​Toolkit for Access to Justice and People‑Centred Justice Systems

6. Participatory and evidence-based planning, monitoring and evaluation

Abstract

Moving toward people-centred justice requires accessible, disaggregated data – including on marginalised and underserved groups – to guide planning, reform and investment. These data should be accompanied by strong data governance, privacy safeguards, interoperable systems and improved institutional capacity to collect, generate and disseminate data. This chapter presents a set of self-assessment questions, proposed actions and good practice examples to support participatory, evidence‑based planning, monitoring and evaluation to support the implementation of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems.

Key provisions of the OECD Recommendation

Commit to participatory and evidence-based planning, monitoring and evaluation by:

• Enhancing the role of evidence for operational, policy and decision-making purposes, in line with data protection standards, by:

  • Improving data availability and quality, including from a people-centred perspective, to inform decision making, planning, investment and reforms in the justice system, including disaggregated data related to marginalised, underserved groups and those in vulnerable situations, using a comprehensive range of data sources that can be easily accessed, used and made publicly available.

  • Developing sound and coherent governance arrangements for justice data and evidence, supported by appropriate data security, sovereignty and privacy safeguards, interoperable systems, and tools and protocols to facilitate data access and sharing across the data value cycle while also ensuring equity and non-discrimination in data collection, analysis, exchange and use.

• Developing and implementing monitoring, evaluation and accountability mechanisms for people‑centred justice strategies and initiatives, among others to determine whether access to justice is experienced by all people equitably; eliminate any systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for groups in vulnerable situations; and identify any needed reforms to laws, policies or processes to advance equity and accessibility for all people by:

  • Regularly conducting robust review, evaluation and assessment of the performance of justice systems and services, including based on people-centred justice data, and at the institutional and the systemic level.

  • Building the skills and capacity of relevant institutional actors to generate, collect and disseminate up-to-date inclusive, representative and reliable information, evidence and data, including people-centred justice and anonymised aggregated open data.

Improving data availability and quality

Why is it important?

Establishing a shared, system-wide understanding of people-centred data lays the groundwork for more responsive justice services that reflect real-world legal and justice needs and experiences, including among underserved and marginalised populations. This can only be achieved by transforming traditional data practices into dynamic systems that prioritise people’s lived experiences and access to justice. This transformation must be built upon a robust justice data ecosystem, allowing data from diverse institutions to be meaningfully integrated, shared and analysed to guide policy and service delivery.

The data collection needs to go beyond institutional variables and focus on the individual legal and justice needs, desired outcomes, obstacles faced, and pathways of users and the larger number of people that do not become users of justice services. Only these data can inform a people-centred process of reform, justice policy formulation and service delivery.

It should also be understood that different stakeholders need reliable people-centred justice data for different reasons. Justice service providers need it to better plan and monitor their services. Justice policymakers need ready and timely access to comprehensive, high-quality data from across the justice system presented in useful formats to easily use during the policymaking process. Individuals, families, small and medium-sized enterprises, and all those experiencing legal and justice needs require access to sufficient information in a useful format to inform their decision making, including whether or not to take action, which justice pathway to follow, and what other reasonable outcomes and costs could be expected.

The responsibility and capacity for developing the different data sources are distributed across a range of state and non-government actors. Data contributing to the justice data ecosystem would need to be provided by courts; government legal aid agencies; community legal centres; non-governmental public service providers; and other community agencies, private practitioners and others. Ensuring sufficient commonality and interoperability will remain a key challenge but one that can be met if government takes a key leadership role.

Priority checklist

A. Establish a system-wide shared understanding of people-centred data and transform approaches to collecting and using such data.

B. Develop a justice data ecosystem to support people-centred justice.

C. Establish data quality standards and data collection protocols (possibly working with national statistics authorities) to ensure the quality of justice data.

A. Establish a system-wide shared understanding of people-centred data and transform approaches to collecting and using such data

Self-assessment questions

• Is there a set of prioritised people-centred justice variables to be collected, focusing on people and their legal and justice needs, pathways and outcomes?

• Are courts, tribunals and other justice institutions and services authorised and responsible under their mandates to collect people-centred data on the demographics, needs, capabilities, etc. of service users?

