This chapter examines the outcomes that justice systems produce for society across OECD Member countries, OECD accession countries and Justice Action Coalition countries where comparable data are available. It analyses a core set of seven indicators that aim to capture these outcomes: resolution of justice problems, fairness of processes, trust in justice actors, prevention of problems, access to information, access to assistance and advice, and access to dispute resolution mechanisms. The chapter also presents the findings, highlighting their policy implications and their relevance for assessing the implementation of the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems.
Justice as a Public Service
Delivering Better Outcomes
Abstract
Justice systems ultimately matter because of the difference they make in people’s lives, and through the sum of these individual experiences, to broader outcomes for society and the economy. People encounter justice problems in the course of everyday life – when they lose a job, face difficulties with housing or debt, experience family breakdown, encounter problems with public services or become involved in disputes with businesses, neighbours or public authorities. How effectively these problems are prevented, addressed and resolved can have important consequences not only for individual rights, but also for people’s economic security, health, family relationships and confidence in public institutions. It is also fundamental to the overall strength and responsiveness of the rule of law, as it determines whether rights are protected in practice, disputes are resolved fairly, laws have meaning in everyday life and public and private actors are held accountable.
From this perspective, justice cannot be understood principally through the performance of courts or other individual institutions. It depends on whether the justice system as a whole enables people to recognise problems early, understand their rights and options, obtain appropriate assistance, reach a suitable pathway for resolution and achieve outcomes that are fair, timely and sustainable. It also depends on whether justice problems are prevented from escalating or recurring and whether their wider consequences for people’s lives are contained. This places people’s experiences and outcomes at the centre of the assessment of justice system performance, and provides a basis for understanding how the justice system, as a public service, contributes to outcomes for society.
This calls for a broader conception of justice policy. Rather than focusing primarily on institutional capacity, caseloads or procedural outputs, people-centred justice policy asks whether the overall system is capable of responding to the problems people experience. This means looking across formal and informal pathways; connecting courts and legal services with administrative, social and community-based responses; investing in prevention and early intervention; and organising services around the needs and circumstances of users and potential users rather than around institutional mandates. Different justice problems and different population groups will require different combinations of information, advice, assistance, dispute resolution and social support.
The OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems [OECD/LEGAL/0498] provides a policy framework for this shift, calling on Adherents to design and deliver justice policies and services around people’s needs and experiences and to promote accessible, responsive and evidence-based justice systems oriented towards fair outcomes. An outcome-oriented perspective helps translate the Recommendation into a practical question for policymakers: to what extent does the justice system enable people to resolve the problems they face and avoid the harms that unresolved or poorly addressed justice problems can create? Or, put differently, to what extent does the justice system, through the services it provides, contribute to the societal outcomes that effective and people-centred justice systems are intended to support? Building on the Recommendation, the OECD Measurement Framework for People-Centred Justice Systems aims to guide data collection and measurement of the outcomes justice systems deliver for people, businesses and society (de Langen, Teplova and Mulherin, 2026[1]). By linking government policies, justice services and outcomes, it provides the conceptual basis for designing and developing the outcome indicators presented in this chapter.
This chapter examines these outcomes of the justice system using internationally comparable evidence on people’s justice experiences across OECD Member countries, OECD accession countries and Justice Action Coalition countries. It considers whether people resolve their justice problems, experience resolution processes as fair, trust justice actors and avoid the recurrence and wider consequences of justice problems. It also examines whether people know where to obtain information, and access assistance, advice and dispute resolution support they need along the justice journey. These dimensions provide a picture not simply of how justice institutions operate, but of how justice is experienced by people in practice (see Table 2.1).
The chapter uses these findings to illustrate possible policy patterns and potential pressure points within people-centred justice systems, while recognising that more granular national data are needed to diagnose causes and design specific reforms. Its purpose is therefore not to rank countries according to individual measures, but to illuminate where justice systems appear to be meeting people’s needs, where gaps persist and how different aspects of the justice journey interact. In doing so, it provides a basis for considering how governments can move towards justice systems that resolve problems earlier and more effectively, provide fair and understandable processes, reduce the wider harms associated with justice problems and contribute to trust, well-being and economic growth over time.
People solve their justice problems
An essential function of justice systems as a public service is to enable people and businesses to resolve the justice problems they experience, contributing to better outcomes for society and the economy. A justice problem is an issue arising in people’s lives that has a legal dimension, regardless of whether those involved recognise it as such, pursue legal action or take any steps to address it (Genn, 1999[3]; Pleasence, Balmer and Sandefur, 2013[4]; Sandefur, 2007[5]). A justice problem is considered resolved when the person involved experiences it as such, regardless of the pathway taken. Thus, resolution of a justice problem is determined by people’s own assessment, rather than by whether a formal decision or agreement has been reached, whether the person recognises the issue as a legal matter or whether they have used formal legal processes. This provides an important measure of whether the justice system, understood broadly across the range of services and pathways available, is enabling people to resolve the problems they face.
For people and businesses, the effective delivery of justice is ultimately reflected in whether the justice problems they face are resolved in a way that allows them to move forward. From this perspective, problem resolution provides an important measure of the performance of the justice system as a whole. It goes beyond the closure of cases by individual institutions: a case may be concluded without resolving the underlying problem, while a problem may be resolved without ever becoming a formal case. What ultimately matters is whether people consider that the problem they faced has been resolved and no longer requires further action.
Percentage of respondents with a concluded resolution process for a nontrivial justice problem experienced in the previous two years, by outcome (fully resolved or persisting)
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Respondents with a nontrivial justice problem were asked whether the problem was ongoing or “done with”, meaning that it had either been fully resolved or persisted but the respondent and all other parties had ceased taking further action to resolve it. The indicator includes only problems reported as “done with” and distinguishes between those fully resolved and those that persisted; ongoing problems, “too early to say” responses and missing responses are excluded. Nontrivial justice problems are those with a self-reported seriousness of 4 or more on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means “not serious at all” and 10 means “extremely serious”. Because ongoing problems are excluded, the indicator might present a more positive picture of resolution than would emerge from an analysis of all justice problems, particularly for problem types that often take longer to resolve, such as family, land, housing or inheritance-related disputes.
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the World Justice Project Global Legal Needs Survey.
Across the countries surveyed, the median country-level justice problem resolution rate is 70%. In three-quarters of countries, between 62% and 82% of respondents whose resolution process had concluded considered their problem fully resolved. More than half reported full resolution in all but one country. Among OECD Member countries, the results range from 57% to 88%, which indicates a meaningful variation in the extent to which people consider their justice problems to have been resolved.
These findings suggest that a substantial share of people never fully resolve their problem, even after the resolution process has concluded. A median resolution rate of 70% means that, in a typical country, around three in ten people do not fully resolve their justice problems. The indicator should not be understood solely as a measure of the performance of formal justice institutions. It captures resolution across the full range of pathways used by people, including direct negotiation, assistance from personal or community networks, administrative procedures, mediation and adjudication. Differences between countries do not reflect only the effectiveness of formal institutions, but of the justice system as a whole, including the availability and quality of alternative pathways.
The results need to be interpreted in light of the reference population for this indicator. They cover problems for which the resolution process is considered to have concluded. Ongoing justice problems are not included, while some processes may have ended because people abandoned further action rather than because an effective remedy was obtained. A high resolution rate among concluded processes may therefore coexist with a large number of ongoing processes, caused by lengthy processes or disengagement.
