Dutch screening landscape, including its normative and practical implications; and second, through a unique empirical analysis of the attitudes of screening professionals and employers towards the validity, usability and legitimacy of the various screening instruments. Findings from the project will provide guidance to help professionalise and standardise pre-employment and in-employment screening. This will allow for a better balance between the various interests at stake.

Researchers: Elina van 't Zand-Kurtovic, Anke Ramakers and Pauline Schuyt

This project examines the widespread use of the unique Dutch screening instrument known as the Certificate of Good Conduct (Verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag, VOG), using data from the screening authority Justis on all VOG applications submitted since 2004. The project reveals trends and developments and interprets these in relation to changes in law and policy as well as in society and practice. For this purpose, data from standard VOG assessments is analysed: first, the purpose for which the VOG was requested; second, judicial data on the applicant; and third, the general characteristics of the applicant, such as age category and gender. This data is used to consider the extent to which risks, such as previous convictions, are relevant in different employment sectors.

The project provides insights into whether developments in VOG screening correspond to changes envisaged in legislation, policy and implementation. It also identifies which technological and commercial trends and risks in the labour market are driving the demand for VOGs, creating a stepping stone to more 'evidence-based' screening.

Researchers: Miranda Boone and Jennifer Doekhie, in collaboration with the Lectoraat Werken in een Justitieel Kader of the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht

Each year, the probation service supervises around 30,000 people, encouraging them to change their criminal behaviour and monitoring their compliance with the special conditions imposed by the court. When probationers violate these conditions, a careful and expert assessment of the violation and a corresponding response is essential. Various interests must be considered, such as the credibility of the sanction as well as the safety, reintegration and rehabilitation of the probationer.

Professionals believe it is essential that they have the scope to apply their expertise in assessing violations of probation conditions and the various interests at stake. However, too much scope for decision-making can result in arbitrariness and legal inequality, potentially putting the credibility of the criminal sanction at risk. When a probation condition is breached, multiple decision-makers are involved in a response chain (serial decision-making). This can lead to anticipating the assumed outcome of a subsequent decision. The extent to which probationers perceive the supervision and decision-making in relation to the violation as being justified contributes to their compliance with the conditions and active participation in supervision. Therefore, investing in good cooperation with the probationer is essential for a positive outcome in the supervision process.

The key question in this research project is: when probation conditions are violated, how can professional decision-making by probation workers be designed in such a way that it promotes probationer’s formal compliance with their conditions? Over the next two years, this question will be answered using a mixed methods design of data and file analysis, observation, interviews and focus groups.

Researcher: Jochem Jansen

Jochem Jansen and partners from forensic clinical practice and policy, as well as young people themselves, will work with the following organisations in a team that will conduct this research project over the coming years: RJI, the Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP), Pluryn, De Borg, the Dutch Ministry of Safety and Justice, YIP, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, iHub, the Research and Data Centre (WODC), Trimbos Institute, the Dutch Probation Service, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Radboud University Nijmegen, Curium LUMC, VU Amsterdam and Utrecht University.

Although the number of juvenile offenders in the Netherlands has fallen over the past decade, the same does not apply to the number of juvenile offenders who committed serious crimes. The number of young adults under 21 suspected of a violent crime rose by 4%, the number of juvenile homicide suspects rose by nearly 50% and the number of young adult homicide suspects rose by 38%. The recidivism rate among juvenile delinquents and young adults after having served a prison sentence also remains high at 56%. The severity of their offences may even worsen after imprisonment. In other words, while a large proportion of young people benefit from good forensic care, serious crime is on the rise among a select group. When considered together with high recidivism rates and negative social outcomes for these juvenile offenders, it soon becomes clear that more effective forensic juvenile care is needed.

The SCIN project aims to improve screening and intervention in forensic juvenile care and will work towards more tailored treatment programmes for adolescent offenders. This will be achieved by integrating neurobiological and neuropsychological measures into screening for individual risks and needs, decisions on specific intervention programmes and the application of adolescent criminal law. Forensic interventions can then be applied more effectively depending on individual needs.

For more information (in Dutch) on this research project, see Neurolab’s website.

Researchers: Hilde Wermink and Arjan Blokland from Leiden Law School and project leader Arjen Leerkes from Erasmus University Rotterdam

People with migrant backgrounds and/or a weaker socio-economic positions are relatively likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system and are convicted more often than other crime suspects.

An important assumption of the study is that social differences in mutual trust between young people and the criminal justice system are both a cause and a consequence of social differences in sentencing, patterns of overrepresentation and recidivism. When young people and agencies distrust each other, the risk arises that young people will be disadvantaged during the detection and sanctioning of criminal behaviour. These disadvantages then reinforce mutual distrust between young people and agencies. This research project aims to better understand, monitor and weaken these feedback loops.

The consortium will work on a national judicial equality monitor that can be used to observe and monitor problematic social inequalities in crime detection and sanctioning. The researchers will also work with young people, police officers and other professionals from the criminal justice chain to jointly develop interventions that will strengthen trust between young people and the police and reduce problematic inequalities in crime sanctioning.

These interventions include video-supported teaching materials for new officers, young people in secondary education and young people who come into contact with the police for the first time as  crime suspects. In collaboration with current and former young offenders and professionals, the researchers will also identify opportunities for additional interventions, for example in relation to the prosecution of suspects by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service.

Read more about this research project in the news item from July 2023.