This chapter examines the availability, quality, and use of data for a people-centred justice system in Portugal. It discusses the role of diverse data sources in setting a comprehensive view of the justice system that focuses on individuals and community needs. The chapter explores the principles for collecting and utilising data to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of justice services, and details the dual perspectives of data needs at the macro and micro-levels, discussing how data supports national planning and individual case management within the justice sector. It calls for an integrated approach to overcome the traditional fragmentation of justice data, aiming for a system where data supports a nuanced understanding of justice delivery and access at all levels.
Modernisation of the Justice Sector in Portugal
6. Assessing the landscape: Availability, quality and use of data
Abstract
6.1. Introduction
People-centred justice implies understanding people’s problems, the impact these problems have on people, the available service to assist people to resolve their legal problems, the justice pathways they use (including through these services) to resolve their needs, and the outcomes they achieve. Providers of justice and legal services (e.g. lawyers, courts, administrative authorities, legal aid schemes) represent only a few parts of this broader system, and can collect and provide only limited ranges of data to contribute to a people-centred justice data ecosystem (OECD, 2020[1]).
For a people-centred justice approach, however, the central point of reference is the person or the community of people who are affected by legal and justice problems. Therefore, people-centred justice requires understanding people’s needs and then securing a level playing field for access to justice through the development and implementation of policies and services that provide remedies to legal issues and remove barriers to access (OECD, 2021[2]). Assessing the achievement of access to civil justice requires data that reaches beyond formal institutions as most problems are addressed through informal methods, directly between parties, unilaterally or not addressed at all (Praia City Group, 2020[3]).
Portugal has made significant progress in the past years in measuring performance to evaluate and monitor progress in its justice system, principally focused on the formal justice system elements. These steps comprise a set of strategic performance goals and key performance indicators intended to provide a nuanced assessment of the justice system by considering, among other aspects, operational efficiency, simplification, timeliness and satisfaction with services. This has demonstrated commitment to enhancing transparency, efficiency, and the overall effectiveness of the justice system in Portugal (OECD, 2020[1]).
However, important gaps remain in Portugal’s ability to collect and utilise data that gives it a people-centred perspective of access to justice. This chapter explores the availability, quality and use of data and evidence needed for people-centred and efficient justice – both from the supply and demand sides – at the macro- and micro-levels in Portugal.
6.2. Data and evidence needs
6.2.1. Principles for collecting data and evidence for people-centred and high-performing justice
Ensuring the right data and evidence for high-performing and people-centred justice hinges on several foundational principles aimed at enhancing the effectiveness and inclusivity of legal and justice services. Some of these principles include the following:
1. People-centred. First and foremost, the approach should be inherently people-centred, delving both into the demand for and satisfaction with legal services and procedures (and adequate supply).
2. Accessibility is a critical consideration, necessitating an evaluation of the justice gap, associated costs, barriers, navigation complexities, and the impact on vulnerable groups.
3. Appropriate classifications and taxonomies. Standard classifications and taxonomies play a significant role in ensuring comparability, particularly when aligning demand- and supply-driven classifications related to legal problems, dispute resolution providers, and interventions.
4. Comprehensive approach. There is also a strong need for a comprehensive approach covering both bottom-up and top-down perspectives, formal and informal dimensions, and all facets from inputs to processes and outcomes. This approach should align with the stages of people-centred policies and services, encompassing the mapping of legal and justice needs, designing people-centred services, and evaluating their delivery.
5. A human rights-based framework. It should also adhere to a human rights-based framework, promoting inclusivity, non-discrimination, gender-sensitivity, and respect for privacy and data protection rights. It should be practical, sustainable, and actionable within current human and data capacities and technologies.
6. Availability. The data must adhere to principles of availability, accessibility and openness. Because many actors are involved in enabling access to justice, data production is spread across a broad institutional landscape. Public institutions, civil society, the private sector and researchers all play important roles in the production, analysis and use of justice data. Sharing and linking such data can be important to addressing the complexity of access to justice (Praia City Group, 2020[3]).
Implementing this approach requires the use of multiple data sources. In broad terms:
Administrative data (data collected by legal institutions, departments, and service providers as they deal daily with individual clients and cases) are essential for producing measures and indicators relating to institutions, formal processes, legal services and people’s interactions with these. However, while administrative data provide important information about those who come into contact with institutions and services, they provide no information about those who do not.
General population surveys (legal needs surveys). In order to establish broad patterns of experience of and responses to civil legal problems, general population surveys are essential. However, the ability of population surveys to capture details of relatively rare processes is inherently limited and, in any event, respondents generally have only a superficial understanding of technical processes.
User surveys and qualitative reviews. Beyond administrative and general population survey data, user surveys and qualitative reviews, such as expert assessment, can provide information to assess the quality of processes and services and their outcomes. Expert reviews can also provide data concerning the legal and institutional framework within which justice is delivered, which constitutes essential context for any full picture of access to justice.
Official data. Governments collect a range of important data through periodic census and other targeted human service population surveys that can be useful for the planning and delivery of justice services. For example, having identified trends and vulnerabilities of population groups through legal needs surveys (LNS), official data can provide a deeper, more nuanced picture of their needs, of where they are located, and other factors.
While traditional court performance data (e.g. cases in, cases out) are useful for managing courts, they provide little information that can help with a people-centred approach to justice planning and service delivery. In order to collect the sort of information as part of administrative data that will assist in supporting a people-centred data ecosystem, a useful approach is to collect data (data appropriate to the level of institution/organisation and to the people and matters concerned) to answer the seven themes listed below (see Box 6.1). It is important to note that appropriate definitions, counting rules and collection processes will need to be established for each variable.
Box 6.1. Data for designing and delivering people-centred approach
To whom are services being provided/who is being engaged? Whether it be a court, a legal aid service or community service, if data concerning the individual person are not collected then no insight will be possible in relation to matters such as which groups are using the service, and which may not be, etc. Service data (administrative data) are the best source for these questions. A range of client demographic variables will ideally be collected, subject to privacy and ethical requirements – such as age, gender, employment, income level, disability, single parent, language and/or cultural origins.
What services are being provided to clients/are clients receiving? Services might vary by type of service (for example, information, advice, minor assistance, representation), by area of law, by jurisdiction (geographic) or region, etc. The information sought under this theme can incorporate consideration of how services are distinguished and defined, but more importantly, should include data relating to why a client might choose a certain service over another, etc.
Why do certain people receive certain services? The set of questions under this theme seek to provide insight on why certain people receive a certain type of service and not another, or why some people receive little or no service at all. There can be many factors at play that go beyond issues of barriers to service delivery such as cost and availability of services. For example, access to legal aid services and probably limited in most jurisdictions by specific eligibility requirements. In Portugal, the eligibility requirements are primarily income-based (although some special provisions for vulnerable groups exist) and are implement through the Social Security Institute (ISS). People-focused data could be collected to provide important insight into the characteristics and/or legal problem circumstances of those who are successful in gaining legal aid assistance, but also potentially by those who are not successful.
Where are the services being delivered (geography and context – such as court, etc.)? Administrative data reporting where services are delivered in terms of geography or location (such as a court, at a client’s home or at a service office) provide important insight not only into the distribution and usage of current services, but also, when compared to legal need assessments, can prompt investigations into areas of apparent underservicing. This, in turn, provides important information relevant for the planning and delivery of services, generally, but of new services in particular.
How are the services being delivered (mode of delivery e.g. face-to-face, telephone, online)? How services are delivered is an increasingly important people-centred variable. There are two dimensions to it – the first being how do services engage with the client in the first place, and the second is the mode of service delivery. In relation to how services engage with (or reach) clients, questions such as those seeking to identify if clients come to service offices either directly or via referral mechanisms, or if service providers conduct outreach operations to reach remote or disadvantaged communities, can potentially reveal important information about which clients choose which methods (and for which matters) to engage with legal support services..
What pathways do people follow before and after the service? Services collecting data from clients concerning the paths they took prior to reaching the service and the paths they are referred to upon engaging with the service are crucial to understanding the justice pathways being undertaken by those who do reach services. This can provide important insight to assist in reform and service delivery improvement.
