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

2. People-centred purpose and culture in the justice system

Abstract

Transforming the justice system to one that places people and their legal and justice needs at the centre involves a whole-of-state and whole-of-society approach, high‑level commitment, co-ordinated planning and aligned mandates across institutions. Additionally, data-driven service design, cross-sector collaboration and integrated justice policies contribute to making justice more accessible and effective for all. This chapter presents a set of self‑assessment questions, proposed actions and examples to facilitate the establishment of a people-centred purpose and culture in the justice system, in support of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems.

Key provisions of the OECD Recommendation

Establish a people-centred purpose and culture in the justice system by:

• Securing commitment at the highest levels of government to promote people-centred justice, based on empirical data and evidence, through whole-of-state and whole-of-society approaches that are, where appropriate, co-ordinated with regional and local governments, justice stakeholders, civil society and service organisations, including those which provide legal aid, advocacy and human or social services contributing to legal empowerment.

• Publicly embracing the goal of ensuring equal access to justice for all, by defining shared goals for collaboration between different justice stakeholders and regularly monitoring progress towards these goals.

• Recognising and ensuring clear roles and prerogatives, and independence of justice system stakeholders in the context of mutual co-operation and co-ordination.

• Identifying, analysing and working to eradicate any possible explicit or implicit bias and discrimination within the justice system and in the outcomes it produces.

• Ensuring that public institutions implement approaches grounded in equity by removing barriers to access to justice, including target groups in vulnerable situations1.

Securing commitment at the highest levels of government to promote people‑centred justice

Why is it important?

If justice systems are to better meet people’s legal and justice needs, they must be transformed to put people at the centre of their reforms and services. This means that every part of the justice system – from justice ministries and courts to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and police, prisons, consumer services, and the wide range of non-governmental justice organisations – should be guided by a clear goal of being people-centred. Achieving this requires justice planning, budgeting and service design that prioritise what matters most to the people they serve, in close co-ordination with ministries of finance and other central government bodies responsible for budget planning.

To bring about such a transformation across different justice stakeholders, an articulated and endorsed purpose or mission that places people at the centre of justice systems is essential. This purpose should begin at the highest levels of government – the orchestrators of systemic change. People-centred justice demands a whole-of-state approach, bringing in national, regional and local bodies as well as other sectors such as housing and health. It also demands that access to justice and people-centred approaches to justice be central to a country’s policy and budget frameworks. This is only possible when the highest levels of government commit to a people-centred transformation of the justice system.

To be effective, a people-centred approach to justice must go beyond high-level political support. It also needs to be put into practice at every level of the justice system, guided by reliable data and evidence to help target services effectively and make the best use of resources.

Every part of the justice system, from courts to support services, should have its own clear and consistent mandate that aligns with the overall goal of putting people at the centre. These mandates should also be in line with those of other justice institutions to avoid fragmentation. Justice institutions should also co-ordinate their operations, including by sharing data wherever possible, to strengthen collaboration and improve outcomes for individuals.

Historically, justice systems have often been split between different areas of law and levels of government, and the need to protect judicial independence has sometimes made procedures and data collection inconsistent. Effective, people-centred services can only be possible with strong co-ordination and collaboration mechanisms that help harmonise planning, processes and data use across the entire justice system.

Priority checklist

A. Establish and endorse a people-centred purpose within the justice system, ensuring that it underpins all policies, strategies and frameworks.

B. Link the people-centred purpose to a rigorous and evidence-based understanding of people’s legal and justice needs.

C. Conduct ongoing analysis using other data sources to complement the Legal Needs Survey (LNS), as well as data on what works to address legal needs.

D. Implement people-centred purpose consistently across all levels and institutions of the justice system.

E. Establish and maintain co-ordination systems and mechanisms among all government portfolios, levels of government and organisations in the justice chain, as well as with non-governmental justice stakeholders.

A. Establish and endorse a people-centred purpose within the justice system, ensuring that it underpins all policies, strategies and frameworks

Self-assessment questions

• Is there a clearly defined purpose for the justice system that prioritises a people-centred approach and is understood across justice institutions?

• Are there co-ordination mechanisms (e.g. inter-ministerial committees, national justice councils) that enable a whole-of-state approach to embedding people-centred justice into daily justice operations?

• Do justice system job descriptions, performance requirements, accountability and education frameworks include people-centred principles and key performance indicators?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Develop and implement clear and agreed-upon statements of a people-centred purpose that provide the necessary direction for the justice sector as a whole and are reflected in the whole-of-state policy, budgeting, training and performance systems.

• Review and align institutional mandates, job descriptions, performance requirements and accountability frameworks to be people-centred.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Treating the people-centred vision as symbolic rather than operational and implementing fragmented approaches by failing to co-ordinate across state institutions can undermine the effectiveness of efforts.

• Neglecting to align high-level statutory, institutional and operational mandates with a people‑centred purpose can result in a missed opportunity to embed people-centred justice into daily operations.

Box 2.1. Good practice examples of people-centred purpose within the justice system

Canada: Securing commitment at the highest levels of government to promote people-centred justice

Canada’s high-level commitment to people-centred justice is being fulfilled through several strategies, including:

1. Clear articulation at the highest level that access to justice is a fundamental value of the Canadian justice system.

The Department of Justice Canada has stated that access to justice is a “fundamental value” of the Canadian justice system. Justice Canada is working “to advance a people-centred approach to justice that puts consideration of the individual at the heart of justice responses by providing access to information, programs and policies”.

2. “People-centred” access to justice-related commitment in the Government of Canada’s submission to the 2021 Summit for Democracy.

Canada’s submission to the 2021 Summit for Democracy emphasised its commitment to “support a people-centred approach to justice to advance equality, legal empowerment, and a better understanding of the legal needs of all the people of Canada, including indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and other traditionally underserved populations”.

3. Establishment of the Access to Justice Secretariat.

In 2019, the Department of Justice Canada established an Access to Justice Secretariat, with a view to creating a focal point and advocating for efforts to provide equal access to justice for all individuals and communities. This dedicated unit reflects senior management’s commitment to support and enhance the department’s access to justice work and its role as lead department at the federal level to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The Access to Justice Secretariat pursues its mandate through broad outreach and engagement within government and with external partners and stakeholders, as well as through leadership and support on substantive access to justice policy and research initiatives. This includes amplifying quantitative and qualitative access to justice research, such as the Canadian Legal Problems Survey and the National Justice Survey, to increase understanding of people’s justice needs and experiences; promoting broad collaborative approaches within the justice system and across other disciplines and sectors; and contributing to the sharing of promising practices and lessons learnt among local, regional and international partners.

