Making Justice Systems More Effective and People Centred

5. Administrative justice as the interface between people and institutions

Abstract

Administrative justice is central to rebuilding trust between people and public institutions by ensuring fairness, accountability, and responsiveness in everyday interactions with the state. This chapter discusses administrative justice as the framework linking people and government through principles of fairness and the rule of law, encompassing ombuds institutes, tribunals, and complaints systems. It then examines people’s experiences, legal needs, procedural fairness, and frontline interactions, showing how these shape perceptions of legitimacy. The chapter discusses the constitutional and governance roles of administrative justice institutions, highlighting their evolution, participatory and non-adversarial practices, and integration of digital transformation. Finally, it presents how administrative justice contributes to good governance, coordination, and civil society engagement, promoting relational, preventative, and people-centred approaches that strengthen trust in institutions and contribute to effective public governance. 

Introduction

Public services is where most people encounter the state: in the delivery of housing, healthcare, education, benefits, and other essential services. Administrative justice is central to those everyday interactions, when they go right, but especially when something goes wrong. When these systems function well, they enable individuals to access their rights, resolve problems, and participate fully in society and the economy. In such cases, the state provides people with dignity and security as a foundation for prosperity. When designed to be people-centred, accessible, responsive, and inclusive, administrative justice helps restore fractured relationships between individuals and public authorities and reinforces the legitimacy of public institutions. When they fail, however, they risk eroding trust and entrenching inequality.

The abiding challenge for administrative justice is therefore the restoration of productive relationships between aggrieved people and the state. Whereas administrative law is primarily concerned with the rationality and proportionality of executive decision-making, and with the processes that guarantee the fairness of such decisions, administrative justice takes into account the broader context in which administrative decisions are made and the impact on people and public institutions of these decisions as well as their contestation. For the purposes of this chapter, administrative justice is understood to be the framework of principles, institutions, and processes that govern how people and the state interact, ensuring accountability in public administration, fair resolution of disputes, access to redress and effective resolution of problems, and broader systemic improvement beyond traditional administrative law.

This chapter explores the evolving role of administrative justice and public complaints mechanisms as foundational components of people-centred justice. It examines how everyday interactions between people and public authorities shape perceptions of fairness, trust, and legitimacy, and how the response to their grievances about such encounters through accessible, responsive, and inclusive administrative justice mechanisms can help rebuild fractured relationships. The chapter aims to illustrate how administrative justice systems shape, and are shaped by, lived experience. When individuals feel heard, respected, and fairly treated, justice institutions not only resolve disputes more efficiently, but they enable dignity, reinforce democratic values, and contribute to more effective public administration. 

The chapter draws on a broad evidence base, including comparative research and practical examples from OECD member and partner countries, to illustrate how administrative justice systems can fulfil this democratic function. It highlights key innovations and institutional practices that strengthen the interface between individuals and public institutions, not only by resolving disputes, but by supporting continuous feedback and learning across government systems. Strengthening administrative justice requires attention to the broader justice ecosystem, including ombuds institutes, tribunals, civil society actors, and frontline officials. Each plays a role in making justice relational, participatory, and transformative. 

This chapter is guided by the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems and reflects and reinforces the five principles of people-centred justice as articulated in the Justice for All report and endorsed in The Hague Declaration: putting people and their legal needs at the centre of justice systems; solving justice problems; improving the quality of justice pathways; using justice for preventative purposes; and enabling people to access services and opportunities.

Administrative justice in theory: The rule of law

Administrative justice as a broad concept

Administrative justice shapes how people experience government. Unlike criminal or civil justice, it is not primarily about litigation, but about how individuals interact with the state in everyday matters: from accessing social benefits and housing to resolving disputes about immigration or taxation. These are often the most frequent and consequential encounters people have with public institutions.

As welfare systems and the provision of public services have expanded, attention has shifted to how a wide range of institutions (such as tribunals, ombuds institutes, public inquiries, human rights bodies and courts) help resolve disputes between people and the state and improve government services. This broader view of administrative justice strengthens democratic engagement and offers a valuable, often overlooked, way to rebuild trust in public institutions.

Administrative justice is not just a legal framework. It influences how fair, transparent, and responsive government is perceived to be. Its defining and unifying feature is its engagement with the relationship between individuals and the state. Apart from formal legal processes, it includes informal mechanisms that help individuals raise concerns, challenge decisions, and receive answers. In doing so, it plays a crucial role in upholding public trust in institutions and in determining how the rule of law is experienced in practice. It connects individuals to public institutions through systems that either reinforce or undermine the values of the rule of law and democracy.

A wide range of public decisions shape people's access to essential services and opportunities. These include matters related to identity documents, housing, education, social care, health care, welfare benefits, taxation, and immigration. Ensuring that these processes are fair, transparent, and navigable is a core function of a just and accountable state.

The institutional breadth of administrative justice can be illustrated by the wide range of actors engaged in its practice, including ombuds institutes, complaint handlers, civil servants, specialist tribunals, alternative dispute resolution providers, and public inquiries. This reflects the broad definition of the justice system set out in the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice, which recognises the essential role of civil society organisations, private and semi-public actors, and volunteer-based initiatives that help individuals navigate bureaucracy, access services, and stand up for their rights (OECD, 2023[1]).

This thematic and institutional breadth in turn finds expression in the incidence of administrative justice interactions: a UK report in 2015 found that there had been 1.4 million complaints about public services through various redress systems in one year at a processing cost of £510 million; of the 32% of the population who had experienced a legal problem in the preceding 18 months, 10% were concerned with problems with public administration, with 34% of those problems remaining unresolved (Low Commission on the Future of Advice and Legal Support, 2015[2]).

Together, this thematic and institutional diversity reflects the scale and complexity of the administrative justice ecosystem in many OECD countries. It underscores the importance of inclusive, people-centred approaches that consider the full range of institutions, both formal and informal, that support individuals in resolving problems with the state.

The rule of law and responsive legality

Administrative justice supports the rule of law not only by operating as a source of legal enforcement, but by giving effect to norms that are consistent with the law and grounded in broader ethical principles. It does so through institutions that are not only courts, and by reference to standards that are informed by legal frameworks but are often not themselves laws. Administrative justice is in this way closely aligned with a responsive rule of law.

This distinction matters. People’s experience of administrative justice starts with concrete problems they encounter in accessing public benefits or in the interactions with public officials. Individuals seek redress or clarification not only through courts, but through ombuds institutes, complaint mechanisms, mediation services, or public inquiries. These institutions operate on principles such as fairness, proportionality, participation, and accountability. They help to resolve disputes, correct mistakes, and improve decision-making processes without resorting to litigation.

A responsive legal approach prioritises purpose and problem-solving. It encourages public institutions to act not only within the limits of the law, but in ways that are attentive to people’s needs. This orientation can help prevent conflict, build trust, and strengthen the legitimacy of public authority.

As administrative justice becomes more responsive, it can become an instrument of institutional transformation. Administrative justice mechanisms are critical tools for identifying recurring issues in service delivery and administrative processes. Responsive institutions are able to view the resolution of individual claims not merely as an end in itself, but as an opportunity for disclosing systemic problems and as constructive sources of administrative intelligence. By analysing complaints and appeals, institutions can generate valuable insights into systemic problems and use this knowledge to inform policy and organisational reform. In this sense, individual grievances become a source of administrative learning and a trigger for institutional change.

Seen through this lens, administrative justice expands the reach of the rule of law. It brings legal and ethical standards into people’s everyday interactions with the state. It helps to close the gap between law on the books and law in practice, and between the promise of the rule of law and its delivery on the ground.