How are services monitored and evaluated? The evaluation and monitoring of services delivered is an important component of any people-centred justice system. User satisfaction surveys contribute to understanding how services are or are not appropriately supporting the client.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
For data collected to be useful for supporting people-centred justice at a system level, data must be an appropriate and sector-wide implementation of definitions and protocols. Such a system is likely to include the features listed in Box 6.2.
Box 6.2. Essential features to support data collection
To effectively support a people-centred justice system, the integration and management of data across the sector require a comprehensive and strategic approach. This encompasses the establishment of a framework that is not only cohesive and universally understandable but also adaptable to the diverse needs within the justice sector.
The essential features described below aim to ensure that all stakeholders, regardless of their specific roles or the data they handle, can contribute to and benefit from a unified system. Each of the components below plays a critical role in building a data-driven justice system that is both effective and responsive to the needs of the people it serves:
Centrally co-ordinated and clearly articulated: It will be centrally co-ordinated and clearly articulated so all components of the justice system can be aware of it and understand it and work to implement its requirements. While there will be different requirements for the specific variables or parts of the data collected, the central co-ordination characteristic will mean that these variations can nevertheless be appropriately incorporated into a single effective system.
Data definitions and standards: Useful data will only be obtained if there is a common data collection system with a common set of definitions and standards ideally across the justice sector to ensure that consistent and comparable data can be collected. Therefore, there will ideally be a ‘data dictionary’ or equivalent which defines data variables, and/or a ‘data standards’ manual to support and encourage consistency in data recording.
Common tools: There may be specific data collection tools (including software) and/or guidance to support individual organisations and agencies to collect, utilise and report data consistently.
Prioritisation: It is never possible nor practical to collect all of the information that might be desired. In addition to privacy and ethical factors, it is, for example, not appropriate for a service providing just a small information service (such as a proximity court clerk to a walk-in client) to ask a lengthy set of demographic and other questions, whereas for a client receiving a lengthy, high-intensity service such as legal representation in court, such questions may be appropriate. Therefore, the data system itself must contain agreed data collection priorities for implementation.
Data collection provides regular, real-time useful information: Useful data will only be obtained if there are appropriate incentives to ensure that variables are collected. Part of the incentive for good data collection at the service delivery level is for those at the service level to be provided with good feedback, useful insights and tools based on the data so they regularly see the value of the data they collect as they are used. In addition, recognition programmes, performance-related bonuses, or professional development opportunities tied to data management excellence may motivate individuals to prioritise and ensure the quality of data entry.
Regular programmes to encourage implementation: There are likely to be sector-wide and sector-driven (in this case DGPJ) processes to encourage the progressive implementation of the data collection and utilisation system.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Implementing a people-centred approach requires overcoming the justice sector's traditional fragmentation which often results in disparate and fragmented data. There is also a need to ensure compatibility of data concepts, classifications, and terms, and to standardise taxonomies, tools, guidelines, and data formats. Privacy, data protection, ownership, and the principle of open data present intricate considerations. Balancing data ownership rights, confidentiality guaranteed by Statistics Acts, and the push for open data requires a delicate equilibrium (Praia City Group, 2020[3]). Furthermore, the capacity to implement international best practices and guidelines on access to justice measurement frameworks is contingent on effective training materials and targeted interventions.
To give effect to the legal services planning cycle in Box 6.3 and achieve a people-centred justice approach, jurisdictions would ideally need to be supported by a suitable data ecosystem. To this end, it is important to adopt a coherent data strategy and data ecosystem across agencies and elements of the justice system. Over time, this involves moving towards common systems of definition, terminology, data collection and retention, and data management. A common, supported approach to mapping justice data is another important aspect to be considered.
Box 6.3. Data ecosystem operationalisation model
To support people-centred justice at jurisdictional or national level, a range of data sources is available from governments and justice organisations. This data ecosystem model seeks to operationalise the data requirements by:
Asking a number of key questions that ideally would be answered by justice systems seeking to move towards people-centredness; and
Identifying possible data sources to be utilised.
To illustrate the data ecosystem operationalisation model, a number of questions and data sources are shown below with an emphasis on a people-centred justice approach:
What are the legal and justice needs of the different groups of people? A number of data sources, ideally used in an appropriate combination, could be considered:
Survey data from a legal needs survey (LNS) can help obtain a representative picture of the legal and justice needs of the community;
Targeted data from deep engagement with communities, and particularly disadvantaged communities, can help fill gaps in the understanding of the legal and justice needs of priority disadvantaged communities. This data can come from targeted research and/or the ongoing engagement of civil society organisations (CSOs) with particular disadvantaged communities;
Criminal court data: While LNS and other data are necessary to identify legal and justice needs generally, when available and well collected, criminal court finalisation or similar data can often provide the best indicators of criminal law needs;
Service delivery and administrative data can complement understandings of legal needs, especially at the local level. However, service delivery data often have limited utility as a measure of legal needs, particularly when funding is scarce.
Where are the legal and justice needs located? Distance can be a major impediment to access to justice, particularly in larger countries. Locating the need is important in targeting services effectively.
Service delivery and administrative data: While the utility of these data can be limited by a relative scarcity of justice services delivered, or data being collected, they can provide insight into local demand for particular services for particular legal and justice needs.
Official data: LNS rarely provides sufficient insight into legal and justice needs in small regions within a jurisdiction. However, the insights from legal need surveys in relation to particular groups or issues can be applied to official census and other population-level datasets to provide insights into the location of likely legal and justice needs.
Data from community service organisations (CSOs) and NGOs: CSOs and NGOs generally have long-term service and support relationships with targeted disadvantaged communities. If given adequate support, data from these agencies can provide useful insight into legal and justice needs and their location.
How can legal capability be recognised and understood?
Legal capability refers to personal characteristics, skills and psychological preparedness that impact on a person’s ability to confront and deal with legal and justice problems. A range of data sources, especially official and anonymised (census) data, provide disaggregated population-level information on key characteristics and skills, such as education level, health status, employment status and other competencies. This, in turn, provides insights into their legal capability.
What works to address legal and justice needs for different parts of the community sustainably?
Using quality literature: Rigorous research and evaluations, and rigorously conducted systematic reviews of such research can provide guidance in relation to what works to address particular legal and justice needs for particular people in particular contexts.
Conducting quality evaluations: Conducting targeted and strategic evidence-based evaluations can add to the evidence base about what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and at what cost.
Service delivery and administrative data: Service delivery data on its own will not identify effectiveness. However, when collected as part of an appropriate methodology to determine what works, service delivery data can have a key role.
How can legal and justice services be best targeted where they are needed?
Matching service delivery data with legal and justice needs data: Countries wishing to identify gaps in service delivery and monitor the delivery of relevant services to address particular needs may consider mapping service delivery data against legal/justice needs data. They would look at available approaches to monitoring service delivery data against relevant needs variables.
What data are needed for monitoring, evaluating and planning?
Data from some or all of the above sources can be relevant to the monitoring, evaluation and planning for delivery of justice services.
Bespoke research and evaluation are necessary but would need to be strategically co-ordinated to focus on priority knowledge gaps and to minimise cost and duplication.
Other court and tribunal data: Every day, cases are heard in courts and services are delivered. Data collection of such service delivery will enable these important sources of data to contribute valuable insights into the justice data ecosystem and allow for appropriate decision-making and planning of justice services.
Source: OECD (2021[2]) OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People‑Centred Justice, https://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-framework-and-good-practice-principles-for-people-centred-justice-cdc3bde7-en.htm.
6.2.2. Data and evidence needs at the macro-level
This first part of a justice data model is a national- (or regional) level model where the focus is on balance between supply and demand, and the outcomes of legal problems. At that level, the data aggregation process shifts the focus toward the broad questions of demand and supply, resolution and lack of resolution, and access and lack of access. This model is for national planners, judiciaries, ministries of justice, national and international CSOs, police and prosecutorial services.
Assessing the demand for justice necessitates a bottom-up approach, focusing on the geographical and social spaces where issues arise. Research on justice and legal needs indicates that official redress mechanisms address only a fraction of problems, leaving a significant portion unattended. Informal mechanisms, including community justice forums and online platforms, cover some issues but not all. Perception data, coupled with quantitative methods, provide insights into the reasons behind actions and inactions, shedding light on why certain problems are addressed while others are not.
