Presentation by Cris Coxon, Head of Civil and Administrative Justice Research, Ministry of Justice, United Kingdom, at the event on Governing better through evidence-informed policy making, 26-27 June 2017. The event was organised by the OECD Directorate for Public Governance in cooperation with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the Campbell Collaboration and the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA). For further information please see http://www.oecd.org/gov/evidence-informed-policy-making.htm

1. What works in the delivery of justice
services: England & Wales update
Cris Coxon, Dec 2016

2. What works.. to do what?
Important to acknowledge the different dimensions of ‘what works’. It’s dependent on what you
want to achieve:
• Quality of decision making
• Outcomes for parties
• Cost (to parties and for delivering services)
• Efficiency/proportionality of processes
• Timeliness
• User satisfaction
• Diversion
Perspectives about what works depend on who you are e.g.
• A member of the public
• A business
• A lawyer
• A regulator
• An advice sector organisation
• A charity
• An insurance company
• A Minister or a government official

3. • A degree of consensus about what we are trying to achieve
• Focus is on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending
• Short term measures – 1 and 2 year reoffending
rates.
• Longer term ‘linked’ outcomes such as employment,
health, education, housing.
• Data on offenders is fairly comprehensive and allows
sophisticated analysis of impact of different interventions. In
particular Propensity Score Matching is used extensively
to compare outcomes for similar groups.
• In 2015 major reforms were made to how rehabilitation
services are delivered to low and medium risk offenders.
Contracts were let to private Community Rehabilitation
Companies (CRCs) to deliver probation services.
• CRC contracts contain a payment by results component
based on success in reducing the reoffending rates of their
cohorts,
Nevertheless, for criminal justice we have a reasonably advanced
framework

4. External agencies can send us data about their cohorts which we link to more
detailed information we hold. We then match to a control group with similar
characteristics and compare outcomes. Results are published with non-
technical explanations.
Our Justice Data Lab allows external agencies to evaluate the
impact of their interventions
We also have a ‘what works’ evidence
and best practice publication. A review
of available evidence designed to help
providers when designing
interventions.
The lab was set up in 2013 and has
published several hundred reports. It
has won several National awards for
innovation and insight.

5. For civil and administrative justice defining what
works is more complicated
• Many factors at play and they pull in different directions
• Stakeholders have very different - often commercial – interests.
• We have to acknowledge financial pressures – departmental
and across the public sector.
• Empower people to resolve justice problems themselves BUT provide access to courts for those who need them.
(people must have confidence in formal processes and rule of law)
• Transfer some service costs to users BUT make sure that remissions are available for those who cannot afford to pay
• Improve the efficiency and proportionality of justice processes, using technology to better effect BUT cater for those
who cannot or will not engage with digital services.
• Reduce demand on the system and delays for litigants BUT make sure quality of decision making remains high.
• Encourage growth and innovation in the legal services market BUT ensure appropriate regulation is in place to
protect consumers.
• Reduce excessive and vexatious litigation BUT make sure genuine claims are not prevented.
‘Access to Justice’ is all about balance

6. We are encouraging greater use of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Legal needs surveys have shown that most justice problems are resolved without the
need for lawyers or the courts.
We also know that ADR can reduce costs, improve timeliness, and increase
satisfaction with outcomes. MoJ pilots of a small claims mediation service found
savings in judicial time and a higher proportion of settlements for the cases that
engaged in mediation. Further qualitative analysis in 2012, showed consistently high
level of customer satisfaction.
Small Claims Mediation Service currently carries out around 1,000 mediations are
held each month with 60% - 70% settled at that stage.
Another good example of ADR in practice is the Acas
Early Conciliation (EC) service offered for employment
disputes. This is now mandatory for those who wish to
bring an employment dispute to a tribunal.
The ACAS EC scheme has been independently
evaluated. Findings were that EC has helped users to
avoid a tribunal and reach settlements that left both
parties with the outcome.

7. But early dispute resolution clearly goes beyond
formal services, e.g….
Legal empowerment and capability. The MoJ Varying Paths to Justice research found those with limited ability to
understand legal information were not able to assess their options fully and make informed choices. This can lead
to inactivity, ‘head burying’ and problem escalation.
“I've got a lot of debt, I get a lot of letters … but I'm
ignoring it because I don't know how to deal with it,
and it gets to the point where a bailiff will come round
… I just want someone to tell me how to sort it out.”
Access to advice networks, either informal (e.g. social networks such as friends and family), or more formal free
sources such as the advice and voluntary sector.
An important lesson from legal needs surveys is that failure to characterise problems as legal does not bear on
use of the wider advice sector, with people using it regardless of their understanding. This demonstrates the
profound importance of the broad advice sector “to the accessibility of legal services and, ultimately, justice.”
(Pleasence, Balmer and Reimers 2010).
MoJ research was carried out in 2015 to develop a baseline of the profile of Not for Profit advice providers in
England and Wales including their structure, clients and problem types, and how providers may have been
affected by legal aid and other reforms.

8. And we also look at ‘critical points’ where problems
transition to the formal justice system
Work by academics on initial administrative decision making has been discussed at round table
workshops and been the subject of a specific research report which contains policy recommendations.
Factors such as quality of initial decision making and internal
review processes have an impact on the volume of tribunal
application (as well as justice outcomes more generally).
The administrative justice system is a good example of this.
Tribunal applications are generally appeals against a previous
decision by the state, made by a government department e.g. on
welfare, immigration, tax, education etc.
The percentage of allowed appeals
in key jurisdictions does highlight the
importance of looking upstream to
reduce demand and achieve people
focussed outcomes.