• Do justice institutions have strategies to ensure consistent, high-quality data collection and use, given the growing diversity of users and online data entry?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Ensure that the mandates of all justice institutions and service providers require and empower them to collect people-centred data as part of the ongoing administrative data collection process.

• Determine at a system-wide level the appropriate variables to be collected as part of people‑centred justice data collection and prioritise these variables so that:

  • A minimum “core” set of people-centred variables is defined and collected by the maximum range of service providers for the maximum appropriate range of services.

  • Additional variables providing greater insight can be collected to meet the specific needs of services and when circumstances allow.

• Work with broader national government and statistics agencies to ensure that justice data variables are consistent (as far as practicable) with broader national variables and standards.

• Develop a unified data collection system and tools (including software) with standardised definitions and criteria for system-wide application.

• Implement strategies to maintain the quality and consistency of data entry to accompany the increasingly diverse range of people entering data as more and more processes become digital.

• Plan for the progressive introduction of enhanced people-centred data collection processes to parallel ordinary IT and digital technology upgrades over a five- to ten-year period.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to agree on common people-centred data variables, implement system-wide standards and provide a clear mandate can lead to inconsistent, fragmented data that undermine evidence‑based decision making and limit the ability to design effective, inclusive justice services.

• Failing to involve key actors such as national statistics authorities and all levels of the justice system and other sectors can hinder the development of a coherent data ecosystem.

Box 6.1. Good practice examples of approaches for data collection and analysis

Australia: Identifying everyday justice and people-centred variables, definitions, standards and collection

Improving the cohesion and co-ordination of Australia’s legal assistance landscape continues to be a priority for federal and state governments. Establishing common data standards and protocols in that environment is challenging, and in 2011 the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department commenced a collaborative data standards project with representatives of the legal assistance sector to provide guidance to all parts of the sector on defining terms and best practice principles for data collection. The project culminated in the publication of a (first edition) Data Standards Manual in 2014, which has been updated regularly as lessons are learnt from the practical collection and use of data.

Sources: Australian Attorney General’s Department (2021[1]; 2024[2]).

B. Develop a justice data ecosystem to support people-centred justice

Self-assessment questions

• Does the justice system have a comprehensive plan for establishing or enhancing the justice data ecosystem to support the implementation of people-centred justice?

• Has the justice system identified the types of data and data sources that could potentially be part of the ecosystem (administrative data, LNS, user satisfaction surveys, official data, targeted studies, etc.)?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Develop a model for a justice data ecosystem that identifies existing, potential and needed data, covering topics such as legal and justice needs, legal capability, and the effectiveness of services and programmes, among others.

• Identify justice institutions and broader society responsible for data sources and develop appropriate support and co-ordination mechanisms to progressively move towards a coherent and consistent system of data collection and use.

• Support the development of system-wide and institutional digital infrastructure for collecting, managing and reporting their data as required.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to shift to people-centred data and to collect data on and monitor what works for whom and under what circumstances hinders the development of responsive justice services.

Box 6.2. Good practice examples of developing a justice data ecosystem

Colombia: Developing people-centred justice data ecosystem to support people-centred purpose and achievements

Colombia continues to build upon progress made in developing a data ecosystem to support implementation of people-centred justice approaches, beginning with the assessment of legal needs through LNS. Following the conduct of 2016 LNS, Colombia has continued its programme of legal need assessment through the implementation of a legal needs component on a broader regular national survey that focuses primarily on crime victimisation.

The Colombian Ministry of Justice and Law has combined with the Colombian National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE) to include LNS modules within the broader survey in 2019, 2021, 2023 and are planning a further iteration in 2025. This modular approach has helped to better understand legal needs and their interlink with victimisation.

In addition to its ongoing programme of legal need assessment, Colombia is implementing an active strategy to improve the collection, analysis and use of administrative data to support people centred justice.

United Kingdom: Developing components of the data ecosystem – Court data

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) released a Data Strategy in December 2021 as part of its work to improve data across the sector and to support both the government-wide national Data Strategy and reform across the Ministry of Justice. It is based on the understanding that “the data strategy will deliver significant benefits, from improving our decisions because we better understand our users and have a stronger evidence base, to improving our operational effectiveness because we can optimise processes through performance analytics, identify and resolve blockers and automate low value processes.” Through the Data Strategy the HMCTS is seeking to:

• improve its data collection processes and develop a more proactive culture of engaging with data across the whole system

• understand the pathways people take through the courts and tribunals service and provide insight on how it can continue to improve and drive performance.

