Ethnicity and Crime in the Netherlands

Abstract

The research on the relationship between immigration and crime is central to the debate on immigration policies throughout Europe. This article reviews the research on whether immigrants in the Netherlands are more likely to engage in crime with a specific focus on whether Moroccans have a greater propensity to offend than the native Dutch. It is concluded that deficiencies in the research including the potential effects of bias against immigrant groups render the assessment of whether immigrants commit more crime than the native Dutch problematic.

Keywords

ethnicity and crime discrimination the Netherlands

Scholars recognize that establishing rates of crime across immigrant groups in Europe including the Netherlands is problematic because government agencies including the criminal justice system do not collect data on ethnicity (Junger-Tas, 1997; Tonry & Bijleveld, 2007). In the absence of officially recording ethnicity, two methods have been used to estimate the rates of crime across different ethnic groups (Wittebrood, 2003). These two methods are (1) asking questions pertaining to the person’s ethnicity on surveys along with self-reports of crime and (2) using official databases that merge information about whether the parents or the suspects were born outside of the Netherlands. Weerman (2007) reported that researchers most often analyze the System of Social Statistical Data Sets (SSD) at Statistics Netherlands, which contains integral data about the population of the Netherlands in a system of linkable registers and various surveys that have been merged and made consistent. The SSD includes the Herkenningsdienstsysteem (HKS) Police Identification Service System, which has been in use since 1986 to register anyone suspected of a criminal offense in the Netherlands (Bovenkerk & Fokkema, 2016). However, note that the official data consider the third generation of immigrants as native Dutch because both they and their parents were born in the Netherlands. Consequently, the research reviewed below has only analyzed crime among the first or the second generation of immigrants. In short, there is the need for research regarding whether the third generation of immigrants has the same likelihood of committing crimes as the first and second generation.

Below, I review the prior research that analyzes whether different ethnic groups commit more crime than the native Dutch. The results of these studies are mixed. Surveys generally reveal that Turks and Moroccans self-report less crime than the native Dutch, whereas the research that analyzes official police data consistently finds that ethnic groups, including Turk and Moroccans, commit more crime than the native Dutch. I first review the results generated from self-reports of crime included in anonymous and confidential surveys and then review the research that has analyzed official police data.

Ethnic Groups Commit Less Crime Than the Native Dutch

The research that has analyzed self-reports of crime included in anonymous and confidential surveys has generally found that immigrant groups, including Turks and Moroccans, commit less crime than native Dutch respondents. Notably, this finding has been replicated across cross-sectional as well as longitudinal surveys.

Cross-Sectional Surveys

In 1997, Junger-Tas published a seminal review of the existing literature on the relationship between ethnicity and crime in the Netherlands. Based on a review of numerous articles, Junger-Tas (1997, p. 282) concluded that analyses of self-reported data consistently find that minority juveniles are considerably less delinquent than the indigenous juvenile population.

More recently, Weerman (2007) reported in a review of the research regarding ethnicity and crime that studies analyzing survey data (e.g., the WODC-monitor, the Student Survey, and the NSCR School Study) found either no statistical difference in self-reported crimes or that the native Dutch commit more crime than ethnic groups including the Turks and Moroccans. For example, Weerman (2007) summarizes a study conducted by Harland et al. (2005) that found Turkish and Moroccan respondents (boys as well as girls) reported fewer crimes than native Dutch youths. Weerman (2007) reports that another study, which analyzed almost 700 (mainly 12-year-old) children in the last year of primary school in Rotterdam, also discovered that Moroccan respondents reported slightly fewer crimes than other ethnic groups, and Cape Verdean and Antillean respondents reported slightly more minor and property crimes, but the differences were small.¹

Longitudinal Surveys

Hill, Blokland, and van der Geest (2015) analyzed the Transitions in Amsterdam (TransAM) study, which is a longitudinal survey with a sample aged 18–24 years and an overrepresentation of Dutch-Moroccans, Caribbean Dutch, and individuals with police contacts during adolescence. Hill et al. (2015) used the survey’s self-reported delinquency scale that asked the respondents whether they had committed a delinquent act (across 48 offenses) in the 6 months prior to the interview (in Waves 1 and 4) or since the last interview (included in Waves 2 and 3). Hill et al. (2015) reported that across all four waves of data collection, the native Dutch significantly self-reported more crimes than the Moroccans and the Dutch Caribbeans. For example, Hill et al. (2015) found that at Wave 1, the average number of self-reported crimes varied significantly between the different ethnic groups, F(3, 955) = 4.459, p = .004. The results showed that 44% of the native Dutch, 22% of the Moroccan Dutch, and 36% of the Caribbean Dutch self-reported committing a crime.

In general, researchers who have analyzed anonymous and confidential self-reports of crime find that ethnic groups, including the Moroccans and Turks, committed less crime than their native Dutch counterparts. However, since a few analyses of self-report data indicated that the native Dutch committed less crime than other ethnic groups, the results of the analyses are not consistent.

Ethnic Groups Commit More Crime Than the Native Dutch

In this section, I review the research that analyzed official police data to assess whether ethnic groups committed more crime than the native Dutch. Overall, the results of this body of research indicate that the native Dutch had fewer official contacts with the police than other ethnic groups.

Official Data

Recent official data confirm that ethnic groups had higher rates of official police contact than the native Dutch. For example, a 2009 government report analyzed by van der Leun, van der Woude, Leupen, and Blokland (2013, p. 11) noted that migrants of Antillean origin are most often suspects (6.0%), followed by those of an Moroccan (5.3%), Surinamese (4.1%), and Turkish (3.1%) origin. Jennissen’s (2009) research also addressed the issue of whether ethnic immigrants committed more crime than the native Dutch. R. P. W. Jennissen analyzed data from the HKS collected in 2005 and explored whether the age curves of crime differed among Antilleans, Moroccans, Turks, Surinamese, and people of native Dutch heritage. R. P. W. Jennissen reported that Antilleans and Moroccans committed more crime than the native Dutch. Conversely, however, the crime trajectories of the Turks and Surinamese proved similar to those of the native Dutch. Thus, R. P. W. Jennissen’s research suggests that analyses of official police data will show that Moroccans commit more crime than the native Dutch only when they are young, but the two groups will have similar rates of offending as they mature into their 20s and 30s after controlling for other factors such as socioeconomic status (SES; Jennissen, 2014).²

Relatedly, van der Put, Stams, Deković, Hoeve, and van der Laan (2013) analyzed a random sample of adolescents who committed a criminal offense and were referred to the Council of Child Care and Protection and report that there were ethnic differences in the types of crimes committed. These scholars found that public-order offenses were most evident in the Dutch group, nonviolent property offenses in the Moroccan and Turkish groups, violent property offenses in the Surinamese group, and both public order and nonviolent property offenses in the Antillean group.

