Objectives (and limitations) of this paper review IDB experience to: –help focus the discussion of lessons learned; and –provide input to formulation of IDB policy. Not an evaluation, Not based on our own empirical field research of individual projects, No best practice conclusions regarding specific areas of justice reform.

How we’ve come to be working broadly in the justice sector. IDB justice work is very broad due to sector policies that permit an integrated approach; And through a gradual, case-by-case evolution. Responding to demand, building incrementally, and building on areas of comfort (expertise). (Attempts to leap forward into controversial areas have not survived the internal approval process.)

Can we achieve breadth AND depth? We need to be able to respond to the breadth of demand that is present in the justice sectors of the region; But that makes it hard to establish in-depth expertise in a few chosen areas. –Content areas (e.g., ADR). – Process or methodology areas.

Where breadth creates concern The areas in which there is greatest concern about IDB justice sector activity are police and prisons. –Potential for human rights violations, areas in which lack of expertise could lead to costly mistakes, vs. –crime and violence statistics (hard for regional development bank to declare itself unwilling to confront this), demand, institutional desire to work in strengthening democracy, respect for human rights, work where poor and young most affected.

So, next steps in terms of what areas we work in: Newly formulated strategy in Modernization of the State (including rule of law reform) is about to be approved by the Board – sets out areas of emphasis. Operational guidelines will detail limits in police and prison reform, and grapple with methodology for all justice projects (what should the diagnostic encompass; executing structures; performance indicators; etc.). Training to try to build in-house expertise in specific topics of justice reform.

Lessons learned as to HOW we are working in justice reform. Some “easy” lessons: –Better diagnostics –More scientific inclusion of stakeholders –More hands-on involvement of IDB staff in initial stages of project implementation (and better headquarters-field coordination) –Fitting tailored project into a medium- to long- term sector strategy.

Lessons re HOW we’re working, contd. Some pilot project data we should be learning from: –Execution structures (especially important in projects that work across all three branches of government). –Use of information technology and infrastructure in support of institutional reform.

Lessons re HOW we’re working, contd. Hardest issues: –Entry conditions, sequencing. –Are we prepared to measure impact as it happens? To learn from experience as it is gained?

Where we’re likely to be going in justice reform A second wave of justice projects? Changed process and content, through guidelines and training? New emphasis, under new strategy? Development effectiveness: measuring/indicators/impact. Is it possible to set out the correct definition of sequence of reforms, standards that indicate the logical path to follow in carrying out a justice reform process?