Source: HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2021[3]); (Government of Colombia, 2025[4]); (DANE, 2023[5]).

C. Establish data quality standards and data collection protocols to ensure the quality of justice data

Self-assessment questions

• Has the justice system established and clearly articulated system-wide data collection protocols and data quality standards – aligned with national standards – that apply to the whole justice system (with accommodations for essential variations)?

• Do the data collection protocols define standardised procedures for data collection, protect privacy and confidentiality in relation to individuals’ data? Are all personnel adequately trained to implement these?

• Do data validation and verification processes adequately ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data collected?

• Are there standardised data collection methods across all justice institutions and service providers?

• Are there mechanisms in place to regularly monitor, evaluate and improve data quality standards and collection protocols?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish legislative, regulatory, funding and policy frameworks to enable ministry of justice or equivalent’s oversight and system-wide compliance with data collection protocols and quality standards.

• Establish, with other data contributors, common standards and minimum data sets for greater consistency, as well as co-ordination and collaboration protocols and processes to facilitate the management, security and sharing of appropriate data.

• Develop justice data standards and protocols (including storage procedures, privacy and confidentiality issues, and issues of technological integration) in consultation with national statistical authorities to align them with national data quality standards and protocols and communicate them broadly.

• Where possible, support justice institutions with appropriate common tools for data collection tools (including software) and with guidance to support individual organisations to collect, use and report data consistently.

• Put mechanisms in place to regularly monitor, evaluate and improve justice data quality standards and collection protocols.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to bring all justice institutions on board with data standards and to centrally co-ordinate and support data protocols can lead to inconsistent, unreliable data that undermine evidence-based policymaking and risk confusion, poor implementation and limited uptake across institutions.

Box 6.3. Good practice example of data quality standards and data collection protocols

Canada: Accessible presentation of criminal justice system data

Justice Canada’s State of the Criminal Justice System Framework was built through extensive research in consultation and collaboration with criminal justice system partners, stakeholders, experts and other Canadians. The framework’s online Dashboard presents information from the framework in one easily accessible location. It shows information and data collected for over 40 performance indicators grouped by 9 outcomes. This information is presented for the total population and by population-based theme. The population-based themes currently available are: indigenous peoples, women and youth. These themes present pre-filtered views of the data by sub-population, such as by indigenous identity or sex/gender (where data are available). Under each theme, data users can also find contextual information on how different populations interact with the criminal justice system as victims, survivors, accused and offenders.

Portugal: The justice statistical information system

For the last 20 years Portugal has been developing its justice data system and the online communications portal to provide access to those data. The justice statistical information system covers justice areas including courts, registries and notaries, police and other investigating bodies, alternative dispute resolution bodies and others. Developed and maintained by the Director General for Justice Policy, it fulfils part of the important functions of data collection and communication delegated to it by the National Statistical Institute. The platform provides access through a range of tools including maps, graphs and data sets. The portal provides a good example of increasing the accessibility of the collected justice data.

United States: Maintaining data quality and data protection

The United States’ Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Data Protection Guidelines are intended to provide a summary of the many federal statutes, regulations and other authorities that govern the BJS. The guidelines require the BJS to adhere to strict confidentiality requirements regarding data collected at the BJS’s direction; ensure that the collected data be used only for statistical purposes; commit to wide dissemination of BJS data for public benefit; and strive to maximise the utility, objectivity and integrity of the information the BJS disseminates and archives for public use.

Sources: US Bureau of Justice Statistics (2021[6]); Government of Canada (2024[7]); Portuguese Directorate-General for Justice Policy (n.d.[8]).

Developing sound and coherent governance arrangements for justice data and evidence

Why is it important?