Note that the research, based on official data, also indicated that “irregular immigrants” (undocumented immigrants) had higher rates of police contact than native Dutch citizens (Leerkes, Engbersen, & van der Leun, 2012). However, the research showed that there were substantial differences across ethnic groups. Leerkes, Engbersen, and van der Leun (2012) reviewed a study conducted by Engbersen and van der Leun (1995) and report that, “In the early 1990s 4% of irregular Turkish immigrants had come into contact with the Rotterdam police because of criminal activity. For Eastern Europeans, Algerians and Moroccans these percentages were 3.2, 5.4, and 6.5, respectively.”

In sum, the research on ethnicity and crime, based on analyses of official police data, has consistently found that ethnic groups, documented or irregular, have committed more crimes than their native Dutch counterparts (Junger-Tas, 1997; Loeber & Slot, 2007; Weerman, 2007). Also, the research has generally indicated that there were significant differences among the immigrant groups: The prevalence of violent crimes was higher among Moroccan youths, and the prevalence of drug-related crime was higher among Antillean youths than among other ethnic groups. Additionally, the prior research has revealed that Moroccans have more official police contact than Turks (Loeber & Slot, 2007, p. 525). However, note that the differences in official rates of crime between ethnic groups and the native Dutch did not persist across their life spans after controlling for their SES, especially when Moroccans were compared to native Dutch citizens.

Assessing the Validity of Self-Reports of Crime

In general, analyses of self-report data show that Turkish and Moroccan males committed fewer crimes than native Dutch males. However, the official police data show that ethnic males committed more crimes than native Dutch males. Scholars have investigated whether the discrepancies in the results between these two different sources of data were caused by Turkish and Moroccan males systematically underreporting their criminal activity on surveys. That is, scholars have investigated whether self-reports of crime were less valid for immigrant groups than they were for the native Dutch. Researchers assessed the validity of self-reported criminal behavior by having respondents fill out surveys nonanonymously (the researcher knows the respondents’ names) and then they compared the respondents’ self-reports to their official arrest records.³

Junger (1989) interviewed (with no anonymity) approximately 200 boys aged 12–17 from three ethnic groups (Moroccans: n = 198, Turks: n = 203, and Surinamese: n = 206), and for every third ethnic boy interviewed, a native Dutch boy (n = 204) living in the same street/block and of the same age was interviewed. Junger assessed whether there were discrepancies between the self-report measures of crime and whether the police recorded that the boy committed an offense. Junger found that 87% of the native Dutch and Surinamese who had an official record self-reported that they had ever committed a crime. In comparison, Junger reported that 63% of the Moroccans and 56% of the Turks who had an official record self-reported that they had ever committed an offense. In other words, 63% of the Moroccans who reported that they ever committed a crime had police contact, whereas 83% of the native Dutch who reported that they had ever engaged in crime reported that they had police contact—a difference of 20 percentage points between these two groups. Junger concluded that delinquency self-report measures were less valid for Turkish and Moroccans than for Surinamese and indigenous Dutch boys.

Junger (1989) also investigated whether there were factors that predicted the discrepancy between the police records of delinquency and self-reports of crime. Seven measures were examined school success, attitudes toward delinquent behavior, traditionalism (measured by questions about a woman’s role in society), knowledge of the Dutch language, fear of expulsion, criminal record, and ethnicity. Junger found that discrepancies were relatively frequent among boys whose knowledge of Dutch was limited and were related to when the youths had a strong bond to traditional cultural attitudes condemning delinquent behavior. Ethnicity did not predict whether there was a discrepancy after controlling for the influence of the background variables and the number of police contacts.

In addition, Junger (1989) examined the factors that predicted discrepancies in relation to the number of official contacts with the police and self-reported contacts. Similar to the delinquency discrepancies, Junger found that boys who were attached to conventional attitudes and had no fear of deportation by the police more often denied having police contacts than boys less attached to conventional attitudes and who feared deportation (i.e., having conflicts with police). In addition, Junger reported that highly delinquent boys (those with many crimes known to the police) tended to admit more police contacts than less delinquent boys. Junger reasoned that individuals are more likely to conceal one crime or contact than they are multiple offenses or contacts with the police. Based on these results, Junger concluded that:

Overall the results seems to indicate that, in ethnic minority studies, arrest data are probably better indicators than self-report measures to evaluate crime involvement and should also be used in etiological research. However, future studies should try to check the effect of cultural factors on response in surveys and find out if (and how) they might be avoided. (p. 283)

van Batenburg-Eddes et al. (2012) also examined whether there were ethnic discrepancies between self-report and official data. van Batenburg-Eddes et al. merged the nonanonymous self-reported data included in the Rotterdam Youth Monitor Survey (which mainly included students who were between the ages of 12 and 15 who were in the first or third grade of secondary school for the school years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009; n = 23,914) with police data. The survey asked the students to self-report whether they ever had contact with the police (i.e., “Have you ever been interrogated at the police station because you did something wrong?” Answers were coded yes or no). The official police data included information on suspects, the registration date, and the type of offense. Similar to Junger (1989), van Batenburg-Eddes et al. report that Moroccans had the highest discrepancy between self-reported contact with the police and their official police contact (46% agreement), in comparison to 65% for the native Dutch, 70% for the Surinamese, 74% for the Antilleans, 60% for the Turks, and 76% for the Cape Verdeans. Together, these studies indicated that Turk and Moroccan youths underreported their contact with the police on nonanonymous surveys. However, more research is needed that investigates whether ethnic minorities underreport their criminal involvement on anonymous surveys.

Are the Official Police Data Biased Against Ethnic Groups?

This section reviews the literature that examined whether official police data were valid indicators of ethnic crimes in the Netherlands. Scholars have questioned whether official police data can be used to generate valid estimates of the rates of crime among immigrant groups (Bovenkerk & Fokkema, 2016). Researchers have suggested that official police data may generate inflated estimates of crime rates among different ethnic groups due to police profiling ethnic immigrants.

Scholars have not fully investigated whether the police profile immigrants because of their ethnicity (van der Leun & van der Woude, 2011, p. 452). Also, scholars have suggested that the research on ethnic profiling needs to be contemporary (Svensson & Saharso, 2015). Researchers have argued that there has been a substantial shift in the policies targeting ethnic groups within the Netherlands (Downes, 2007; van der Leun & van der Woude, 2011; van der Woude, van der Leun, & Nijland, 2014). Scholars have suggested that these policies—the crimmigration in the Netherlands (the process whereby criminal law and immigration law become interlinked)—have increased the policing of ethnic groups. Indeed, van der Leun and van der Woude (2011, p. 444) have argued “Over the past decades the Netherlands has developed into a culture of control in which criminals and immigrants are mainly seen as ‘dangerous others.’”