Resolution should be considered alongside the fairness, accessibility and sustainability of the process. A problem may be considered resolved even where the pathway to resolution was costly, difficult to navigate or experienced as unfair. Conversely, a process may be experienced positively without producing a lasting resolution. The indicators should therefore be considered together to assess whether lower resolution rates may be associated with gaps at earlier stages of the justice journey, including access to information, assistance and advice, suitable dispute resolution mechanisms or other conditions affecting people’s ability to participate effectively.
These results underline the need for countries to assess more systematically whether justice problems are effectively resolved. Justice systems can use resolution data to identify where people’s needs are being met and where existing pathways are failing to deliver sustainable outcomes. Improving justice delivery at the national level requires more granular analysis than internationally comparable data can provide, including a detailed understanding of which problems remain unresolved, for whom, at what stage and why. Such assessment can draw on disaggregated results by problem type, pathway, duration, population group and geographic area. Justice problems related to housing, family, employment, debt and access to public services, for example, may each require different combinations of information, advice, social support and dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure a higher rate of problem resolution.
A policy implication is that countries may wish to examine whether stronger early intervention, intake and triage could improve resolution outcomes. The data presented above do not show directly whether unresolved problems result from weak triage, lack of information, limited assistance or unsuitable pathways. However, they emphasise the importance for countries to investigate where people’s justice journeys stall and whether entry points are helping people recognise their problem, understand their options and reach the service best placed to resolve it. Clear referral arrangements between courts, administrative bodies, legal assistance providers, ombuds institutions, social services and community organisations can reduce unnecessary escalation. They can also prevent people from moving repeatedly between institutions and facilitate more effective resolution of justice problems. The state of implementing such measures is further discussed in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3, which analyses the design and delivery of people-centred legal and justice services.
The indicators help decision makers assess not only whether people resolve their justice problems, but also how they do so, whether the process is fair and sustainable, and where service design could be improved to prevent problems from recurring or escalating.
People experience the process of resolving their justice problem as fair
For justice systems to contribute effectively to fairness in society, and hence to people’s confidence in the rule of law, resolving justice problems is necessary but not sufficient. How people experience the process through which their problem is resolved matters, and in practice process and outcome are often closely intertwined. This connects to a responsive rule of law, which is given practical effect not only through legal frameworks and institutions, but through people’s experiences of whether their rights are upheld and justice is delivered fairly and effectively (OECD, 2025[6]). Whether people feel heard, treated with dignity and able to understand and participate in the process, can influence both their ability to reach an effective resolution and whether they regard that resolution as fair. Processes experienced as fair are therefore an important dimension of justice delivery, contributing to trust and institutional legitimacy.
This outcome centres on how fair people experience the justice problem resolution process to be. Research on procedural justice indicates that people’s sense of fairness depends less on the outcome of the process and more on their interactions with justice actors (Tyler, 2006[7]; Tyler, 2000[8]; Tyler and Huo, 2002[9]; Hough, 2010[10]). People form their assessments of fairness through multiple experiences, combining them into an overall judgement. Factors such as integrity and impartiality of justice actors, respectful treatment, the chance to express one’s views and clarity of procedures play a significant role in shaping these experiences. In turn, such experiences are essential for fostering compliance, institutional legitimacy and trust in the justice system.
Percentage of respondents with a nontrivial justice problem whose resolution process had concluded, showing the share who experienced the process as fair and the share who experienced it as unfair, regardless of the outcome
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Nontrivial justice problems are those with a self-reported seriousness of 4 or more on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means “not serious at all” and 10 means “extremely serious”. Respondents with a nontrivial justice problem reported as “done with” were asked, regardless of the outcome, whether they considered the process followed to resolve the problem to be fair. The indicator includes only respondents whose problem-resolution process had concluded and who answered the fairness question; ongoing problems and “don’t know” or missing responses are excluded. The estimate for Japan is not presented due to insufficient sample size for this sub-estimate (fewer than 50 respondents), which limits the reliability of the estimate.
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
The results indicate considerable scope to improve how people experience justice processes. At the median, 40% of respondents whose resolution process had concluded did not consider the process fair. In three-quarters of the countries surveyed, between 51% and 73% of respondents whose resolution process had concluded considered the process fair, regardless of the outcome. The share falls below 50% in four countries. Among OECD Member countries, values range from 48% to 78%, with Greece, Lithuania and Poland recording some of the highest results.1
A majority of respondents in most countries experience the process as fair, which provides a positive first indication of how justice is experienced in practice. However, these initial and general scores across countries indicate that there is room for improvement. It is important to highlight that people’s assessment of justice is not determined only by whether they obtain their preferred outcome. How they are treated, how they perceive the integrity of the process, whether they have an opportunity to participate and whether procedures and decisions are understandable may shape their overall assessment.
Variation across countries may reflect differences in the conduct of justice actors, the clarity and consistency of procedures, the perceived integrity of justice institutions and the extent to which people can raise concerns or challenge decisions. Perceptions and experiences of corruption may also affect assessments of fairness and broader trust in the justice system. However, fairness and trust do not always move together: relatively positive experiences of individual justice processes may coexist with lower confidence in the system as a whole. The variation may also reflect the mix of mechanisms used. Fairness is relevant not only in courts, but in administrative complaint procedures, mediation, community-based processes, legal aid services and other points of contact across the justice journey.
As an overall measure, the indicator does not reveal which elements of the process most strongly influenced respondents’ views. Similar results across the countries may therefore conceal different experiences. One country may perform strongly in respectful treatment but less well in timeliness or explanation of decisions. Another may provide clear procedures while offering limited opportunities for people to express their views. More detailed national analysis and standardised data collection on elements of fairness would help identify where improvements are most needed.
These findings underline the importance of treating people’s experience of fairness as a core dimension of justice service delivery. The variation observed across countries suggests that users experience justice processes differently, even where formal procedures may be similar. Procedural fairness should therefore be embedded throughout the design and delivery of justice services, informed by evidence on people’s experience of fairness. This includes ensuring that people have a meaningful opportunity to be heard, are treated with dignity and respect, can understand the procedure and the reasons for decisions, and have access to review or correction mechanisms where appropriate.
Procedural fairness principles can be translated into practical service standards, and improved over time through feedback and learning loops. Institutions can adopt requirements on communication in plain language, explanation of decisions, participation, timeliness, consistency and handling of complaints. Training for judges, court staff, mediators, administrative officials and other service providers can reinforce the application of these standards in everyday interactions including through active listening, empathy and communication that enables people to feel heard and understand how their circumstances have been considered.
Countries may also consider using user feedback to identify stages of the justice journey where experiences of fairness deteriorate. Short feedback surveys, complaint data, qualitative interviews and legal needs surveys can provide complementary insights into how people experience justice processes in practice. Disaggregated analysis can help identify whether certain groups experience lower levels of procedural fairness, including by gender, age, disability, income, migration status or legal capability, and whether service design needs to be adapted to support more equal access to justice. The state of implementing related measures is further discussed in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 on the design and delivery of people-centred legal and justice services. The related issue of communication in plain language is discussed in Section 3.5 of Chapter 3 on empowerment.