Relational and democratic norms

Administrative justice requires a nuanced and expansive interpretation of the rule of law that goes beyond the more restricted notion derived from the administrative law tradition. It is that nuanced interaction with the rule of law that enriches administrative justice’s efficacy as an interface and enables it to recognise the way in which administrative authorities function as the linchpins of everyday democracy - the pressure points at which individuals engage with the workings of the state.

Everyday engagement with public institutions often starts with practical problems in people's daily lives, such as a delay in receiving a benefit, confusion over an administrative decision, or difficulty accessing a public service (Task Force on Justice, 2019[3]). Given that nearly one in five citizens experience a justice problem related to public services (Task Force on Justice, 2019[3]), such experiences shape how individuals perceive the fairness and responsiveness of public institutions. When individuals raise concerns or challenge decisions, responsive administrative justice mechanisms can help resolve these concerns quickly and fairly, rebuild trust where it has been weakened, and strengthen the relationship between people and public institutions.

By providing clear processes for addressing individual concerns and learning from them, administrative justice reinforces societal resilience and institutional responsiveness and supports continuous improvement in public governance.

Administrative justice in practice

The practice of administrative justice is shaped by the interaction between people and institutions, both from the perspective of individuals navigating public services and that of frontline officials delivering them. On one side, individuals act as rights-holders and service users, bringing expectations, questions, and concerns to their encounters with the state. On the other, public officials exercise discretion and judgement in applying rules and responding to individual circumstances.

Administrative justice reflects the constitutional role of its institutions, the contributions of civil society, and the quality of relationships between all actors involved. These elements together influence how fair, effective, and people-centred administrative systems are in practice. Understanding administrative justice in this broader way, grounded in real-world interactions and relationships, opens space for more inclusive, responsive, and legitimate approaches to public decision-making.

People’s agency in administrative justice

Insights from socio-legal analysis research have significantly deepened our understanding of people’s agency in the context of administrative justice. Four key strands of analysis contribute to this understanding: analysis of legal needs and justice problems, legal consciousness studies, procedural justice research, and ethnographic studies of frontline service delivery. These bodies of work provide evidence on how individuals perceive, engage with, and influence administrative processes, and highlight the conditions under which people are empowered, or disempowered, in their interactions with public institutions.

Legal needs and justice problems

Research on legal needs and justice problems has helped identify the various ‘paths to justice’ that individuals follow when navigating legal problems, including administrative justice problems. These justice pathways provide insights into how people experience legal issues, what support they require to address them effectively, and where public systems fall short in meeting these needs. This evidence base is crucial for designing people-centred justice systems.

Since the 1990s, research in the UK has demonstrated the ‘clustered’ and ‘cascading’ quality of the administrative justice problems experienced by individuals, especially those who are already marginalised or disadvantaged (Genn, 1999[4]) (Clements, 2020[5]). Many individuals do not seek formal help when faced with an administrative grievance. It was reported in the UK in 2016 that 45% of people surveyed had a recent poor experience of public service but only 22% had made a formal complaint because they thought it unlikely to change anything (Citizens’ Advice, 2016[6]). By contrast, 73% used informal means, such as social media, to express their discontent (Citizens’ Advice, 2016[6]). Another UK legal needs survey, also in 2016, found that of those experiencing a legal problem, 35% obtained legal advice, 34% tried to tackle the problem alone, 15% sought help from friends and family, and 13% did nothing (Ipsos MORI, 2016[7]). Similarly, the Latvian Access to the Rule of Law study from 2020 revealed that 7.49% would defend themselves in court, 20.52% would turn to friends or acquaintances, but the majority - 58.62% would seek help from a lawyer, sworn advocate, notary, or the Legal Aid Administration (JPA) (Ministry of Justice Latvia, 2020[8]).

The role of informal support networks, including peers, family, community organisations, and NGOs, is particularly important for those navigating administrative justice problems. These actors help fill gaps in public provision, offering not only legal guidance but emotional and practical support. Research during the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted how this support is often critical (Creutzfeldt, 2024[9]). Conversely, the Latvian Access to Rule of Law study highlighted that family and friends’ experience with institutions, whether positive or negative, was decisive in determining whether to engage with formal legal institutions (Ministry of Justice Latvia, 2020[8]). Moreover, the complexity of finding the right help further deepens the mismatch between people's needs and the support available, leaving people to feel helpless when forced to engage with cumbersome and time-consuming struggles and psychologically damaging interactions with public institutions (Creutzfeldt, 2024[9]).

Studies such as those focused on families of children with disabilities reinforce the importance of support systems. These families identified peer-based support, especially from those with lived experience, as more important than formal legal advice in sustaining their efforts to resolve complex administrative challenges (Clements, 2020[5]).

Across these findings, the picture emerges of people experiencing administrative justice systems as fragmented, unresponsive, and difficult to navigate. Integrated information, advice, and support services are rare. Dispute-resolution processes are often overly complex, adversarial, or costly. Systemic learning and feedback loops are weak, resulting in persistent gaps in trust, access, and satisfaction.

These insights from legal needs surveys and justice needs and satisfaction research, underscore the need of investing in people-centred justice solutions that proactively identify and address clustered legal needs and justice problems. They point to the importance of integrating formal and informal sources of support and to strengthening community-based services and partnerships. They also demonstrate the value of making dispute-resolution processes more accessible, empathetic, and outcome-oriented.

Legal consciousness

Legal consciousness research helps explain how individuals, whether members of the public or public officials, perceive their rights, responsibilities, and the role of law in resolving everyday problems, including those related to administrative justice. These perceptions shape how people recognise legal and justice problems, evaluate their options, and decide whether and how to engage with formal or informal justice systems. This work also shows that alignment with legal norms cannot be assumed. Many individuals, including those working in the public sector, may be indifferent or even resistant to legal frameworks, depending on their prior experiences, cultural expectations, and levels of trust in institutions. Legal rules, on their own, may not be sufficient to shape behaviour or build confidence in the justice system (Creutzfeldt, 2018[10]).

Research in the Netherlands, for example, suggests that public officials’ compliance with legal standards is often driven by personal beliefs and professional norms in addition to authoritative enforcement. Typologies developed in this research describe officials along a spectrum, from those who identify strongly with legal values to those who are sceptical or disengaged (Hertogh, 2018[11]) (Hertogh, 2002[12]) (Hertogh, 2010[13]). These insights highlight the need for collaborative, trust-based approaches to influencing bureaucratic behaviour, rather than relying solely on legal mandates or oversight (Hertogh, 2018[11]).

Similar findings have emerged in the UK and Germany, where local legal culture strongly shapes people’s expectations of both formal and informal justice processes (Creutzfeldt, 2022[14]). In some cases, individuals bring expectations of fairness and procedural safeguards from courts into less formal settings, such as ombuds services or administrative tribunals, leading to disappointment when those expectations are not met (Creutzfeldt, 2022[14]). This can undermine public confidence and trust in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

These insights from legal consciousness research reinforce the importance of designing people-centred justice services that align with public expectations. They underline the need to invest in legal capability and trust-building, especially among frontline officials. They also recognise that justice reform efforts must go beyond legal frameworks to address the social and cultural contexts in which people seek justice.

Procedural justice

Procedural justice research applies insights from social psychology to understand how individuals experience grievance processes and evaluate the fairness of institutional responses. Initially developed in the context of policing and criminal justice, this work has since been applied across a range of public services, including administrative justice. A key insight is that perceptions of fairness are shaped not only by outcomes, but by the quality of the process, particularly in terms of transparency, accessibility, and opportunities for meaningful participation (Creutzfeldt, 2024[9]).