The assessment of justice-data needs at the macro-level (see Table 6.1) can involve the examination of various factors, with a focus on both supply (institutions-centred) and demand (people-centred) aspects. The institutional aspects focus on the structural aspects of providing justice, such as institutional and legal frameworks, types of services, service volumes, the management and categorisation of cases, and the processes and resources deployed to address legal issues. These elements help detail the operational and procedural aspects of justice services and institutions, the costs associated with delivering justice at a systemic level, and the outcomes in terms of case resolutions, justice system efficiency and enforcement.
Table 6.1. People-centred and institutional data needs at the macro-level
|
People-centred / Demand |
Institutions-centred / Supply |
|---|---|
|
Capabilities
|
Structure
|
|
Legal problems
|
Institutions
|
|
Pathways to justice
|
Process
|
|
Costs
|
Costs
|
|
Outcomes
|
Outcomes
|
Note: Author’s own elaboration.
The people-centred aspects or demand side emphasise individuals’ capabilities, the prevalence and nature of legal problems, the pathways people take towards justice, the costs incurred by individuals, and the outcomes for their well-being and problem resolution. They focus on personal experiences of those navigating the legal system and reflect a demand-driven view of the justice system, including the focus on what people need, how they seek help, and the outcomes of their efforts to resolve legal problems, including impacts on people’s well-being (e.g. restoring damaged relationships, providing restitution and restoration, punishing when needed, establishing a feeling of security and strengthening rights). The key questions that people-centred data can answer are presented in Box 6.4.
Box 6.4. Key questions on the macro-model
Below are the key questions on the macro model for the use of data and statistical information systems:
What are the needs for justice?
Is there a justice gap, and how big is the gap?
Compared with previous periods, what are the dynamics of the legal needs of people and businesses?
What does the pyramid of legal needs look like?
What are the individual and social impacts of the legal problems, and what are the costs of maintaining formal and informal institutions for resolving legal problems?
What proportion of the legal problems are resolved fairly?
Which social groups are most affected by the justice gap, and what is the role of the factors of vulnerability?
How do formal and informal justice institutions work together?
Where do justice journeys work smoothly, and where do they break?
Which are the legal problems where the justice gap is most concerning?
Why do some people use the service (to receive assistance with their legal problem or to resolve it) and others do not? Are there accessibility reasons that apply to some groups and not to others? Do eligibility restrictions mean that some issues or some people are unable to receive support for their legal problems while others who fulfil eligibility criteria might receive assistance?
Note: Author’s own elaboration.
6.2.3. Availability of data in Portugal at the macro-level
In broad terms, Portugal appears to have a straightforward, well-designed and properly maintained justice data framework, with the primary focus on the functioning of the main formal justice institutions and processes.
The portal for justice data, Estatisticas.justica.gov.pt, provides a wealth of current and longitudinal statistical justice data in Portugal. Under the leadership of the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate-General for Justice Policy (DGPJ), administrative data is regularly gathered, analysed and published. With a few exceptions, most of the available indicators are structure, input, process and output-focused by their content. Estatísticas contains data about the number of practicing lawyers, enforcement agents, judicial personnel and other professionals, expenditures on legal aid and justice fees.
The portal also provides data about the workload of different types of adjudication mechanisms, such as the peace courts, first instance courts, first instance administrative and tax courts, high judicial courts, high administrative and tax courts, courts of auditors, police criminal investigations, public prosecution services and the EU courts. In addition, administrative data and expert assessments provide insights into the flow of cases in and out of the system, categorised by problem and sub-problem, the value of cases, and the disaggregation by vulnerability factors.
Case data is reported according to the civil, administrative and criminal categories. Additionally, statistics are provided for employment and guardianship cases. The case-level statistic is disaggregated by subject matter. For instance, civil matters are divided into declaratory actions, civil enforcement actions, special actions, provisional orders and “other” actions (see Table 6.2). These categories are further broken down into even more specific categories (Government of Portugal, 2023[4]). In some areas of commercial law (e.g. insolvency), data is disaggregated by key characteristics of the parties. For example, the declared insolvencies in the first instance courts are reported by natural persons, private law legal persons, and public law legal persons. DGPJ collects data about the parties involved in cases, the outputs of the cases (how cases end), and whether the parties achieved their objectives. Data regarding the official modes of alternative dispute resolution are also gathered.
Table 6.2. Civil cases completed in the first instance judicial courts
|
Nº cases |
Year |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Type of procedure |
2022 |
2021 |
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
2017 |
2016 |
2015 |
2014 |
2013 |
|
Declaratory actions |
58,709 |
54,969 |
50,345 |
53,229 |
51,096 |
52,517 |
60,895 |
75,057 |
62,045 |
74,636 |
|
Civil enforcement actions |
119,305 |
129,321 |
137,667 |
166,647 |
192,610 |
221,001 |
256,931 |
242,111 |
258,233 |
364,852 |
|
Special actions |
42,223 |
39,000 |
37,059 |
47,946 |
42,648 |
44,412 |
47,405 |
54,208 |
46,085 |
49,580 |
|
Provisional orders |
4,189 |
4,513 |
4,138 |
4,366 |
4,271 |
4,714 |
5,523 |
7,882 |
7,950 |
8,939 |
|
Other |
39,487 |
40,881 |
51,171 |
75,393 |
83,146 |
80,615 |
76,203 |
63,776 |
53,796 |
68,211 |
|
Grand Total |
263,913 |
268,684 |
280,380 |
347,581 |
373,771 |
403,259 |
446,957 |
443,034 |
428,109 |
566,218 |
Source: Government of Portugal (2023[4]), Civil cases completed in the first instance judicial courts, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us/Pages/Processos-civeis-findos-nos-tribunais-judiciais-de-1-instancia.aspx.
An innovative aspect of visualising the justice data on Estatísticas is that most data is available in spreadsheet forms with embedded pivot table functionality. This allows users with a reasonable level of data literacy to interact with the data and create their own reports. Another feature worth mentioning is the rigorous process of conceptualisation and documentation. In most reports, there is a tab labelled "Methodological Notes," which offers a detailed explanation of the statistics being presented.
On the institutional performance side, the focus is on process such as clearance rate (resolution rate), the average duration of completed cases, disposition time, pending cases, availability of legal representation, and the quality of legal processes, including appeals and redress mechanisms. The outputs of the justice institutions are registered as cases opened, cases closed, and cases on hold. The efficiency and quality of legal processes are measured primarily through administrative data, and expert assessments.
Systemic costs include users’ costs and the broader financial impact on the justice system, analysing the total annual justice budget, its GDP percentage, and disaggregated budgets per institution and function. Finally, institutional effectiveness is gauged by case outcomes, enforcement rates, and, data primarily from administrative records to evaluate the system's capacity to deliver justice effectively. There are some outcome data gathered through court user surveys, such as the case of the project RAL+. Still, in general, the outcome-level data are significantly and largely absent on the Estatísticas portal compared to the output-level data. Besides the statistical data based on administrative data, the Ministry of Justice, through its planning department, conducts service satisfaction surveys.
On the people-centred/demand side, data availability tends to be much more limited in Portugal. The Portuguese legal needs survey conducted in 2022 assesses the population's confidence in accessing legal information and obtaining legal assistance, indicating the perceived abilities to solve legal problems successfully and legal awareness among the populace. This is complemented by data on the number of legal aid providers per 100 000 people, derived from administrative data provided by DGPJ. In addition, there is some insight on the prevalence, generalisations, and longitudinal trends of legal problems, as identified through the 2022 LNS. To further close this gap, concerted efforts are needed to systemically integrate demand data into the Portuguese justice data system. Regular justice needs and victimisation studies must be institutionalised and integrated into the data-gathering pipeline. To address the unique requirements of survey research, a collaboration between DGPJ, the Supreme Judicial Council, and the National Statistical Institute could be established. Academic institutions and private entities (e.g. data collection companies) could be important actors in the pursuit of more data about the demand for justice.