Justice Action Coalition Ministerial Statement 2023: Pivoting to people-centred justice

A joint commitment was made at the meeting of Justice Action Coalition country justice ministers in 2023, which was chaired by the Netherlands, for countries to “pivot” to people-centred justice, making 2023 a “turning point”. This would involve putting people at the centre of justice systems and delivering fair, relevant and timely solutions to their justice problems that lead to fair outcomes and the respect human rights. This commitment also focused on the achievement of SDG 16’s promise to provide access to justice for all.

Justice ministers agreed that the pivot to people-centred justice can include:

• gathering data on the justice people want and need and how they experience their justice journey

• co-creating strategies to become much better at resolving and preventing people’s most common justice problems, ensuring gender equality in all responses

• setting shared goals for a range of justice actors and starting to implement strategies to achieve these goals

• investing at scale to transform justice as it is delivered to and experienced by people, reducing the number of unresolved justice problems, and creating fair outcomes.

Sources: Government of Canada (2021[1]; 2021[2]); Justice Action Coalition (2023[3]).

B. Link the people-centred purpose to a rigorous and evidence-based understanding of people’s legal and justice needs

Self-assessment questions

• Is there a robust ongoing programme for assessing and monitoring people’s legal needs?

• Are there mechanisms to regularly update and refine the understanding of legal and justice needs and link the updated information to the purpose of justice systems and individual institutions?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish an ongoing approach for determining people’s legal and justice needs.

• Ensure that the ongoing development of a justice data ecosystem is guided by the data requirements to support a people-centred system) and is accompanied by infrastructure development and the establishment of data standards and protocols (see chapter on Design and delivery of people-centred legal and justice services and chapter on Participatory and evidence-based planning, monitoring and evaluation)

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to establish a systematic and ongoing approach to assess and monitor people’s legal needs can result in outdated or incomplete information that fails to capture the full range of people’s needs.

• Overlooking the importance of an integrated data ecosystem can lead to fragmented data collection and analysis and undermine the ability to plan and deliver services that are responsive to actual legal needs.

• Focusing solely on initial data collection without establishing mechanisms for regular updates puts the justice system at risk of being unresponsive to emerging and evolving legal and justice needs.

Box 2.2. Good practice examples of understanding people’s legal and justice needs

Colombia: Developing a 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 the implementation of people-centred justice approaches, beginning with the assessment of legal needs through a Legal Needs Survey (LNS). Following the 2016 LNS, Colombia has continued its programme of legal needs assessment through a legal needs component in a broader regular national survey that focuses primarily on crime victimisation. These modules have focused on the incidence of justice problems over individuals’ lives, the paths individuals took to resolve their problems, the results from these paths and the access to legal assistance. This modular approach has helped to better understand legal needs and their interlinkages with victimisation.

In addition to its ongoing programme of legal needs assessment, Colombia is implementing an active strategy to improve the collection, analysis and use of administrative data to support people-centred justice. The National Administrative Department of Statistics, working with the national statistics office, is using a range of methodologies to enhance current and develop new administrative data to contribute to the data ecosystem to support people-centred justice.

United Kingdom: Development and use of data to enable the rule of law to be upheld and provide access to justice for all

HM Courts & Tribunals Service released a Data Strategy in December 2021 as part of its work to improve data across the justice system 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, HM Courts & Tribunals Service is seeking to:

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

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

HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s plan is that by improving the data and evidence base it can:

• use user insight to improve operational efficiency

• use data and evaluation to drive better user engagement

• use data to ensure “reasonable adjustments” for individual users

• provide timely evaluations of reform projects

• support the Ministry of Justice to make informed policy changes

• link data across government departments.

Sources: Byrom, Piccinin-Barbieri and Well (2024[4]); DANE (2023[5]); OECD/Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies (2023[6]); HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2021[7]); Government of Colombia (2025[8]).

C. Conduct ongoing analysis using other data sources to complement the Legal Needs Survey

Self-assessment questions

• Are there specifically targeted assessment strategies and analyses undertaken to reach those who might be missed by the LNS, such as indigenous populations, prisoners and older people in care facilities?

• Are available data sources, including official census data, service delivery data, court data, police data, legal aid data and other relevant public service data sets, used to complement and deepen the understanding of legal and justice needs?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Develop and implement strategies to complement the results from the LNS by integrating data from other sources.

• Design analysis strategies to engage with and improve understanding of particular target groups’ legal and justice needs.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to integrate diverse data sources – such as court records, demographic and criminal justice data, and service delivery information – into justice planning can lead to overlooking key insights and missing important population groups.

• Failing to conduct in-depth qualitative analysis can lead to the exclusion of marginalised, disadvantaged, hard‑to‑reach or other target groups that the LNS alone may not adequately capture.

Box 2.3. Good practice examples of in-depth analysis of legal and justice needs of target groups

Canada: Complementing the Canadian Legal Problem Survey

To complement the Canadian Legal Problem Survey, a series of qualitative studies were also undertaken to explore and report on the experiences of specific populations in different parts of Canada who have experienced a serious legal problem. These projects, which aim to capture the voices and perceptions of individuals in contact with the justice system, have contributed to the overall understanding of the access to justice gap in Canada. The groups targeted for focused qualitative research concerning serious legal problems have included:

• older adults in Ontario

• trans, two-spirit and non-binary people in Canada

• LGBTQ people in selected regions

• immigrants in British Columbia and Ontario

• the Metis community in the North-West Territories

• people with disabilities in selected regions of Canada

• urban African people in Quebec

• 16-30-year-old members of the Black community.

Sweden: Mapping of justice needs for vulnerable communities – Women and gender equality (GBV), LGBTQI, and children and youth

In Sweden, it is common practice for the government to assign specific mandates to various authorities to investigate and analyse legal and justice-related issues. These assignments often focus on particular groups or themes and complement legal needs surveys by identifying gaps, challenges and areas for policy development. Some recent examples include:

• the government’s strategic work on children’s rights

• the Swedish Gender Equality Agency on men’s violence against women, other domestic violence, and honour-related violence and oppression against children and adults belonging to national minorities

• an assignment to the Swedish Defence Research Agency on how criminal networks affect children and young people in digital environments

• a mission to contribute to the development of crime prevention

• an assignment to map the vulnerability of LGBTQI people to intimate partner violence and analyse the need for interventions.

Sources: (Government of Canada, 2024[9]); (Government Offices of Sweden, 2025[10]); (Eriksson, E. and A. Blessing, 2018[11]); (Sweden Herald, 2025[12]); (Government of Sweden, 2024[13]); (Government Offices of Sweden, 2024[14]); (Government of Sweden, 2025[15]).