For policymakers, this has important implications: enhancing procedural fairness can strengthen trust in institutions, improve compliance, and support the resolution of conflicts in ways that are seen as legitimate by the public. Designing administrative processes with a focus on dignity, voice, and respectful treatment can contribute to stronger relationships between people and the state, particularly in contexts where trust is fragile (Creutzfeldt, 2024[9]).

A study in the European energy market has highlighted an access to justice challenge that limits the effectiveness of administrative justice. Research in Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy and the UK reveals that the justice consumers encountered did not reflect their lived experiences. This contributed to alienation, marked by low understanding of and identification with the law, and relational distance from lawyers, bureaucrats, regulators and alternative dispute resolution bodies (Creutzfeldt, 2021[15]). This disconnect contributes to public apathy, low engagement with available redress mechanisms, and weakened trust. In sectors like energy, where policy effectiveness depends on informed and active members of society, such outcomes are particularly concerning (Creutzfeldt, 2021[15]).

These findings from research on procedural justice underline the need for administrative justice systems to design procedures that are transparent, navigable, and inclusive. They highlight the need to ensure that people feel heard, respected and fairly treated throughout grievance processes. They also point to the need to reduce the relational gap between institutional actors and the public, including by using plain language, outreach, and participatory mechanisms.

Experience of frontline officials

Analysis of frontline public service delivery, often based on ethnographic observation and participation, has provided valuable insights into how public institutions function in practice and how individual officials exercise discretion within complex institutional settings. Rather than acting merely as rule-followers, frontline officials are often required to interpret and adapt policy in response to the diverse and often urgent needs of individuals. This “reflexive” model of governance recognises that frontline actors are not simply implementing rules; they are shaping people’s experience of the state.

This research highlights the limitations of conventional command-and-control models of regulation, suggesting instead that real-world governance relies heavily on relational dynamics, contextual judgment, and moral agency under pressure (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2003). Similar findings have emerged from research in France, where frontline welfare workers navigated institutional constraints while exercising judgment in response to complex and multifaceted social needs (Dubois, 2016[16]). A participant-observation study from the US reinforces the view that frontline encounters are foundational to how individuals experience the state. They show that people often see their interactions with public officials as a reflection of the state itself. Trust in public institutions, therefore, depends not only on policies but on the human experience of public service (Zacka, 2017[17]).

These insights from research on the experience of frontline officials, call for policymaking approaches that recognise the discretion and moral reasoning involved in frontline service delivery. They highlight the importance of investing in training and support for street-level workers. They also emphasise the need to design institutional frameworks that enable responsive, fair, and relationally competent decision-making.

Constitutional functions of administrative justice institutions

Administrative justice institutions such as ombuds institutes, tribunals, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and public inquiries play an increasingly visible role in delivering justice, safeguarding rights, and strengthening trust in government. While in some countries, particularly common law countries, they are not always formally part of the conventional triad of public governance - legislature, executive, and judiciary - their constitutional function is the subject of growing attention and redefinition. Different perspectives emphasise different alignments (O’Brien, 2018[18]). Some view administrative justice institutions as closely connected to the judiciary, operating in a quasi-judicial capacity and interpreting their mandate in the ‘shadow of the law’. Others highlight their role as mechanisms of executive accountability, offering people accessible and participatory alternatives to parliamentary oversight or judicial review. For others, such institutions, especially public ombuds institutes, derive their legitimacy from the legislature, to which they report and by which they may be appointed.

The situation and constitutional functions of administrative justice institutions in civil countries often tends to be more straightforward. In France, for example, the Constitution recognises administrative justice alongside judicial authority, as well as the powers reserved to it and its existence is not subject to doctrinal debate. In Montesquieu's typology of powers, the term “judicial” refers more to “jurisdictional” power, i.e., that of judges, whether administrative or judicial.

In some jurisdictions, particularly in Australia and Latin America, there have been suggestions that the tripartite constitutional framework should be updated to reflect current governance needs (Stuhmcke, 2018[19]) (Buck, 2011[20]). A proposed fourth ‘integrity’ pillar accommodates institutions of horizontal accountability - those that function independently and serve as checks not by commanding or legislating, but by monitoring, investigating, reporting, and engaging the public in oversight (O’Donnell, 2007[21]). Administrative justice actors fit within this model, particularly where their mandates are people-facing and grounded in principles of accessibility, fairness, and trust.

From a policy perspective, these institutions offer unique opportunities to avoid the certain limitations of court services, particularly in terms of cost, complexity, and procedural rigidity. Their position may allow them to innovate in how they design and deliver justice services, for example, through integrated case-handling, early resolution, relational approaches, and outreach to underserved communities (De Langen, 2022[22]). These strengths align closely with Pillar 1 of the OECD Recommendation (promoting a people-centred justice culture) and Pillar 2 (design and delivery of services based on user needs and capabilities) (OECD, 2023[1]).

Recognising the constitutional value of administrative justice institutions means acknowledging their potential not only to fill gaps in judicial and executive accountability, but to lead reform toward more participatory, accessible, and trusted justice systems. As governments seek to rebuild trust and legitimacy, these institutions can serve as bridges between state and society, especially where they are empowered to listen, explain and adapt in response to people’s lived experiences.

Again, the situation is not the same in all countries. In some, like France, administrative justice is primarily responsible for settling legal disputes, through judges, according to a judicial process. In those contexts, the virtues of participation, awareness-raising, mediation, cannot overshadow this fundamental role. In other countries the shift from administrative law to administrative justice as described above, enables a broader perspective on the functions of administrative justice institutions.

Administrative justice institutions that are well-connected to civil society through participatory mechanisms, outreach, and collaborative dispute resolution methods like mediation, are better equipped to understand and respond to the needs of diverse communities. Strengthening these connections can improve access to justice and build public trust. A people-centred approach to administrative justice therefore requires deliberate investment in inclusive practices, strong partnerships with civil society organisations, and mechanisms that give voice to those whose experiences often go unheard.

Public administration as a problem in relationships

The relational quality of administrative justice arises from its position at the interface between individuals and the state. In everyday life, this relationship often functions silently. But in moments of crisis or breakdown, the relationship becomes visible, personal, and often problematic.

Complaints, grievances, and appeals are not only requests for redress; they are expressions of a fractured relationship. Socio-legal research shows that trust in public institutions erodes not only when outcomes are negative for people, but when they feel unheard, disrespected, or alienated during the process. In this sense, bureaucratic failure is not merely procedural, it is relational. The fact that procedures exist to file complaints, express grievances and lodge appeals at the same time offers opportunity to restore the relationship.

Several high-profile cases, from local service failures to national scandals, illustrate how breakdowns in relational trust can lead to public outrage and long-term institutional damage. Across countries, from Italy and Spain to India, Brazil, Austria, the UK, and the US, there is growing recognition of the need to shift from transactional to relational models of public service, where institutions engage with people not just as cases to be processed, but as individuals whose dignity, agency, and expectations matter (Restakis, 2022[23]) (Taylor, 2020[24]) (Hall, 2021[25]).

Socio-legal research on the profile and experience of people who complain about public institutions in the UK, France, and Germany, emphasises the breakdown in trust to which such complaints bear witness (Creutzfeldt, 2018[10]). The enduring challenge for administrative justice systems is to restore productive and fair relationships between people and public institutions, which are critical for both security and dignity. This requires more than technical reform: it calls for intentional design of relational processes that are responsive, humane, and grounded in shared values.

