A methodology that measures the costs and quality of justice

MA2J shows how people assess the costs and quality of two paths to justice in Rwanda

Martin — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:22:20 +0000

MA2J, the TISCO methodology for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice, was used to assess the experiences of the users of two paths to justice in Rwanda. The study is part of the Innovating Rule of Law Project.

Half of the interviewed respondents used first instance trial courts to solve their civil justice problems. Most of the problems concerned land disputes. The other half of the sample consists of people who sought resolution in a unique Rwandan dispute resolution fora – the Abunzi committees. Abunzi can be understood as local wise men/women panels for mediation or conciliation. There are more than 12 000 Abunzi committees across Rwanda. Their role is to solve the emerging civil disputes with the resources of the local communities. Each commission consists of 12 members whereas in each particular dispute 3 of these members are called to mediate. There is a wide variation in the methods used by the different Abunzi committees to bring about a fair solution but most often what is being used can be referred to as “soft arbitration”. This means that initially the Abunzis act as mediators between the disputants and if there is no sufficient will to reach a settlement, the commission proceeds in a more adjudicative mode.

Our main research interest was to investigate the similarities and differences in the perceived costs, procedural and outcome fairness. Our partners from the Rwandan Legal Aid Forum interviewed a sample of 358 users of the two paths to justice. The spiderweb (see below) suggests that the users of the two processes assess them in similar terms. The quality of the process and the quality of the outcome are experienced in strikingly similar terms. There is a slight difference in the time and out-of-pocket categories. As expected, the Abunzi committees score better because of their local character and informality.

We are interested in your opinion – how can we better explain the spiderweb? What might be the possible confounding factors? How the data can help to innovate further and improve the user’s experiences with courts and Abunzi committees?

Measuring Access to Justice instrument translated in 8 languages

Martin — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:24:58 +0000

All three versions of the Measurement Access to Justice instruments have been translated and made available in 8 languages – Bulgarian, Catalan, Dutch, French, German, Hebrew, Polish and Spanish. The translation was conducted in the framework of the EMCOD project and therefore the translations are adapted to the specifics of measuring the costs and quality of online dispute resolution.

All documents can be downloaded in different file formats from the Measurement Toolkit section.

TISCO and UNDP Serbia sign MoU providing application of MA2J in Serbia

Martin — Wed, 25 May 2011 09:11:37 +0000

In May 2011 TISCO and UNDP Serbia signed a Memorandum of Understanding to join knowledge, skills and efforts in the application of the Methodology for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice in Serbia. A direct result of the MoU will be the translation of the Handbook for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice and the questionnaires into Serbian. Having the TISCO tools tranlsated and adapted will allow UNDP Serbia to commence measurement, comparison, analysis and improvement of various official and unofficial paths to justice.

Launch of InnovatingJustice.com – a platform designed to improve the rule of law and access to justice

Martin — Wed, 18 May 2011 12:19:08 +0000

On 17th of May 2011 a coalition of five organizations, members of the Hague Rule of Law Network (among which TISCO and the Hague Institute for Internationalization of the Law) has launched a web platform aimed to stimulate and promote innovation in the areas of Rule of Law and access to justice. The site has been designed to facilitate interactions between policy makers, academics, and entrepreneurs: “in short all those involved in strengthening the Rule of Law and access to justice”.

InnovatingJustice.com aspires to “create [the world’s first] platform, in which Rule of Law entrepreneurs can share experiences, showcase their innovations and learn from each other´s efforts.” Innovators and those who are interested in Rule of Law innovations can discuss the challenges which deprive people and communities from justice and protection of the Rule of Law. More importantly the platform facilitates elaboration of blue sky ideas and solutions to the local and global Rule of Law problems.

InnovatioinLab is a section which outlines creative Rule of Law products including the Measuring Access to Justice methodology. Check it out to discover what other tools and products can bring justice to the people who need it. Visit InnovatingJustice.com to find out more.

Measuringaccesstojustice.com will be presented at EU Agency for Fundamental Rights symposium

Martin — Fri, 06 May 2011 10:07:33 +0000

On 12 and 13 May 2011 Maurits Barendrecht and Martin Gramatikov will present TISCO’s Measuring the Costs and Quality of Access to Justice methodology at a symposium entitled “Using Indicators to Measure Fundamental Rights in the EU: Challenges and Solutions”. The event is organized by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Human Rights.

Measuring the Costs and Quality of Access to Justice is a methodology which could be applied to diverse paths to justice. It evaluates justice from the perspective of the people who use specific legal process to solve a legal problem. In a nutshell the methodology estimates the perceived quality of the procedure, quality of the outcome as well as the diverse costs that confront the users of justice. Up to now the methodology has been applied to various paths to justice in more than 20 countries.

What’s new in MA2J version 2.2

Martin — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:22:20 +0000

Version 2.2 of the Methodology for Measuring the Costs and Quality of Access to Justice contains many improvements from the previous version of the instrument. Check out the main amendments here.

Measuringaccesstojustice.com: new mobile site launched

Martin — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:30:31 +0000

Measuringaccesstojustice.com has now an automatic switcher which selects between a mobile and desktop version depending on the detected browser. This feature aims to enhance the experience of users who browse measuringaccesstojustice.com from their smart phones. New functions will be added to the mobile site soon.

Measuring Access to Justice in Nepal

Martin — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:22:03 +0000

In November 2010, the Measuring Access to Justice instrument was used to measure the experience of victims of crime living within a refugee camp in Nepal. The sample consisted of approximately 300 Bhutanese refugees, who suffered from interpersonal conflict with other refugees. Crimes included assault, theft, threat, sexual offenses, rape, polygamy, verbal abuse, trafficking, domestic violence and discrimination. Violence followed by theft and domestic violence we the most common crimes occurring. The study offered the opportunity to implement the model in a unique population, namely refugee victims of crime.

Read more about measuring access to justice in Nepal here

MeasuringAccessToJustice.com Updated Questionnaires

Martin — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:13:30 +0000

Today all three versions of the source questionnaire have been updated and published on measuringaccesstojustice.com

The design, numbering and graphical outline of the instruments have been improved. Coherence between the different version has also been streamlined, using the updated ThoroughScan questionnaire as a basis for the shorter versions. Also some items in the quality of the outcome have been updated and restructured in accordance with the four dimensional model of the quality of the outcome – distributive justice, restorative justice, functionality and transparency.

One example is the notion of enforceability which is part of the functionality dimension. Out experience showed that the respondents have difficulties with interpreting the legalistic notion of enforceability. An alternative approach is to ask whether the other party in the dispute resolution process has complied to the outcome.

Check out here the updated instruments for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice.