Policy coherence in the area of safety and justice – A longitudinal analysis of service delivery per euro spent in the S&J sector during the period 1980-2016

In the safety and justice policy area, there is a strong intertwining between performances of the various sectors, such as police, judiciary and prison system. The question is whether policy takes these interdependencies into account sufficiently. Are the resources used – from a broader wealth perspective – optimally allocated amongst the various safety and justice provisions? The authors answer this question on the basis of an integrated time series analysis of the productivity development of the Dutch safety and justice system in the period 1980-2016. The analysis shows that productivity of safety and justice services has hardly changed since 1980. At best, in 2016, citizens will receive as much value per euro of taxpayers’ money as in 1980, but probably slightly less. It is striking, however, that the S&J system as a whole operates more efficient than the sum of its parts (the individual sectors). There have been substantial changes in the allocation of resources over time. Obviously money from the police was transferred to the judiciary and municipalities.

Prisoners often encounter multiple barriers when returning to society, resulting in higher risks of recidivism. To overcome these barriers, prison-based and community-based professionals assist with preparation for release. Prison-based professionals, such as the case manager and mentor, screen and monitor the problems regarding work and income, housing, healthcare, financial debts and valid identification. Community-based professionals, such as municipal officials, parole officers, healthcare professionals and volunteers, can provide additional and specialized help. First, this research discusses the current policy of the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) and the role of different types of professionals. Second, it presents a nationwide picture of the extent to which prisoners report contact with prison-based and community-based professionals, and to what degree prisoners appreciate this contact. The results are specified for various types of regimes and time served and are based on 4308 prisoner surveys of the Dutch Prison Visitation Study (DPVS), part of the Life in Custody Study (LIC-study). It turns out that most prisoners seem to be in close contact with prison-based professionals and that prisoners positively value this contact. However, contact with community-based professionals is limited and prisoners are somewhat dissatisfied about their contact with parole officers and municipal officials. Furthermore, the amount of contact differs across various types of regimes and time served. In particular, individuals who recently entered prison report less contact. To conclude, policy implications will be discussed.

Crisis teams from waterauthorities want to have insight into the current risks for the area. The ‘Continuous insight’-method is used by them to monitor the risks of drought and high water and to draw up what-if scenarios for training and exercise. Various cases have now shown that Expert Judgement can be used to gain a clearer picture of the effectiveness of measures and to take a more balanced decision. The Expert Judgement method has been tested and applied by a group of international experts as part of the EU project DRIVER +. During an extreme situation, the crisis team may encounter dilemmas. The engaged group of experts follows a fixed procedure to provide advice to reduce flood risk evacuate to prevent loss of life.
Each expert makes his own assessment of the effect and impact of the measure envisaged. Each expert provides an explanation of the individual assessment. Then, under the guidance of a process supervisor, the experts discuss individual assessments and exchange arguments. This can lead to new insights. Each expert makes his own assessment again. The result is a probability distribution of estimates and an expected value. This expert assessment of the measure is taken to the crisis team, so that the chance of success and the assessment of the consequences of the proposed measure can be adjusted. The crisis team can take the decision immediately afterwards.
By following this procedure risk information is made visible. By linking expert knowledge with observations, a better substantiated expectation can be drawn up. According to the participants in the international meetings, the Expert Judgement method in combination with ‘Continuous insight’ helps to make better informed and faster choices. The method fits within the existing crisis management structure. The next step is to implement this method in the day-to-day affairs of crisis management.

In this paper, we present a mathematical model for the prediction of chimney fires using data collected by the Twente safety region over the years 2004 up to 2015. The explanatory variables used are the number of inhabitants per areal unit of 500 by 500 metres, the daily mean temperature and an indicator variable for October. Spatially and temporally correlated noise is added to be able to capture latent factors such as human behaviour. The model is validated using the data over the years 2016 and 2017. The model is implemented as a dashboard on a public website and yields as output a hazard map for chimney fires in Twente based on the weather forecast for the coming six days. This way, the dashboard can be used for prevention and planning purposes.