In this context, administrative justice should be seen not only as a set of procedures, but as a platform for rebuilding trust and social solidarity. Identifying how institutions in different countries navigate this challenge, and what innovations succeed in transforming conflict into cooperation, is essential for designing justice systems that work for people.

Administrative justice in transition: strengthening the democratic interface

Faced with decreasing trust and pressures on the legitimacy of public institutions and informed by the insights of contemporary analysis, administrative justice can reasonably be said to be in a period of transition and administrative justice systems in some OECD and partner countries are undergoing significant reform.

In the UK, legislation and law reform projects have aimed to co-ordinate and integrate the work of courts and administrative tribunals, to improve their accessibility and enhance their powers (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 2022[26]). In Australia, there has been innovative work on therapeutic justice, which is justice that aims to improve the wellbeing of individuals as well as resolving their disputes, and how it might shape practice in health and social care tribunals (The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Limited, 2025[27]). In Canada, there has been experimentation with the use of systemic remedy by public ombuds institutes, while in other jurisdictions, including the devolved nations of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, there has been significant reform of the public ombuds institute to broaden its role and enrich its systemic reach (Government of Canada, 2024[28]) (Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, 2011[29]) (Gill, 2014[30]) (Bennett, 2020[31]). In the Council of Europe countries, there has been a revived interest in the use of ADR, especially mediation, in administrative contexts, with the recent publication of guidance on what has been referred to as ‘administrative mediation’ (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, 2022[32]). Meanwhile a Best Practice Paper by the International Ombudsman Institute provides guidance on the use of mediation by ombuds institutes (International Ombudsman Institute, 2023[33]).

These shifts reflect a growing recognition that justice must extend beyond formal processes and outcomes to address the lived experiences of people in their interactions with the state. Against the backdrop of institutional challenges, ranging from declining institutional trust to widening social inequalities, administrative justice institutions are repositioning themselves as key interfaces between the state and individual people. This section identifies key areas where this transition is taking shape and outlines promising directions for further reform.

Improving administrative justice pathways

A core principle of people-centred justice is that individuals must be able to access help when and where they need it. Administrative justice systems must therefore support clear, inclusive, and navigable justice pathways for people facing problems related to public services or institutions.

To achieve this, access must be multi-dimensional. Single points of entry or “no wrong door” approaches ensure that people are not turned away or redirected endlessly between institutions. Information, advice, and assistance should be available in plain language, accessible formats, and multiple languages, and tailored to the diverse capacities and needs of users. Digital platforms can simplify access but must be complemented by offline services to avoid deepening digital exclusion (Creutzfeldt, 2024[9]). Justice systems should anticipate the needs of groups who face structural or intersectional disadvantage, ensuring accommodations for people with disabilities, older adults, migrants, and others.

The practices and approaches differ across the countries though. For example in France, as a consequence of the fact that the principles of public service already stem from the principle of equality of all citizens before the law, the Council of State traditionally rules that users of public services have no right to the adaptation of the service .The OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice (OECD, 2021[34]) and the Justice for All report (Task Force on Justice, 2019[3]) stress that the ability to access administrative justice early, before problems escalate, reduces harm, improves outcomes, and supports institutional legitimacy (OECD, 2021[34]). Building these pathways requires both investment and institutional collaboration.

Public legal education

People-centred justice is not only about providing services at the point of need; it requires building people’s legal capability and “participatory readiness” well before they encounter a justice problem (Allen, 2016[35]). Public legal education plays a foundational role in preparing people to navigate administrative systems, assert their rights, and engage effectively with public institutions.

International initiatives illustrate the potential of public legal education to support people in navigating complex systems and to build more responsive justice ecosystems. Public legal education was pioneered in Canada in the 1960s (Gander, 1999[36]), where programs have been delivered to ‘new Canadians’ and young people. In Australia, similar programmes of ‘community legal education’, have paved the way for the expansion of similar programmes, often with international backing, in many parts of the world. Notable has been the work of the People’s Law School in the Canadian province of British Columbia, which was founded by a group of law students in 1972 and which since then has met people’s legal needs through speakers, workshops, publications, theatre, and special events, with the aim of enabling ordinary people to access trustworthy legal information and to develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence to resolve everyday justice problems (People's Law School, 2025[37]).

An inquiry in the UK in 2015 into concerns over the number of people experiencing multiple social problems, including those arising from interactions with public services and the welfare benefits system, proposed a strategy for provision of advice and support. At its heart would be a new system of public legal education, designed to make full use of the internet and to embed information in community settings, such as supermarkets, health centres and doctors’ surgeries. The approach proposed reflected earlier successful attempts to empower disabled people in their response to legal need after the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission by statute in 1999 (Low Commission, 2015; Vanhala, 2011). Legal education has been enriched in some jurisdictions by programmes of training conducted by national ombuds institutes and focused on the response to grievance by public institutions. In Scotland and Wales, the respective public services ombuds institute has a statutory role as a ‘complaint standard authority’ and is charged with the task of supporting effective complaint handling by public authorities, collecting published data and delivering training packages (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, 2025[38]) (Wales, 2025[39]).

Participatory practice in administrative justice

People-centred justice systems empower individuals not only to access services but to actively participate in shaping outcomes. Procedural justice analysis consistently shows that people care deeply about how they are treated: feeling heard, respected, and fairly dealt with is as important as the outcome itself. This requires good decision-making, comprising openness, consistency, neutrality and lack of bias, and good quality interaction, comprising respect, dignity and voice (Creutzfeldt, 2024[9]).

Reforms in countries like the Netherlands, Australia, and the UK show how administrative justice providers, such as ombuds institutes and tribunals can shift from a quasi-judicial approach to problem-solving and collaborative engagement, fostering agency and dignity in administrative encounters (Weller, 2011[40]).

The changes implemented by the Netherlands National Ombudsman between 2006 and 2016 are illustrative. Three key aspects underpinned the reforms: recognition of the need to mediate between the ‘lifeworld’ of aggrieved individuals and the ‘system world’ that conditions the bureaucratic environment of public authorities; the need for better interfaces between people and the ombuds institute (including more contact by phone, easier forms, and more intuitive websites); and the need for guidelines on proper conduct (De Langen, 2022[22]). The purpose of these reforms was to create a new relationship between people and public institutions, moving from a rational and vertical form of interaction to a horizontal understanding that takes account of affective aspects of relationships. In practice, this led to more personal and flexible communication styles, with better understanding of the problems people were facing and more emphasis on practical problem-solving, addressing root causes of problems, and preventing escalation of conflicts (De Langen, 2022[22]).

Similar transitions in practice have been reported from Australia, where public ombuds institutes have moved away from a formal quasi-judicial approach to more informal and problem-solving methods of responding to grievance, the early identification and resolution of problems, more emphasis on mediation and conciliation, and prioritisation of addressing systemic issues where these emerge (Wheeler, 2022[41]).

In the UK also, the national ombuds institute, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), introduced reforms which accentuate more flexible approaches to resolution and improvement of service quality (Behrens, 2022[42]). Such reforms include the simplification of the assessment and investigation process, the adoption of an early-resolution pilot programme, support for a new service standard, and the professionalisation of staff through a new professional skills programme, all with the aim of ‘demystifying’ the experience of the justice journey and making it more transparent for those embarking on it (Behrens, 2022[42]).