Sound data governance for justice data is essential to creating an environment where data can be safely and effectively accessed and shared across the justice system, and across broader policy areas. It can contribute to prevention, anticipation and effective responses to the legal issues people and businesses face. It can also benefit justice institutions that share common goals and that mandate, produce, access, share or reuse common data sets. In the justice context, this calls for coordination and cooperation within government and across the full justice chain in processing people-centred data, whether in the public or private sectors. This coordination and cooperation, for example, can take place by encouraging common data elements and formats, quality assurance, and data interoperability standards; and by encouraging common policies and procedures that minimise barriers to sharing data for justice system management, statistics, research and other related purposes that serve the public interest while protecting privacy, personal data and data security. Without such co-ordination there is a risk of a lack of interoperability of data across different parts of the justice system as well as duplicated efforts on the part of institutions and people, who would be required to provide the same data to different parts of the system.

Sound data governance is also important to ensure that data are used in a way that respects and protects people’s privacy and personal data. A data strategy, for the purposes of this Toolkit, can be defined as a comprehensive plan that outlines how an organisation will collect, manage, use and protect its data. It will generally include details of data governance arrangements, but will also likely involve defining the technology, processes, people and rules required to handle data effectively. Establishing an appropriate justice data strategy will therefore be important to serve as the overarching guidance for data management, quality, storage, analysis and use.

Priority checklist

A. Improve justice data governance

Self-assessment questions

• Does the justice system have appropriate cooperation and coordination mechanisms to facilitate consistency in data management and processes between justice institutions and service providers?

• Does the justice system have an effective and comprehensive data governance framework that governs the collection, storage, use and security of justice data, and in particular protects the privacy and security of personal data?

• Are there robust processes to store justice data and, where necessary, the analysis of justice data to protect individual privacy?

• Are there regular efforts to evaluate and monitor strategies for communicating data and analysis, and to adapt and adjust these processes based on that feedback?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Develop an overall justice data governance framework that governs all justice data and includes at least the following protocols and processes:

  • to ensure that data are used in a respectful way and that the protection of people’s privacy and personal data is formalised, across the public, private and non-government organisations sectors

  • to deal with different institutional capacities across the justice system; policies for sharing information; evaluation and monitoring mechanisms; and appropriate safeguards

  • to store and share digital information and the possible linkage of different data sets across the justice system, while protecting privacy and personal data

  • to engage with individuals in relation to the governance of their data and to providing access to the data.

• Gain a sound understanding of the various factors to be considered and balanced in the development of the data governance framework, including:

  • enhancing data access and sharing while protecting individuals’ and organisations’ rights

  • managing overlapping interests and legislative, regulatory and policy requirements

  • managing the roles of public/civil society organisation/private sector contributors in the data ecosystem, whether as service providers, data collectors, data initiators, data subjects, data users, data managers or data analysers

  • incentivising greater commitment to and investment in data

  • maintaining the trust of individuals, justice institutions and data providers.

• Consider the development of a comprehensive, overarching justice data strategy that consolidates, in a single accessible strategy, the principal elements of the data governance framework.

• Provide data and the analysis of that data in a range of formats and media to ensure they are accessible to a wide range of users.

• Maintain an appropriate balance between providing valuable justice data for decision making and upholding ethical and legal privacy protections. This should include:

  • Ensuring that, where necessary, data are appropriately anonymised to protect individual identities prior to publication.

  • Implementing robust data security and storage measures to protect against unauthorised access to data.

  • Communicating clearly and transparently about how data will be used, what access there will be to it and how users may have some control over their personal information.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to balance data privacy with accessibility can reinforce perceptions of elitism, erode public trust and limit the usefulness of data for service planning and accountability.

• Failing to support justice staff in adopting open data practices can lead to missed opportunities to improve transparency, engagement and service quality through a range of communication tools.

• Failing to ensure consistent data management and to produce comparable, high-quality data across the justice system can undermine both public trust and professionals’ confidence in the data and limits its value for system-wide analysis, collaboration and reform.

Box 6.4. Good practice examples of data use in the justice sector

Spain: The Manifesto for Public Data Space in the Field of Justice

The Data Manifesto was jointly agreed upon by the General Council of the Judiciary; the Public Prosecutor’s Office; the autonomous communities; and the Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Parliamentary Relations. Its role is to provide the overarching direction and governance to support Spain’s transition from a digital justice model to a data-driven justice model.

The Data Manifesto:

• Clearly states the objectives of justice system data, recognising the justice system data as a public good that should aim to promote innovation and improvement in justice services and, importantly, that data efforts should be directed towards the interests that affect the majority of citizens.