D. Implement people-centred purpose consistently across all levels and institutions of the justice system

Self-assessment questions

• Does each justice institution have a clear mission or mandate that prioritises a people-centred approach?

• Are people-centred principles and requirements included as mandatory elements within education and training programmes, including professional legal training requirements and the ongoing institutional staff training within each justice institution?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Review justice institutions’ and services’ roles, mandates and missions to ensure they are people‑centred.

• Consider developing standard forms of mandates for various institutions and services to ensure both consistency and the effective and timely implementation of the mandates.

• Ensure mandates require and empower the collection and/or analysis of people-centred justice data and the implementation of people-centred planning processes for services.

• Develop a process to monitor the effectiveness and consistency of the implementation of the people-centred justice vision at all levels of the justice system.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to secure buy-in across all levels and actors of the justice system can undermine the consistency and effectiveness of people-centred transformation efforts.

• Failing to appropriately staff and support people-centred role/mandate transformations could undermine the implementation of people-centred justice systems.

Box 2.4. Good practice examples of implementing people-centred purpose

Canada: Implementing commitment at all levels of the justice system

In seeking to implement its commitment to access to justice and a people-centred approach, Canada is employing a number of strategies to ensure that the commitment is adhered to at all levels, including the:

• creation and operation of the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, with both high-profile leadership and broad stakeholder involvement to implement concrete actions, including sharing practices supporting people-centred justice, supporting and promoting research, and seeking concrete actions to implement people-centred justice

• training of lawyers and judges in relation to people-centred justice

• training of legislative drafters on people-centred justice, and in particular drafting of legislation incorporating the principles of people-centred justice.

United Kingdom: Implementing people-centred approaches across courts and tribunals at all levels

In 2016, the United Kingdom’s HM Courts & Tribunals Service began modernising courts and tribunals to ensure greater accessibility, availability and efficiency of justice services for citizens, particularly those from vulnerable communities. In line with the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, the programme was informed by citizens’ insights and specifies that the perspectives and needs of communities, particularly marginalised and underserved communities, should be placed at the core of design, delivery, implementation and evaluation of services both within and beyond the justice system.

The reform programme is made up of over 50 projects, generally bringing modern technology and new ways of working to courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom. While user satisfaction with modernised services remains high, HM Courts & Tribunals Service is committed to further improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of justice services.

Sources: OECD (2023[16]); HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2025[17]); Government of Canada (2024[18]).

E. Establish and maintain co-ordination systems and mechanisms (also see below on co-ordination while ensuring clear roles and prerogatives and the independence of justice stakeholders)

Self-assessment questions

• Do the roles and mandates of justice system organisations both preserve the essential levels of independence where required and facilitate sufficient consistency and collaboration to support a whole-of-state approach to the delivery of people-centred justice?

• Have mechanisms and institutions with sufficient authority and capacity been established to effectively co-ordinate planning and service delivery across justice institutions?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish and mandate appropriate collaborative planning processes to ensure justice institutions can plan and co-ordinate services efficiently to ensure people’s diverse and often multiple needs are met.

• Establish appropriate protocols, agreements and other mechanisms to facilitate both justice system-wide, whole-of-state and whole-of-society collaborative planning.

• Establish appropriate policies and processes to allow for the sharing of data to inform planning and service delivery processes while protecting privacy and maintaining necessary independence where appropriate.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to establish shared goals and robust co-ordination mechanisms across the justice stakeholders can result in fragmented efforts, inefficiencies and unsustainable outcomes for people seeking justice.

• Neglecting to implement clear policies, processes and secure data-sharing protocols can undermine integrated planning and service delivery, thus potentially failing to respond to people’s actual needs.

Box 2.5. Good practice examples of co-ordination mechanisms

Australia: Co-ordinating government and non-governmental justice and legal services

There are four main types of legal assistance services that receive public funding in Australia:

1. Legal aid commissions are independent statutory authorities established in each state and territory and are funded by both national and state/territory governments.

2. Community legal centres are small, independent, community-based, not-for-profit organisations that assist disadvantaged people in need of legal assistance. Community legal centres generally receive funding from national and/or state/territory governments and other sources. Most of the approximately 200 community legal centres are “generalist” centres while many target specific vulnerable groups.

3. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services provide culturally competent legal services for indigenous Australians. They are independent, Aboriginal community-controlled organisations and receive predominantly national government funding (with some state/territory government and other funding).

4. Family Violence Prevention Legal Services provide legal and other support to indigenous victim survivors of family violence. Sixteen such organisations provide services in 31 rural and remote locations across Australia. Funding is predominately from the national government.

Improving the cohesion and co-ordination of Australia’s legal assistance landscape continues to be a priority for federal and state governments. The system is co-ordinated through a range of strategies and mechanisms, including:

• A National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance which encourages a unified and co‑ordinated approach by governments and the legal assistance sector to keep the justice system within reach and help focus finite resources towards areas with the greatest legal need. It also sets out a shared aspirational objective for all Commonwealth, state and territory government-funded legal assistance.

• The National Access to Justice Partnership (2025-2030) is the latest evolution of the agreement, representing improved cohesion and co-ordination between legal assistance sectors and governments across all jurisdictions.

• Mandatory Collaborative Service Planning has been in operation since 2015 to ensure information is shared and progress towards common goals is achieved.

• A National Legal Assistance Data Standards Manual was first published in 2014 and continually evolves to increase coherence and commonality across the justice data ecosystem within the legal assistance sector.

Canada: Co-ordination with justice stakeholders

Canada is a federal country with legal jurisdiction responsibilities distributed between national and province/territory governments. It has a range of legal service providers, governmental and non‑governmental, and faces similar co-ordination challenges among different justice stakeholders.

Canada’s Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (hereafter the “Action Committee”) was established in 2007 by the former Chief Justice of Canada to work towards improved access to justice for people in Canada. This broad-based national network includes representation from provincial and territorial access to justice committees, justice institutions, government, and equity‑seeking groups.

In 2013, the Action Committee released its foundational report, A Roadmap for Change, which established guiding principles and a set of nine Justice Development Goals as a framework for action. Since the report’s publication, the Action Committee has served as a leader and convening voice to promote these principles and goals across the justice system. The Action Committee’s mission is to promote multi-systemic research and innovation that will help people better understand and solve their problems and to act as a catalyst for a people-centred, and broadly shared vision of access to civil and family justice in Canada and internationally.