Participatory problem-solving has reshaped tribunals, particularly in mental health law, through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence (Wexler and Winnick, 1991[43]). This framework prioritises humanistic and holistic approaches to law, focusing on style of communication, access to non-legal representation, and active involvement of families and carers in decision-making (Weller, 2011[40]) (Wexler and Winnick, 1991[43]). Such change is an attempt to promote ‘the equal participation of marginalised or people in vulnerable positions and their inclusion in the governance of institutions and systems that are intended for their benefit’ (Weller, 2011[40]). The result is a ‘case-conferencing’ model that includes developing guidance on decision-making, monitoring systems, adopting deliberative and mediation processes, and being more ‘flexible’ and less ‘court-like’ (Carney, 2011[44]). Important is the collection of data from individual cases to improve the quality of care ‘at the systemic level’ (Beaupart et al., 2014[45]).

It has been argued in the context of Australian mental health tribunals that while it is important to retain the core tribunal task of adjudication on involuntary detention, it is necessary to supplement that core function with ‘responsive’ powers that can direct access to treatment and community care, and with changes in procedure that facilitate social advocacy and more explicit recognition of the role of family and carers (Carney, 2011[44]). The purpose is ‘to advance social participation and socio-economic (social citizenship) and civil rights […] at various levels of interaction with governmental or civil society’ (Carney, 2010[46]). In this way, the ‘hub’ responsibility of overseeing civil rights protection is complemented by new ‘spokes’ which extend the reach of the tribunal to the broader social rights context (Carney, 2010[46]).

The city of Bologna is an example of commons-based governance, having developed a juridical framework that enables citizens to co-create the city, participate in decision-making, and manage shared resources (Foster and Iaione, 2016[47]). In such polycentric governance models, intermediaries play a key role in facilitating participation, deliberation, and decentralisation. These processes require supportive scaffolding such as inclusive engagement methods, shared decision-making principles, and expert input to sustain meaningful dialogue and accountability (Menkel-Meadow, 2006[48]).

Non-adversarial approach to complaints

The expectation of ‘customer care’ is a familiar feature of modern public service delivery and public officials are often under pressure to meet standards, deliver faster services and comply with codes of conduct. Often, less attention is paid to the well-being and engagement of public officials who are the subject of complaints, yet their experience matters. At the core of such reciprocity is a form of ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ (Wexler and Winnick, 1991) that takes seriously not just the individuals who complain about public authorities but the impact on frontline officials of traditional ways of responding to such grievances (Gill, 2019[49]).

Research on complaints in the health sectors in the UK, the Netherlands and New Zealand suggests that being complained about increases the likelihood of severe depression and other negative effects on well-being, and heightens future defensiveness, which can lead to negative impacts for future patients of health professionals who have been complained about (Gill and Others, 2019). Recognition of such impacts on frontline officials entails a shift towards a ‘non-adversarial paradigm’ that adopts ‘the sensibility of mediation’, deploys problem-solving techniques, and is oriented towards future outcomes rather than retrospective redress (Gill, 2019[49]). A non-adversarial paradigm of this sort would enable active participation not just of those aggrieved but also of the public servants complained about, so that they have a voice in proceedings and enjoy a sense of fairness (Gill, 2019[49]).

Research on complaints in Scotland suggests that the negative impact of complaints on the work and well-being of professionals is substantial for a minority and moderate for most, with significant prevalence of stress, anxiety, shock, self-doubt, double-checking, avoidance behaviours, and wariness towards service users (Gill, 2019[49]). The authors of the research recommended the adoption of what they call therapeutic complaints resolution. This involves procedural fairness, regular communication, and the opportunity for frontline officials to respond to concerns in a safe and respectful environment. (Gill, 2019[49]).

Digital transformation, including the use of artificial intelligence

Administrative justice across OECD and partner countries are entering a new phase of digital transformation (OECD, 2025[50]). This evolution extends far beyond efficiency gains: it is redefining the interface between people and the state, and may mark an important moment for rebuilding trust in public institutions and strengthening a responsive rule of law.

As underscored by the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, digital transformation must not only streamline procedures but also ensure that justice is accessible, inclusive, transparent, and centred on people’s lived experiences. When guided by this approach, digitalisation can turn administrative justice into a fairer, more accessible, and more responsive system that strengthens the social contract between institutions and the people they serve.

At the heart of this transformation lies the principle of being digital by design. According to the OECD Digital Government Policy Framework, digital by design goes beyond the introduction of new tools or the automation of existing procedures. It represents a way of using digital technologies and data to rethink how justice processes and services are conceived, delivered, and experienced. This approach integrates digital transformation into every stage of policy and service development, embedding innovation in governance rather than layering it on top of existing systems. It ensures that the use of technology starts with a deep understanding of people’s needs, capacities, and contexts (OECD, 2020[51]).

Applied to the justice system, a digital-by-design approach has an important role in advancing access to justice and people-centred justice. It helps enable justice institutions to place people’s needs and capabilities at the centre of service delivery, using technology to simplify access, connect administrative bodies, and improve outcomes through better use of data and evidence. It also allows governments to identify gaps in service coverage, anticipate emerging needs, and promote fairness in decision-making. Importantly, a digital by design approach emphasises the importance of an omnichannel model of access (online, in-person, and assisted-digital pathways) to make justice services available to everyone, regardless of their ability, location, or resources. In doing so, it turns digital transformation into a genuine instrument of inclusion, trust, and empowerment.

Digitalisation can both bridge and widen inequalities. OECD evidence shows that while online tribunals and automated systems have expanded access to justice for many, they can inadvertently disadvantage those with limited digital or legal literacy. A genuinely people-centred approach must therefore prioritise inclusivity and support mechanisms. This may include assisted-digital services for those who need guidance, outreach through community-based organisations, and continuous feedback processes to assess and improve user experience (see Box 5.1).

Box 5.1. France: promoting access to online public services through digital advisers

In France, an initiative launched by the Secretary of State for Digital Transition and Electronic Communication created 4,000 digital advisor positions (“conseillers numériques”) who are trained to support access to online services for people and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The initiative aims to encourage stakeholders to embrace digital transformation by helping people and businesses to access and learn how to use online services in their day-to-day lives. The digital advisors are placed in positions that involve close interaction with the local population (e.g. city halls, libraries, associations). This allows for increased partnership between stakeholders, including central government and local authorities, associations, and solidarity-based or social enterprises. Workshops to train and help people and SMEs to use digital services and tools also form part of this initiative, and are often organised by digital advisors.

Beyond contributing to bridging the digital gap in France, digital advisors are also an important source of help for users to find the right service channels or local facilities for tailored information or support (e.g. by providing contact details for different justice institutions, such as legal aid providers).

Source: (OECD, 2024[52]).

Developing trustworthy digital justice systems also requires balancing innovation with human oversight. Accessibility, procedural fairness, and respect for human judgment remain essential elements of both people-centred justice and a responsive rule of law. Ensuring that digital tools enhance rather than replace the human dimension of justice can help maintain confidence in institutions and outcomes.

Additionally, the different objectives of digitalisation have to be balanced with the necessary protection of individuals' personal data. In the context of justice, such personal data, which may be particularly sensitive, must be subject to appropriate protection (within the EU, in accordance with the rules laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). In EU Law, the use of artificial intelligence in the administration of justice is always considered high-risk if it profiles individuals.

Across OECD countries, digital innovation in administrative justice is taking diverse and promising forms. In some jurisdictions, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms are providing accessible, affordable, and timely ways to settle disputes, reflecting the framework set out in the OECD Online Dispute Resolution Framework. Others have introduced AI-enabled case management and decision-support systems to streamline workflows, improve consistency, and accelerate case resolution. In parallel, open-data and interoperability initiatives are helping institutions learn from one another, enhance accountability, and strengthen public transparency (see Box 5.2). Collectively, these developments demonstrate that when well-governed, digitalisation can advance people-centred justice and reinforce trust in democratic governance.