Moreover, very few indicators are designed to capture the outcomes of justice in Portugal. Inevitably, this stems from the conceptual, methodological and technical difficulties of gathering outcome-level data. However, a people-centred justice that is supported by evidence about the social and economic impact of justice requires the availability of outcomes data.
Currently, most indicators that constitute part of the justice data framework are published in aggregated form, although raw datasets are likely to contain some information regarding justice system users. It is important to ensure that the justice data framework gathers sufficient details that allow for disaggregated analysis and presentation. There is a need to make available such disaggregated data to highlight the important aspects of access to justice, such as vulnerabilities, distribution of justice and legal services across the population, and factors that cause or overlap with exclusion. Such analysis, for instance, can show how individuals from different socio-economic background or different geographic locations experience legal problems and respond to them.
Finally, all critical indicators from the Portuguese justice data framework represent a single data source – i.e. case management data or data from public records. Integrating data at the level of users, cases, or problems can provide a significant number of insights. For instance, linking case data with data from social security services could reveal meaningful insights about important aspects such as vulnerabilities, barriers to justice and users’ preferences.
6.2.4. Data and evidence needs at the micro-level
While at the macro-level, performance of justice systems is assessed at the national or regional level, the micro-level allows a deeper look at individual problems or discrete institutions. The micro-level data can look at different issues, such as consumer cases. It can be gathered from institutions and providers working to provide solutions to these problems. Alternatively, the institutional focus gathers data about institutions, for example, the functioning of general or specialised courts, legal aid board, ADR, police, prosecution, investigation, police enforcement and notary services. Given the existence of leadership and the availability of sufficient data, such information can be used to capture the functioning of formal and informal justice services. Box 6.5 presents the key questions on the micro-model of people-centred justice data on court services.
Box 6.5. Key questions on the micro-model
Below are the key questions on the micro-model of people-centred justice data on court services:
What are the quantitative parameters of the service? How does it relate to the overall/national demand for justice?
How do users perceive the quality of the service?
To what extent is justice and legal services accessible?
How user-friendly are the procedures?
How fast and timely are the procedures?
How effectively does the service address people’s justice and legal needs?
Which segments of the community are using the services, and which are not?
Which legal needs of the community are being met by the legal services, and which are not?
Are the services delivered in a way that meets the needs of the whole community?
Are community users satisfied with the services they receive?
What outcomes were achieved by users?
What pathways do people follow to resolve their problems?
Are the services inclusive and targeted to those most in need and responsive to their needs?
Are the services designed to actively overcome the range of barriers to assistance and be accessible to all?
Are the services available across the justice chain in a range of formats and types that reach different groups?
Are the services appropriate to the specific needs of individuals, tailored, proportionate and efficient to accommodate local conditions?
Do the services contribute to outcomes desired by people and are they accessed fairly?
What are the outcomes and value of the service to individuals and society? Do the procedures effectively resolve the legal and justice problems of people and businesses?
How can the design and delivery of the service be improved to be more people-centred? What is the impact of the resolution on the well-being of the people involved?
Note: Author’s own elaboration.
The people-centred dimension at the micro-level builds on the premises that individuals value justice processes and services that are accessible, affordable, timely, fair, tailored to their needs, with high outcome quality and effective in solving people’s problems. This includes identifying barriers to access and the steps involved in justice journeys, including referrals, parties involved, how cases are impacted by factors of vulnerability, and the overall impact or value of resolved cases, the duration of legal processes, the interventions made during these processes, and the quality of the process from the user's perspective. The people perspective can help understand the costs, which can be broken down into monetary expenses and the stress experienced by individuals. Finally, it can help assess the outcomes such as problem resolution, enforcement of decisions, and the well-being for those involved.
On the institutional side at the micro-level, it is important to understand the institutional and legal framework for specific services, the allocation of resources and budget with a view to measuring the capacity and readiness of individual services to handle cases. In addition, it includes process indicators such as the type of process, clearance rate, pending cases, availability of legal representation, the quality of the process, and the mechanisms for appeals and redress. There is also a possibility to look at costs for users and for the justice system in delivering service, as well as the outcomes in relation to case resolutions, enforcement, and institutional/service effectiveness and efficiency (see Table 6.3).
This data approach could inform how institutions process cases and how the users experience processes and outcomes. It often relies primarily on administrative data originating from the institution or service. Administrative data, however, cannot capture most of the subjective personal experiences with the pathways to justice. Therefore, the micro-level approach is enhanced with data from various sources that display the perspectives of the users. However, often such data are not available. People-centred justice requires a significant amount of change in the design and delivery of justice and legal services. Designing and building an enabling data ecosystem is part of such efforts.
Table 6.3. People-centred and institutions-centred approaches in the micro-model
|
Demand |
Supply |
|---|---|
|
Access
|
Structure for specific services/institutions
Institutions/services
|
|
Process
|
Process
|
|
Costs
|
Costs
|
|
Outcomes
|
Outcomes
|
Source: Author’s own elaboration
6.3. Data requirements and mapping opportunities at the micro-level to support people-centred justice in Portugal
Portugal has made substantial progress over the last 10 years in improving data collection and reporting at the micro-level. This has primarily gone in the direction of consistent collection and reporting of data related to court performance (OECD, 2020[1]) and its publication on interactive websites in both Portuguese and English. The e-Tribunal (Citius) and Estatísticas are some of the examples of portals that provide interactive dashboards and maps allowing users to visualise and access information on various judicial entities and services (Government of Portugal, 2024[5]) (Government of Portugal, 2024[6]).
At this stage, the data collected generally focus on a range of court performance indicators such as “number of cases in”, “number of cases resolved”, and “duration of cases”, as well as data about numbers of judges appointed and similar indicators (OECD, 2020[1]). This data can be useful as part of an examination of court performance and are common indicators used across countries.
However, in terms of demand data to assist in the implementation of people-centred justice and to support evidence-based planning, the variables currently collected and reported on appear to be limited in their utility. Interview and analysis conducted as part of this review highlighted a range of gaps in demand for justice data collected by the justice sector agencies and services, with the exception of the Portuguese Association for Victim Support (APAV). In particular, some of the gaps relate to the limited approach in widespread, co-ordinated or consistent recording of the key people-centred data variables, which includes data concerning the legal needs of all the people, data revealing which groups within the community are receiving services for particular problems and which are not, how best to target services to reach particular communities, and what the outcomes achieved and levels of satisfaction with services are.
6.3.1. People-centred justice data in justice sector institutions in Portugal
Based on the themes and information requirements indicative of people-centred justice data and appropriate data collection and utilisation for people-centred justice, the following sections summarise the project findings in relation to a number of key justice sector institutions, agencies and organisations.
Promising practices and opportunities
6.3.2. APAV
APAV is the leading victims’ support service in Portugal. It is an independent NGO, with no connection to the Portuguese Ministry of Justice. While, at the moment, 80% of their clients are victims of domestic violence, their service is available to all victims of crime across Portugal. APAV has a number of different models to deliver services in different locations based on the particular circumstances.
Importantly, however, APAV provides a very positive example of people-centred data collection and usage. To summarise, APAV takes a people-centred approach to the needs of their clients and have developed a quite sophisticated data collection and utilisation system to accompany the people-centred approach. Importantly, their system is an electronic database and it is likely that justice institutions and the justice sector could learn from this.
APAV collects a wide range of people-centred demographic and other variables, and use them in planning and service delivery. For example, they access the data of where (geographically) their clients are coming from and map this data to highlight underserved regions in Portugal.
Significantly, APAV does record referral data. That is, they collect information about where people who come to them have been referred from (if applicable) and where they are referred to from APAV.
APAV employs a system to measure the outcomes they achieve. They use an external quality assessment system that seeks to examine outcomes and every two years they engage external researchers to undertake client satisfaction studies. They also do their own impact assessment evaluations as they work with clients along the way. Much of this people-centred approach to data collection could be utilised by the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry and/or DGPJ could consider engaging APAV with the intent of possibly purchasing the intellectual property and assistance to develop a broader justice sector data tool.