People trust the justice system
Trust in the justice system is an important dimension of its contribution to society and to promoting the rule of law. It reflects people’s expectations that justice institutions and actors will exercise their functions competently, independently and with integrity, and that they will treat people fairly when they need to turn to them for resolution. Trust and experienced fairness are related but distinct: trust captures a broader view of the justice system, while experienced fairness reflects people’s assessment of a specific process or interaction.
Trust can shape the willingness of people and businesses to seek assistance, use justice services, accept decisions and co-operate with institutions, as well as their willingness to respect rules and comply with the law. As with trust in other public institutions, trust in the justice system is both informed by how institutions are perceived to perform and an important condition for their effective functioning (Tyler and Huo, 2002[9]; OECD, 2022[11]).
Trust develops over time and reflects both people’s direct experiences and their broader perceptions of how the justice system functions. At the societal level, it provides an indication of the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of the justice system and of the confidence people place in it. For a more extensive discussion of this outcome, see (OECD/HiiL/WJP, forthcoming[2]).
Internationally comparable data on trust in the justice system as a whole remain limited, and no single global dataset provides consistent coverage across the countries included in this report. This represents an important gap in the measurement of this aspect of people-centred justice. This report therefore uses the best available comparable measure: the share of people who report confidence in judges and magistrates.2 In the absence of more comprehensive comparable data, this provides a proxy for an important dimension of trust in the justice system, but should not be interpreted as capturing confidence in the system as a whole, perceptions of the fairness of justice processes or confidence in the full range of institutions and actors through which justice is delivered.
The indicator should also be distinguished from broader concepts of trustworthiness and diffuse institutional trust. Trustworthiness concerns the qualities institutions are expected to demonstrate, such as competence, integrity, independence, effectiveness and fairness. The indicator used here captures a more specific perception of confidence in judges and magistrates among respondents who experienced a nontrivial justice problem. Thus, the population for this indicator may have systematically different trust perceptions from the general population, as recent experience of a justice problem may affect both exposure to justice actors and views of the system.
Percentage of respondents with a nontrivial justice problem, showing the share who report high or some trust in judges and magistrates and the share who report little or no trust
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Respondents with a nontrivial justice problem were asked how much trust they had in judges and magistrates, which is used here as a measure of trust in the justice system. “High” or “some” trust is classified as trust, while “little” or “no” trust is classified as lack of trust; “don’t know” and missing responses are excluded. Nontrivial justice problems are those rated 4 or higher on a 0–10 scale, where 0 means “not serious at all” and 10 means “extremely serious.” “High” and “some” trust responses are combined; “little” and “no” trust responses are coded as no trust.
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
Trust in judges and magistrates varies more widely than several of the other indicators. The median country-level rate is 56%, while the middle range extends from 31% to 69%. Among OECD Member countries, the average is 57%, and 20 of the 34 members with available data record results above this level. Luxembourg, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark – all OECD Member countries – are among the countries reporting the highest levels of trust.
The results show substantial differences across countries and considerable scope to strengthen trust in justice actors. At the median, only slightly more than half of respondents report confidence in judges and magistrates. This variation may be shaped by a combination of direct experiences and broader perceptions of institutional integrity, competence, independence and responsiveness. Because the reference population consists of respondents who recently experienced a justice problem, the results may be impacted, both positively or negatively, by how justice actors communicate, manage proceedings and interact with users.
Trust in judges and magistrates is nevertheless only one dimension of trust in the justice system. People may have different experiences with and hence hold different views of judges, prosecutors, police, administrative authorities, legal aid providers, community-justice workers or the system as a whole. They may also distinguish between confidence in institutional independence and confidence in the ability of an individual actor to perform a particular function effectively.
The comparatively low results observed in several Latin American countries may merit analysis alongside the relatively high rates of problem resolution recorded in parts of the region. This combination may indicate that people are able to resolve problems through non-judicial, administrative or informal pathways even where confidence in judges and magistrates remains limited. It also illustrates why resolution cannot be treated as a proxy for trust in formal justice institutions.
The OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions provides internationally comparable evidence on people’s trust in public institutions and the factors associated with it. The OECD framework defines trust as a person’s belief that another person or institution will act consistently with their expectation of positive behaviour. The current survey does not include questions on most justice actors or on trust in the justice system as a whole. It does measure trust in the courts and the judicial system. For this, the survey asks respondents to indicate their level of trust on a scale from 0, meaning “not at all”, to 10, meaning “completely”. Responses from 6 to 10 are classified as high or moderately high trust, a response of 5 as neutral and responses from 0 to 4 as low or no trust.
The 2025 OECD Trust Survey covered representative samples of the adult population in 33 OECD Member countries. On average, 54% of respondents across the OECD reported high or moderately high trust in the courts and judicial system. The share with high or moderately high trust is equal to or exceeds 50% in 21 of the 33 participating OECD countries. Nevertheless, there is substantial variation in the recorded trust levels across countries, ranging from 24% to 77% of the overall population. Courts and the judicial system were among the most trusted public institutions covered by the survey, alongside the police and armed forces. Trust in the courts and judicial system has remained relatively stable over time, with the point estimate rising by approximately one percentage point between 2023 and 2025 among a stable group of participating countries.
As a survey of the general population, the OECD Trust Survey captures broad public perceptions, irrespective of whether respondents have recently interacted with a justice institution. It therefore complements legal needs surveys and user surveys that examine trust among people with recent justice problems or direct experience of justice services. As the Trust Survey measures the overall level of trust in the courts and judicial system, there is scope to deepen this measurement through a justice-specific assessment of trust drivers. Such an analysis could distinguish between different justice institutions and actors, capture people’s recent experiences with justice services and examine how trust relates to perceived responsiveness, reliability, fairness, openness and integrity. Disaggregating these results across population groups and between users and non-users of justice services could help explain not only whether people trust the justice system, but also why, providing a stronger evidence base for targeted reforms and regular comparative monitoring.
Note: Data from the OECD Trust Survey are not used to construct the trust indicator in this chapter because the survey does not cover all countries included in the report and measures trust among the general adult population, rather than specifically among people who have recently experienced a non-trivial justice problem. Annex A provides further information on the methodologies, reference populations and comparability of the data sources considered.
Source: (OECD, 2026[12]).
These findings underline both the importance of trust as an outcome of people-centred justice and the need to strengthen its measurement at the country level. At the national level, more comprehensive measurement can distinguish between trust in the justice system as a whole, trust in specific institutions and actors, and people’s expectations of their competence, integrity, independence, fairness and responsiveness.
Moreover, evidence from the justice literature highlights that trust is closely linked to how people experience justice processes (Tyler, 2006[7]; Tyler and Huo, 2002[9]; Grimes, 2006[13]), particularly in terms of procedural fairness – such as whether they are treated with respect, whether decisions are explained and whether processes are experienced as neutral and consistent. Trust may also be shaped by the extent to which these experiences meet, exceed or fall short of people’s expectations of justice institutions.
These findings highlight the value of making justice processes more accessible, transparent and responsive throughout the justice journey. Strengthening these aspects of service delivery can contribute to more positive user experiences and support the conditions under which trust is formed and maintained. Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 provides further analysis of how countries are addressing these issues through the design and delivery of people-centred legal and justice services.
Trust should be understood as both an outcome and an enabling condition for access to justice. Low trust can discourage people from seeking help, reporting problems, disclosing information, complying with procedures or using formal channels when needed. This can leave problems unresolved, contribute to the accumulation of related legal and non-legal difficulties and, over time, reinforce the conviction that engagement with the justice system is ineffective or not worthwhile (OECD, 2017[14]). This also points to the importance of measuring trust across the overall population, not only among people with recent interactions with justice institutions, as individuals displaying lower trust levels may be less likely to engage with the system in the first place.