Evidence of Ethnic Bias

Researchers have found that Dutch police officers have stereotyped ethnic groups as the “criminal other,” particularly Moroccans. Bonnet and Caillault (2015) interviewed 12 Dutch police officers at two sites in the Amsterdam region. One of the officers was female, and another officer was a minority. Bonnet and Caillault (2015, p. 1190) reported the following:

Dutch officers express clear-cut attitudes towards specific ethnic groups, especially Moroccans. Most respondents make a clear association between (presumed) Moroccans and crime, and our respondents sometimes referred to Moroccans as “kut Marokkanen” (fucking Moroccans) or “kanker Marokkanen” (this cancer that are Moroccans). In practice, police officers often associate Moroccans with other groups. A much broader range of groups is potentially affected by the stereotypes described above: Turkish, Kurdish, Middle Eastern, and other North Africans. Police officers also stereotype Poles as criminal, but Moroccans are the focus of their concerns—they have replaced Surinamese, who used to be considered the dangerous minority by Dutch police officers in the 1970s.

Scholars also reported that:

the risk of ethnic profiling is not just a theoretical ‘threat’ for the Netherlands anymore: From the 2009 European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS) it appeared that 25% of Dutch Muslims of Turkish origin interviewed had been stopped by the police at least once in 12 months prior to the survey and that of these individuals 25% had the impression that the stop was based on ethnicity. The corresponding figures for Dutch Muslims of North African origin were 26% and 39%, respectively. (European Union France, 2009, pp. 13–14; van der Leun & van der Woude, 2011, pp. 450–451).

In addition, analyses have found that ethnic groups in the Netherlands had less favorable views of the police than the native Dutch. van der Leun et al. (2013) analyzed the first wave of the TransAm study and found that “both Moroccan (−2.873; p < .01) and Dutch Antillean (−2.621, p < .01) emerging adults report a more negative attitude toward the police than do emerging adults of Dutch descent.” These scholars also reported that Moroccan and Antillean youths were still more likely to have a negative attitude toward the police after they controlled for demographic characteristics, personal experiences with the police, and the respondents’ perceptions of their neighborhoods.

Moreover, a government report produced by The Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau [socio-cultural planning office] SCP) and conducted by Andriessen, Fernee, and Wittebrood (2014) investigated whether individuals perceived that the police discriminated against them during the past 12 months. Andriessen et al. (2014, p. 22) found that:

non-Western men, and especially those of Moroccan origin, feel they are treated unequally by the police (see figure 1.6). They feel they are watched more closely and that penalties are imposed on them more readily. This extra police attention is regarded by most non-Western respondents as discrimination, and is also described using the term “ethnic profiling.”

Evidence Against Ethnic Bias

Other scholars have argued that the police do not profile ethnic groups. Junger (1989, p. 278) argued that:

in the Netherlands the Surinamese boys are often “black” or “coloured,” but they do not differ from the indigenous (=white) boys on the discrepancy measures. The groups with low validity are the Turkish and Moroccans. The differences in validity therefore seem to follow cultural lines—Islamic versus non-Islamic—rather than ethnic lines, although there could be other factors particular to the immigrant situation of the Turks and Moroccans that explain their relatively low validity on the self-report delinquency scales.

Junger (1989, p. 278) concluded that racial/ethnic bias by the police “seems unlikely in the Dutch context as it seems implausible that the police would discriminate against Turks and Moroccans but not against Surinamese.” However, note that Junger did not present data that substantiated her claim that police officers were incapable of differentiating among the different immigrant groups in the Netherlands. Therefore, it is possible that police officers differentiate between “Black” or “coloured” Surinamese boys and Moroccan or Turkish boys in their enforcement efforts.

Other scholars have concluded that ethnic bias cannot fully explain the discrepancies between the native Dutch and ethnic groups in their official contact with the police. Svensson and Saharso (2015) employed students who attended, in 2011, the VU University in Amsterdam or the Saxion Polytechnic in Enschede to nonrandomly contact youths between the ages of 12 and 25 who were on the streets, in youth centers in Amsterdam, or were living in the more rural region of Twente. Svensson and Saharso (2015) found that non-Dutch appearing youths were more likely to report that they had negative interactions with the police (e.g., asked by the police to formally identify themselves, subjected to police stop and search, sent away by the police from a place they hung-out). However, Svensson and Saharso (2015) reported that after they controlled for the youths’ gender, neighborhood, level of delinquent behavior, peer group affiliations, willingness to cooperate with the police, and the time they spent on the street, the nonnative appearing Dutch youths were not significantly more likely than the Dutch appearing youth to have had negative interactions with the police.

In sum, the research on whether ethnic groups were profiled by the police is scant, methodologically limited, and has generated mixed results. Together, these limitations indicate the need for further research that examines whether the police profile ethnic groups, and, if so, to what degree does the profiling by the police of ethnic groups inflate their rate of official crimes. Such research is needed before an evidence-based conclusion can be made concerning whether ethnic groups commit more officially recorded crimes than the native Dutch.

Do Similarly Situated Native Dutch Have the Same Rates of Crime as Moroccans and Turks?

One of the more contentious issues regarding ethnicity and crime in the Netherlands is whether immigrant groups are more likely to commit crime than native Dutch citizens because of factors that are specific to them. Possible factors that could be specific to immigrant groups include the following: characteristics of Moroccan culture, attitudes favoring violence in Antillean mothers, group differences in migration history, age of migration, migration motives, urban/rural descent, binding with Dutch society at large, religious fervor, family hierarchy, adherence to codes of honor, and exposure to racial/ethnic discrimination (Loeber & Slot, 2007). The alternative explanation is that the same factors that cause the native Dutch to commit crimes fully explain why immigrant groups engage in crime. Thus, it could be argued that the reason why immigrant groups have more contact with the police than their native Dutch counterparts is because they are overly exposed to crime-causing factors. For example, it is plausible that the reason why Turks and Moroccans commit more official crimes is because they are more likely to be unemployed than their native Dutch counterparts and that the unemployed are more likely to commit crimes. This hypothesis suggests that Moroccans, Turks, and their native Dutch counterparts have similar likelihoods of committing crimes when they are similarly situated. Statistically, this hypothesis suggests that the relationship between ethnicity and crime is nonsignificant after the factors that generally cause crime (e.g., unemployment and low SES) are controlled.