6.3.3. Social Security Institute
The Social Security Institute (ISS) is the key government agency responsible for social security and related services in Portugal. It has an essential and unique position in relation to legal aid in Portugal and provides the potential for significant opportunities for data collection and planning legal services into the future. The ISS has access to an enormous range of human service data for the Portuguese population. In fact-finding interviews, the ISS staff indicated that their data was possibly more useful than census data, particularly in relation to disadvantaged groups and people in need of or receiving government assistance.
To receive legal aid in Portugal a person must apply through the ISS. Their entitlement to legal aid, which is mandated by a formula provided in legislation, is assessed by the ISS, taking into account information they have on every person and household in Portugal. Upgrades to their application system in early 2023 offered a much-improved online application process with much better automatic data collection. While the ISS was already able to conduct analyses of retrospective legal aid applications in terms of a range of people-centred variables, this upgrade facilitated the data collection process (see Box 6.6).
Box 6.6. Portugal: Social Security Institute’s role in legal aid
The Social Security Institute’s (ISS) essential and unique position in relation to legal aid in Portugal provides significant opportunities for data collection, mapping and planning legal services into the future. The ISS – the key government agency responsible for social security and related services in Portugal – has access to an enormous range of social service data for the Portuguese population. The Portuguese identity card and social security systems are linked so that a large amount of information regarding individuals is held by/accessible to ISS. Importantly, because of their work with different population groups across the country, the ISS appears to have a very sound knowledge base in relation to the location and characteristics of different groups and their connection with other social services.
Source: Government of Portugal (2024[7]), Instituto da Segurança Social, https://www.seg-social.pt/objectivos-e-principios.
Much value can be obtained from sound analysis of the ISS legal aid process. For example, while the data may be primarily relevant to that portion of the community who may be entitled to legal aid, LNS in most countries reveal that it is disadvantaged people that have higher vulnerability to legal problems that they are unable to resolve, and so such analysis is of particular use to the government in trying to reach the whole population. Analysing legal aid applications and the outcomes of applications by demographic and other variables can provide useful insight into who is applying for legal aid (and who might not be but perhaps should), and who is receiving legal aid.
Fact-finding interviews revealed a key opportunity on the collection and use of data for design and delivery of people-centred justice services. The ISS could leverage its unique position and access to extensive social service data to further enhance the planning and delivery of legal aid services. This involves not only continuing to refine data collection through the online application system but also expanding the analysis of legal aid applications to include a wider range of people-centred variables. Such analysis can inform targeted interventions and improvements in legal aid service provision, particularly for disadvantaged groups.
To this point, neither the justice system broadly nor the Bar Association (which is the formal partner in the legal aid process by authorising the list of lawyers participating in the legal aid scheme) have been seeking data or their engagement in relation to using the data for planning purposes. In this regard, there is an unexplored potential to ensure that insights derived from legal aid data are utilised to inform policy decisions, service improvements, and resource allocation across the justice sector. This could be realised by favouring collaboration between the ISS and other justice stakeholders, including the Ministry of Justice and the Bar Association, to integrate legal aid data analysis into broader justice system planning efforts.
6.3.4. RIAV
RIAV aims to provide assistance and support to victims of crime, offering them information about their rights and the legal processes involved. It serves as an important resource for victims, helping them navigate the justice system, access necessary services, and receive the support they need during challenging times.
Data is collected through two primary methods in RIAV. The official information system primarily focuses on issues relevant to legal and judicial processes rather than broader planning intent. Additionally, RIAV offices collect a range of demographic and other more people-focused variables in a separate spreadsheet. Respondents indicated that the ‘supplementary’ data (beyond the mandated data collection requirements) were collected because of the value they could provide RIAV operations. While this data may be valuable, they prompt further inquiry, including their, at present, unofficial status, and whether data collection is consistent across all four offices in terms of both collection and definition.
The collection of data on violence against women and domestic violence is currently one of the main challenges in order to properly plan actions in this area. Since 2019, Portugal has prioritised the creation of a database on violence against women and domestic violence, which could bring together data collected by a variety of bodies working in this area. One of the steps towards its creation was the approval of a new model for a standard report on domestic violence, by Ministerial Order no. 209/2021, dated 18 October 2021. This standard report includes a set of instructions and assistance for its completion, and defines the response categories for all the fields relating to closed questions, as well as the fields to be filled in specifically for statistical purposes in order to improve this instrument and ensure its effective standardisation by the different users.
Portugal should consider formalising the mandate to collect this data, and implement standardised data collection protocols across all police stations to ensure consistency in the type of data collected and the definitions used. Establishing common criteria and methodologies may facilitate comparative analysis and more coherent strategic planning. Further investigation into how this data are (or could be) used for planning purposes is recommended.
To enhance the utility of data for planning purposes in the long run, Portugal may want to conduct reviews of data utilisation, provide training for RIAV staff on data analysis techniques and create guidelines training for RIAV staff on data analysis techniques.
Higher-level services and justice institutions
6.3.5. Directorate-General for Justice Policy (DGPJ)
The DGPJ is a governmental body responsible for supporting the Ministry of Justice in policy formulation, planning, evaluation, and co-ordination of the justice sector. The DGPJ plays a key role in the administration of justice in Portugal, overseeing various aspects of the justice system, including the management of statistical data related to justice, modernisation of judicial services, and implementation of justice policies. Its activities are aimed at improving the efficiency, accessibility, and quality of the justice system to meet the needs of the public and ensure the effective administration of justice.
Portugal has made important steps in the collection and public reporting of key indicators of court performance (OECD, 2020[1]). DGPJ has taken important steps towards the mapping of justice institutions across Portugal with the key motivation of informing the people where the nearest appropriate service is to them. It was further noted that DGPJ is making significant efforts to develop its data collection and usage, and importantly, has up to 15 staff working on improving the data collection and utilisation system. The development of protocols, definitions and guidelines is part of this process.
DGPJ is also conducting regular user satisfaction surveys, primarily focusing on ADR services. Initial findings indicate modest participation rates in these surveys, as corroborated by data from the DGPJ (Directorate General for Justice Policy, 2024[8]). Understanding the barriers to survey participation and addressing them may enhance the quality and reliability of the data collected. In addition, broadening the scope and institutional coverage of user satisfaction surveys would provide a more comprehensive understanding of user satisfaction across the justice system.
More broadly, interviews highlighted several overarching challenges related to data collection and utilisation within Portugal's justice sector. These challenges stem from a combination of constrained human and financial resources and, possibly, the absence of unified sector-wide priorities, which has hindered advancements in broadening data collection beyond traditional court performance metrics. The diagnosis phase found no current strategies to mandate the collection of people-centred variables that could be instrumental in tailoring legal services to meet public needs within resource-limited settings.
Another issue confronting DGPJ was the complexity of the environment and the different levels of responsibility for planning and implementing a more coherent and effective data collection and utilisation framework. DGPJ is a logical candidate to locate responsibility for the centralised co-ordination of a people-centred justice data collection and utilisation system. DGPJ is required to report data to the Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Stats Portugal). In addition, it receives and applies data standards for international organisations as well, including the EU and UN. There would seem to be benefits gained should responsibilities for justice data policy and collection be centralised under a single entity. However, while it co-operates with other agencies and departments and, importantly, with the courts, DGPJ has limited authority to implement the system of the collection of common people-centred data across the justice sector. DGPJ could consider leading the development of an appropriate people-centred justice data standards mechanism as a means of guiding transformation towards an effective people-centred data ecosystem over the years ahead.
6.3.6. Administrative and tax courts
The administrative and tax courts are specialised courts that deal with disputes involving public administration and tax matters (see Chapter 4). These courts adjudicate cases related to the actions and decisions of public authorities, ensuring they comply with administrative law. They also handle cases involving tax disputes between taxpayers and the state. The objective of these courts is to provide a legal avenue for individuals and entities to challenge administrative decisions and tax assessments, ensuring that public administration acts fairly and in accordance with the law, and that tax laws are correctly applied and interpreted.