People experience fewer justice problems over time
The objective of a justice system is not to prevent all justice problems from occurring. As in other areas of public policy, including health, some problems are an inevitable part of people’s lives and of increasingly complex societies and economies. From a people-centred justice and rule of law perspective, justice systems can contribute to prevention by helping identify recurring problems, supporting early resolution and limiting the wider consequences of problems that do occur. Data collected through justice institutions and related services can help reveal patterns in legal needs and justice problems, systemic shortcomings and service gaps, informing upstream policy responses beyond the justice sector. From this perspective, the prevalence of justice problems is relevant alongside their severity and the hardships they create. It provides a broader indication of how effectively justice systems and other public services prevent problems from developing into more significant or persistent difficulties in people’s lives.
Within this broader objective, prevention can be understood as falling into three categories. Primary prevention seeks to avert avoidable justice problems before they occur, for example by improving the clarity of laws and procedures, providing clarity on expected behaviour in key relationships, providing accessible information and addressing recurring sources of problems such as housing, employment or debt-related issues. Secondary prevention emphasises the early identification of issues and prompt intervention to prevent them from worsening. Tertiary prevention aims to mitigate harm once a problem has already arisen. Preventing justice problems is a shared responsibility across the justice system, with all actors playing a role in improving this outcome. Although problem occurrence may be driven by factors beyond the justice system, such as vulnerability, power differentials, economic instability or gaps in social and human services, justice actors need to understand needs and experiences of individuals in order to more effectively prevent the occurrence, worsening and consequences of justice problems (for a more extensive discussion of this outcome, see (OECD/HiiL/WJP, forthcoming[2])).
While Figure 2.4 presents the prevalence of nontrivial justice problems for surveyed countries, Figure 2.5 shows the percentage of respondents with a nontrivial justice problem who experienced any of four types of hardship arising from their justice problem in other areas of their lives: loss of income or employment, need to relocate or financial strain; physical ill health, injuries or stress-related illness; relationship breakdown or damage to a family relationship; and problems with alcohol or drugs.
The two indicators should be read together, but they measure different dimensions. Figure 2.4 captures how widespread nontrivial justice problems are in the overall population, while Figure 2.5 captures how often such problems lead to wider hardship among the subset of people who experienced a nontrivial justice problem. A country may therefore have a relatively lower prevalence of justice problems but a relatively higher share of hardship among those affected, or vice versa.
Percentage of respondents who experienced at least one nontrivial justice problem
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Respondents were asked whether they had experienced any of a specified list of justice problems in the previous two years and to rate the seriousness of each problem on a scale from 0 to 10. The indicator identifies respondents who experienced at least one nontrivial problem, defined as having a severity of 4 or above; respondents reporting only less serious problems or no problems are classified as not having experienced a nontrivial problem, while “don’t know” and missing responses are excluded.
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
The prevalence of justice problems varies more than any other indicator across the surveyed countries. The median country-level rate is 43%, meaning that in a typical country, about 4 in 10 people report experiencing at least one justice problem over that period. Overall prevalence levels are between 22% and 61% for three-quarters of countries surveyed3, that is, in most countries, between about 2 and 6 in 10 people report experiencing at least one such problem. The data suggest a broader challenge across countries: in over four-fifths (85%) of countries surveyed, at least one-quarter of respondents reported having experienced a justice problem over the previous two years.
Higher prevalence may reflect greater exposure to legal, social or economic risks, but it may also reflect differences in recognition, reporting and expectations across contexts. Standardised measures also help contextualise these data and shed light on the conditions under which people may underreport their justice problems. Indeed, more comprehensive comparative research by WJP (2023[15]; 2023[16]) indicates that, in low-income countries, justice problems that people rank as more serious are also more common. The Dissecting the Justice Gap in 104 Countries: WJP Justice Data Graphical Report I (WJP, 2023[16]) finds that people in low-income countries are more likely to normalise their problems.4 Moreover, the prevalence of problems involving the quality of public services tends to be lower in low-income countries, which could indicate relatively fewer justiciable issues in the quality of state functions, but could also reflect more limited coverage of those functions or lower access to public services.
Similarly, societal disparities that limit women’s access to areas of public life are associated with lower reported prevalence of these types of problems among women, and may also affect the recognition and reporting of family-related problems (WJP, 2023[15]). Conversely, in other contexts, women’s participation in these domains is associated with higher exposure to such disputes. Overall, these differences should not be interpreted solely as indicating that some countries are more heavily affected than others. Rather, they may also reflect variation in exposure to more complex economic and institutional environments, as well as to differences in participation between men and women in the public and private spheres.
In sum, these patterns underscore that variation in prevalence reflects not only differences in justice system performance, but also differences in social structure, economic and participation in the public sphere, and the types of problems people are able to recognise and report. Further analysis is therefore needed to disentangle variation by problem type, severity, institutional and socioeconomic context, and population group.
Percentage of respondents who experienced at least one hardship as a result of a justice problem, among those who experienced a nontrivial justice problem
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Respondents with at least one nontrivial justice problem, defined as having a severity of 4 or above on a scale from 0 to 10, were asked whether the problem had caused physical or stress-related ill health, damage to relationships, financial or employment difficulties, relocation or problems with alcohol or drugs. The indicator identifies respondents reporting at least one hardship; those reporting none are classified as not experiencing hardship, while respondents who answered “don’t know” or provided no answer to all hardship questions are excluded.
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
Regarding the indicator of hardships arising from justice problems, the countries surveyed show a median rate of 52%. This means that about half of respondents with nontrivial justice problems experienced a hardship in at least one area of their lives. In most countries surveyed (three out of four), this score ranges from 33% to 57%. Among OECD Member countries, the share ranges more widely, from 21% to 67% respondents. This indicator should not be interpreted as the share of the total population experiencing hardship from justice problems. Rather, it shows the likelihood that a nontrivial justice problem will produce wider consequences for those who experience such a problem.
These findings indicate that justice problems are often associated with wider adverse consequences beyond the immediate problem itself. The indicator therefore provides an important lens on tertiary prevention, as it captures whether justice problems lead to cascading harms in areas such as health, relationships, employment, income or substance use.
Variation across countries should nevertheless be interpreted with caution. Differences in reported hardship may reflect both the severity of justice problems and variation in how people experience and report their consequences. In some contexts, individuals may be less likely to associate or report sensitive or stigmatised outcomes, including stress, relationship breakdown or substance use, as consequences of justice problems. More broadly, cultural norms, social inequalities and differences between population groups may influence both exposure to compounding risks and reporting behaviour (Khirikoekkong and al, 2023[17]; Lipinski et al., 2023[18]).
Despite these caveats, the findings provide a comparable basis for examining how justice problems affect people’s lives across countries. Further analysis can help identify which types of justice problems are most likely to generate specific forms of hardship, and how these relationships vary across institutional and socioeconomic contexts.