• Provides direction in relation to data access, sharing and innovation in the prevention of non‑discrimination.

• Provides guidance in relation to data interconnectivity between public sector organisations, levels of government and with the private sector.

• Articulates guidance on training and capacity building in relation to data production, use and interpretation.

Importantly, the manifesto includes details of relevant legislation, regulations, royal decrees and other authorities behind each aspect of the Manifesto’s provisions. This includes, in particular, the Digital Efficiency Law.

Source: Spain (2022[9]); (Government of Spain, 2022[10]).

Integrating justice impact assessments into the early stages of the policy, budget and service delivery process

Why is it important?

Justice impact assessments (JIAs) are evaluations conducted to understand the potential effects of government policies or legislative proposals on the justice system. By assessing these impacts early – before decisions are finalised – JIAs help to ensure that the justice system is not unintentionally overwhelmed or destabilised by policy changes originating in other sectors.

Integrating JIAs into the earliest stages of policy development and budgeting enables a proactive, preventative approach rather than reactive crisis management. This allows policymakers to identify and mitigate potential strain on justice institutions – such as increased court caseloads, pressures on legal aid or rising demand for correctional facilities – before such burdens materialise. Early-stage application also supports more accurate budget planning and resource allocation, reducing the risk of delays, backlogs or service breakdowns.

Importantly, JIAs contribute to better policy design by enabling adjustments that can minimise negative, unintended consequences, such as exacerbating social inequality or justice system bottlenecks. They support more joined-up government by linking justice with other areas like housing, health, education and policing. When applied systematically, JIAs promote transparency, accountability and evidence-based decision-making, enhancing public trust and ensuring that justice remains accessible, fair and resilient in the face of change.

Priority checklist

A. Encourage a whole-of government approach to conducting JIAs.

Self-assessment questions

• Are JIAs established as a mechanism to assess policy and related decisions on the justice system, other sectors and capacities to meet legal and justice needs?

• Are JIAs integrated into the early stages of policy and budget development processes across all relevant institutions?

• How are the results of JIAs used to inform policy decisions and budget allocations?

• Are there formal mechanisms in place to ensure collaboration between public institutions and with non-government agencies, during the JIA process? Are all relevant government and non‑government stakeholders included in the JIA process?

• Are the findings of JIAs publicly accessible and transparent?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Develop and implement a standardised framework, guidelines and collaboration mechanisms for conducting JIAs across government to ensure all government agencies, public institutions and portfolios follow a consistent approach.

• Develop and provide training opportunities and materials and appropriate user guides to build the capacity of agencies across government to understand, implement and ensure consistency of JIAs.

• Ensure the public, the justice system and other stakeholders are engaged appropriately as part of the JIA process.

• Make the findings of JIAs publicly accessible and understandable to promote transparency and build trust.

• Continuously review and evaluate the JIA processes to ensure continuous improvements and lessons learnt.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to implement JIAs and to secure whole-of-government buy-in and standardised frameworks for their implementation limits the justice system’s ability to anticipate, adapt to and manage cross‑sector policy impacts effectively.

Box 6.5. Good practice examples of JIAs

Canada: Child Rights Impact Assessment Tool

In 2023, Justice Canada launched the Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) tool to help public officials across government consider the impacts of new laws, policies and programmes on children. This tool is grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and supports evidence-based decision making. The CRIA tool is designed to be used by federal officials, but it is also available to provincial, territorial and municipal governments, as well as non-governmental organisations.

United Kingdom: Justice Impact Test Guidance

New policies, especially those which involve a change in the law, can have a very significant impact on the justice system. The UK Ministry of Justice is responsible to ensure that such impacts are considered, anticipated and planned for at an early stage to make the best use of public funds and ensure that service provision within the justice system is not jeopardised. The UK Ministry of Justice Impact Test Guidance sets out the requirements for other government departments that are considering policy proposals that may have an impact on the justice system.

Sources: UK Ministry of Justice (2018[11]); Government of Canada (2023[12]).

Regularly conducting robust review, evaluation and assessment of the performance of justice systems and services

Why is it important?