The data presently collected by the administrative and tax courts primarily follow the “traditional court performance” approach to justice data collection. This includes data related to numbers of matters commenced and numbers of matters concluded, information on how and when matters were closed (e.g. when clients gave up, when the matter was resolved by other means, and if a decision was made whether it was made in favour of, partly in favour of, or not in favour of the plaintiff). Questions concerning the reliability of the collected data were also raised, with one contributing factor being (in the views of some respondents), the absence of sufficient mandatory fields in the data entry systems, which allowed many variables of interest to be omitted. This supports the importance of a centralised and consistent justice-sector wide approach to data collection that ensures improved collection of key data across the whole sector.
Overall, project interviews revealed that due to the lack of people-centred data the courts have little insight into the characteristics of the people who use the courts. Current data collection processes do not permit any understanding or analysis of which groups are using the courts for which problems – and which groups do not appear to be using the court. Some interviewees acknowledged that people-centred data would be useful for court planning and efficiency, and appeared enthusiastic about the value of such information, however they appeared limited by present mandates (competences).
6.3.7. Senior public prosecutor (SPP)
Project research did not suggest that the office of the SPP was mandated to, or did, collect and utilise people-centred data for planning purposes. While SPP does not collect people-centred data for any planning use, fact-finding interviews nevertheless provided important information as to SPP’s data situation that may have relevance for other elements within the justice system. It was highlighted that challenges associated with the Ministry of Justice’s Citius information system stem from a shortage of human resources. For instance, the necessity to report data regularly in response to national and international inquiries requires significant time investment from senior legal staff, who must, themselves (for reasons relating to security and the protection of data), manually review each case file to extract pertinent information. To improve resources in data management, Portugal may want to consider addressing human resource shortages and training existing staff in more efficient data management practices. However, establishing an agreed and sector-wide set of priorities (discussed in the previous chapter) should contribute to an allocation of resources to match priorities.
Concerns were raised regarding the reliability of data in Citius, attributed in part to the minimal number of mandatory fields and the absence of sufficient incentives for data recording. This, coupled with time constraints, may result in inadequate data entry by individuals. Additionally, another challenge in data collection is Citius' inability to allow the management bodies of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which need a national overview of data, to carry out queries and searches in different courts or departments of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the same time.
6.3.8. GIAV
GIAV is an integrated management system for the administration of justice. As noted, GIAV aims to facilitate communication and information exchange among various entities within the justice system, including courts, public prosecutor’s offices, and justice-related services, to ensure a more effective and user-friendly administration of justice. In the case of GIAV, data collection does not aim at planning services for the community. GIAV operates as an independent pilot service with funding designated for court-specific tasks. The collected data and the focus on specific variables directly correspond to the court's requirements for addressing individual cases and assessing risk factors for victims and children. Additionally, data is gathered for specific research projects that are being conducted in order to provide a growing evidence base to support the delivery of justice in domestic violence matters.
Recognising the value of GIAV's contribution to specific initiatives and research, there appears to be an as yet untapped opportunity to integrate the work of GIAV across other courts and regions in Portugal, namely by sharing their knowledge, expertise and organisation model with the Victim Support Office (GAV) implemented elsewhere. GIAV may contribute with valuable insights into the development of more responsive and effective services that address the wider needs of victims of domestic violence across the community beyond immediate court needs. In March 2019, six support offices for victims of gender-based violence (see Public Prosecution Office in Chapter 4) were established in six different departments of investigation and criminal action (DIAP). Another two were opened in 2023, and two others in 2024. Yet it appears that GIAV remains a stand-alone pilot service, which, as of October 2022, it had been for some 11 years. As such, there is scope to consider properly evaluating the role of GIAV and the impact of GAV to date.
6.3.9. Bar Association
The Bar Association in Portugal serves as the representative body for the legal profession but does not actively engage in the provision of services or directly contribute to the planning and delivery of legal services. Although theoretically positioned to co-ordinate the deployment of lawyers within the legal aid scheme, in practice, this role is executed in an indirect manner. Once a roster of lawyers willing to partake in the legal aid scheme is compiled, their assignment to specific cases via the Social Security Institute (ISS) is automated and operates beyond the Bar Association’s oversight or intervention.
Consequently, the Bar Association does not appear to have the means to gather data related to the delivery of services. Its strategy towards prospective legal aid clients is straightforward: it directs individuals to apply for legal aid directly through the ISS. Moreover, the Bar does not regularly engage in evaluating client satisfaction with the legal aid services or those rendered by its members.
There exists an opportunity for the Bar Association to enhance its contribution towards fostering a more client-oriented approach to justice. This could include initiatives such as ongoing professional development for its members, particularly in areas like data collection, and examining ways to ensure that professional regulations support rather than impede people-centred justice.
Client-facing level services
6.3.10. Proximity sections of judicial courts
Proximity sections of judicial courts are a type of court designed to bring judicial services closer to the population, especially in less urbanised or more remote areas. While few formal hearings appear to be conducted in their facilities, the courts provide, on a day-to-day basis, what is potentially an important local justice information, referral and access point. In this information and referral role, the services provided to clients are relatively minor, and in such a case it is difficult to ask a client to devote considerable time to provide a wide range of demographic and other people-centred data. This highlights the need for the smart prioritisation of data collection practices so that, even with very short and thus limited data collection opportunities, the most important variables are collected first. These will likely vary from service to service.
During fact-finding interviews, it was identified that the primary information recorded by some proximity sections pertains to mandatory indicators, such as case numbers and traditional performance metrics of the courts. This was a consistent theme across many justice agencies visited during the mission – there was a strong and commendable commitment to given mandates (competences), although sometimes it appeared that strict adherence to the mandates meant valuable people-centred data and insights were missed. This points to the opportunity to expand data collection efforts to include people-centred variables (see Box 6.1). This expansion could encompass, for instance, data on the demographics of individuals served, the nature of their legal issues, and outcomes of cases. Incorporating these variables will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the community served and the effectiveness of judicial interventions.
It was also noted that while data on referrals are not captured, referrals were generally limited to formal judicial system entities, including public prosecutors, relevant family law courts, and the Social Security Institute for legal aid applications. Fact-finding interviews suggested that there are no referrals to ADR services, NGOs or other entities not directly linked to the judicial system, despite contemporary knowledge about the interconnectedness of many legal and non-legal problems, and the value of delivering holistic services (see Chapter 3).
Proximity sections of judicial courts, at least in their information and minor assistance roles, have important potential as a ‘gateway’ for many people into appropriate legal services to help them resolve their problems. Therefore, there is potential for proximity sections to widen the range of agencies and services that they will refer clients to, to include services outside the formal justice system, including local community services where appropriate, as well as to systematically record information on referrals (both inwards and outward). Capturing this information can offer insights into the pathways used and the broader network of support accessed by individuals interacting with the judicial system to identify potential areas for collaboration or service enhancement.
6.3.11. Justice of the peace courts
Justice of the peace courts are a form of alternative dispute resolution designed to handle small-scale civil disputes in a more informal, quick, and cost-effective manner than traditional courts. While only covering about 15% of the territory (but 36% of the resident population) of Portugal, they provide an important alternative service to traditional courts for certain types of matters (INE, 2021[9]). Their operations are discussed in more detail in the previous chapter.
Fact-finding interviews suggested that collected data was – as the case in most justice institutions – limited to the data demanded by the official platform used by the courts of peace. It included variables such as date of lodgement and date of conclusion of matters, as well as whether the party was a person or a company, and whether the party was legally represented or not. These generally coincide with traditional court performance indicators.
It appears that few people-centred variables were collected, although some interviewees indicated that they could see the benefit of such information being collected to allow for better planning. However, all mentioned the importance of doing it as part of the official “competences” (mandate) and the need for appropriate resources.
Similarly for other justice service providers, courts of peace should be encouraged to broaden their data collection framework to encompass people-centred variables. This could include, for example, data on the socio-demographic characteristics of parties, the pathways people have taken when seeking to resolve their problems, and the impact of legal representation on case outcomes (see Box 6.1). Incorporating these variables may enable a more nuanced understanding of the needs of individuals accessing the justice system and facilitate the development of targeted services. Ideally, this expansion of data collection would occur as part of a sector-wide process, ensuring commonality of definitions and data collection processes. This would ensure that the data from the courts of peace could complement other data sources to contribute to a more comprehensive data ecosystem.