Colombia: Co-ordination across jurisdictions

Colombia is introducing a new law that aims to establish co-ordination mechanisms between the national judicial system and the indigenous special jurisdiction. It is a declaration for reaffirming indigenous rights and autonomy in administering their own justice, addressing a long-standing constitutional mandate and historical debt. It seeks to resolve legal uncertainty and prevent issues like double jeopardy for individuals. The law is built on a number of guiding principles, defined competences, support mechanisms and goals to facilitate the effective operation of the two different justice systems in a way that is appropriate for individuals.

Sources: Australian Attorney‑General’s Department (2019[19]; 2021[20]; 2024[21]); Australian Federal Relations Secretariat (2025[22]); Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (2025[23]); (OECD, 2023[24]).

Publicly embracing the goal of ensuring equal access to justice for all

Why is it important

Over the past decades, analysis has shown that legal and justice needsare widespread and rarely occur in isolation. These issues often span multiple legal domains, such as civil, criminal and family law, and are frequently entangled with non-legal problems like health, housing and disability. As such, delivering effective and equitable access to justice requires holistic, joined-up services that can respond to the full complexity of individuals’ needs, rather than siloed or narrowly defined interventions.

To meet people’s legal and justice needs effectively, justice services must be co-ordinated, with agencies working collaboratively toward shared, people-centred goals. These goals should be clearly defined, publicly available, and embedded within justice organisations’ strategic and operational plans. Achieving this level of alignment requires a sector-wide shift from institution-focused thinking to approaches that prioritise service users’ real-life circumstances and capabilities.

Historically, justice systems have been fragmented, with limited collaboration beyond upholding the general principle of the rule of law. While independence, confidentiality and data protection remain essential, it is often administrative and structural traditions that hinder co-ordination, and not the principles themselves. A cultural shift is needed to encourage collaborative planning, information sharing and the development of transparent monitoring mechanisms. This will support a more unified, people-centred justice system that delivers better outcomes and greater public trust.

Priority checklist

A. Appropriate shared, public goals developed and published in relevant strategic/operational plans and documents.

B. Establish mechanisms and processes to regularly monitor progress towards shared goals for collaboration.

A. Appropriate shared, public goals developed and published in relevant strategic/ operational plans and documents

Self-assessment questions

• Do key strategic and operational justice plans include clearly defined shared goals and objectives for collaboration across institutions and services? Do these plans adopt people-centred approaches?

• Are these system-level shared goals reflected clearly in justice institutions’ plans and services?

• Are there effective mechanisms in place to implement collaborative planning and information sharing consistent with achieving the shared goals?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish common, overarching, measurable, system-wide goals and objectives that apply to and actively engage all justice institutions, linking to the outcomes and responding to legal needs.

• Make the goals and objectives publicly available.

• Support and empower institutions and services to effectively implement the system-wide shared goals.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to establish common, people-centred goals across the justice system risks fragmentation and inconsistent service delivery that does not reflect legal and justice needs or desired outcomes.

• Failing to ensure that goals are measurable, transparent and widely communicated reduces accountability, public trust and opportunities for meaningful engagement and evaluation.

• Failing to resource, support and guide institutions in aligning with system-wide goals limits implementation, weakens co-ordination, and undermines long-term impact and sustainability.

Box 2.6. Good practice examples of developing and publishing access to justice goals

Australia: National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance

Australia maintains a flexible, yet complex system of government-funded legal assistance services. Improving cohesion and co-ordination of Australia’s legal assistance landscape continues to be a priority for federal and state governments. The system is co-ordinated through a range of strategies and mechanisms, under the guidance of the National Strategic Framework.

The National Strategic Framework encourages a unified and co-ordinated approach by state, territory and national governments and the legal assistance sector to keep the justice system within reach in Australia and help focus finite resources towards areas with the greatest legal need.

It sets out a shared aspirational objective for all Commonwealth, state and territory government-funded legal assistance. This is to further a national, integrated system of legal assistance that is focused on keeping the justice system within reach, maintaining the rule of law and maximising service delivery within the available resources. Within this system, legal assistance services should be delivered in a high-quality and culturally appropriate manner.

Specific targeted outcomes require collaboration and information sharing to deliver people-centred outcomes, including:

• Legal assistance services deliver complementary services, joined up where appropriate, that are focused on meeting people’s legal needs.

• Where appropriate and practical, legal assistance services collaborate with other legal and other services to assist them in identifying legal problems, making appropriate legal referrals, and identifying and addressing the systemic causes of legal problems.

• Legal assistance services focus on identified areas of legal need, including through collaborative service planning.

• Sector planning and service delivery are evidence-based and informed by accurate, reliable and consistent data from relevant sources, including legal need, service delivery and demographic data.

• Governments and legal assistance providers share, where appropriate, information and data relevant to the delivery of services and legal need.

Canada: Nine Justice Development Goals

The Canadian Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters adopted Canada’s Justice Development Goals to align the work of organisations across the country. These nine goals identify the challenges facing the system, showcase the work being done to address them and offer a way for everyone to join the conversation. The goals are:

1. address everyday legal problems

2. meet legal needs

3. make courts work better

4. improve family justice

5. work together

6. build capability

7. innovate

8. analyse and learn

9. improve funding strategies.

Sweden: Strategic Plan for Co-ordination within the Digitalisation of the Justice System

Sweden’s Strategic Plan for Co-ordination within the Digitalisation of the Justice System (2023-2027) sets the goal of strengthening efficiency and innovation through deeper co-operation among justice authorities. Efficiency is to be achieved by co-ordinating processes with shared needs, while innovation will be promoted through joint development efforts and systematic environmental scanning. The plan outlines three sub-goals:

1. Explore expanding co-operation beyond the criminal justice process where there is clear need and demand, allowing flexible participation by relevant authorities.

2. Develop strategies that align co-operation and system architecture with national and EU digital initiatives, including Sweden’s common administrative digital infrastructure (led by the Agency for Digital Government) and EU projects such as e-CODEX.

3. Establish structures for environmental scanning and knowledge sharing on new technologies and innovations, ensuring that insights and solutions developed by one authority can benefit others. The Swedish Courts Administration also plays a key role in fostering innovation to improve efficiency and strengthen public trust in the justice system.

Sources: Australian Attorney-General’s Department (2019[19]; 2024[21]); Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (2024[25]); (Council of Attorneys-General, 2019[26]).

B. Mechanisms and processes established to regularly monitor progress towards shared goals for collaboration

Self-assessment questions

• Are there systems and procedures in place across the justice system to monitor progress towards the achievement of the system’s shared goals?