Box 5.2. Leveraging AI to advance people-centred justice

Spain: Enhancing document management and summarisation

Spain’s Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Parliamentary Relations has developed an in-house suite of natural language processing (NLP) and generative AI tools to improve the management and understanding of judicial documents. The initiative aims not only to enhance administrative efficiency but also to make justice services more accessible, understandable, and responsive to users’ needs.

The AI suite assists legal professionals in classifying, analysing, summarising, and anonymising court-related texts, while ensuring full compliance with data protection standards. Its classification features allow documents to be automatically organised by jurisdiction, registry type and document category (e.g. legal submissions, notifications), facilitating faster and more consistent information retrieval across different branches of the justice system.

Summarisation capabilities are adapted to different legal document types, such as rulings and orders, and include several modes — from extractive to generative summaries. A “legal-to-plain-language” option has been designed to enhance clarity for non-specialist audiences, supporting the broader goal of people-centred justice by improving public understanding of judicial information.

Future developments may include multilingual translation functions to support Spain’s official languages (Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Valencian and Basque), further promoting inclusivity and equitable access to justice information across linguistic communities.

Peru: Redesigning justice services with AI for effective protection measures

Peru's Amauta Pro system, developed in-house by the Superior Court of Justice of Lima Norte, has been piloted with domestic violence cases. It uses an AI system and standardised templates of judicial decisions to perform various tasks essential for the determination of the resolution to provide protection measures.

The project aims to improve access to justice for victims of violence by providing timely and effective protection measures. The system reduces the time taken to draft a resolution from 3 hours to 40 seconds. The project has garnered support from the highest levels of the Peruvian judiciary, including the President of the Judiciary, underscoring the project's importance and the confidence placed in its ability to transform the delivery of justice services in Peru.

Source: (OECD, 2025[50]).

Enabling better public governance

Administrative justice systems are not only dispute-resolution mechanisms; they are critical feedback loops for improving public administration. In increasingly complex governance environments, where the impact of reforms is difficult to anticipate, it is critical that systems learn from how people experience policies in practice. Ombuds institutes, complaints bodies, and tribunals have unique access to patterns of grievance that can indicate systemic failings, especially where individuals lack the power or knowledge to challenge decisions. A people-centred system therefore shifts from a ‘claims orientation’ to a ‘pattern orientation’, valuing complaints and appeals not as burdens but as signals of friction in the interface between people and public authorities (Nonet, 1969[53]).

To realise this potential complaint-handling should be seen as an integrated part of public service delivery, with support for effective data collection, analysis, and feedback into policy cycles. Institutions should be empowered to conduct own-initiative investigations, drawing from both people’s experiences and institutional data to identify emerging risks and equity gaps (De Langen, 2018[54]) and remedies should not be limited to redress for individuals, but should include recommendations for systemic change, practical improvements, and cultural shifts.

Examples from England, Northern Ireland and New Zealand demonstrate how independent oversight bodies can identify implementation gaps, engage directly with affected communities, and monitor progress in real-time. This contributes not only to improved services, but to institutional trust and accountability.

In recent years, the combined efforts of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) in England have led to more systemic intervention. The PHSO’s 2018 thematic report on mental health care, for example, identified serious failings in National Health Service discharge planning (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, 2024[55]). Together, the PHSO and LGSCO have issued joint guidance on aftercare under the Mental Health Act (LGSCO and PHSO, 2022[56]). The LGSCO has addressed delays in special educational needs provision, finding fault in 80% of cases, and has published a good practice guide with recommendations (LGSCO, 2017[57]). Since 2016, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) can initiate inquiries into systemic issues. These powers have been used to investigate delays in personal independence payments for those with disabilities, resulting in 33 recommendations and a follow-up report showing only partial implementation (NIPSO, 2021, 2023a).

The New Zealand Ombudsman has conducted investigations into disability-related issues, including delays in bed availability leading to inappropriate detention of patients and poor data collection on deaths in care (NZ Ombudsman, 2019[58]). These investigations included site visits and interviews, with a focus on the gap between policy and lived experience (NZ Ombudsman, 2019[58]).

These examples support the findings in other countries, such as Costa Rica, Austria and Spain, that the own-initiative powers of ombuds institutes are often used to protect the interests of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups (Diez, 2018[59]). Research on the Netherlands National Ombudsman highlights how such powers help link individual complaints to broader systemic insight (De Langen, 2018[54]).

Beyond the shadow of the law

The mandate of administrative justice institutions in many countries, is to uphold fairness, accountability, and trust through persuasion rather than enforcement. This unique role allows them to develop a broader normative framework grounded in the rule of law, human rights, democratic values, and good administrative practice.

This includes principles-based standards, such as:

• the UK Ombudsman’s ‘Principles of Good Administration’, published in 2009, which made explicit six norms against which public authorities could expect to be judged: getting it right; being customer focused; being open and accountable; acting fairly and proportionately; putting things right; and seeking continuous improvement. (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, 2009[60]).

• the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, published by the EU Ombudsman, which goes beyond legality and also prescribes non-discrimination, proportionality, avoidance of the abuse of power, impartiality and independence, objectivity, consistency, fairness, courtesy and a duty to give reasons among its articles of good practice (European Ombudsman, 2015[61]).

• in the Netherlands, the National Ombudsman produced ‘guidelines on proper conduct’ against which it assesses the performance of public authorities, and which are rooted in expectations of fairness and mutual respect between individual people and the state (Nationale Ombudsman, n.d.[62]).

Such initiatives create a positive emphasis on the achievement of good public governance rather than retrospective approach to dealing with complaints. As such, administrative justice bodies can support a culture of everyday justice, where fairness is embedded in frontline service delivery.

Coordination and cooperation

In the UK, legislative changes in 2007 first allowed the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Governments and Social Care Ombudsman to jointly investigate complaints that cross the line between national healthcare and local social care (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and Local Government Ombudsman, 2015[63]). Since then, both institutions have been better able to co-ordinate, share information, and respond to complaints in a more practical way.

More ambitiously, the National Ombudsman in Argentina has for many years been recognised as part of a broader network of horizontal accountability agencies, including other ombuds institutes, regulators, and watchdogs, with success depending on effective co-ordination between different parts of the network. The ombuds institute in effect acts as a ‘broker’ between various accountability agencies and social actors, providing an easily accessible entry-point for individuals and civil society, and serving as a bridge between them and the broader accountability network (Peruzzotti, 2012). Similarly, the Greek Ombudsman describes its role in the field of anti-discrimination as mediation between individuals and the public administration, with one of its chief contributions being the co-ordination and mobilization of other institutional equality bodies and civil society in the struggle against discrimination.

Other ombuds institutes have also taken on this bridging role. Examples include Canada (Marin, 2006), Australia (McMillan, 2009[64]), Peru (Pegram, 2008[65]), and Bolivia (Pegram, 2012[66]). In some cases, ombuds institutes have even helped bring overlooked public-interest issues into national policy debates, acting as policy entrepreneurs (Barco, 2018[67]). In New Zealand, a 2016 Ombudsman report on inclusive education brought together complaint data from both the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission. Although the sample was small, it showed clear failings in inclusive education, including poor legal protections, ineffective national goals, and widespread bullying of disabled students (DPO Coalition, New Zealand Ombudsman and NZ Human Rights Commission, 2016[68]). The report led to recommendations for legal reform, stronger cross-sector collaboration, better data, and updates to the national Disability Strategy.