6.3.12. ADR services: Arbitrare
While not suggesting Arbitrare is necessarily representative of all ADR services across Portugal, this service was examined because of its national scope and non-profit status. It receives financial support from government and thus fits within the area of responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice and DGPJ. In addition to Arbitrare, other justice sector stakeholders (including a consumer arbitration centre) were interviewed to allow a more nuanced understanding of some of the challenges ADR encounters. While Arbitrare is presented as an example, data collected and provided about users to the DGPJ are standardised across the funded arbitration centres.
Arbitrare provides three main service types: information (legal information relevant to matters within their competence), mediation and arbitration services. The focus of data collection is on the information needed to report their performance as well as other incidental information to help with the management of each case. A particular note is that Arbitrare, like other ADR services, provides client details to DGPJ for them to implement the client satisfaction survey i.e. the Barometer of the Quality of Arbitration Centres (see Section 4.7.). This survey contains a raft of useful variables from a people-centred perspective that, if completed correctly and by enough clients, could be useful for planning and analysis purposes. In particular, it could yield insights into the different approaches and services used by different clients in different circumstances, and their relative satisfaction and outcome results. That said, the client satisfaction survey currently has very low response rates (Government of Portugal, 2022[10]).
6.3.13. DECO
As a member-driven organisation (of some 300 000 members), DECO is linked to the ADR network, supporting its clients for litigation in out-of-court alternative dispute resolution services. Feedback during fact-finding interviews pointed to the need to address funding, restrictions, and entitlements issues within the ADR network to ensure equitable access to ADR services for all individuals. This may involve revising funding models to support a broader range of ADR services and removing unnecessary barriers to access, ensuring that individuals can choose the most suitable ADR service for their needs.
Other than the minimum data collected as part of the membership process, DECO generally records data in relation to general performance measurement (e.g. number of clients). However, through the various service and service offices, they do have a broad understanding of regional variations in matters faced by members.
It appears they do collect information about where people were referred to DECO from and where people are referred to, although it is not clear how comprehensive or rigorous this is. In terms of outcomes and client satisfaction, clients undergoing long processes are asked about their satisfaction with progress, but generally are not asked whether they were satisfied with the service or outcome or not after it is over. What seems to be recorded only is whether the matter was solved or not.
In broad terms, enhancing the regularity and quality of data on the demand side can improve understanding of the pathways people follow when faced with legal problems. This can help Portugal to plan and resource the location and capacity of services more efficiently and cost-effectively. Enhancing the regularity and quality of data on the demand side requires a level of central leadership from government that, in relation to data standards and collection policies, applies across the justice sector as broadly as possible. It also requires substantial changes in processes, ICT, databases and staff training. Providing a sector-wide set of data collection standards and guidelines helps ensure that, over this period, a large portion of the justice sector can progressively migrate to a more people-centred model at minimal additional cost.
6.4. Institutional oversight of justice data
The Directorate-General for Justice Policy (DGPJ) is ultimately responsible for producing justice statistics in Portugal (DGPJ, 2022[11]). This competency has been delegated by the National Statistical Institute, INE, with the Law on the National Statistical System (Law no. 22/2008, of 13 May 2008). The specifics of the delegation are detailed in a protocol from 29 October 2010 (DGPJ, 2010[12]). DGPJ has the authority to make decisions regarding statistical standards, procedures, dissemination content, and dissemination timing. The mandate of DGPJ comes from the Organic Law of the Ministry of Justice (Decree-Law no. 123/2011, 29 December 2011), Decree Order no. 17214 of 16 November 2010, and Article 24 of the Law of the National Statistical System. DGPJ has been delegated powers by the INE with respect to justice data (Law no. 22/2008, 13 May 2008). This process is also informed by the European Statistics Code of Practice and INE’s Policies on Dissemination and Peer Review (INE, 2024[13]) (INE, 2024[14]).
DGPJ collects data based on its legal mandate and through data exchange partnerships with various justice sector organisations, including courts, tribunals, judicial councils, ADR services, the public prosecution service, police, notaries public, the Bar, public registries, and other relevant stakeholders. Technical protocols, detailed in the section on data quality, define the content, format, standards, and procedures for these specific exchanges.
DGPJ aims to enhance the value of justice data by offering more insights on additional topics of interest, improving data quality, reducing administrative burdens, introducing more statistical indicators, enhancing data reliability, including more disaggregated data, minimising the number of data errors, increasing the ability to monitor legislative amendments, providing data and insights more rapidly, lowering the costs associated with data, improving the user-friendliness of data through better visualisations, and making data more accessible and transparent.
DGPJ establishes and maintains the technical standards underpinning the justice data framework. To enhance data quality, DGPJ is currently working towards implementing more automatic data-gathering procedures, which will add more disaggregated data, improve the quality of collected data, increase the capacity to monitor legislative implementation, reduce administrative burdens, improve data reliability, and ultimately decrease the costs of justice. Part of DGPJ's strategy involves increased investment in multi-dimensional database technologies. Publication and dissemination are critical components of Portugal's overall justice data framework. DGPJ employs dashboard-based online technologies to expedite delivery times, enhance accessibility to data and insights, improve visualisations, and make justice data more user-friendly and transparent.
While DGPJ holds a key role, other institutions have other important functions. The CSM (High Superior Council), along with the CSTAF, closely co-ordinate their data responsibilities with the Ministry of Justice's DGPJ. For instance, CSM is involved in operating the Citius case management system. In the operation of the peace courts, the Council of Justice of the Peace Courts is responsible for data. The Justice Institute for Financial and Equipments Management (IGFEJ) plays a significant role in maintaining financial, budgetary, and technological systems integral to the justice data framework. In Portugal, ISS manages access to the legal aid system, handling the gathering, storage, and analysis of legal aid data. ISS maintains interoperability with the Ministry of Justice and the Bar using fiscal numbers (NIF) and identifications from the Citius system.
6.5. Statistical data quality
Data quality has numerous aspects – conceptual, technical, informational, organisational and statistical. To help operationalise the task of measuring data quality, the OECD defines quality as “fitness for use” regarding user needs. The main dimensions of the data quality concept are relevance, accuracy, credibility, timeliness, accessibility, interpretability, coherence, and cost-efficiency (OECD, 2011[15]).
The European Statistics Code of Practice from the EU outlines 16 principles governing the quality of statistical data. These include aspects such as professional independence, co-ordination, and co-operation, the authority for data collection and access, resource adequacy, commitment to quality, confidentiality, impartiality, methodology soundness, appropriate procedures, avoiding excessive burden on respondents, cost-effectiveness, relevance, accuracy and reliability, timeliness and punctuality, and coherence and comparability, as well as accessibility and clarity (European Commission, 2019[16]).
Similarly, Eurostat identifies nine dimensions to assess the quality of statistics. These dimensions encompass factors like relevance, accuracy and reliability, timeliness and punctuality, coherence and comparability, as well as accessibility and clarity (European Commission, 2019[16]). Assessing the statistical quality of justice data requires analysing current systemic policy, and organisational and technical measures.
6.5.1. Policy measures for data quality
At the inter-institutional level in Portugal, a recently formed working group has been examining data strategy and governance issues within the justice sector. DGPJ adheres to a quality charter, expressing its commitment to producing valid and reliable statistical data (Government of Portugal, 2022[17]). This charter aligns with both the Portuguese National Statistical System and the European Statistical System (ESS). The key tenets of the quality charter include technical independence in accordance with indicator 1.4 of the ESS, emphasising that heads of statistical authorities have sole responsibility for deciding on statistical methods, standards, procedures, and the content and timing of statistical releases (European Commission, 2019[16]). Other fundamental principles within the charter encompass statistical confidentiality; safeguarding the fundamental rights of personal life, privacy, and data integrity; ensuring the quality of statistical records; providing public accessibility to official statistics; and fostering co-operation between statistical authorities.
DGPJ complies with relevant EU legislation in the areas of statistical data quality, specifically adhering to Regulation (EC) 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council dated March 11, 2009. This regulation establishes the legal framework of the European Statistical System, regulating the development, production, and dissemination of European statistics. Additionally, DGPJ follows the self-regulation mechanism outlined in the European Statistics Code of Practice (ESCP) of 2017, which was adopted by the Committee on the European Statistical System.
