At Controle Alt Delete we distinguish three main drivers for racial profiling: risk profiles that include ethnicity as a factor, unconscious bias, and conscious bias.
Our goals: the state recognizes its current practices of racial profiling, prohibits the use of ethnicity and race in its risk profiles, and focuses on proven and effective instruments against racial profiling. These tools are implemented and compliance is actively enforced. Additionally, police engages in active monitoring to ensure a steady reduction in racial profiling.
In the Netherlands, police have a contradictory policy on racial profiling. On the one hand, the police use the so-called proactive policing framework since 2017. Among other things, it states police cannot stop people based them “(seeming to) belong to a group that is over-represented in crime statistics or in terms of appearance ‘not seeming to belong in a certain neighborhood.’ This would have been a clear prohibition, had it not been for police simultaneously using risk profiles that include ethnicity as a relevant indicator. For example, license plates from Eastern Europe are checked during actions against mobile banditry (for example in Roermond). Additionally, police in Rotterdam explicitly stop and search expensive cars (‘patsercontroles’) and the Dutch Border Police checks well-dressed travelers who walk quickly and have a ‘non-Dutch appearance’.
Dutch Border Police have no policies in place against the use of ethnicity in risk profiles. In fact, they explicitly state that ethnicity can be a valid component of a risk profile. Additionally, municipal governments, the national railway company (who employ special investigative officers) have no policy against racially charged risk profiles.
We advise: law enforcement stop using ethnicity as factor in setting up risk profiles, effective immediately.
Unconscious bias is an important driver for racial profiling. Unconscious biases stem from previous experiences, common stereotypes and stories shared among colleagues. Despite not always intending to discriminate, law enforcement officers do engage in ethnic profiling. Proactive stops, where civilians are subjected to stops without being suspected of criminal wrongdoing, have a high risk of being informed by these biases. This is because unconscious prejudice tends to inform the decisions of officers on who to (not) select for stops.
Dutch police and border police provide courses on recognizing unconscious bias. To our knowledge, municipal governments and the national railway company (NS) provide no such thing. These courses can be of limited use in the recognition of personal biases. However, studies show that these trainings do not constitute an effective measure in combating racial profiling. Moreover, these courses are not aimed at structurally guiding officers, or at taking necessary measures should circumstances require it.
In addition to courses that raise awareness, we urge law enforcement to introduce a policy that systematically monitors checks, sets norms and provides concrete insight into racial profiling so that it can subsequently be tackled. In recent years, police have taken initiatives in these area through work instructions (frameworks for actions) and digital applications (the PROCO-app).
Starting 2017, the proactive policing framework has been standard policy at Dutch police. Among other things, it states police cannot stop people based them “(seeming to) belong to a group that is over-represented in crime statistics or in terms of appearance ‘not seeming to belong in a certain neighborhood.’ Unfortunately, studies in Amsterdam and studies by the police academy show that only 4% of officers report actually knowing what this policy entails.
We advise: proactive checks without concrete suspicions of criminal activity may only be carried by officers who are aware of the content of the policy framework.
Police officers have the ability to request information on individuals in the police system. Police refer to this as a query (‘bevraging’). Queries can be done through desk computers, on-board computers of police cars, or through MEOS. MEOS is the name for the police’s mobile device. In 2018, Police ran a trial of the ‘PROCO-app’ aimed at recording stops. A study by the police academy found this separate app for recording police stops was not being used by officers. The police was not in favour of ‘top-down’ enforcing usage of the app, which according researches resulted in a ‘laissez-faire’ approach. In the end, this resulted in only 6% of police stops being registered through intended app.
Since November 2020, Police have a functionality on their on-duty phones that does record all queries. Since late 2020, all searches done with MEOS are also automatically recorded. This requires no additional steps on behalf of individual officers. This means the PROCO-app is no longer in use. With every query, officers will see a pop-up that provides information about how often this person has been questioned before. They can take this into account when deciding whether or not to carry out a stop. Police say this gives officers a tool to carry out “professional stops.”
We advise: Utilize the information that is being gathered to gain concrete insight into the scope of racial profiling.
Conscious bias is another key driver of racial profiling. It arises in various ways. Conscious bias manifests itself through some law enforcement officers having fixed beliefs about the people they see as ‘typical offenders’ based on external characteristics. As a result, people belonging to these groups are subjected to more frequent stops. In addition, conscious bias is also brought to the surface by explicitly racist remarks. Examples include but are not limited to officers in the Hague referring to themselves als ‘exterminating Moroccans,’ Rotterdam police talking about ‘pauper immigrants’ in private Whatsapp groups and a civilian who was repeatedly called the N-word during an arrest in Schiedam.
We advise: Law enforcement officials should not discriminate civilians based on their appearance. Officers who nonetheless do so should either adapt or leave the organization. Anyone who makes racist remarks about the civilians they are supposed to serve doesn’t belong in government services.