A people-centred justice system is one that seeks to provide effective services to address the citizens’ legal and justice needs as they experience them. To do this it also must monitor and evaluate its services and systems to ensure their effectiveness from a people-centred perspective. All aspects of legal and justice service delivery, therefore, should be accompanied by regular monitoring processes. This calls for developing and implementing evaluation, measurement and accountability mechanisms to collect data and regularly assess and report on progress. Such an approach will require review, monitoring and evaluation not just at the service delivery level, but also at the system level, to ensure systems, processes and the pathways people follow are part of the monitoring and assessment regime.

Priority checklist

A. Conduct targeted evaluations of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of services and initiatives.

Self-assessment questions

• Is there a mandate in place for a strategic, ongoing programme of evaluations of legal and justice services?

• Are evaluation priorities aligned with the most pressing knowledge gaps in delivering people‑centred justice and improving access to justice?

• Are cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses regularly conducted and used to guide strategic investment and decision making within the justice system?

• Are there curated repositories of the results of the evaluations and monitoring programmes?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Consider developing a strategic evaluation plan that outlines priority areas for evaluation. Establish clear objectives for the programme and for individual evaluations within it.

• Conduct cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses to ensure that justice strategies and initiatives are assessed not just against broader budget priorities but against other alternative strategies and initiatives.

• Ensure that the findings and outcomes of the evaluations are communicated widely across the justice system and beyond and are (where appropriate), incorporated into a “what works” database.

• Regularly review the evaluation programme to ensure it provides insights and recommendations to improve the delivery of people-centred justice services. Consider establishing systems to track the implementation of these insights and their subsequent outcomes.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to co-ordinate evaluation and monitoring efforts risks duplication, inefficient use of limited resources and missed opportunities to focus on priority areas where insights are the most needed.

• Failing to build a strong, evidence-based foundation for justice reform, including an evaluation of the costs and benefits of interventions, can slow progress toward people-centred justice and risk basing decisions on assumptions rather than data.

• Failing to disseminate evidence on successful initiatives can limit their uptake and reduce the potential for system-wide improvement.

Box 6.6. Good practice example of justice service outcome monitoring

Portugal: Monitoring satisfaction and outcomes of alternative dispute resolution services

Portugal has been advancing efforts to understand and improve satisfaction with and trustworthiness of its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services by implementing user outcome and satisfaction surveys distributed to all users of ADR services. Since 2013, surveys such as the Barometer of the Quality of Arbitration Centres, Barometer of the Quality of Justice of the Peace Courts and Barometer of the Quality of Mediation, are applied annually to users of ADR on an online platform to assess the satisfaction of users and improve knowledge about how citizens perceive this aspect of the justice system. This is an important step in assessing the effectiveness and people-centredness of services, and as such should be employed for all justice services.

These user surveys are designed to be completed by users following their particular ADR process. They provide the ministry with a range of information about users, their characteristics, the problems they have experienced, the process they have undertaken, the outcomes of that process and their satisfaction with it.

Sources: OECD (2024[13]); Portuguese Directorate General for Justice Policy (2024[14]).

Building the skills and capacity of relevant institutions to generate, collect and disseminate information, evidence and data

Why is it important?

Generating robust, actionable people-centred justice data will require justice system staff with the skills to collect, analyse and disseminate the data. At all levels and across the sector in both state and non‑government roles, staff will need to be trained to develop these skills. Furthermore, a feature of increasing digitisation of processes is that there is a similarly increasing number and range of people (clients, lawyers, etc.) who enter data into justice data systems. Data entry processes will need to be tailored to “guide” commonality and staff capable of managing consistency despite greater diversity.

Given the diversity of justice institutions and staff and the need to produce data that are comparable across institutions, consistent data gathering will be greatly aided by the use of common data collection tools, software and protocols. These will improve commonality in systems and facilitate knowledge transfer within the system and make it easier for both justice system users and staff to access, understand and use the data effectively and consistently.

Priority checklist

A. Develop data and evidence capacity by training staff and developing appropriate user guides for staff and others.

Self-assessment questions

• Has the system determined what competencies different justice institutions and staff need to develop capacity in data and evidence collection, analysis and dissemination?

• Are there targeted training programmes for justice system staff on data collection, analysis and dissemination based on the determined competencies?