9. We have been supporting the Legal Services Market (LSM) to
grow and innovate
We recognise not only its contribution to the UK economy, but
also its social value via provision of accessible high quality
services.
Very important to strike the right balance between regulating to
support the market and consumers, without imposing
counterproductive burdens that stifle growth.
• Established the Legal Services Board (LSB) an oversight regulator with the
goal “to reform and modernise the legal services market place by
putting the interests of consumers at the heart of the system”.
• Allowed Alternative Business Structures whereby non lawyers could take
managerial or ownership roles in law firms.
• Paved the way for introduction of new products and services e.g.
unbundling.
• See Annex A for an overview of LSM regulatory structure
The Legal Services Act (2007) was a major piece of legislation. It was intended to liberalise the
market and protect consumers.

10. Research and evaluation of LSM reforms is ongoing
LSB have a significant research and evaluation function, for example work on:
Innovation in legal services: Innovation was perceived to extend service range, improve
quality and attract new clients. Alternative Business Structures (ABS) were between 13-
15% more likely to introduce new legal services than other types of regulated solicitor
firms
Unbundled legal services: used by consumers who were reasonably confident and felt
capable of taking on certain tasks alone. Identified as an option during the initial client
interview rather than being actively marketed to consumers
Unregulated legal services providers: characteristics, market share, and benefits and risks
to consumers
Also a large scale survey of individuals’ legal needs in 2015

11. ‘No win no fee’ agreements have had a notable impact for some
types of legal dispute
Conditional Fee Agreements are an important source of funding for
those who do not qualify for legal aid or cannot afford to fund their own
claims. They provide access to legal assistance following reductions in
scope and availability of legal aid.
But there have been some negative consequences: claims starting to be pursued
aggressively by lawyers and Clams Management Companies with the threat of high
costs to defendants. Costs often exceeded value of damages.
Significant reforms introduced following the 2010 Review of Civil Litigation Costs by
Lord Justice Jackson. In broad terms they are intended to make the costs of civil
litigation more proportionate and rebalance the cost liabilities of claimants and
defendants.
Used in particular for personal injury claims (accidents, medical negligence, industrial diseases, defamation).The MoJ
Civil Court User Survey tells us that among all individual claimants who used a lawyer, in most unspecified money
cases this was funded on a ‘no win no fee’ basis (78%).
There have been other specific reforms to soft tissue (‘whiplash’)
claims. In particular that medical reports now have to be provided
via an independent company (MedCo).

12. Research evidence has highlighted some of the
difficulties litigants in person can face
For example, an MoJ commissioned study into the experiences of LIPs in private family law cases found: the major
reason for appearing in person was inability to afford a lawyer; even those with high levels of education or
professional experience struggled with aspects of the legal process; that LIPs can create problems for the courts by
not appearing, refusing to engage with proceedings.
A special strategy has been developed to help LiPs know what support is
available to them, get practical support and information, and have a route to some
free or affordable legal advice. Initiatives include: Litigant in Person Network to
connect those with a common goal of improving access to justice for those without
means. A central digital portal, http://www.advicenow.org.uk/going-to-court which
is used for help and advice for Litigants in Person nationwide.
Other specific services include:
• Help with Fees online form to guide people on eligibility for remittance.
• Support for separating families guidance: Public information materials for organisations that support separating
families, including the mediation sector and advice organisations.
• Money Claims Online (MCOL) is relatively crude in its software to enable electronic claims via a web portal.
Since its launch in 2001 it has reached a steady state of about 180,000 claims annually. 80% of its claimant
users are LIPs. A reduced fee is charged, compared with issue by paper.

13. Technology also has a significant role to play
Our Transforming Our Justice System strategy sets out a major
programme of reform to improve the resources available to court users
and staff so that justice is more timely, efficient, and user-focussed. E.g.
• better IT and removing reliance on paper
• greater use of online dispute resolution
• smaller/more flexible estate
• simplifying processes, instructions, terminology
• better customer support and signposting at different stages
Online Dispute Resolution has become a major topic of interest
for the UK.
An influential paper Online Dispute Resolution for Low Value Civil Claims
made recommendation that HMCTS should seek to develop a internet-
based court service, primarily for dealing with low-value high volume
disputes.
The recommendations were endorsed and expanded on by Lord Justice
Briggs in his Civil Courts Structure Review: Interim Report.

14. When cases are in the formal system we want to provide user /
citizen centric services
In partnership with the judiciary HMCTS
administers cases in the courts and tribunals.
This is delivered through the telephone and
internet as well as in our physical courts.
HMCTS have invested over the last year in
teams of researchers and analysts to help us
understand our users better.
These researchers use a range of methods. For
example:
• User research (e.g. face to face
interviews) to understand what users
need
• Data science and analysis to understand
who our customers are and their
interaction with us (E.g. by telephone)
• Behavioural insight to help us understand
the choices of users
It’s early days but this is a big change in how
HMCTS works and is having benefits already
when we redesign our services.

15. Annex A: Overview of regulatory structure (for reference)