Prevention policies should address the occurrence, escalation and consequences of justice problems. Prevalence and hardship data can help countries identify where preventive action is most likely to improve well-being and reduce demand for justice and other public services. Primary prevention focuses on recurring sources of avoidable problems, including through reforms to administrative procedures, consumer and labour protection, housing regulation, family-related services and access to public benefits. Secondary prevention requires accessible entry points, such as information services, community-based providers, legal assistance, ombudsperson institutions and social services, to identify and resolve emerging problems early. Tertiary prevention mitigates the wider consequences of problems that have already occurred, including through closer co-ordination between justice services and health, housing, employment, financial counselling and social protection systems.
Countries can also use prevalence and hardship data to support strategic planning and budgeting. Repeated legal needs surveys, linked where possible with administrative and evidence at the service level, can show whether reforms reduce the frequency of priority problems, limit their escalation or mitigate their effects. Longitudinal and subnational analysis would further strengthen the capacity to identify emerging risks and evaluate preventive interventions.
Related country practices are examined in Section 3.2 of Chapter 3, in relation to the use of legal needs and justice-problem data for preventative action and structural solutions, and in Section 3.6 of Chapter 3, in relation to people-centred, data-driven and evidence-based planning and budgeting.
People can obtain the information they need to recognise and solve their justice problems
The following three indicators turn from the final outcomes for people and businesses, to the functions that justice systems ought to provide. While justice systems perform a broad range of functions, the available internationally comparable data allow this report to examine three that are central to the justice journey: enabling people to obtain relevant information, providing assistance and advice, and providing mechanisms through which disputes and justice problems can be resolved. These dimensions represent important functions of a justice system, connecting its policies, institutions and services with the broader outcomes it seeks to achieve.
Access to information is a cornerstone of government transparency and open government as highlighted by the OECD Recommendation on Open Government [OECD/LEGAL/0438]. It enables people to seek, receive, use and share information, supports more informed engagement with public institutions and can help improve the relationship between government and citizens (OECD, 2022[19]). In the justice context, the openness of institutions is equally important. In the case of this outcome indicator, however, the relevant information function is more specific: it concerns people’s ability to obtain information that helps them recognise, understand and resolve justice problems. Open justice efforts contribute to the transparency of the justice system in general and support people’s ability to obtain the information they need, but more tailored effort is needed to ensure meaningful access to information.
Thus, the fourth indicator concerns whether people know where to get relevant information and advice about resolving their justice problems. The goal of this function is to improve people’s understanding of the nature of their problem, the conflict dynamics involved, and the rights and interests in play. The information should also outline possible pathways to resolve problems, what they entail and what is their effectiveness, and offer a practical framework for navigating the justice system. Access to information is often an entry point to resolving justice problems. People need information to recognise and understand their problems and identify the (legal and other) options available to address them. Information must be timely, clear, accurate, actionable and widely available through trusted entry points in communities, so that problems can be resolved effectively. Information relevant to resolving justice problems may include legal information, but also information about available services, effective ways to deal with conflicts, how to navigate power differentials, and practical options and pathways available towards resolution. Information is distinct from broader assistance or advice in that it involves no specific directive, recommendation, or guidance on how users should respond to their justice problems (for a more extensive discussion of this outcome, see (OECD/HiiL/WJP, forthcoming[2]).
Percentage of respondents who experienced a nontrivial justice problem and reported that they knew where to get good information and advice about resolving the problem
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Respondents with at least one nontrivial justice problem were asked whether they agreed that they knew where to obtain good information about resolving it. “Strongly agree” or “agree” is classified as knowing where to obtain information, while “disagree” or “strongly disagree” is classified as not knowing; “don’t know” and missing responses are excluded. The indicator captures perceived knowledge of where to access information rather than whether information was obtained. Nontrivial justice problems are those rated 4 or higher on a 0–10 scale, where 0 means “not serious at all” and 10 means “extremely serious.”
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
Gaps remain in people’s knowledge where to obtain information about resolving justice problems. The median country-level rate is 67%, meaning that, in a typical country, around one in three respondents on average report not knowing where to obtain good information and advice about resolving their problem. In three-quarters of the countries surveyed, between 56% and 73% of respondents with justice problems report knowing where to obtain good information about resolving them. Moreover, in 91% of countries, at least one-quarter of respondents report that they did not have access to the information they needed. Among OECD Member countries, values range from 46% to 77%.
The results indicate that information is available to many in most countries, but coverage remains incomplete. Country-level differences may reflect the visibility and reach of information services, public awareness of available channels, legal capability and the accessibility of digital, institutional and community-based entry points.
Knowing where information may be found also does not necessarily mean that the information is usable. Its contribution to resolving a problem depends on whether it is accurate, current, understandable and relevant to the user’s circumstances. People may formally have access to information but remain unable to identify the most effective approach or process, assess their options or take the next step. Awareness-raising is therefore important not only to help people locate existing public information, but also to ensure they understand how to request further information where this is needed to clarify rights, procedures or available services.
Where people seek and obtain information when faced with a justice problem is itself an empirical question. The existence of an authoritative source of information does not necessarily mean that people know about it, regard it as relevant or trusted, or encounter it at the point at which they need it. Understanding the channels people use in practice, including public institutions, digital services, professionals, community organisations and personal networks, can therefore help countries assess whether information provision is reaching its intended users and where gaps remain.
Improving this intermediate outcome at the country level requires looking beyond the supply side, of making information available, to whether it reaches people in forms they can understand and use to resolve their problems. Justice-related information should be designed around the questions and circumstances people encounter in their daily lives, rather than primarily around institutional structures. This may involve organising information by problem type, life event or user journey and explaining available options, likely costs, expected timelines and sources of further assistance.
Information provision should reflect evidence on where and how people seek information in practice and be available through multiple accessible channels. Digital platforms can extend reach, but should be complemented by radio, television, telephone, in-person and community-based provision for people facing digital exclusion, language barriers, disability or low legal capability. Standards related to communication in plain language, accessibility requirements and user testing can improve the usability of information across these channels.
Countries may also benefit from applying a “no wrong door” approach.5 Information provided by courts, administrative bodies, legal aid services, local authorities and community organisations should connect users to effective triage and referral. People should not be expected to understand institutional mandates before seeking help.
Quality assurance is also important. Public information relevant to justice problems, available services and resolution pathways should be regularly reviewed, updated and aligned across institutions. Clear institutional responsibility for content, referral directories and service information can reduce inconsistency and prevent people from being directed towards outdated or unsuitable pathways. Depending on the institutional context, ombuds institutions, central government authorities or co-ordination bodies within the justice sector may also support quality assurance by promoting standards, monitoring compliance and helping ensure that information is accurate, accessible and up to date.
Measurement should extend beyond whether information exists. Relevant questions include whether people can find it, understand it, trust it and use it to take effective action. Disaggregation can help identify groups for whom information provision remains inaccessible or insufficient.
Chapter 3 examines these issues further in Section 3.3 on people empowerment, particularly in relation to clear, communication in plain language and access to legal information, and in Section 3.4 of Chapter 3, in relation to seamless pathways and co-ordination across services.
People obtain the assistance and advice they need to solve their justice problems
Information alone will not always enable people to resolve a justice problem. At the same time, not every justice problem requires assistance or advice: some people may be able to resolve their problem through self-help, direct engagement with the other party or the use of information that is sufficiently clear and actionable. Depending on the nature of the problem and people’s circumstances and capabilities, they may need tailored assistance or advice to understand their situation, assess the options available and take meaningful steps towards resolution. Unlike general information, assistance and advice involve applying relevant expertise, skills and knowledge to individual circumstances, including through analysis, personalised guidance, referrals or support with specific tasks. For individuals with stronger legal capability, limited support, such as brief guidance, communication templates or referral to an appropriate service, may be sufficient. Those with lower legal capability, overlapping vulnerabilities or multiple justice problems may require more comprehensive and integrated support, accessible through trusted community-based entry points.