Loeber and Slot (2007) investigated whether Moroccan, Turkish, and Surinamese youths committed more crimes than native Dutch youths due to their lower SES or factors that were specific to them by analyzing a cross-sectional data set that included police and self-report data on serious and violent delinquency. Loeber and Slot (2007) regressed delinquency on established risk factors for crime including SES, urban/rural place of residence, behavior problems at school, school performance, the amount of free time spent outdoors, attitudes toward education and crime, family conflict and communication, and parental monitoring. Loeber and Slot (2007) reported that these factors were related similarly to delinquency among the ethnic groups and the native Dutch youths. These scholars then investigated whether migration and cultural factors were related to delinquency beyond the established risk factors including length of stay in the Netherlands, country of birth, urban/rural descent, traditionalism, Islamic religiousness, and general religiousness. Loeber and Slot (2007) found that only religious devotion was weakly negatively related to delinquency, particularly for Moroccan youths. Loeber and Slot (2007, p. 522) concluded that “the very limited evidence so far provides no support for culture-specific risk factors for delinquency in ethnic groups.”

Other researchers have examined whether immigrants were more likely to commit crimes because of the attitudes and behaviors that they brought into the Netherlands or because of what they experienced after they arrived. Bovenkerk and Fokkema (2016) tested whether the rural background and Berber culture of Moroccans versus their SES within the Netherlands explained why some but not other Moroccans committed crime. They analyzed official data aggregated from the SSD and the HKS, which included Moroccan men in the 15–25 age-group (N = 32,400). Bovenkerk and Fokkema noted that two thirds of all the Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands migrated from rural towns. These scholars found that Moroccans who migrated from rural Morocco and the politically rebellious Rif Mountain region (or whose parents did) were significantly more likely to have been suspected of having committed a crime in the Netherlands. However, Bovenkerk and Fokkema reported that the geographical descent measures, while significant, only explained 0.1% of the variance in the likelihood of committing crimes. Bovenkerk and Fokkema further reported that the most powerful predictor of why some but not other Moroccans committed crimes was their SES in the Netherlands (i.e., whether they were unemployed, had less education, and had a lower income). Together, these factors explained an additional 12% of the variance in official Moroccan crimes. Bovenkerk and Fokkema concluded that the experiences that Moroccans had after their arrival in the Netherlands were more powerful explanations of why they commit crimes than the measures of their geographical descent.

Relatedly, analyzing official data from the Social Statistical Database, Blom and Jennissen (2014) found that Antilleans have the highest suspect rates, particularly for drugs, weapons, and property crimes with violence; followed by Moroccans, who were often suspected of property crimes (with and without violence) and disturbance of public order. The Surinamese were relatively more often suspected of traffic, drugs, and weapons crimes, and the Turks were the least often suspected of a crime. Notably, Blom and Jennissen assessed whether demographic and socioeconomic background characteristics could account for the finding that for nearly all the types of crimes, the non-Western immigrant groups had a significantly greater chance of being suspected of a crime than members of the native Dutch. They reported that adding the demographic and socioeconomic background characteristics did not account for the differences and did not substantively add to the overall explained variance. Blom and Jennissen concluded that “a large part of the explanation for the differences in the degree and nature of delinquency must be sought in other characteristics” (p. 68).

Other Cultural Factors

Scholars have suggested that there may be other cultural factors than those considered by the extant research that could be related to immigrant-related criminal behaviors. These cultural factors can be ethnically specific. For example, Blom and Jennissen (2014; referencing an ethnographic study; Korf, Bookelman, & de Haan, 2001) state that Surinamese crime may be related to a “hustle culture” (the legal and illegal moonlighting to keep one’s head above water) and that the matrifocal family structure of the Antilleans (in which the wife/mother fulfils a central role) might be associated with their criminal activities because single Antillean mothers have the tendency to dismiss the violent behavior of their sons as boyish mischief. Blom and Jennissen also note that Antilleans may have high rates of drug arrests due to the cocaine trade in the Caribbean.

In addition, scholars suggest that Turks are more likely to victimize other Turks because of their moral condemnation of “losing face” (Blom & Jennissen, 2014). Scholars hypothesize that the cultural factor of losing face explains why Turks are more likely to commit violent crimes (blood feuds and honor killings) than property crimes, especially against other Turks. Furthermore, it is argued that Turks may be more likely to engage in the trafficking of narcotics because Turkey has a long tradition of opium trafficking. Lastly, researchers hypothesize that the minor crimes committed by Moroccan youth may be related to generational conflicts and “amoral familism” in which the exclusive defense of the interests of the family is of primary importance (Korf et al., 2001).

In general, the extant research indicates that the immigrants’ backgrounds were weakly related to the likelihood that they committed crimes. Instead, the empirical research suggests that the prevailing reason why immigrants commit crimes are their experiences in the Netherlands after their arrival. However, note that the prior research has not fully accounted for all of the potential reasons why immigrants commit crimes (i.e., the research explained less than 20% of the variance in the likelihood of committing crimes). Loeber and Slot (2007, p. 522) suggested that the “additional variance might be explained by inclusion of other factors, not necessarily with the same importance for each ethnic group.” These other cultural factors (outlined above), once measured and included in the models, could support the argument that there are ethnic-specific cultural reasons that predict ethnic-specific types of crimes.

Ethnic Discrimination and Crime

Loeber and Slot (2007) suggested that one of the factors that may account for some of the unexplained variance in delinquency across the different ethnic groups is the degree to which members of ethnic groups perceive that they are being discriminated against due to their ethnicity. Within the context of the United States, scholars have found that perceived racial/ethnic discrimination was a significant predictor of crimes across racial/ethnic groups (Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). In other words, scholars have found that the more racial/ethnic group members perceived that they were discriminated against, the more likely they were to commit crimes (Unnever, Cullen, & Barnes, 2016). Indeed, researchers have found that a particularly pernicious form of discrimination especially linked to crimes among African Americans was the perception of being discriminated against by the police (Unnever, Barnes, & Cullen, 2016). Notably, I could not locate research that examined whether perceptions of ethnic discrimination among immigrant group members in the Netherlands were related to their likelihood of committing crimes. However, there is a large body of research that indicates that discrimination against ethnic groups in the Netherlands is systemic.

Ethnic Discrimination

Recent research indicates that the dislike—or prejudice—of Turks and especially Moroccans is pervasive in the Netherlands (Wirtz, van der Pligt, & Doosje, 2016). Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2009, p. 45) define prejudice as “a readiness to belittle minorities, to dislike them, to shun them, to be contemptuous of them, and to feel hostility toward them.” The research suggests that the prejudice toward Moroccans and Turks may be multifaceted, as the vast majority of these immigrants self-identify as Sunni Muslims (85% and 90%, respectively; Maliepaard, Gijsberts, & Lubbers, 2012). Consequently, the prejudices expressed toward Moroccans and Turks can be compounded since individuals may dislike these ethnic group members because they are both “not Danish”—allochthones—and because they are Muslims (Ghorashi, 2014).