Organisational measures for data quality
DGPJ follows national and EU data standards in the field. According to fact-finding interviews, all activities are organised by specific rules and all processes are documented. This is evaluated by peer review processes to which DGPJ is subjected. The institution requests specific training on data quality from its collaborators and data providers. DGPJ returns statistical information to data providers so that they better understand the results and their collaboration with DGPJ.
Technical measures for data quality
DGPJ requests that the managing bodies of information systems implement automated interfaces to decrease the expenses and workload of respondents involved in generating official statistics. The quality of statistical information includes various dimensions, including accuracy and timeliness. Both are fundamental for statistical information to be relevant to users. The need for revisions often reflects the commitment between, on the one hand, disseminating statistical information as up to date as possible and, on the other, ensuring high standards of accuracy. The introduction of methodological improvements and more up-to-date or additional background information, and the detection of random errors associated with inaccuracies in the use of information sources or the data processing may lead to a review of the results that have already been made public as needed (Government of Portugal, 2022[17]).
As part of the Hermes project between 2004 and 2019, automatic interfaces became the preferred method for gathering justice data. Paper-based data gathering was discontinued. Even when automatic interfaces were not available, the data was exchanged through web forms or formatted spreadsheets. Through the Hermes project, the data has been stored in a multi-dimensional database built upon common taxonomy and terminology. This approach yielded more advanced and more user-friendly statistical analysis tools. Justice data is now published and visualised online with more advanced query and search tools.
DGPJ implements data quality assurance processes from the moments of data collection and integration of data (e.g. structure, content, coherence). Abnormal cases are monitored and, when detected, are excluded from the datasets. DGPJ uses AI to detect new data quality problems based on previous errors.
To ensure data quality, DGPJ has co-operation protocols with its data providers. The protocols define the key characteristics of the exchanged data – structure, formats, rules of validation and all the rules required for the data operation. These are technical rules by which the entity defines the format. The protocols integrate different methods and validation stages, as well as technical and logical checks (see Table 6.4).
Table 6.4. Example of communication protocol RAL+
|
Type |
Format |
Example |
|---|---|---|
|
Date |
yyyy-mm-dd |
2019-01-01 |
|
Date (Extended) |
yyyy-mm- dd:hh :nn:ss |
2019-01-01:12:00:00 (12:00:00 on January 1, 2019) |
|
Text |
Text without restrictions, except when a size limit is identified |
Example of a text field |
|
Numeric |
Numeric value |
999 |
|
Value |
9999999999.99 |
1500.50 Numeric value with two decimal places (values expressed in Euros) |
Source: Example provided by DGPJ.
Despite all the measures above, concerns about the quality of some of the data were raised during interviews. It should be noted that there are robust measures to ensure the validity and reliability of the data and that the concerns are not about the grand design of the data framework. Fact-finding interviews suggested that issues related to data quality arise from both the source of the data and the purpose of its collection. To address this, DGPJ employs various procedures to assess and ensure the quality of the data, including cross-checking, coherence analysis, the use of text boxes, and regularly reassessing the effectiveness of its own checks. Regarding Citius, IGFEJ is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate technical and organisational measures are in place. This is to ensure that data is processed in accordance with the relevant regulatory framework and that the rights of data subjects are protected.
6.5.2. Areas for improvement
While DGPJ has implemented a robust framework to ensure the integrity and reliability of the justice data presently collected in Portugal, there remain areas for improvement that could further enhance data quality and utilisation. These improvements are not just technical challenges but also involve broadening the scope of governance and enhancing the skills and awareness of all stakeholders involved in data-handling and analysis. As data collection is expanded to encompass more people-centred variables, the same robust framework and measures to ensure integrity and reliability need to be applied to these data also.
Establishing broad and inclusive justice data governance mechanisms
Establishing a comprehensive and inclusive governance mechanism for justice data is essential to ensure the systemic quality of Portugal's justice data framework. Data governance involves creating policies, procedures, and controls to maintain accuracy, completeness, consistency, validity, and timeliness of data throughout their lifecycle. This encompasses determining data ownership, defining standards, and monitoring data quality, considering aspects like data access, security, privacy, and retention. Such policies and procedures have been already established.
DGPJ working group on justice data strategy and data governance provides a solid foundation for expanding the current mechanism into a fully developed data governance structure. Strong political support from various justice sector stakeholders is important to empower these data governance mechanisms effectively.
Defining justice data quality requirements
Defining rigorous data requirements is fundamental for a robust data quality mechanism. The mentioned working group can take the lead in developing common quality requirements for justice data in Portugal. These requirements should emphasise accuracy, completeness, coherence, comparability, validity, timeliness, and interpretability of existing and future justice data. For example, the coherence aspect of the requirements could enhance efforts to provide common definitions and further operationalise justice indicators. The relevance requirement establishes a mechanism to continually assess whether the collected justice data align with the strategic and operational objectives of the Portuguese justice sector.
Setting up standardised data validation mechanisms
Implementing standardised data validation mechanisms is crucial to ensuring that the data meet specified requirements. Validation and verification processes help maintain data accuracy and consistency, utilising automated tools to identify errors or inconsistencies. Such mechanisms already exist and are in place in the statistical system but could be implemented or reinforced in the source systems.
Continuous data quality monitoring
Continuous monitoring is a vital component of the justice data quality mechanism. It involves ongoing and systematic processes to monitor and enhance data quality. Automated tools and procedures are typically employed to identify data errors, ensuring timely correction and improvement.
Data quality training
Training is a critical aspect for the consistent application of data quality requirements. Adequate training is necessary for the diverse stakeholders in the justice data framework to adhere coherently to established standards. Currently, there is such training aimed at court officials who ensure the recording of data in the Citius system. This training should be institutionalised and carried out regularly, namely by including them in the annual training plans of the training centre for court clerks (DGAJ).
References
[11] DGPJ (2022), Quality Charter 2022, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us/Documents/CartaQualidade_UK.pdf.
[12] DGPJ (2010), Delegação de Competências do Instituto Nacional de Estatística - INE, IP, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us/Documents/ProtocoloDelegacaoCompetencia_INE_DGPJ.pdf.
[8] Directorate General for Justice Policy (2024), Quality barometer of arbitration centers, https://triave.pt/inqueritosatisfacao/.
[16] European Commission (2019), Quality Assurance Framework of the European Statistical System, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-quality-standards/quality-assurance-framework.
[6] Government of Portugal (2024), Início, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us.
[7] Government of Portugal (2024), Instituto da Segurança Social, https://www.seg-social.pt/objectivos-e-principios.
[5] Government of Portugal (2024), Mapa interativo da justiça, https://www.citius.mj.pt/portal/mapajustica.aspx.
[4] Government of Portugal (2023), Civil cases completed in the first instance judicial courts, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us/Pages/Processos-civeis-findos-nos-tribunais-judiciais-de-1-instancia.aspx.
[10] Government of Portugal (2022), Acompanhamento dos meios alternativos de resolução de litígios (RAL), https://dgpj.justica.gov.pt/Portals/31/Noticias/Relat%C3%B3rio_Satisfa%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Meios%20RAL_2022_v2.pdf?ver=OroTbZJdX0Nrvb4FCalXzg%3D%3D.
[17] Government of Portugal (2022), Quality Charter 2022, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us/Documents/CartaQualidade_UK.pdf.
[13] INE (2024), Dissemination Policy, https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/en-us/Pages/Politica-Difusao.aspx.
[14] INE (2024), Revisions Policy, https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_inst_politrevisao&xlang=en.
[9] INE (2021), Census 2021, https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpgid=ine_main&xpid=INE.
[2] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.
[1] OECD (2020), Justice Transformation in Portugal: Building on Successes and Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/184acf59-en.
[15] OECD (2011), Quality Framework for OECD Statistical Activities, https://www.oecd.org/sdd/qualityframeworkforoecdstatisticalactivities.htm.
[3] Praia City Group (2020), Handbook on Governance Statistics, https://ine.cv/praiagroup/handbook-on-governance-statistics/.