Such support can help people resolve problems before they escalate or generate wider consequences, improving outcomes for people while also reducing costs and demand on courts, justice services and other public services. Regardless of which intermediary provides it, assistance and advice can be essential, particularly for those navigating fragmented justice systems or systems with weak referral pathways (for a more extensive discussion of this outcome, see (OECD/HiiL/WJP, forthcoming[2])).
Percentage of respondents with a nontrivial justice problem who needed assistance, advice or representation, by whether they obtained such support from a qualifying source
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Respondents with at least one nontrivial justice problem were asked whether they, or someone acting on their behalf, obtained information, advice or representation and from which source. Among respondents who needed such support, assistance obtained from a qualifying professional, public, workplace, health, welfare, community or civil society source, or a personal contact with a legal background, is classified as adequate; assistance obtained only from a non-qualifying source or not obtained at all is classified as inadequate. Respondents who considered assistance unnecessary, and “don’t know” or missing responses, are excluded. Nontrivial justice problems are those rated 4 or higher on a 0–10 scale, where 0 means “not serious at all” and 10 means “extremely serious.”
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
The data show that, among respondents who needed tailored support, access to assistance and advice is lower than awareness of where to obtain good information and advice. This comparison should be interpreted with caution: lower use of assistance and advice is not necessarily problematic where people can resolve their problems through self-help, direct negotiation or information that is sufficient for their needs. However, among those who needed such support, the results indicate that many did not obtain it. The median country-level rate is 38%, and in three-quarters of countries between 32% and 46% of those who needed assistance or advice obtained it. In most countries, therefore, most people who needed tailored support did not receive it.
Among the 40 countries with complete information across the three parts of the justice journey captured by these indicators, assistance and advice constitute the most common point at which people do not obtain a service they need. This is the largest access gap in 24 countries, while only four countries report access by a majority of those needing support.
The OECD average is 39%. Thirteen OECD Member countries record values above this level and Australia is at the average. Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands report access exceeding 50%. The findings suggest that assistance and advice represent a significant gap for people whose needs cannot be met through information or self-help alone. People may recognise that they have a problem and find general information but still be unable to interpret their options, take practical steps, prepare documents, engage with another party or navigate a procedure. Appropriate assistance or advice seeks to enable solutions that remove the need for further or more formal mechanisms. Where provided early and effectively, such support may help resolve problems before further escalation or the use of more formal mechanisms becomes necessary.
Differences in access may reflect not only the volume of available services, but also eligibility rules, cost, geographic coverage, awareness, trust and the organisation of referral pathways. Available services may also be insufficiently tailored to what people need or to intimidating to contact. Fragmentation among providers may result in people approaching several organisations without obtaining the support needed to progress.
For countries, these findings point to the need to treat assistance and advice as a core public-service function within their justice system. Support should be available through an appropriate mix of legal aid institutions, lawyers, public authorities, community organisations, unions, social and health professionals and qualified non-lawyer providers. The key question is whether people can obtain reliable help at the point in time and place where they need it, through simple and accessible channels, and whether triage and referral arrangements can match the intensity of support to the complexity of the problem.
This requires clear eligibility rules, strong intake services, accessible application processes, community-based and digital channels, quality standards and follow-up where users face a heightened risk of disengagement. Funding and commissioning arrangements can also support outcomes by encouraging early intervention, effective resolution, avoided escalation and fair and sustainable results, rather than only volumes of activity. Related country approaches are discussed in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3, on the design and delivery of people-centred legal and justice services, and Section 3.4, on governance arrangements that support seamless pathways across services. The link between resources, services and outcomes is further addressed in Section 3.6 of Chapter 3, on participatory and evidence-based planning, monitoring and evaluation.
People obtain access to the dispute resolution mechanism they need to solve their justice problems
Many justice problems can be effectively and fairly resolved through information, advice, assistance or direct engagement between those involved. Where these efforts do not lead to resolution, or where the nature of the problem requires additional intervention, people need access to an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. Such mechanisms provide an important means of reaching agreement, obtaining a third-party determination or securing a remedy, and should enable people to do so without disproportionate financial or other costs.
Access to fair, trusted and effective mechanisms for resolving disputes is a key function of the justice system when problems cannot be resolved through earlier or less formal means, or where third-party intervention is otherwise required. Such mechanisms may include courts, administrative bodies, arbitration, mediation, conciliation, customary or community-based forums, or restorative processes. A people-centred justice system ensures that a range of resolution options are available, affordable, geographically accessible and linked through effective referral pathways, allowing individuals to reach the mechanism that best meets their needs. Regardless of how formal a mechanism is or who provides it, this outcome focuses on whether people facing justice problems can access the dispute resolution support they require (for a more extensive discussion of this outcome, see (OECD/HiiL/WJP, forthcoming[2]).
Percentage of respondents who accessed a dispute resolution mechanism, among those with a nontrivial justice problem who needed such a service
Note: Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country. Respondents with at least one nontrivial justice problem were asked whether they, someone acting on their behalf, the other party or anyone else had approached a court or another third party to adjudicate, mediate or otherwise help resolve the problem. Among respondents who needed such a mechanism, its use is classified as access, while non-use due to procedural delays, fear or power imbalances, lack of knowledge, practical access barriers or distrust is classified as lack of access. Respondents whose reasons were classified as choosing not to use a mechanism, and “don’t know” or missing responses, are excluded. Nontrivial justice problems are those rated 4 or higher on a 0–10 scale, where 0 means “not serious at all” and 10 means “extremely serious.”
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
The median country-level rate of access to dispute resolution mechanisms is 42%. In three-quarters of countries, between 30% and 51% of those who needed third-party support accessed an appropriate mechanism. At the median, therefore, fewer than half of those who needed third-party support were able to access it, and in many contexts, therefore, a substantial share of people who need adjudication, mediation or another form of facilitated resolution are unable to reach it.
Among the 40 countries with complete data across the access indicators, dispute resolution constitutes the largest access gap in 16 countries. Only six countries report that most people who needed a mechanism accessed one. The range among OECD Member countries is also wide, from 20% to 61%.
Country results illustrate the diversity of institutional settings through which dispute resolution is delivered. Across the OECD Member countries, Costa Rica reports the highest access rates, followed by Colombia, Greece and Malta. These pathways may include courts, administrative bodies, mediation, conciliation, ombudsperson services and community-based mechanisms.
Access to a mechanism should not, however, be treated as synonymous with effective resolution. Mechanisms may differ in timeliness, affordability, enforceability, procedural safeguards and capacity to respond to the underlying problem. Conversely, some people may resolve their problems directly and have no need for third-party intervention. The indicator appropriately focuses on those who needed a mechanism, but further information is required to determine whether the mechanism accessed was suitable and effective.
The relationship with assistance and advice is also important. People may be unable to identify the appropriate forum, understand procedural requirements or assess the implications of different options without prior support. Weak referral pathways can lead to delay, repeated transfers between institutions or the use of processes poorly suited to the problem.