In fact, the research shows that the Netherlands has one of the highest levels of anti-Muslim sentiments among the European countries (Savelkoul, Scheepers, van der Veld, & Hagendoorn, 2012; van Bergen, Ersanilli, Pels, & De Ruyter, 2016; Verkuyten, 2016; Verkuyten, Hindriks, & Coenders, 2016). The research has found that 50% of native Dutch youths reported negative attitudes toward Muslims and believed that Islamic traditions are “incompatible with mainstream values and life style” (González, Verkuyten, Weesie, & Poppe, 2008; Verkuyten, 2002, 2007). Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2009) reported that approximately half of their Dutch sample disagreed with the statements that “Muslims have a lot to offer Dutch culture” and “Most Muslims in the Netherlands respect other culture.” Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2009, p. 23) also noted the following statistics:

Approximately nine out of every ten agree that Muslim men in the Netherlands dominate their women; six out of ten agree strongly. The response to childrearing practices is also one sided. Three out of every four Dutch agree that Muslims in the Netherlands raise their children in an authoritarian way; four out of ten agree strongly.

Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2009, p. 23) further found that “a dislike of some Muslim social practices, quite apart from a dislike of Muslims themselves, contributes to a politically overwhelming level of support in the society as a whole to putting up higher barriers to immigrants.”

Additionally, research has found that a substantial minority of the native Dutch have pejoratively stereotyped immigrants (i.e., refugees, Turks, Surinamese, and Moroccans). Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2009, p. 48) found that:

a third of the Dutch population view immigrant groups as criminal, dishonest, and violent—a negative image to say the least. Nor is the image of criminality the only negative element of the image of immigrant minorities. Never less than a quarter of the Dutch population say that immigrant minorities try to avoid working; behave in an annoying and insistent way; think only about themselves; and try to make others feel sorry for them. In addition, almost one out of ten Dutch evaluates each of the four immigrant groups as inferior.

Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2009) note that the native Dutch were particularly likely to attribute these negative characteristics to Moroccans, especially the stereotypes characterizing them as violent/criminals and that they ranked Moroccans less favorable than refugees, Turks, and people of Suriname descent.

Sniderman and Hagendoorn’s (2009) research generated two other noteworthy findings. First, individuals who were prejudiced toward one immigrant group were substantially likely to be intolerant of others. Second, individuals who were prejudiced were significantly more likely to support raising the barriers to immigration. Indeed, the researchers found that there was “support for making immigration more difficult throughout the society” (Sniderman & Hagendoorn, 2009, p. 61). In general, these scholars concluded that the unifying theme of prejudice in the Netherlands was “dislike, hostility, even contempt, and the evaluation tends to be indiscriminate, lumping different minorities together, because even if they differ in some respects, ‘they’ are all part of the larger immigrant ‘them’” (Sniderman & Hagendoorn, 2009, p. 50).

Other research found empirical evidence of ethnic discrimination in the workplace. Gras and Bovenkerk (1999) generated three “situation testing” experiments in order to assess whether immigrants encountered ethnic discrimination in hiring. The first experiment tested whether Moroccan applicants were discriminated against when applying for semiskilled positions. The second experiment assessed the experiences of semiskilled Surinamese men, and the third experiment examined whether Surinamese men encountered ethnic discrimination when applying for highly skilled (college-educated) positions. The situation testing methodology involved, for example, having two Moroccan and two Dutch students who were similar in appearance with identical work biographies (e.g., same age, work experience, and education) apply for 175 semiskilled positions in the service and retail trade sectors. The initial contact with the possible employer was always made by telephone.

For the first experiment, Gras and Bovenkerk (1999) found that of the 175 applications, 43 of the Moroccan applicants were rejected immediately, while the equally qualified Dutch subject, who telephoned 10 min later, was treated as a serious candidate. Evidence of ethnic discrimination was also found as the Dutch applicants were more likely than the Moroccans to be interviewed by phone and to be interviewed in person. These results were replicated in Experiment 2, which involved Surinamese men. Gras and Bovenkerk (1999, p. 103) concluded that “the rate of discrimination against men from an ethnic minority at the level of semi-skilled jobs does not differ by ethnic group.”

For Experiment 3, which involved highly educated applicants, the test subjects sent similar letters of application to employers. The only major difference was the signature that accompanied the letters; one letter was signed by “Errol Rozenblad” who was born in Paramaribo, Surinam, and the other letter was signed by “Paul van Bergen,” a typical native Dutch name. Of the 182 applications, Gras and Bovenkerk (1999) found that in 62 cases, the Surinamese applicant was rejected while the Dutch applicant was sent a positive reply. In 27 cases, the native Dutch applicant was rejected, while the Surinamese applicant received an invitation for an interview or had his name kept on file. Gras and Bovenkerk (p. 105) report that “the net rate of discrimination against the college-educated Surinamese applicant was 35 cases (19 per cent).” Together, the results from these three experiments indicated that discrimination occurred across ethnic groups and occurred “not only at the semi-skilled level, but also at the highly skilled level” (Gras & Bovenkerk, 1999, p. 105). Gras and Bovenkerk concluded that ethnic groups were not only economically disadvantaged because of their low levels of education and a lack of language proficiency but also because they encountered substantial widespread ethnic discrimination.

More recently, Blommaert, Coenders, and van Tubergen (2014) examined whether ethnic minority job applicants were discriminated against in recruitment procedures via online résumé databases. Blommaert et al. adapted a field experiment methodology that involved posting résumés of fictitious ethnic minority and majority applicants on online résumé databases used by employers and recruiters to find suitable candidates for a vacancy. Profiles of fictitious job applicants (n = 640) and accompanying résumés were created. Subsequently, applicants’ names (signaling their ethnic origin) were assigned randomly to the profiles. Fictitious applicants’ profiles and résumés were then posted on two websites. Finally, responses to the fictitious applicants were measured. Systematic differences in outcomes provided measures of ethnic discrimination.

Blommaert et al. (2014, p. 15) reported that their results provided:

strong evidence of discrimination against Arabic-named applicants in recruitment procedures via résumé databases on the internet in the Netherlands. In the first phase of the online recruitment procedure, employers were significantly less prone to view entire résumés of candidates with Arabic names than those of candidates with Dutch names. Résumés of Dutch-named candidates are about 50 percent more likely to be viewed than those of Arabic-named candidates.

