1: Key Respondents Strengths Weaknesses Assumptions Summary 1. Key Stakeholder Focus Groups Discussions Annual, structured discussions Extensive direct experience; Information provided is frequently Sufficient representation of Strong tool as a starting with representatives of Capable of articulating range of second hand and not objective. Risk stakeholders buy-in to research point for identifying issues particular groups, including: views on access to justice issues of selection bias – only certain views and provide access and and measuring progress. (positive & negative); represented; feedback openly; But need to double check Local customary leaders; Accessible – most located in capital; Not empirical; Focus only on this approach will information by directly Local judges; Will highlight trends; Unlikely to be directly representative not provide sufficient diversity of questioning population Women representatives; May have access to empirical data; of most marginalized; views or will lead to bias. more broadly. Use as one Youth representatives; Builds partners for reform/better Respondents are frequently those ‘in of variety of tools. Ethnic or cultural minorities; service delivery. positions of power’ – vested interest People with disabilities. in maintaining status quo. 2. Court User Surveys Randomly selected court users Ensure respondents have had Only people who use courts respond. That courts collect this type of Useful tool where surveys or people attending court actual experience; May exclude particular groups (poor, information on a routine basis; already exist or are being building. Cheap and easy to implement as living in remote locations); Capacity and time of court staff considered. Allows can be conducted at court buildings; Only focuses on court-related issues; to implement survey. comparison between court Data directly relevant to court work; Respondents may be less open – users & non-users. Data comparable across countries. may fear it affects case. 3. Representative Quantitative Survey Tools Households Results representative of broader Expensive; Either budget exists to design Costs and capacity population; Time and human resource capacity to and implement standalone constraints outweigh Provides detailed, statistical design, test & implement survey; survey or other survey tools benefits in most countries responses; Access to suitable local survey firm. exist to which modules could be – may be possible in Enables comparison across added. some larger PICs. countries and time periods. 4. Targeted Quantitative Survey Tools Randomly selected households Approach provides for flexibility; Results can’t be generalized across Capacity exists in court to May be more appropriate but from purposefully selected Target specific areas (eg: remote or broader area; Still requires time and conduct interviews and analysis and cost effective
1: Key Respondents Strengths Weaknesses Assumptions Summary 1. Key Stakeholder Focus Groups Discussions Annual, structured discussions with representatives of particular groups, including: Local customary leaders; Local judges; Women representatives; Youth representatives; Ethnic or cultural minorities; People with disabilities. Extensive direct experience; Capable of articulating range of views on access to justice issues (positive & negative); Accessible – most located in capital; Will highlight trends; May have access to empirical data; Builds partners for reform/better service delivery. Information provided is frequently second hand and not objective. Risk of selection bias – only certain views represented; Not empirical; Unlikely to be directly representative of most marginalized; Respondents are frequently those ‘in positions of power’ – vested interest in maintaining status quo. Sufficient representation of stakeholders buy-in to research and provide access and feedback openly; Focus only on this approach will not provide sufficient diversity of views or will lead to bias. Strong tool as a starting point for identifying issues and measuring progress. But need to double check information by directly questioning population more broadly. Use as one of variety of tools. 2. Court User Surveys Randomly selected court users or people attending court building. Ensure respondents have had actual experience; Cheap and easy to implement as can be conducted at court buildings; Data directly relevant to court work; Data comparable across countries. Only people who use courts respond. May exclude particular groups (poor, living in remote locations); Only focuses on court-related issues; Respondents may be less open – may fear it affects case. That courts collect this type of information on a routine basis; Capacity and time of court staff to implement survey. Useful tool where surveys already exist or are being considered. Allows comparison between court users & non-users. 3. Representative Quantitative Survey Tools Households Results representative of broader population; Provides detailed, statistical responses; Enables comparison across countries and time periods. Expensive; Time and human resource capacity to design, test & implement survey; Access to suitable local survey firm. Either budget exists to design and implement standalone survey or other survey tools exist to which modules could be added. Costs and capacity constraints outweigh benefits in most countries – may be possible in some larger PICs. 4. Targeted Quantitative Survey Tools Randomly selected households but from purposefully selected Approach provides for flexibility; Target specific areas (eg: remote or Results can’t be generalized across broader area; Still requires time and Capacity exists in court to conduct interviews and analysis May be more appropriate and cost effective
Access-To-Justice-Toolkit-AD.docx