• Are the monitoring systems and mechanisms centrally governed or is the information centrally collected to understand the extent to which current services meet legal needs?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish mechanism(s) for centralised monitoring of progress towards the achievement of the goals while also allowing for institutions to self-assess.

• Identify key indicators to facilitate both the measurement of progress towards achieving shared goals and self-assessment by institutions and services.

• Ensure institutions and staff have the necessary skills to undertake monitoring.

• Encourage the dissemination of the data on effective implementation that results from the monitoring process.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to develop a centralised system for monitoring progress towards goals for collaboration can reduce incentives, especially in resource-constrained justice system environments.

Ensuring clear roles and prerogatives and the independence of justice stakeholders in the context of mutual co-operation and co-ordination

Why is it important?

The independence of the judiciary is fundamental for an effective justice system. While other justice actors may not be vested with the same degree of independence, it remains essential that they have clearly defined roles and prerogatives which safeguard their professional integrity and ability to act without undue influence. At the same time, independence should not detract from the need for collaboration and co‑operation. For example, sharing appropriately anonymised and disaggregated service-user data can highlight gaps in service delivery and facilitate the planning and allocation of resources to meet the needs of different groups of people. Client satisfaction and outcome data can allow justice planners to increase their knowledge of strategies and services that work best for certain legal and justice needsin particular contexts, and plan and fund services thanks to this knowledge. A balance must be found between retaining the independence of actors for whom it is critical and encouraging collaboration to achieve better people‑centred outcomes where this does not impinge on that independence.

Priority checklist

A. Balance between essential independence of selected justice system institutions and the needed system-wide harmonisation achieved through mutual co-operation and co‑ordination (also see above on broader co-ordination systems and mechanisms)

Self-assessment questions

• Are the key roles and functions that require independence clearly defined so that independence is protected where needed? Are there safeguards in place to ensure the independence of justice stakeholders, such as the judiciary?

• Have effective co-ordination and collaboration processes been established to optimise people‑centred justice delivery while respecting essential judicial independence?

• Are appropriate data protection and anonymisation protocols and systems in place to facilitate both collaboration/co-ordination and necessary independence?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Ensure that appropriate safeguards are implemented to protect the independence of the judiciary and other key justice institutions – depending on the context.

• Consider establishing system-wide mechanisms to facilitate collaboration, harmonisation and information sharing while maintaining confidence in the preservation of essential independence.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to involve all justice stakeholders in people-centred reforms due to concerns about independence overlooks valuable opportunities to improve user experiences and address legal needs.

• Failing to promote collaboration within appropriate boundaries limits the justice system’s ability to co‑ordinate services and improve the user journey across institutions.

• Failing to establish safeguards that uphold judicial and institutional independence while enabling collaboration risks either compromising core principles or missing critical reform opportunities.

Identifying, analysing and working to eradicate unwarranted disparities

Why is it important?

Legal needs, service delivery and criminal prosecution data consistently reveal that some target groups (such as victims of domestic violence, people with disabilities, indigenous people and others) are particularly vulnerable to legal and justice needs and are often less capable of resolving them. This also includes children, who require special safeguards and care to meet their basic and specific needs.

Persistent exposure to legal and justice needs may stem from unequal outcomes produced by long‑standing procedures that were not built around ensuring access to justice for all. To tackle this and similar challenges, it is important to establish mechanisms to identify and rectify areas of potential concern.

Given the common justice systemic inertia, deliberate and planned strategies to address identified disparities will be essential, and these initiatives should be accompanied by monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure the intended outcomes are being achieved.

Priority checklist

A. Define an ongoing process for identifying disparities in justice system institutions.

B. Implement specific actions to eradicate disparities in justice system institutions.

A. Define an ongoing process for identifying disparities in justice system institutions

Self-assessment questions

• Are there effective mechanisms in place to ensure engagement with groups of people who have been historically excluded from justice policymaking processes and other target groups?

• Are there mechanisms that incorporate people’s views, satisfaction levels and outcomes to assess disparities within the justice system?

• Are there mechanisms to show levels of service use (and non-use) among groups of people and thus may suggest potential disparities? Are there other mechanisms in place to assess disparities within the system?

• Are legal regulations, institutional policies and practices regularly reviewed to ensure that professional rules and regulations do not inadvertently contribute to disparities?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish self-assessment processes and independent mechanisms for identifying disparities at both the institutional and the system-wide level.

• Regularly collect data to compare service use among different demographic groups to ensure it is commensurate with the relative size and legal and justice needs of each group.

• Ensure justice institutions and services engage with target groups, including those historically excluded from justice policymaking.

• Regularly review legal professional regulations and institutional practices to ensure such regulations do not inadvertently contribute to disparities and reduce access to justice.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to move beyond internal self-assessment to identify disparities risks missed opportunities for reform.

• Failing to systematically listen to justice service users – particularly from target groups – may allow inequities to persist unchallenged.

• Failing to secure the support of legal institutions for reviewing and reforming regulations and practices can undermine efforts to address systemic barriers and ensure access to justice.

Box 2.7. Good practice example of using data to eliminate disparities in the justice system

The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland: Leveraging data to better meet the needs of clients and inform strategic resource allocation decisions in the United States

The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland uses internal client and case data and external regional socio‑economic data to better serve its clients and allocate its limited resources in a way that maximises the benefit provided to its client community. Its use of data includes:

• tracking progress toward achieving strategic goals

• measuring intake and case volume and associated legal problems to better understand the links between challenges faced by low-income people and the legal problems they face

• tracking the levels of legal services it provides to better understand the levels of service required by specific legal problems

• identifying trends in the cases and clients it cannot serve

• analysing client demographic trends in comparison to regional demographic trends for low‑income people to ensure that its client population is representative of its regional poverty population and that it is not missing any particular groups

• tracking client survey feedback regarding the accessibility and effectiveness of its services and communications

• forming partnerships with organisations that have their own robust data regarding low-income people, with a long-term plan to share data with these organisations to enable causal and predictive analyses to inform decisions about legal services.

Importantly, this use of data analysis allows comparing service data with expected legal need data, revealing potential biases, barriers or discrimination impeding service engagement and delivery. For example, from 2008 to 2010, despite a proportional demographic growth of Hispanic and Spanish-speaking people in the region, and a 50% increase in intakes overall, there was a substantial drop (around 10%) in the number of Hispanic and Spanish-speaking people receiving services. In response, through hiring additional bilingual staff, translating material into Spanish, engaging translators and conducting targeted outreach efforts, the decrease was more than reversed.

Source: Legal Aid Society of Cleveland (2011[27]).

B. Implement specific actions to eradicate disparities in justice system institutions

Self-assessment questions

• Are there system-wide and institutional strategies to implement initiatives to reduce or eliminate disparities?