Additionally, Blommaert et al. (2014, p. 17) found “no significant differences in the level of discrimination against Arabic-named applicants in the first phase of online recruitment procedures across ten geographical regions, five sectors of the labor market, and both websites included” in their analysis, and they “found no significant differences in discrimination of Arabic-named applicants across different age groups, educational levels, or between male and female applicants.” Consequently, Blommaert et al. (2014) concluded that ethnic discrimination in hiring was widespread.

Perceptions of Ethnic Discrimination

This section reviews the research that has addressed whether immigrant groups perceived that they were discriminated against because of their ethnicity. Maliepaard, Gijsberts, and Phalet (2015) analyzed the 2006 Survey Integration Minorities and found that perceptions of group and personal discrimination among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands were widespread. More specifically, Maliepaard et al. (2015, p. 2642) found that among Muslims with a Turkish or Moroccan background, a large majority (76%) perceived discrimination against minorities, and significant numbers (40%) also reported personal discrimination. These scholars also found that Turks and Moroccans were nearly equal in their perceptions of discrimination. Additionally, Maliepaard and Gijsberts reported that although most immigrant minorities attributed discrimination of their group to their ethnicity, between 15% and 30% attributed their experiences of discrimination to their religion.

Other scholars have found evidence that perceptions of ethnic discrimination were pervasive. van der Leun et al. (2013) reported that less than half of respondents with a migrant background believed that ethnic minorities in the Netherlands received every opportunity and less than half of those from Turkey and Morocco thought that the Netherlands was a welcoming country for migrants. van der Leun et al. also reported that around half the migrants that they interviewed thought the rights of minorities were respected in the Netherlands. van der Leun et al. concluded that their findings matched the results of the Special Eurobarometer 296, which found that 79% of the respondents in the Netherlands believed that discrimination based on ethnicity was very or fairly widespread.

The Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP; Andriessen, Fernee, & Wittebrood, 2014) also examined whether multiple immigrant groups—Moroccan, Turkish, Surinamese, Antillean, and Central and Eastern Europeans—perceived that they were discriminated in public spaces, while seeking work, in the workplace, by public institutions, while participating in nightlife, and in their terms of employment. The report detailed that perceptions of ethnic discrimination varied across ethnic groups and domains. Moroccans reported the greatest amount of ethnic discrimination, followed by Turks, Surinamese, Antilleans, and Central and Eastern Europeans except in education (Turks reported the highest level) and in terms of employment (Central and Eastern Europeans reported the highest level of perceived ethnic discrimination). For example, Andriessen et al. (2014) reported that over 50% of Moroccans perceived they were discriminated against in public spaces and over 40% perceived that they were discriminated against because of their ethnicity when seeking work.

In sum, the prior research indicates that ethnic discrimination of immigrants has permeated the educational system and workplace. Researchers have also found that a substantial number of immigrants reported that they were discriminated against by the police. Moreover, the research has found that ethnic group members believed that they were discriminated against because they are allochthones—immigrants—and because they are Muslims. Furthermore, the research reveals a sizable minority of the Dutch pejoratively stereotype ethnic minorities, particularly Moroccans. These stereotypes include negative depictions that they are prone to violence and criminal behavior. Altogether, these findings suggest that more research is needed. Future research should explore whether ethnic discrimination, in all of its variegated manifestations, is related to why ethnic groups commit crimes.

Making Generalizations About Ethnic Groups and Crime

This section outlines the problems that arise when individuals make generalizations about whether ethnic groups commit more crimes than their native Dutch counterparts.

Loeber and Slot (2007) discuss three misconceptions that underlie much of the debate surrounding the question of whether ethnic groups in the Netherlands commit more crimes than the native Dutch. First, Loeber and Slot argued that people cannot make generalizations about ethnic groups and crime because individual members of ethnic groups vary in their likelihood of committing crimes. In other words, no two group members are identical. Thus, Loeber and Slot (p. 522) concluded that “only a minority of youths in the groups with the highest prevalence commit such crimes.⁴ Therefore, prevalence figures are not appropriate to describe behavior of ethnic groups as a whole.” In short, generalizations about ethnic groups and crime are unjustifiable because the likelihood of crime varies among the members of an ethnic group.

Second, Loeber and Slot (2007) dismissed the misconception that there is an inherent (or innate) element in ethnic groups or their culture that causes them to commit crimes. An illustration of this misconception is the argument that the more immigrants adhere to their Muslim religion, the more likely they are to commit crimes. However, Loeber and Slot (p. 522) found that Islamic “religiousness” was weakly negatively related to delinquency, particularly for Moroccan youths. This negative relationship means that immigrant groups, especially Moroccans, were less likely to commit crimes the more they adhered to their Muslim religion.

Another illustration of this second misconception is the argument that the reason why ethnic groups have higher rates of arrests than the native Dutch is because of their immigrant backgrounds. Note that this argument negates that crime may be related to the experiences that ethnic groups have after they have migrated to the Netherlands (e.g., ethnic discrimination in the workplace). Bovenkerk and Fokkema (2016) specifically addressed whether the backgrounds of Moroccans were related to their likelihood of committing crimes. These scholars found that the backgrounds of Moroccans (e.g., their area of geographical descent) had little substantive impact on whether they committed crimes after they migrated to the Netherlands. Rather, Bovenkerk and Fokkema found that the Moroccans who were likely to commit crimes were those who were most often exposed to factors that also predicted crime among the native Dutch such as school performance and employment status. In short, the research does not support the argument that there is something inherently criminal about ethnic groups or their culture.

Third, Loeber and Slot (2007) argue that people cannot make evidence-based generalizations about ethnic groups and crime because there are considerable group differences within ethnic groups. For example, Junger (1989) found that 51% of the Surinamese were from Hindu families (originating from Asia), 22% described themselves as being of Creole (African) origin, and 25% claimed other ethnic backgrounds. Junger further reported that the Creoles had the highest rates of crime among the Surinamese. Scholars have also found that there are substantial generational differences within ethnic groups. Zorlu (2013) reported that the first generation of an ethnic group was substantially more likely to use welfare than their second-generation counterparts. Bovenkerk and Fokkema (2016) found that the first generation of Moroccan youths was significantly less likely to commit crime than second-generation Moroccan youths. Loeber and Slot (2007, p. 523) concluded the following:

[E]ach ethnic group has mistakenly been considered to represent a relatively homogeneous group in terms of culture and behavior. However, cultural and behavioral differences within ethnic groups are considerable and appear to be increasing to such an extent that it may be more sensible to study (sub)cultural or individual differences within ethnic groups than to compare between groups. Because of these limitations, further contributions of comparative prevalence studies to our understanding of juvenile delinquency may be limited.

