Increasingly, we see collective actors in the field of asylum in Europe turn to litigation as the preferred strategy to attain their goals, which is a form of legal mobilization. Both at the national and European level, non-governmental organizations (NGO) are active in high-profile cases. These NGOs operate in a different national political and legal system, but do have similar European-level opportunities. Next to that, current literature suggests a possible relevance of organizational factors, such as resources, to explain the use of these legal mobilization strategies. By looking at NGOs with different levels of legal mobilization in two national contexts, a cross-case comparison is made in this article to explain what external and/or internal factors are relevant in making NGOs ‘turn to the courts’. This article draws on empirical data to establish what drives four NGOs from Italy and the Netherlands to mobilize the law. This data is compared to existing literature on legal mobilization to show a potential revival of a theory that has been left behind over the last years: research on Political Opportunity Structures. This strand of literature emphasizes the importance of possibilities, constraints and threats at the (national) political level that drives NGOs in their strategy choice.

After being released from prison, ex-offenders face many challenges they have to overcome to successfully reintegrate into society. Finding adequate housing remains a particularly important yet problematic aspect of this reintegration process. Whereas a stable living situation greatly reduces ex-offenders’ risk of reoffending, their return to the (local) community may have a significant impact on the peace and quiet in the neighbourhood, potentially resulting in social unrest and threatening the public order in the area. To study this phenomenon of social unrest and to research how local authorities in the Netherlands and their partner organisations work together to prevent or respond to such unrest, both quantitative and qualitative data was collected and analysed. It was found that the return of an ex-offender relatively seldom leads to immediate threats to the public order and that local authorities prefer more informal, less repressive measures to respond to such threats. Relying on cross-agency collaboration theory, this study also reviewed how partner organisations involved with ex-offenders’ social reintegration work together. Based on this analysis, it is recommended to (further) enhance their collaboration by investing more time and resources, improving information sharing and establishing a national network of Care and Safety Houses.

The Dutch childcare benefits scandal has attracted much attention from law and policy scholars in recent years. The scandal stands out not only because of its disastrous outcomes, but also because of a toxic combination of errors on multiple levels of government. In this essay, the authors make a plea for a reappraisal of multi-level analysis in law and policy research. The importance of such an approach is demonstrated through an examination of ‘control deficits’ in the childcare benefits scandal, with attention for the state, organizational and individual levels of government. This yields conclusions about control deficits in the digital welfare state, as well as a number of broader reflections on the value of multi-level analysis in the study and practice of government.

In answer to Gitta Veldt’s call to educate law students in social scientific methodologies, this essay makes the argument that we should in fact strengthen the knowledge of legal doctrinal methodology. Lawyers should be more aware of the value of their own scientific methodology, because that unique quality makes them interesting as researchers in collaborative interdisciplinary teams. They should also be aware though of the possibilities and limitations of their own methodologies as well as those of the empirical sciences. A thorough education in the philosophy of science should give lawyers the skills to decide whether the legal question can be answered using doctrinal methodology or whether an expert in one of the empirical sciences should be consulted.

In an increasingly complex public service system, service users’ experiences are often overlooked, resulting in a gap between administrative policies and citizens' needs. This research aims to bridge the gap through person-centred service provision by incorporating the narratives of citizens in vulnerable positions. The research comprises an exploratory phase featuring narrative interviews with participants receiving benefits while using multiple public services. Subsequently, the study plans to conduct two case studies observing local projects emphasising person-centred approaches. Preliminary findings from the interviews highlight the importance of resilience and specific skills to effectively navigate the system, which those with multi-problems often do not have. The participants' reliance on support persons underscores the vital role of external assistance in managing bureaucratic complexities. This research emphasises the value of narratives in improving person-centred services by incorporating them in reflexive regulatory arrangements, aiming to contribute to more effective and supportive public service systems for vulnerable citizens.