• Are there strategies to ensure that target groups have knowledge of and make use of relevant legal and justice services?

• Are there monitoring and evaluation efforts to assess the effectiveness of these strategies?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Ensure that the justice system workforce is demographically representative of the population it serves.

• Actively engage target groups to ensure that they are aware of and can access fair justice processes and services.

• Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives, including through indicators such as service access, etc.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to complement reforms with targeted outreach and awareness-raising risks low uptake of improved services by people, and in particular target groups.

Box 2.8. Good practice examples of child-friendly approaches in the justice system

Australia: Child-friendly approaches in New South Wales

Dedicated Children’s Court. When children confront the criminal justice system in New South Wales, they do so through the specialist Children’s Court (generally with a specialist children’s court magistrate with expertise and experience in dealing with children and children’s matters) rather than the more general magistrate’s court.

The allocation of an independent children’s solicitor. In care and protection proceedings in New South Wales, which concern the potential removal of a child from the family environment, the children concerned are provided with an independent, specialist children’s solicitor to represent their interests (separate from their parents’/carers’ and government’s interests) during the proceedings.

Norway: Barnahus model

Developed in the Nordic countries, the Barnahus (Children’s Houses) model represents an example of an integrated child-centred, multidisciplinary and inter-institutional response for children who are victims of sexual, physical and/or domestic abuse. With the aim to avoid secondary victimisation of children, it brings together relevant authorities and services in one place to provide the child with a co-ordinated response of the justice and child protection authorities.

The Norwegian Barnahus model primarily focuses on police-reported cases of violence and sexual abuse involving children under the age of 16 and other vulnerable victims or witnesses.

The Barnahus staff co-ordinate and facilitate police interviews with children, assess their need for psycho-social support and provide short-term treatment where necessary. In 2015, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act (“Straffeprosessloven”) introduced new regulations requiring facilitated interviews at Children’s Houses for children under 16 and other particularly vulnerable victims and witnesses in cases involving sexual abuse, physical violence, homicide or female genital mutilation. The Barnahus also provide information to victims, especially those with disabilities, regarding their rights and eligibility for compensation.

There are now 11 Barnahus spaces across Norway, which provide facilities for the hearings (police interviews) and other services to support child witnesses.

Poland: Child-friendly approaches

Child-friendly interrogation rooms. In Poland the interrogation of child victims or juvenile witnesses of crime in certain types of cases takes place in a special procedure in “friendly interrogation rooms”, which are rooms intended and specially adapted for conducting interrogations of children. These rooms allow the hearing to be conducted in conditions friendly to the person being questioned (a child or another victim acting as a witness), ensuring the greatest possible comfort and a sense of security. By 2024, there were 347 friendly hearing rooms in common courts.

In matters where it is not possible or appropriate for a parent to represent a child under his/her parental authority, the court appoints a child representative (Article 98 of the Family and Guardianship Code). The child representative may be an advocate or legal advisor with special knowledge of cases similar to those for which the child’s representation is required, or who has completed training on the principles of child representation, the rights or needs of the child.

Specialised juvenile justice and child-focused court procedures. Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code, family and juvenile divisions have been established in district courts for dealing with juvenile justice and child matters. For juvenile justice matters, the focus is the support and rehabilitation of child offenders. In accordance with the legal provisions, the juvenile judiciary is obliged to thoroughly investigate the reasons for each juvenile’s entry into the criminal justice system. In relation to civil and family matters, emphasis is placed on learning and taking into account the child’s perspectives and following procedures consistent with the requirements of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989), such as limiting the hearings faced by children, using closed sessions and appropriate child-friendly premises.

Türkiye: The judicial interview room

The judicial interview room is a designated space within a courthouse that enables children and other groups in vulnerable circumstances to feel safe and thus more willing to provide the information the courts need to conduct fair trials. The room also helps prevent secondary victimisation (threats, abuse, stigmatisation), safeguards the right of children and other users to be heard, and ensures that their best interests are protected.

United Kingdom: Toolkit to assist judges to engage with children

Writing to children is one important way of ensuring that children have the opportunity to participate in family court proceedings. A child’s right to participate in proceedings and to have the final decision communicated to them in a way they can understand is enshrined in international and domestic legislation and guidance – as a way of both informing welfare-based decisions and upholding children’s rights and access to justice see (OECD, 2023[28]). To support the judiciary, the United Kingdom has co-developed a toolkit that serves as a reference point for engaging with children in an effective manner. The toolkit has been co-developed with input from children and young people, judges, researchers and academics, social workers, clinical psychologists, communication experts, and others who work with children and the courts.

The toolkit includes:

• a summary of the evidence on children’s experiences of court proceedings and how judges writing to children can influence these experiences

• a discussion of the different purposes served by writing to children in different circumstances

• a summary of key things to consider when writing to children.

Examples of language, tone and format drawn from previous letters judges have written to children and a list of published judgments serve as examples.

Sources: Justice for Children in Turkey (2014[29]); Mulherin (2016[30]); Legal Aid NSW (2025[31]); CEPEJ (2024[32]); (Government of Poland, 2022[33]); (OECD, 2023[28]).

Ensuring that public institutions remove barriers to access to justice for all

Why is it important?

Justice institutions operating as part of a people-centred justice system should ensure their services are genuinely accessible to all, including those people and groups that do not currently use the service.

They should systematically work to identify and remove barriers facing existing and potential users from all sections of society. Barriers to accessing legal and justice services can include distance, cost, societal norms, inconvenient hours, difficulty making an appointment, inadequate disability access or a lack of interpretation services. More significantly, barriers to accessing services are often linked to the individual’s legal capacity (including their knowledge of what to do, their awareness of the available services and their preparedness to take action), which is, in turn, impacted by the complexity of the lives of many disadvantaged people and other target groups (also see Chapter Empowering people).

Priority checklist

A. Establish mechanisms to identify target client groups, measure their access to and use of services, and identify key barriers to access.

B. Develop and implement strategies to remove identified barriers and provide equitable access.

A. Establish mechanisms to identify target client groups, measure their access to and use of services, and identify key barriers to access

Self-assessment questions

• Do individual institutions have effective processes to determine whether their target groups are represented in their user base in representative numbers?

• Are there mechanisms to understand levels of service use (and non-use) and possible barriers preventing some groups to access services – both at the system-wide and institutional level?

• Do institutions use engagement strategies with existing clients and target groups to identify obstacles and barriers to effective access to services and outcomes?