Conclusion

The answer to the empirical question of whether ethnic minorities in the Netherlands are more likely to commit crimes than their native Dutch counterparts is equivocal. Some studies show that ethnic minorities, including Moroccans and Turks, are less likely to commit crimes than the native Dutch. Other research indicates that ethnic minorities are more likely to commit crimes than the native Dutch. The research is also unclear as to whether there are gender differences. Some studies suggest that native Dutch females are more likely than ethnic minority females to commit crimes, while other research indicates that immigrant females are more likely than the native Dutch females to engage in crimes. Additionally, there are studies that indicate similarly situated individuals, regardless of whether they belong to an ethnic group or are native Dutch, have the same likelihood of committing crimes. In other words, the reason why immigrants have a greater probability of being arrested is because they are disproportionately exposed to crime-related factors such as being of a lower SES than the average native Dutch person.

Moreover, the research reveals that it is misleading to ask whether ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested unless the person’s age is specified. The official data show that young Moroccans have a higher likelihood of being arrested than native Dutch youths, but their rate of crimes mirrors their native Dutch counterparts as these young Moroccans mature into middle age. Furthermore, the research shows that it is inappropriate to make a general conclusion about whether immigrants commit more crimes in the Netherlands because there are multiple ethnic groups that make up the immigrant population (e.g., Antilleans, Turks, Moroccans, Poles, Surinamese, and refugees), and each ethnic group has a different likelihood of committing crimes. In sum, the research does not support an unequivocal conclusion that immigrant groups, including Moroccans, are more criminal than the native Dutch.

However, this conclusion rests upon the assumption that all of the possible cultural factors that could explain ethnic-specific rates of crime have been taken into consideration. Thus far, only a limited number of studies have examined whether there are ethnic-specific cultural factors and even fewer have considered whether these factors are related to immigrant crime. The scarcity of research on these two related topics prohibits any definitive conclusion being made as to whether non-Western immigrant groups in the Netherlands commit more crime than the native Dutch.

Another complexity inherent to the empirical question of whether ethnic minorities commit more crimes is the validity of the data used to generate estimates of criminal behavior. On the one hand, self-reports of crimes included within anonymous and confidential surveys indicate that immigrant groups, including Turks and Moroccans, commit less crime than their native Dutch counterparts. On the other hand, the official data generated by police departments indicate the exact opposite: Turks and Moroccans disproportionately commit more crimes than the native Dutch. Thus, two contrasting results were generated based on which data source was used to estimate the rates of criminal behavior. The question then becomes which data source best reflects the true level of crimes committed by immigrants and the native Dutch.

A limited number of studies suggest that ethnic minorities, particularly Turks and Moroccans, have underreported their involvement in criminal activity when self-reports were compared to their official rates of crimes. This finding suggests that self-reports of crimes made by Turks and Moroccans may be less valid than those generated by their native Dutch counterparts. However, this finding is based on scant evidence. Also note that this finding does not validate official arrest records as a true measure of the level of crimes committed by immigrant groups including Turks and Moroccans.

The core issue of using official arrest data to compare rates of crimes committed by members of ethnic groups to their native Dutch counterparts is whether the official data are biased against allochthones. There are two related factors that could cause the official rates of crimes committed by ethnic groups to be invalid. First, the official rates of crimes committed by ethnic groups may be inflated because immigrants are profiled by the police. There is limited evidence that suggests that the Dutch police characterize immigrants groups, particularly Moroccans, as the criminal other. This negative stereotype creates the likelihood that the police will have greater contact with Moroccans if they are prejudging them as criminal.⁵ Thus, it is possible that Moroccans may be more intensely policed and disparately arrested in comparison to their native Dutch counterparts (and other ethnic groups) even after taking into account factors that may warrant police contact. In short, it is not clear whether the official data are biased against ethnic minorities because the Dutch police may profile ethnic groups, especially Moroccans.

Second, the research is clear that the dislike of immigrant groups, particularly Moroccans, is systemic within the Netherlands. The research shows that ethnic discrimination occurs throughout the school system and in the workplace. This widespread ethnic discrimination attenuates the likelihood that immigrant groups including Moroccans will achieve the levels of success that are commiserate with their meritorious skills and achievements. Thus, systemic ethnic discrimination is one cause for why ethnic groups have lower levels of socioeconomic success than their native Dutch counterparts. This lack of socioeconomic success has a deleterious consequence: The research shows it increased the likelihood that ethnic groups (and the native Dutch) committed crimes.

Also, the prejudice that many native Dutch citizens have against immigrants could cause the police to more closely monitor ethnic groups, especially Moroccans. As discussed above, the most common stereotype attributed to Moroccans by native Dutch citizens is that they are violent and engage in crime; in other words, they are the criminal other. Consequently, research is needed to assess whether native Dutch citizens are more likely to perceive behavior as “suspicious” if they associate the behavior with Moroccans rather than native Dutch citizens. Additionally, scholars need to investigate whether the native Dutch are more likely to report what they perceive to be “suspicious” behavior to the police if they attribute the behavior to immigrants rather than to native Dutch citizens. Additionally, research is needed that assesses whether the native Dutch are more likely to report being a victim of a crime to the police if they perceive that they were victimized by an ethnic minority rather than their fellow native Dutch citizens. Together, this line of research will address whether the rates of official crime committed by ethnic groups are inflated because the native Dutch are more likely to report crimes to the police if they perceive that they are being committed by immigrants—whom they perceive to be the criminal other.

In sum, the literature indicates that additional research is needed that assesses the degree to which non-Western immigrants commit crimes in the Netherlands. More specifically, future research needs to assess whether ethnic-specific rates of crime are related to ethnic biases in the reporting of crimes, ethnic biases in the criminal justice system, ethnic-specific cultural factors, and the experiences that immigrant groups encounter after they have immigrated to the Netherlands. An evidence-based conclusion as to whether non-Western immigrants commit more crimes than the native Dutch cannot be made until such research has been conducted.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Andriessen

Fernee

Wittebrood

(2014). Perceived discrimination in the Netherlands. The Hague, the Netherlands: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.

Blom

Jennissen

(2014). The involvement of different ethnic groups in various types of crime in the Netherlands. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20, 51–72.

Blommaert

Coenders

van Tubergen

(2014). Discrimination of Arabic-named applicants in the Netherlands: An Internet-based field experiment examining different phases in online recruitment procedures. Social Forces, 92, 957–982.

Bonnet

Caillault

(2015). The invader, the enemy within and they-who-must-not-be-named: How police talk about minorities in Italy, the Netherlands and France. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38, 1185–1201.

Bovenkerk

Fokkema

(2016). Crime among young Moroccan men in the Netherlands: Does their regional origin matter? European Journal of Criminology, 13, 352–371.

