Apples, oranges and lemons: what works in legal assistance, for whom, and how will we know? 2nd International Conference Access to justice and Legal Services Hugh M. McDonald & Suzie Forell Monday 11 June 2018

Lets rock’n

Lets rock’n

Lets rock’n

Overview Background - LJF context Challenges to building the WW EB Learning from services & innovation What works – services & systems Some insights ‘What works’ strategic framework Learning from unbundling & rebundling

Context LJF - Independent statutory body LJF streams Legal needs - consistent with international findings What works Systematic reviews Research Alliances Other work with LAS Data strategy

Pursue statutory objects by identifying legal needs, and what works to address those needs We know: Inequality in experience of legal problems & what people do Inequality linked to social disadvantage Social disadvantage linked to lower legal capability

Legal capability Knowledge only one aspect of capability. Other skill, psychological and personal resource barriers, especially for disadvantaged people and groups. Also affected by wider community and social context e.g. service infrastructure; culturally accessible services etc. Knowledge Legal: law; rights etc. Assistance services etc. Skills Literacy Negotiat. Technology etc. Psychological Preparedness to act Self-efficacy Willingness to get in a dispute, etc. Other personal resources Financial Social capital Health Trauma ICT access etc. Environment Knowledge is only one aspect of capability. Effective outcomes often require more than a brain dump of legal knowledge from adviser to client … Typically legal capability has 3 overlapping areas (knowledge, skills, psychological), and as affected by personal and broader circumstances, such as the broader legal assistance infrastructure and environment. Knowledge: law, legal rights; awareness of legal assistance services etc. Skills: e.g. functional literacy (find, comprehend, apply, action) and numeracy; legal literacy; negotiation and communication; self-management; use information technology Psychological: preparedness and willingness to act, seek help, to disclose problem; self-confidence Other personal circumstances: financial resources (e.g. affects ability to purchase private legal assistance); access to information technology (e.g. affects ability to obtain information); social capital (e.g. networks of family, friends, community groups and associations etc.); community and broader macro environments; whether or not services are accessible etc. Deficiency in any dimension will undermine capability e.g. legal knowledge; literacy; ICT; self-efficacy etc.

Tension: service number versus intensity ‘Unbundling’ attractive as a way to stretch scarce resources, and provide ‘something’ to more people. Funding pivot Also, recognises not all people need ‘fully bundled’ services to achieve good outcomes, some can effectively self-help … at least for some things?

Ladder of unbundled services As legal assistance is increasingly unbundled… … the contribution the client/user makes to outcomes increases

In the Australian context, a long history of ‘unbundled’ services, which together, form a ‘kit-bag’ of service strategies But limited knowledge of ‘what works’

Or … putting the ‘what’ and ‘works’ in what works Challenges to building the what works evidence-base Or … putting the ‘what’ and ‘works’ in what works

Challenges Service models lack clearly defined purposes & outcomes Often unstated assumptions & conditions Difficulty of collecting and measuring outcomes, and appropriate controls Lack of baseline re ‘standard services’ & ‘innovation’ Lack of capacity & resources for outcomes evaluation Cost/effort of measuring outcome will often exceed cost/effort of service

Learning from practice and innovation Learn from practice and innovation Standard service cf. new innovations, trials, experiments Learn what works (and doesn’t) for whom; for what; when & in what circumstances; to what end (achieved outcomes); at what cost $$$ to support planning & funding decisions to build better, smarter, learning system & more effective and efficient services etc.

Challenges Clarity & specification of: Purpose(s) [What is ‘working’?] What is it supposed to do? Service model [What is the ‘what’?] What is it? What elements? Nuts and bolts composition. Outcomes [What is success?] Does it work? For whom? For what? Under what circumstances? When? Is it better? Than what? (RCT, A/B testing, counter-factual etc.) On what basis? By what measures?

To try to move from the fruit salad … to more of a smoothie …

What works: services & systems Can approach Q of what works from different levels/domains: Service Program Organisation/agency LAS Sector Jurisdiction Justice ‘system’

Levels/domains of innovation & outcomes For the client (e.g. empower, capability) For providers(e.g. evidence-based, quality, minimum expected service standards, A2J service principles) For systems (e.g. wider system efficiencies etc.)

Tightly coupled system Magistrates Court Legal Aid

Some insights Service models & changing demand Wider system factors Combination of services may have better outcomes Legal outreach Uptake of legal self-help resources Joined-up & ‘holistic’, wrap-around services

What works strategic framework: learning from unbundling & rebundling

Clarity of purpose & outcomes What is the purpose? What expect the client/user to do and achieve? (outcomes) Resolve their legal problem? Progress their problem? Make more informed decisions about what to do next (i.e. empower, build capability etc.)? ‘Access’ available services? Systems & evaluative ‘thinking’ approach

(more informed and empowered decisions) Service level To do Who Purpose (to empower) Client/user outcomes (more informed and empowered decisions) Just in time Just in case   CLEI Self-help Community (higher cap) ‘Filter out’ to alternatives Support action – resolve/progress Seek alternative (justice gap) Prevent Better manage affairs Get Help Priority clients (lower cap) ‘Filter in’ to available assistance Access available help Enable Help Problem noticers Spot & refer in Enable access to assistance – referral pathway LA+ CLEI Help Tailored help to self-help Access further assistance Progress/resolve (self-help) Get further assistance (if eligible) Refer/seek alternative (justice gap) LA + CLEI + MA More help to match legal need & capability Progress and support resolution Progress/resolve Seek representation (justice gap) Complete transactions (e.g. wills, advance care directives etc.) Grant Priority clients To meet legal need and resolve Resolve N/a

What works: strategic research agenda

Hugh M. McDonald hmcdonald@lawfoundation.net.au lawfoundation.net.au Suzie Forell suzie.forell@healthjustice.org.au healthjustice.org.au