Q: Where the assessment information comes from?

A: From the users of the measured paths to justice. The methodology relies on the perceptions of the users of justice with the administrative procedures.

Q: What are the indicators of paths to justice?

A: Three main indicators are broken down into specific items: the costs, the quality of the procedure and the quality of the outcome.

Q: How do you find the users of justice?

A: Different strategies can be used to track down the users of justice. Random sampling from the general population is one option although often infeasibly expensive. Court files will often indicate the postal address of the parties. Lawyers and mediators are other possible points for contacting the users. In the administrative justice domain the providers of paths to justice in most cases keep records of the users and their addresses.

Q: How do you decide what path to justice to measure?

A: Normally, the interests of the supplier of paths to justice pre-determines the question which path to justice is to be measured. Victim-support organization will be inclined to measure how the victims assess their path to justice. An insurance company will be more interested in the experiences of its policy holders with the way in which tort claims are settled or litigated. An international donor might want to know how the users assess a legal procedure which is considered as inefficient or which had been already reformed.

Q: When a path to justice begins and ends?

A: We define the beginning of a path to justice as the moment when the user takes active steps to address the process. Searching for information, seeking advice from lawyer, filling in forms are examples for actions intended to solve the problem. Specifically, the methodology measures the costs of justice from this early moment. The end of a path to justice is the moment when the user receives an outcome regardless of the content or favorability of the outcome.

Q: How many users are needed in order to assess a path

A: When using empirical methods to study legal phenomena the general thumb of rule is that the more the better. In the Handbook we specifically discuss the issue of the sample size.

Q: Can we ask attorneys instead of users?

A: In the hart of the methodology lies the belief that the users of justice are the most valid source of information about the costs and quality of the paths to justice. Attorneys could be solicited for their views on certain aspects of the paths to justice. However, it is the users who have to provide the ultimate evaluation of the paths to justice.

Q: How an index of justice is computed?

A: Fist the sub-indicators are aggregated through calculation of their means. At the next level the means of the three indicators (costs, quality of the procedure and quality of the outcome) are brought together and the mean score is the composite index of the path to justice. More in-depth outline of the procedure for computation of the index is available in the Handbook.

Q: What the experiences of just a fraction of the users of a path to jsutice tells me about the access to justice? After all, all those who did not access justice were not studied?

A: What the methodology tells us is what are the perceived costs and quality of the measured path to justice. Indeed, these are only the perceptions of the users who stepped on the particular path to justice. However, their experiences reveal the barriers that other people with similar problems have to overcome. Inevitably the pool of the existing problems is larger than the number of problems directed towards paths to justice. Those who have chosen not to address paths to justice supposedly took under consideration the subjective believes on the costs and quality of the available solutions.
A: In the hart of the methodology lies the belief that the users of justice are the most valid source of information about the costs and quality of the paths to justice. Attorneys could be solicited for their views on certain aspects of the paths to justice. However, it is the users who have to provide the ultimate evaluation of the paths to justice.

Q: How an index of justice is computed?

A: Fist the sub-indicators are aggregated through calculation of their means. At the next level the means of the three indicators (costs, quality of the procedure and quality of the outcome) are brought together and the mean score is the composite index of the path to justice. More in-depth outline of the procedure for computation of the index is available in the Handbook.

Q: What the experiences of just a fraction of the users of a path to jsutice tells me about the access to justice? After all, all those who did not access justice were not studied?

A: What the methodology tells us is what are the perceived costs and quality of the measured path to justice. Indeed, these are only the perceptions of the users who stepped on the particular path to justice. However, their experiences reveal the barriers that other people with similar problems have to overcome. Inevitably the pool of the existing problems is larger than the number of problems directed towards paths to justice. Those who have chosen not to address paths to justice supposedly took under consideration the subjective believes on the costs and quality of the available solutions.
Q: On which perspective the methodology is based – the plaintiff or the defendant?

A: Both the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ perceptions can be studied with the methodology. However, by its design it rather oriented towards the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff who seeks justice and has to overcome the existing barriers.
Q: What are the financial conditions for using the questionnaire?

A: The methodology is disseminated under the conditions of the Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike(by-nc-sa) Creative Common License. This means that everyone can apply the methodology as fas as: proper credit to the Measuring Access to Justice Project is given, no commercial interests are pursued and the results are shared in the public domain. The most preferable form of sharing the results is the sharing of the raw and aggregate data collected with the methodology.