Downes

(2007). Visions of penal control in the Netherlands. Crime and Justice, 36, 93–125.

Ghorashi

(2014). Racism and “the ungrateful other” in the Netherlands Dutch Racism (pp. 101–116). Brill. Retrieved from http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789401210096s006

González

Verkuyten

Weesie

Poppe

(2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667–685.

Gras

Bovenkerk

(1999). Migrants and ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: Discrimination in access to employment. In Wrench

Rea

Ouali

(Eds.), Migrants, ethnic minorities and labour market: Integration and exclusion in Europe (pp. 93–108). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

10.

Harland

Peter

Van der

Laan

Smeenk

Wilma H.

Weerman

Frank M.

. (2005). Wangedrag en delinquentie op school . . . en daarbuiten: Prevalentie, ontwikkeling en samenhang [Misbehavior and delinquency at school. . . and beyond: Prevalence, development and cohesion]. The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

11.

Hill

J. M.

Blokland

van der Geest

(2015). Volwassen worden en criminaliteit verschillen tussen etnische groepen in Nederland [Adult and crime differ between ethnic groups in the Netherlands]. Panopticon, 36, 1–36.

12.

Huijnk

Kessels

(2016). Criminaliteit [Crime]. In Huijnk

Andriessen

(red.), Integratie in zicht? De integratie van migranten in Nederland op acht terreinen nader bekeken [Integration in sight? The integration of migrants in the Netherlands in eight areas] (pp. 146–184). Den Haagthe, the Netherlands: SCP.

13.

Jennissen

R. P. W.

(2009). Criminaliteit, leeftijd en etniciteit. The Hague, the Netherlands: WODC.

14.

Jennissen

(2014). On the deviant age-crime curve of Afro-Caribbean populations: The case of Antilleans living in the Netherlands. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 571–594.

15.

Jennissen

(2017). Trends in de overrepresentative van jongens en jongemannen met een Marokkaanse achtergrond in de verdachtenstatistiek [Trends in the overrepresentative of boys and young men with a Moroccan background in the suspect statistics]. Justitiële Verkenningen, 43, 50–70.

16.

Junger

(1989). Discrepancies between police and self-report data for Dutch racial minorities. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 273–284.

17.

Junger-Tas

(1997). Ethnic minorities and criminal justice in the Netherlands. Crime and Justice, 21, 257–310.

18.

Korf

D. J.

Bookelman

G. W.

Haan

(2001). Diversiteit in criminaliteit: Allochtone arrestanten in de Amsterdamse politiestatistiek. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 43, 230–259.

19.

Leerkes

Engbersen

van der Leun

(2012). Crime among irregular immigrants and the influence of internal border control. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58, 15–38.

20.

Loeber

Slot

(2007). Serious and violent juvenile delinquency: An update. Crime and Justice, 35, 503–592.

21.

Maliepaard

Gijsberts

Lubbers

(2012). Reaching the limits of secularization? Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch Muslims in the Netherlands 1998–2006. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 359–367.

22.

Maliepaard

Gijsberts

Phalet

(2015). Islamic gatherings: Experiences of discrimination and religious affirmation across established and new immigrant communities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38, 2635–2651.

23.

Savelkoul

Scheepers

van der Veld

Hagendoorn

(2012). Comparing levels of anti-Muslim attitudes across western countries. Quality & Quantity, 46, 1617–1624.

24.

Sniderman

P. M.

Hagendoorn

(2009). When ways of life collide multiculturalism and its discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Svensson

J. S.

Saharso

(2015). Proactive policing and equal treatment of ethnic-minority youths. Policing and Society, 25, 393–408.

26.

Tonry

Bijleveld

(2007). Crime, criminal justice, and criminology in the Netherlands. Crime and Justice, 35, 1–30.

27.

Unnever

J. D.

Barnes

J. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2016). The racial invariance thesis revisited: Testing an African American theory of offending. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32, 7–26.

28.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Barnes

J. C.

(2016). Racial discrimination, weakened school bonds, and problematic behaviors: Testing a theory of African American offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53, 139–164.

29.

Unnever

J. D.

Gabbidon

S. L.

(2011). A theory of African American offending: Race, racism, and crime. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

30.

van Batenburg-Eddes

Butte

van de Looij-Jansen

Schiethart

Raat

de Waart

Jansen

(2012). Measuring juvenile delinquency: How do self-reports compare with official police statistics? European Journal of Criminology, 9, 23–37.

31.

van Bergen

D. D.

Ersanilli

E. F.

Pels

T. V. M.

De Ruyter

D. J.

(2016). Turkish-Dutch youths’ attitude toward violence for defending the in-group: What role does perceived parenting play? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22, 120–133.

32.

Van De Werfhorst

H. G.

Van Tubergen

(2007). Ethnicity, schooling, and merit in the Netherlands. Ethnicities, 7, 416–444.

33.

van der Leun

J. P.

van der Woude

M. A. H.

(2011). Ethnic profiling in the Netherlands? A reflection on expanding preventive powers, ethnic profiling and a changing social and political context. Policing and Society, 21, 444–455.

34.

van der Leun

van der Woude

M. A. H.

Leupen

A. J.

Blokland

A. A.

(2013). Country profile: The Netherlands—An exploratory quantitative and qualitative research into perceptions on policing & ethnic profiling. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2358040

35.

van der Put

Stams

Deković

Hoeve

van der Laan

(2013). Ethnic differences in offense patterns and the prevalence and impact of risk factors for recidivism. International Criminal Justice Review, 23, 113–131.

36.

van der Woude

M. A. H.

van der Leun

J. P.

Nijland

J. A. A.

(2014). Crimmigration in the Netherlands. Law & Social Inquiry, 39, 560–579.

37.

Verkuyten

(2002). Perceptions of ethnic discrimination by minority and majority early adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 321–332.

38.

Verkuyten

(2007). Religious group identification and inter-religious relations: A study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 341–357.

39.

Verkuyten

(2016). Dual identity and immigrants’ protest against discrimination: The moderating role of diversity ideologies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 924–934.

40.

Verkuyten

Hindriks

Coenders

(2016). Majority members’ feelings about political representation of Muslim immigrants. Social Psychology, 47, 257–269.

41.

Weerman

F. M.

(2007). Juvenile offending. Crime and Justice, 35, 261–318.

42.

Wirtz

van der Pligt

Doosje

(2016). Negative attitudes toward Muslims in the Netherlands: The role of symbolic threat, stereotypes, and moral emotions. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22, 75–83.

43.

Wittebrood

(2003). Juvenile crime and sanctions in the Netherlands. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19, 435–453.

44.

Zorlu

(2013). Welfare use of migrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Manpower, 34, 83–95.