• Are laws and regulations regularly reviewed to ensure they do not inadvertently create barriers to accessing justice?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Compare actual service use by demographic and legal subject matter type with expected use based on the composition of the population and legal-needs data to identify under-represented groups and issues.

• Monitor client satisfaction and outcomes that includes identifying barriers and obstacles faced by clients when using the particular service or problem resolution pathway.

• Establish processes to engage with under-represented groups to identify the barriers they may be facing.

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to conduct systematic analysis of access barriers can limit understanding of who is being excluded and why, thus weakening the foundation for people-centred justice strategies.

• Failing to engage with both justice service users and the broader population can overlook critical perspectives from those with unmet legal needs.

Box 2.9. Good practice examples of measuring access of target groups

Australia: Measuring legal need and legal capability

Legal needs surveys (LNS) have proven themselves to be an essential research tool for providing insight into the legal needs of the whole population, the different vulnerabilities to legal problems of different demographic groups, the action people take (or do not take) when confronting legal problems, how their problems are resolved (if they are in fact resolved) and other issues. The particular challenges and barriers different people face in accessing justice services are not just linked to cost, geography and remoteness, disability and other factors limiting access but also to individual legal capability, which relates to their knowledge, skills and attributes required to decide whether and how to use the law and legal processes.

Colombia: Local justice committees and identifying barriers to justice

As part of a broader programme for “Humanising and Restorative Justice for Victims”, support is provided for local justice committees as spaces for inter-institutional co-ordination and community participation to identify and overcome barriers to justice, strengthening restorative, community-based and formal justice. The overall programme also involved components such as commissioning studies focused on people-centred justice for victims of the armed conflict, especially those experiencing gender-based or sexual violence, from a difference-based and restorative perspective, including for women and LGBTIQ+ individuals from ethnic groups.

Denmark: Using longitudinal data to identify vulnerable groups

Danish researchers used nationwide registry data on individuals born between 1980 and 1991 and then followed up between 1998 and 2021. Longitudinal data on more than 500 000 individuals from birth to age 40 allowed identifying early childhood adversity and then the subsequent use of health, social security and justice system services. In brief, the data revealed that individuals who experienced high childhood adversity were far more likely to require hospitalisation, social security or be convicted of a crime. Apart from identifying a particularly vulnerable group with high levels of use of justice services and thus higher legal need, it demonstrates the linkages between vulnerability to legal and justice problems and vulnerability to health, employment and other problems. In other words, quality data from other public services such as health can provide valuable insight into those likely to be vulnerable to legal and justice problems.

United Kingdom: Using enhanced data collection to understand vulnerable court users and the barriers they face

HM Courts & Tribunal Service recognises that needing to use court or tribunal services is daunting for anyone, but that it can be an even greater challenge for the most vulnerable in society. Its ongoing Action Plan is focused on how HM Courts & Tribunal Service supports vulnerable users and how courts and tribunals can be made accessible to everyone.

HM Courts & Tribunal Service is “committed to making sure we’re listening to people using our services who are more vulnerable, and our partners who support vulnerable groups. We’re working to adapt and improve our services to meet their needs. We’re working with our Ministry of Justice colleagues and other government departments to make sure we provide the right level of support.”

An important aspect of the Action Plan is the use of enhanced data collection to identify the impacts of changes on vulnerable users, as well as to learn more about the needs of its users and identify the key barriers to access they face. For example, strategies include:

• To help gain a better understanding of the people who use HM Courts & Tribunal Service’s services, it is collecting protected characteristics data (that is, individual characteristic/ demographic and case data) from multiple departments of the justice system.

• Access to justice assessments across services including Online Civil Money Claims, Social Security and Child Support, Divorce, and Probate. These assessments help identify common barriers to accessing justice, what causes these barriers and what might help break them down.

Sources: HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2023[34]; 2024[35]); Victoria Law Foundation (2024[36]); WJP (2019[37]); IJRS, PBHI, LBH APIK Association and YLBHI (2023[38]).

B. Develop and implement strategies to break down identified barriers and provide equitable access

Self-assessment questions

• Are there strategies to break down identified barriers operating at the both system-wide and institutional levels?

• Is there a process for “learning” and retaining knowledge of key barriers and what strategies “work” most effectively in overcoming them?

What are the key actions to consider?

• Establish system-wide and institutional strategies to identify and implement targeted and effective approaches and initiatives to reduce or eliminate barriers.

• Through ongoing community education, communication and other programmes, ensure that disadvantaged people and other target groups are aware of the relevant services to address their specific issues (also see Chapter on Empowering people).

What are the pitfalls to avoid?

• Failing to develop strategies to break down barriers can result in fragmented efforts and leave many access barriers unaddressed.

• Failing to adopt a comprehensive and targeted approach to breaking down access barriers can limit the effectiveness of reforms and undermine access to justice.

Box 2.10. Good practice example of breaking down barriers to access to justice

Colombia: The Strategic Plan to Overcome Barriers to Access to Justice (PESBAJ)

The Strategic Plan to Overcome Barriers to Access to Justice (PESBAJ) was developed in accordance with relevant 2024 legislation which established an obligation to design an instrument aimed at identifying and overcoming the barriers that limit access to justice, particularly for rural populations, groups in situations of vulnerability and persons with disabilities. The Superior Council of the Judiciary, through the Research Division of the Unit for Development and Statistical Analysis, formulated the PESBAJ as a strategic instrument that articulates institutional, technological and organizational actions, in order to move towards a more inclusive and accessible justice.

The PESBAJ has a long-term horizon (2025-2038), aligning it with the key planning instruments of the Judicial Branch. The plan is organized into five strategic axes: Analysis and research; Organizational culture; Physical and technological infrastructure; Institutional optimisation and judicial management; and Legal empowerment. Each axis incorporates strategies aimed at reducing institutional and contextual barriers, strengthening institutional capacities, improving judicial management and incorporating differential, intersectional and territorial approaches in serving users of the justice system.

While not yet formally adopted by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, its final development and refinement is based on research, statistical analysis and planning, and will represent an intentional strategy to overcome barriers to justice.

United Kingdom: Proving a range of strategies to support vulnerable people and those experiencing barriers to overcome identified obstacles and improve access

The HM Courts & Tribunals Service Vulnerability Action Plan applies to courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom. It is based on the understanding that using courts and tribunals can be a difficult and daunting task for anyone in society, but especially for the most vulnerable, who need extra support.

The Vulnerability Action Plan focuses on three priority areas:

1. Providing vulnerable users with support to access and participate in court and tribunal services and signposting to other sources of information and support.