A key policy consideration is whether the available mix of dispute resolution mechanisms enables people to access the form of intervention best suited to their problem. It is also important that common justice problems are mapped against the mechanisms available to resolve them. In practice, this can help identify geographic gaps, overlapping mandates and problem types for which no appropriate pathway exists. Such an approach can also support clearer rules on jurisdiction, referral, costs, timelines and the enforceability of outcomes.
Factors that can prevent or discourage people from using an appropriate mechanism, including cost, distance, complexity, fear of consequences and uncertainty about where to go should be addressed systematically. Simplified procedures, proportionate fees, remote participation and accessible local entry points may improve reach. For users who fear retaliation, stigma or escalation, confidential advice, safe reporting channels, protection measures and referrals to specialised support may be needed. Digital mechanisms can provide additional options but should not replace in-person channels for users who need them.
All mechanisms should provide appropriate standards of impartiality, integrity, participation, transparency and review, adjusted to their function and level of formality. Access to dispute resolution should be connected to information, assistance and advice. Strong intake, triage and referral systems can help people reach the forum suited to their problem without unnecessary delay where third-party intervention is needed. Where a mechanism cannot provide the required remedy, the institution or service provider first contacted should conduct a proper intake, help triage the case and refer users to an appropriate alternative, rather than expecting them to restart their justice journey. Such a responsibility may concern courts, legal aid providers, alternative dispute resolution bodies, ombuds institutions, administrative complaint bodies, community justice services or other front-line providers, depending on the entry point.
Monitoring should cover not only whether a mechanism was accessed, but also the type of mechanism, reasons for use or non-use, timeliness, cost, user experience, effectiveness, outcome and subsequent compliance. This would enable policymakers to assess whether the available mix of mechanisms provides effective and sustainable routes to justice.
Chapter 3 further examines these issues in Section 2, in relation to understanding legal needs and justice problems and ensuring access to appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms; Section 3, in relation to the design and delivery of a continuum of legal and justice services; and Section 6, in relation to monitoring, evaluation and evidence on what works to resolve people’s problems.
Cross-cutting policy insights
The following policy implications should be read in light of the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, particularly its emphasis on people-centred purpose and culture, evidence-based planning, seamless pathways to legal and justice-related services, innovation and co-ordination across justice, legal, human and social services. Chapter 3 analyses countries’ progress in advancing people-centred justice systems across these dimensions.
The analyses above emphasise the value of assessing the justice system through the lens of the outcomes achieved for society. No single measure provides a complete picture of whether a justice system meets people’s needs. Problems may be resolved, but through processes experienced as unfair. Information may be available but not followed by the assistance needed to act on it. Trust in the judiciary may remain low even where people succeed in addressing their problems through formal pathways. Therefore, it is important to examine how the different outcomes reinforce, or fail to reinforce, one another across the justice journey.
Resolution and procedural fairness need to be pursued together
The findings indicate that achieving resolution is not only a question of providing a final decision or settlement. In several countries, comparatively high problem resolution rates coincide with positive experiences of fairness. Greece, Poland, Lithuania and Colombia, for example, record relatively high values for both indicators. This pattern may indicate that people are more likely to regard a problem as genuinely resolved when they feel heard, respected and able to understand how the process reached its outcome. However, the relationship is not uniform. For example, countries such as France and Argentina report comparatively strong resolution rates but more moderate experiences of fairness.
These scores make it evident that the quality of problem-resolution process and substantive resolution should be pursued together. For policymakers, this underlines the importance of embedding procedural fairness throughout justice services, including at early points of contact and in administrative, community-based and informal mechanisms. Opportunities to participate, respectful treatment and just, transparent procedures all affect whether people accept outcomes. These principles matter beyond courts. They are relevant wherever people interact with institutions or third parties to seek a solution to their justice problem.
High resolution does not necessarily translate into trust in the judiciary
A second pattern is the coexistence, in several countries, of high problem-resolution rates and low trust in judges and magistrates. Particularly visible in parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, this combination can be seen in Chile, Peru, Mexico and Colombia. It may suggest that people are resolving problems through a wide range of channels, including administrative bodies, complaint mechanisms, mediation, community-based services, direct negotiation and informal support. Resolution should therefore not be interpreted as evidence that people necessarily trust, or even use, the formal judicial system. Nor does a positive resolution outcome necessarily address wider concerns about judicial integrity, independence or institutional performance.
This has implications for the design of people-centred justice systems. Governments need to look beyond institutional silos and recognise the full ecosystem through which people seek help. Courts remain essential, especially where authoritative decisions or enforceable remedies are required as a last resort. But many justice problems may be prevented or better addressed through earlier, simpler or more specialised pathways. In line with the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems [OECD/LEGAL/0498], a balanced system would offer a range of accessible mechanisms, supported by clear mandates, safeguards and referral arrangements. The objective is not to steer all problems towards a single institution. It is to help people reach the pathway most likely to meet their needs and most effective at resolving their problems.
The differences between experienced fairness and trust also merit attention. In Lithuania, Bulgaria, Colombia and Peru, for example, assessments of the fairness of resolution processes are substantially more positive than reported trust in judges and magistrates. This may reflect the difference between a direct experience with justice services and a broader perception of institutional integrity, independence or competence. A person may consider a particular process fair without developing greater confidence in the judiciary as a whole. Building trust is therefore likely to require more than improvements in individual case handling. It may also depend on institutional integrity, transparency, accountability and the visible capacity of justice actors to respond to people’s needs over time. For this reason, experience- and perception-based indicators are most useful when interpreted alongside administrative and institutional data. These sources can provide a more complete picture of whether justice systems have the necessary safeguards in place, how people experience those safeguards in practice and whether they translate into confidence in the justice system.
Note: The table presents the data included in Figures 2.1–2.8 above. Higher values indicate greater attainment for resolution, fairness, trust and access indicators. For the prevalence and hardship indicators, higher values indicate a greater incidence of justice problems or associated hardship. Data were collected between 2017 and 2024, with the reference year varying by country, and covers respondents with at least one nontrivial justice problem reported in the two years preceding the interview. Nontrivial justice problems are those rated 4 or higher on a 0–10 scale, where 0 means “not serious at all” and 10 means “extremely serious.”
Source: Elaborated based on WJP’s estimates from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey.
Information should enable self-help and referral
The access-related indicators point to an important distinction between awareness of information and access to tailored support where it is needed. Across many countries, people appear able to identify where information can be found, but fewer obtain personalised support among those who need it. This situation is especially pronounced in Indonesia, Peru and the Republic of Türkiye. Australia and the United Kingdom also report comparatively broad access to information but considerably lower access to assistance and advice. Information can open the door to justice, but it does not by itself ensure that people can use the system. This should not be read as suggesting that all justice problems require assistance or advice. In some cases, clear information, self-help tools or direct engagement may be sufficient. The policy concern arises where people need more tailored support to interpret their options, make decisions or take the next step, but are not able to obtain it.
These considerations suggest a need to strengthen continuity across services, in line with the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, which emphasises seamless pathways to legal and justice services across justice, legal, human and social services. Public legal information should be connected to effective triage, referral and follow-up where further support is needed. Digital platforms, hotlines, community services and public institutions should not operate as isolated entry points. They should guide people to either act on reliable information themselves or reach appropriate advice, social support or dispute resolution where needed. Particular attention may be required for people with lower legal capability, limited digital access, language barriers, disabilities or overlapping social and economic vulnerabilities.
