Dutch youth care was decentralized in 2015. Since the transfer to the municipalities, youth care is in a state of deep crisis. There are long waiting lists, even in situations of acute need; there is lack of money, of professional and experienced staff, of adequate care, and of central coordination and guidance. In contrast to Denmark, where youth care was transferred to municipalities in 2007, there was barely time to prepare the transfer in the Netherlands. Moreover, the number of municipalities was not significantly reduced and the funding was extremely cut back. In this article, a number of interventions is being proposed to save what can still be saved. First, funding will have to be substantially increased. Second, the access to youth mental health care should not be a matter of municipal authority.

This article relates the geographical allocation of Courts to access to justice. Travel distances within the Dutch system are higher than in surrounding countries, but still not extremely high. The scale of the Dutch Court organizations however, is extreme. On average, a Court location that handles small claims has jurisdiction over a territory with over half a million inhabitants. This large number of inhabitants automatically translates to large numbers of cases, and large bureaucracies, employing 500 to 1,000 people (judges, court staff, support) each. Do travel distances to the Courts actually have an impact on the use of the Court system? Two recent studies find no support for a popular belief that defendants will be less determined to defend themselves when the travel distance to the court is longer. They do show however that the number of cases brought to Court by local plaintiffs drops when ‘their’ local court closes down.