• Are there user manuals, guides and “prompts” to support the daily tasks associated with data entry, analysis and reporting?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Foster a culture of data-driven decision making across justice institutions to contribute to raising data literacy levels across the system.

• Identify the competencies different justice institutions and staff need to develop capacity in data and evidence collection, analysis and dissemination.

• Develop and implement targeted training programmes for justice system staff on data collection, analysis and dissemination. These programmes should:

  • focus on standardised tools, software and protocols

  • be targeted with specific information for particular levels and justice actors

  • be conducted in multiple formats (face-to-face workshops and seminars etc) in order to be accessible across the entire justice system.

• Develop and make readily available an appropriate range of supporting user guides, including comprehensive manuals as well as quick reference guides and prompts.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to establish common terminology, definitions, processes and consistent, system-wide standards and technology across the justice data ecosystem leads to confusion, errors and data that cannot be reliably compared or aggregated.

• Failing to provide targeted training and capacity building for justice system staff can undermine the effective use of data.

Box 6.7. Good practice examples of building data capacity in the justice sector

Australia: National Legal Assistance Data Standards Manual: Identifying everyday justice and people‑centred variables, definitions, standards and collection

Australia maintains a flexible, yet complex system of government-funded legal assistance services. Establishing common data standards and protocols in that environment is challenging, and in 2011 the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department commenced a collaborative data standards project with representatives of the legal assistance sector to provide guidance to all parts of the sector on defining terms and best practice principles for data collection. This project culminated in the publication of a (first edition) Data Standards Manual in 2014, which has been updated regularly as lessons are learnt from the practical collection and use of data. Importantly, the manual includes useful tools to guide justice sector staff and all users of the data. Terms are defined and each is accompanied by “counting rules” and illustrative “case studies” which assist with understanding the variable.

Sources: Byrom, Piccinin-Barbieri and Wells (2024[15]); OECD/Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies (2023[16]); Australian Attorney‑General’s Department (2024[2]; 2021[1]).

References

[1] Australian Attorney General’s Department (2021), National Legal Assistance Data Standards Manual, Australian Government, https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/national-legal-assistance-data-standards-manual.

[2] Australian Attorney‑General’s Department (2024), Presentation to the OECD Roundtable, Ottawa, Canada.

[15] Byrom, N., M. Piccinin-Barbieri and P. Wells (2024), “Towards effective governance of justice data”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 74, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d2950e02-en.

[5] DANE (2023), Survey of Citizen Security and Coexistence, https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/en/statistics-by-topic-1/security-and-defense/survey-of-citizen-security-and-coexistence.

[7] Government of Canada (2024), State of the Criminal Justice System Dashboard, Government of Canada, https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/f015b66d-9157-4443-84f3-0f41bb4efe00.

[12] Government of Canada (2023), “Overview of the Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) Tool and e-learning tool”, web page, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/cria-erde/index.html.

[4] Government of Colombia (2025), National Planning Department (DNP): Presentation to the OECD Workshop.

[10] Government of Spain (2022), Manifesto For a Public Data Space in the Field of Justice,, https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia/Documents/Spains_Manifesto_for_a_Public_Data_Space_in_the_Field_of_Justice.pdf.

[9] Government of Spain (2022), Manifesto: For a public data space in the field of justice, https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia.

[3] HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2021), HMCTS Data Strategy: Our Vision and Plan for a Data-driven Courts and Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/643fc22e22ef3b000c66f4f3/HMCTS626_Data_Strategy_v3.pdf.

[13] OECD (2024), Modernisation of the Justice Sector in Portugal, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cbde9a7a-en.

[16] OECD/Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies (2023), “Improving the monitoring of SDG 16.3.3: Towards better access to justice”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c5fbed7e-en.

[14] Portuguese Directorate General for Justice Policy (2024), Quality Barometer of Arbitration Centers, https://www.triave.pt/inquerito-de-satisfacao.

[8] Portuguese Directorate-General for Justice Policy (n.d.), The Justice Statistical Information System, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us.

[11] UK Ministry of Justice (2018), Justice Impact Test: Guidance, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b6daf8ee5274a1cfa14fb9c/justice-impact-test-guidance.pdf.

[6] US Bureau of Justice Statistics (2021), BJS Data Quality Guidelines, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, https://bjs.ojp.gov/bjs-data-quality-guidelines.