2. Gathering evidence and using it to identify the impacts of reforms on vulnerable users.

3. Making services accessible for vulnerable users.

The plan includes actions to overcome and break down barriers for vulnerable people, including:

• The national digital support service, which supports users who are unable to or are struggling to get online.

• Making it possible for vulnerable victims and witnesses to have their evidence pre-recorded at a location away from the court or official remote link sites, allowing the recording of evidence and cross-examination prior to trial.

• Providing “reasonable adjustment” to help users with disabilities. Examples of reasonable adjustments include providing information in an alternative format (e.g. in audio or easy read), helping someone complete a form or providing a chair to meet a user’s specific need.

• Providing intermediary services if users need communication support at a court or tribunal hearing.

• Using remote hearing links and providing users with information about video hearings.

• Providing support during in-person and remote hearings. This could be providing interpreters or offering sessions to help people complete their online applications.

Sources: HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2023[34]; 2024[35]) ; (Government of Colombia, 2022[39]).

References

[23] Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (2025), “Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters”, web page, https://www.justicedevelopmentgoals.ca/about.

[25] Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (2024), Justice Development Goals – A Decade of Progress: Trends Report 2024, Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, https://www.justicedevelopmentgoals.ca.

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

[20] 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.

[19] Australian Attorney‑General’s Department (2019), National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance, Australian Government, https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/legal-assistance-services/national-strategic-framework-legal-assistance.

[22] Australian Federal Relations Secretariat (2025), National Access to Justice Partnership: Intergovernmental Agreement (Commonwealth, States & Territories), Australian Government, https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/agreements/national-access-justice-partnership.

[4] 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.

[32] CEPEJ (2024), “Evaluation of the judicial systems 2024 (data 2022) – Poland”, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), https://rm.coe.int/poland-2024-2022-/1680b1f6e6?utm.

[26] Council of Attorneys-General (2019), National Strategic Framework for Legal Assistance, https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-06/National-Strategic-Framework-for-Legal-Assistance.pdf.

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

[11] Eriksson, E. and A. Blessing (2018), Reasearch Paper: Exploring Best Practices in Combatting Violence Against Women: Sweden, European Union, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/604958/IPOL_IDA(2018)604958_EN.pdf.

[18] Government of Canada (2024), Submission from the Government of Canada during Workshop 1 on the Implementation of The Recommendation.

[9] Government of Canada (2024), The Canadian Legal Problems Survey, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/survey-enquete.html.

[2] Government of Canada (2021), “Access to Justice”, web page, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/access-acces/index.html.

[1] Government of Canada (2021), “Summit for Democracy 2021 submission and commitments: Canada”, news, https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2021/12/09/summit-democracy-2021-submission-and-commitments-canada.

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

[39] Government of Colombia (2022), Plan Sectorial de Desarollo Rama Judicial 2023 - 2026, https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/portalDNP/PND-2023/05022023_Plan-Sectorial-Rama-Judicial-2023-2026.pdf.

[33] Government of Poland (2022), Poland, Act of 9 June 2022, Consolidated text published in the Polish Journal of Laws of 2024, item 978.

[15] Government of Sweden (2025), People-Centred Justice Questionnaire: Information provided by the Government of Sweden to the OECD.

[13] Government of Sweden (2024), Government Communication: National strategy against violent extremism and terrorism – prevent, avert, protect and manage, https://www.government.se/contentassets/524b35ec9cdd4e30a501c6b7d9cbd694/national-strategy-against-violent-extremism-and-terrorism--prevent-avert-protect-and-manage-government-communication-20232456.pdf.

[10] Government Offices of Sweden (2025), New legislation to strengthen rights and safety of children taken into care, https://government.se/press-releases/2025/12/new-legislation-to-strengthen-rights-and-safety-of-children-taken-into-care/.

[14] Government Offices of Sweden (2024), Sweden’s national report on the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action 2020-2024, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/b30_report_sweden_en.pdf.

[17] HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2025), “Modernising courts and tribunals: Benefits of digital services”, web page, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/modernising-courts-and-tribunals-benefits-of-digital-services.

[35] HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2024), HMCTS Vulnerability Action Plan: October 2024 Update, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-vulnerability-action-plan/hmcts-vulnerability-action-plan-october-2024-update.

[34] HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2023), HMCTS Vulnerability Action Plan: October 2023 Update, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-vulnerability-action-plan/hmcts-vulnerability-action-plan-october-2023-update.

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

[38] IJRS, PBHI, LBH APIK Association and YLBHI (2023), Research Report: Legal Needs Survey for Vulnerable Groups 2022, Indonesia Judicial Research Society, https://ijrs.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RESEARCH-REPORT-LEGAL-NEEDS-SURVEY-FOR-VULNERABLE-GROUPS-2022-RESEARCH-REPORT-LEGAL-NEEDS-SURVEY-FOR-VULNERABLE-GROUPS-202.pdf.

[3] Justice Action Coalition (2023), “Justice 2023: Providing to people-centred justice”.

[29] Justice for Children in Turkey (2014), Interview Rooms for Children: Needs, Examples of Best Practices and Standards for Child Friendly Interview – Summary Report, https://www.unicef.org/turkiye/media/8706/file/Judicial%20Interview%20Room.pdf.

[31] Legal Aid NSW (2025), Legal Aid NSW website, https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au.

[27] Legal Aid Society of Cleveland (2011), Using Data to Better Meet the Needs of Clients and to Inform Strategic Resource Allocation Decisions, Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, https://lsc-live.app.box.com/s/mga2w8enusuyvbkm51vflwmxdec1w0jw.

[30] Mulherin, G. (2016), Law and Disadvantage, Lexis Nexis Australia.

[28] OECD (2023), “OECD Child-Friendly Justice Framework: Building a people-centred justice system”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6a60970e-en.

[24] OECD (2023), OECD Review of Gender Equality in Colombia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a559fc5e-en.

[16] 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.

[6] 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.

[12] Sweden Herald (2025), “Knowledge about online recruitment of children needs to increase”, Sweden Herald, https://swedenherald.com/article/knowledge-about-online-recruitment-of-children-needs-to-increase.

[36] Victoria Law Foundation (2024), “The Public Understanding of Law Survey (PULS)”, https://puls.victorialawfoundation.org.au.

[37] WJP (2019), Global Insights on Access to Justice: Findings from the World Justice Porject General Population Poll in 101 Countries, World Justice Project, Washington, DC, https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-A2J-2019.pdf.

Note

← 1.  Target groups are referred to specific communities, including marginalised, underserved and groups in vulnerable situations (e.g. women, children, indigenous groups, elderly and people with disabilities), in line with the OECD 2023 Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-centred Justice Systems.