Whole-of-sector approaches

In some countries, the re-design of administrative justice systems has been deliberate and conscious. In Wales, ‘a new administrative law’ has emerged in recent years, ‘characterised by unique administrative procedure legislation and integrity institutions, expressing a commitment to social rights, and to a political consensus that good administration is a civic good’ (Nason, 2019[69]). The approach taken in Wales has been to prioritise the promotion of social and economic equality by requiring public bodies, including those intended to address grievances about them, to ‘collaborate, to integrate their activities, and to involve the general public in their decision-making’ (Nason, 2019[69]). In this way, administrative justice has been designed so that it ‘largely by-passes traditional court structures’ and thereby forges a new path that relies neither on the common law nor on administrative courts (Nason, 2019[69]). Instead, the emphasis has been on promoting and encouraging compliance through systemic investigations and remedial recommendations, with the aim of generating cultural change within public bodies and civil society and galvanizing the engagement of individuals and groups as a means of securing legitimacy (Nason, 2019[69]). As a result, the ‘new administrative law’ in Wales ‘provides lessons for other jurisdictions, particularly as regards inter-institutional collaboration and public involvement as central means to improve administrative state legitimacy’ (Nason, 2019). Critical to such ambitions has been the improvement of inter-institutional collaboration, or ‘bridging’, enabled by statutory duties and powers encouraging agencies to work together, in some cases with a memorandum of understanding secured with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (Nason, 2019[69]).

This is not without precedent. In Australia, major reforms in the 1970s established the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1975, the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 1976, the passage of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and the Freedom of Information Act 1982, all prefaced by the report of the Kerr Committee in 1971 (Australia Administrative Review Committee, 1971[70]). These changes reflected the idea that courts alone are not enough to fix administrative errors (Australia Administrative Review Committee, 1971[70]). A broader system, bringing in ombuds institutes, review bodies, and agencies, was needed to promote fair and effective public decision-making. The goal was a coherent, well-coordinated system, where each part plays its role (Blayden, 2021[71]).

Engaging with civil society

Delivering people-centred administrative justice requires the engagement of a broad justice ecosystem that includes civil society; CSOs, advice services, community-based organisations, and sector-specific professionals, all of whom play a role in helping people navigate systems and assert their rights.

Administrative justice forums can serve as bridges between public institutions and civil society, coordinating efforts to resolve problems and improve governance. This is especially important in reaching underrepresented groups, amplifying lived experience, and integrating non-legal perspectives into justice delivery.

Examples include collaborative problem-solving forums that bring together public officials, individuals, and community actors to co-design solutions; Ombuds institutes acting as policy brokers, mediating between public authorities and civil society to surface emerging issues and promote systemic reform; as well as polycentric governance models, like those developed in cities such as Bologna, where justice and service delivery are co-produced by public and community actors in shared spaces (Ostrom, 2012[72]) (Foster and Iaione, 2016[47]) (Menkel-Meadow, 2006[48]).

This broadened understanding of the justice system reflects a shift from adversarial procedures toward inclusive and participatory governance.

Rights as relational

Finally, a people-centred model of administrative justice recognises that rights are not simply entitlements to be enforced: they are expressions of the relationship between people and public institutions. This relational understanding of rights invites institutions to respond not only with formal remedies but with approaches that restore trust, inclusion, and dignity.

Relational justice is particularly visible in practices such as administrative mediation, which foster dialogue and seek mutual understanding. Mediation can prevent escalation of grievances, provide quicker, less formal, and more satisfying outcomes and offer emotional validation and practical solutions tailored to people’s needs.

Administrative justice institutions can help ensure that relational approaches are not ad hoc or informal, but professionally supported, adequately funded, and integrated within the justice system.

The guidance by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2022) promotes administrative mediation as a tool for improving relationships between individuals and public authorities (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, 2022[32]). It highlights mediation’s potential to deliver fair, timely, and cost-effective outcomes while easing the burden on courts. It calls for a clear legal framework, early intervention, professionalisation of mediators, sufficient public funding, and stronger connections between mediation and administrative proceedings (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, 2022[32]).

The guidance notes that administrative mediation fosters dialogue between individuals and public authorities, which leads to improvement in the administration relationship; it enhances the efficiency and quality of justice by securing solutions acceptable to both parties, often relatively quickly and at relatively lower cost than formal justice proceedings; and it serves as a means of preventing legal disputes by playing a role that is complementary to the role of the courts (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, 2022[32]).

The International Ombudsman Institute (2023) highlights best practices in administrative mediation. In Israel, for example, mediation has become institutionalised within the ombudsman’s office, with trained mediators, a structured manual, digital integration in case systems, and public outreach, including the appointment of ‘mediation trustees’ across institutions and an annual report to share outcomes and learning (International Ombudsman Institute, 2023[73]).

In the UK, mediation has been available in Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) disputes since 2000 (Doyle, 2019[74]). The anticipated benefits of mediation were the more creative exploration of possible outcomes; more sustainable outcomes resulting from more trust and ownership; better communication about the underlying issues; and a ‘step-by-step’ process that is progressive and enabling of worked-through differences. Mediation typically involves a face-to-face meeting led by an independent, trained mediator. Depending on the case, participants may include school staff, social care teams, health services, and legal or education professionals. The local authority pays for the mediation, but the provider must remain independent. Important to underline is that SEND mediation does not aim for a final settlement, as in civil or commercial cases. Instead, it focuses on collaborative problem-solving and gives space for each side to express their needs and concerns. Even when no agreement is reached, it helps clarify the issues and can narrow the dispute if it goes to a tribunal (Doyle, 2019[74]). The number of SEND mediations has risen from 75 in 2015 to 7,500 in 2023 (Department of Education, 2024[75]).

Conclusion

Administrative justice procedures and interactions are a primary interface between people and public institutions, making it critical to strengthening public trust in institutions. Making administrative justice systems responsive to evolving citizen expectations, requires paying attention to emerging evidence on legal needs, legal consciousness, procedural fairness and frontline experience. Delivering better justice pathways and stronger public governance calls for empowering individuals to participate effectively, fostering relational and restorative approaches, and supporting frontline officials with the skills and discretion to respond fairly and competently. It also demands a systemic orientation: preventing issues rather than resolving individual complaints, identifying patterns of need and promoting best practice across institutions. Strengthening the role of administrative justice bodies, especially ombuds institutions, can enhance their capacity to connect people, advance a responsive rule of law and strengthen trust.

References

[13] Adler, M. (ed.) (2010), Through the Eyes of Bureaucrats: How Front-Line Officials Understand Administrative Justice, Hart Publishing Ltd.

[35] Allen, D. (2016), Education and Equality, University of Chicago Press.

[70] Australia Administrative Review Committee (1971), Judicial review of administrative acts - Australia.

[67] Barco, C. (2018), The transposition of the ombudsman model to the human rights model domain: its role as a policy entrepreneur, Edward Elgar Publishing.

[45] Beaupart et al. (2014), “Regulating healthcare complaints: a literature review”, Internaitonal Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 27/6, pp. 505 - 518.

[42] Behrens, R. (2022), Reform of a National Ombudsman Scheme - A Journey, Oxford, Groves, M; Stuhmcke, A (eds).

[31] Bennett, N. (2020), The New Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW) Act 2019: The story 2014-2020.

[71] Blayden, L. (2021), Seeing the New Administrative Law in a ‘green light’.

[20] Buck, T. (2011), The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice, Ashgate.