Assistance and advice appear to be a common pressure point for people who need more tailored support. Even in countries where many people know where to seek good information, those who need more tailored support may still not receive it. Policy responses may therefore need to focus not only on increasing the number of services, but also on how those services are organised and delivered. This includes simplifying eligibility rules, reducing cost and distance barriers, expanding community-based provision, improving co-ordination among providers and ensuring that support is available early enough to prevent problems from escalating. The lower levels of access to assistance relative to awareness of information suggest that the transition from general information to personalised support may represent a break in the justice journey for those who need such support.
Access alone does not guarantee effective resolution
The relationship between assistance, access to dispute resolution and final resolution is nevertheless not automatic. Liberia, for example, reports comparatively broad access to dispute resolution mechanisms but a considerably lower resolution rate. Mexico and Portugal, by contrast, combine a high resolution rate with the level of access to assistance and advice below the OECD average. Indonesia presents a similar contrast between high resolution and very low access to assistance. These patterns may reflect differences in problem type, institutional quality and the extent to which people resolve matters independently or with the support of family and community networks. They also underline that lower use of assistance and advice does not necessarily indicate a poorer outcome where people are able to resolve problems effectively through self-help or informal support. Access should therefore be assessed together with the appropriateness, quality and effectiveness of the service provided. Reaching a mechanism is only one step. Whether it delivers a timely, fair and sustainable outcome is equally important.
Prevention requires attention to both the frequency and consequences of justice problems
The indicators on problem prevalence and hardship further underline the case for a stronger focus on prevention. Countries with relatively low reported prevalence can still record substantial hardship among those who experience a justice problem. Sierra Leone and the Dominican Republic provide examples of this pattern. Conversely, comparatively high prevalence of justice problems does not always coincide with the most severe consequences: Lithuania reports one of the higher prevalence rates but a comparatively low level of hardship. The number of problems people experience and the harm those problems cause are distinct policy concerns. Both matter.
Prevention strategies should therefore address different stages of the justice journey. Primary prevention can target recurring sources of disputes through clearer regulation, better administrative processes and stronger consumer, labour, housing and family protections. Earlier access to information and assistance can support secondary prevention by helping people act before problems intensify. Where hardship has already occurred, co-ordination with health, social protection, employment and housing services may be needed to mitigate wider consequences and reduce the risk of further problems. In countries where substantial hardship coincides with limited access to assistance, such as Korea or Mexico, the results may require closer examination of opportunities for earlier intervention and more integrated support. Chapter 3 further examines these issues through country approaches to translating data on legal needs and justice problems into preventative action and structural solutions, and through related discussions on people-centred service design and seamless pathways across justice and other public services.
Overall, patterns visible across indicators point towards an end-to-end approach to justice policy. Countries may benefit from using the outcome indicators as a diagnostic tool: to identify where people lose access, where processes are not experienced as fair, where trust remains fragile and where justice problems generate wider harm. Different combinations of outcomes will call for different policy responses.
High awareness of where to obtain information combined with low access to assistance, as observed in Indonesia or Peru, may signal either that information and self-help are sufficient for some users, or that referral systems and tailored support remain insufficient for those who need them. Further national analysis is needed to distinguish between these explanations.
High resolution combined with low trust, as in several Latin American countries, may point to the importance of non-judicial pathways while also indicating broader institutional concerns. High hardship alongside limited support may justify stronger early intervention and cross-sector co-ordination.
These patterns remain descriptive and should be interpreted in light of national contexts, differences in reporting practices and the characteristics of the problems covered. Even so, they underline a central policy message: justice systems depend not on the performance of one institution or service, but on whether the system as a whole enables people to recognise their problems, obtain appropriate support, experience fair processes, reach effective resolution and avoid further harm.
References
[1] de Langen, M., T. Teplova and G. Mulherin (2026), “Towards a measurement framework for people-centred justice systems”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 92, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f4c9dccb-en.
[3] Genn, H. (1999), Paths to Justice What people do and think about going to law, Bloomsbury Publishing.
[13] Grimes, M. (2006), “Organizing Consent: The Role of Procedural Fairness in Political Trust and Compliance”, European Journal of Political Research, pp. 285-315.
[10] Hough, M. (2010), “Procedural Justice, Trust, and Institutional Legitimacy”, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, pp. 203-210, https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paq027.
[17] Khirikoekkong, N. and E. al (2023), “Culturally responsive research ethics: How the socio-ethical norms of Arr-nar/Kreng-jai inform research participation at the Thai-Myanmar border”, PLOS Global Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001875.
[18] Lipinski, R. et al. (2023), Interpreting Survey Findings: Can Survey Results Be Compared across Organizations and Countries?, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/309c6aef-4ef0-4b99-b657-fb57798bdf48/content.
[12] OECD (2026), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results: Navigating Rising Expectations and New Horizons, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9eb63fec-en.
[6] OECD (2025), Making Justice Systems More Effective and People Centred: Advancing a Responsive Rule of Law, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e02fd90b-en.
[11] OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en.
[19] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
[14] OECD (2017), Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268920-en.
[2] OECD/HiiL/WJP (forthcoming), Measuring the Outcomes of People-Centred Justice: A Set of Internationally Comparable Outcome Indicators.
[4] Pleasence, P., N. Balmer and R. Sandefur (2013), Paths to justice: A past, present and future roadmap, The Nuffield Foundation.
[5] Sandefur, R. (2007), The Importance of Doing Nothing: Everyday Problems and Responses of Inaction, Stationery Office Books.
[7] Tyler, T. (2006), Why People Obey the Law, Yale University Press.
[8] Tyler, T. (2000), “Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 35/2, pp. 117-125, https://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399411.
[9] Tyler, T. and Y. Huo (2002), Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts, Russell Sage Foundation.
[15] WJP (2023), Disparities, Vulnerability, and Harnessing Data for People-Centered Justice: WJP Justice Data Graphical Report II, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-justice-data-graphical-report-ii.
[16] WJP (2023), Dissecting the Justice Gap in 104 Countries: WJP Justice Data Graphical Report I, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-justice-data-graphical-report-i/.
← 1. These results have to be treated with caution. They are based on a single question in the WJP survey regarding the fairness of the process, which may be difficult to interpret for respondents who have been involved in a number of processes on their pathway to resolution. The state of the art in procedural justice research is to break down procedural fairness in components related to feeling heard, interests being recognised, being able to participate in finding solutions, being respected as a person, being informed about the process, being able to submit and correct information, as well as perceived impartiality of the process.
← 2. The OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions was not used for this indicator in order to preserve comparability across countries. While the survey includes a question on trust in “courts and the judicial system”, the wording differs from the measure used in this report, which focuses on confidence in “judges and magistrates”. In addition, the latest OECD Trust Survey data do not cover all OECD Member countries for this specific indicator. Therefore, this report uses the best available comparable measure across the country sample.
← 3. This range covers the central 75% of countries in the distribution (i.e. between the 12.5th and 87.5th percentiles).
← 4. For example, homelessness is considered a problem with a severity of 4 out of 10, while in high-income countries people experiencing this problem rank it, on average, at around 7 out of 10
← 5. A “no wrong door” approach means that people can access help through any entry point in the justice or broader service system and be guided to the appropriate support, rather than being turned away because they contacted the “wrong” institution. In practice, this approach requires effective referral pathways, co-ordination among providers, shared information protocols and sufficient capacity across legal, administrative, social, health and community-based services.