[44] Carney, T. (2011), “Mental Health tribunals as governance: lessons from an Australian study”, Sydney Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper 11/12.

[6] Citizens’ Advice (2016), Learning from Mistakes: How Complaints Can Drive Improvements to Public Services.

[5] Clements, L. (2020), Clustered Injustice and the Level Green..

[26] Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (2022), Judicial Ways of Working -2022 Tribunals.

[14] Creutzfeldt (2022), Trust in informal and formal dispute resolution: British and German Approaches to Justice., Palgrave Macmillan.

[9] Creutzfeldt, N. (2024), Access to Justice, Digitalization and Vulnerability: Exploring Trust in Justice, Bristol University Press.

[15] Creutzfeldt, N. (2021), Access to Justice for Vulnerable and Energy-Poor Consumers: Just Energy?, Hart.

[10] Creutzfeldt, N. (2018), Ombudsmen and ADR: a Comparative Study of Informal Justice in Europe, Springer and Palgrave Macmillan.

[54] De Langen, M. (2018), Effectiveness and independence of the ombudsman’s own-motion investigations: a practitioner’s perspective from the Netherlands, Edward Elgar, Kirkham, M Hertogh and R.

[75] Department of Education (2024), Education, Health and Care Plans 2024.

[59] Diez, L. (2018), The use of own-initiative powers by the Ombudsman, Edward Elgar, Hertogh, M.m and Kirkham, R. (eds).

[74] Doyle, M. (2019), A place at the table: a report on young people’s participation in resolving disputes about special educational needs and disabilities.

[68] DPO Coalition, New Zealand Ombudsman and NZ Human Rights Commission (2016), Implementation Report Independent Monitoring Mechanism on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

[16] Dubois, V. (2016), The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices, Routledge.

[32] European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2022), Promoting mediation to resolve administrative disputes in Council of Europe member states.

[61] European Ombudsman (2015), The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

[47] Foster, S. and C. Iaione (2016), “The city as a commons”, Yale Law and Policy Review, Vol. 34/2, pp. 281-349.

[36] Gander, L. (1999), “The Radical Promise of Public Legal Education in Canada”, University of Alberta.

[4] Genn, H. (1999), Paths to Justice: what people think about going to law, Oxford: Hart.

[49] Gill, C. (2019), “Dysfunctional accountability in complaint systems: the effects of complaints on public service employees”, Public Law, pp. 644-664.

[30] Gill, C. (2014), “The Evolving Role of the Ombudsman: A Conceptual and Constiutional Analysis of the “Scottish Solution” to Administrative Justice”, Public Law Journal.

[28] Government of Canada (2024), Federal Ombudsperson launches systemic investigation into treatment of survivors of sexual assault in Canadian Justice System.

[11] Hertogh, M. (2018), Nobody’s Law: Legal Consciousness and Legal Alienation in Everyday Life, Palgrave Macmillan.

[12] Hertogh, M. (2002), “Coercion, Cooperation, and Control: Understanding the Policy Impact of Administrative Courts and the Ombudsman in the Netherlands”, Law and Policy, Vol. 23/1, pp. 47-67.

[25] Hughes, G. (ed.) (2021), How the pandemic has accelerated the shift towards participatory public authorities, University of Westminster Press.

[73] International Ombudsman Institute (2023), Mediation as an effective tool in complaints investigation.

[33] International Ombudsman Institute (2023), Next Best Practice Paper deals with mediation as an effective tool in complaint investigation.

[7] Ipsos MORI (2016), Online Survey of Individuals’ Handling of Legal Issues in England and Wales.

[57] LGSCO (2017), Education, health and care plans: our first 100 investigations.

[56] LGSCO and PHSO (2022), Section 117 Aftercare: Guidance for Practitioners.

[2] Low Commission on the Future of Advice and Legal Support (2015), Getting it Right in Social Welfare Law.

[64] McMillan, J. (2009), Can Administrative Law Foster Good Administration?.

[46] McSherry, B. and P. Weller (eds.) (2010), Involuntary mental health treatment laws: the “rights” and “wrongs” of competing models.

[48] Menkel-Meadow, C. (2006), “Deliberative democracy and conflict resolution: two theories and practices of participation in the polity”, Dispute Resolution Magazine, pp. 18-22.

[8] Ministry of Justice Latvia (2020), Access to the rule of law in Latvia.

[69] Nason, S. (2019), “The ’New Administrative Law’ of Wales”, Public Law, pp. 703-723.

[62] Nationale Ombudsman (n.d.), Behoorlijkheidswijzer.

[53] Nonet, P. (1969), Administrative Justice: Advocacy and Change in a Government Agency, Russell Sage Foundation.

[29] Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2011), Proposals to Update Legislation to Reform Office of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman.

[58] NZ Ombudsman (2019), Making disability rights Real 2014-19.

[21] O’Donnell, G. (2007), Dissonances: Democratic Critiques of Democracy., University of Notre Dame Press.

[18] O’Brien, N. (2018), Ombudsmen and Public Authorities: A Modest Proposal, Edward Elgar Publishing, Hertogh, Marc; Kirkham, Richard (eds).

[50] OECD (2025), Governing with Artificial Intelligence: The State of Play and Way Forward in Core Government Functions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/795de142-en.

[52] OECD (2024), “OECD Online Dispute Resolution Framework”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 59, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/325e6edc-en.

[1] OECD (2023), Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, OECD-LEGAL-0498, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498.

[34] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.

[51] OECD (2020), “The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework: Six dimensions of a Digital Government”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en.

[72] Ostrom, E. (2012), The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation, The Institute of Economic Affairs.

[55] Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2024), Discharge from mental health care: Making it Safe and Patient-Centred.

[60] Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2009), Principles of Good Administration.

[63] Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and Local Government Ombudsman (2015), Joint Data Controller Agreement Between Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman for Investigations carried out by the Joint Working Team.

[66] Pegram, T. (2012), “The Bolivian Defensoría Del Pueblo and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, p. 33.

[65] Pegram, T. (2008), “Accountability in Hostile Times: The Case of the Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman 1996-2001”, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 40/1, pp. 51-82.

[37] People’s Law School (2025), www.peopleslawschool.ca.

[23] Restakis, J. (2022), Civilizing the State: Reclaiming Politics for the Common Good, New Society Publishers.

[38] Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (2025), Scottish Public Services Ombudsman website, http://www.spso.org.uk.

[19] Stuhmcke, A. (2018), Government watchdog agencies and administrative justice, Oxford University Press, Hertogh, M.; and Others (eds).

[41] Stuhmcke, M. (ed.) (2022), Bringing the Ombudsman Role and Powers into the Twenty-first Century, Oxford: Hart.

[22] Stuhmcke, M. (ed.) (2022), The Role of Ombuds Institutes in Providing Equal Access to Justice for All, Oxford: Hart.

[3] Task Force on Justice (2019), Justice for All - The Report of the Task Force on Justice.

[24] Taylor, C. (2020), Reconstructing Democracy: How Citizens Are Building from the Ground Up, Harvard University Press.

[27] The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Limited (2025), Australasian Therapeutic Jurisprudence Clearinghouse.

[39] Wales, P. (2025), www.ombudsman.wales.

[40] Weller, P. (2011), “Taking a reflexive turn: non-adversarial justice and mental health review tribunals”, Monash University Law Review, Vol. 37/1, pp. 81-101.

[43] Wexler, D. and B. Winnick (1991), “Essays in Therapeutic Jurisprudence”, Carolina Academic Press.

[17] Zacka, B. (2017), When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency, Harvard University Press.