Legal and non-legal organizations in Saskatchewan in family and civil law sectors collect important justice data—what if there was a province-wide justice data commons readily accessible to decision-makers and stakeholders? In our Part 1 article, entitled “An Invitation for Ongoing Collaborative A2J Action Supported by Findings from the Saskatchewan Legal Data Scan and Needs Assessment,” we introduced both the Legal Needs Assessment and Legal Data Scan Reports. The objective of these reports was to recognize and continuously improve data-informed decision making in Saskatchewan. In this article, we delve deeper into the Legal Data Scan Report.
The Legal Data Scan Report explored the potential of a province-wide justice data commons to improve access to justice (A2J) initiatives in Saskatchewan. The researchers reviewed annual reports from 2020-2021 from provincial agencies offering civil and family law services for relevant justice data. Additionally, key informants with vested interest in A2J were interviewed to gather their insights on data usage, collection, and sharing practices as well as their perceptions on developing a justice data commons.
Type of Data Collected and the A2J Framework
An environmental scan was conducted by reviewing the annual reports published by 24 justice sector organizations in Saskatchewan who offer civil and family law related services. The review of these reports revealed that they collect similar types of justice data related to the volume and nature of client contacts, volume of files opened and concluded, and types of services and/or files opened. This means that due to the similarity in the types of data being collected within each of these organizations, they could be housed together through the development of a province-wide justice data commons. A province-wide justice commons could facilitate A2J in Saskatchewan because of its potential to make important justice data readily accessible to stakeholders and decision-makers in Saskatchewan.
The A2J Measurement Framework—a justice metrics framework for assessing the functions and outputs of A2J initiatives—was utilized in this research to analyze the extent to which the data collected by the organizations fell within measurable concepts of justice initiatives. The Framework has three elements: 1) Improving Population A2J; 2) Improving User Experience of A2J; and 3) Improving Costs.
Most of the organizations reported data related to Improving Population A2J. Particularly, data related to the volume and type of services delivered could inform the prevalence of legal problems in the population. Further, some organizations reported the length of time between commencing and resolving a legal matter; such data could reflect the timeliness of A2J. However, other components of Improving Population A2J were only minimally reflected in the organizations’ annual reports. Moreover, only one organization reported data that could relate to the Improving Costs element of the Framework and none of the agencies published data relevant to Improving User Experience of A2J.
Although only a few elements of the A2J Framework were reflected in the data collected by the organizations, the Framework provided a helpful rubric for understanding the scope of justice data available in the province. In the future, the Framework can provide an established direction as to which A2J aspects and/or areas to measure. Hence, moving forward, using the A2J Measurement Framework in establishing a province-wide justice data commons can be beneficial in creating a consistent and universal understanding among stakeholders of what metrics should be measured to assess A2J initiatives.
Insights and Perspectives on a Justice Data Commons
Key informants from provincial government-affiliated and not-for-profit organizations that have a vested interest in A2J were interviewed to gather their insights on data utilization, collection, and sharing practices. The 14 key informants were chosen because of their expertise or potential involvement in a justice commons at the ‘ground level.’ All agencies used data in similar ways to: 1) enhance service delivery; 2) justify funding; and 3) complete reporting. Specifically, the agencies utilized their collected data to identify gaps in their services and to develop new programs and policies to bridge these gaps. Data were also used to justify funding needs, as well as to provide reports to governments, upper management, and/or Boards of Directors.
Interestingly, most of the agencies already engaged in informal data sharing practices. They shared their collected data with other government departments, the Judiciary, parent agencies, and external partners working on similar initiatives. Data sharing occurred on a case-by-case basis. Further, in most cases, organizations only shared aggregated data due to the sensitive nature of the data held. Trust, long-term relationships, and a mutual understanding of how data would be used were identified as facilitators of data sharing. Conversely, risk for data misinterpretation that could jeopardize the organization’s funding, as well as a limited capacity to share data, were viewed as barriers to data sharing.
All of the interviewees were interested in supporting a justice data commons. They recognized the potential value of a justice data commons in addressing gaps in A2J. As one of the key informants noted, “I am a big fan of open data…the more we can collect and collaborate, the better we are off.” However, the agencies’ limited resources (i.e., time and expertise) and capacity to contribute to the data commons were seen as potential barriers to their involvement in establishing a justice data commons.
How Can the Results of the Legal Data Scan Report Help A2J in Saskatchewan?
Findings from the report can be used to identify gaps in the justice system, inform service delivery, improve A2J, and establish a province-wide justice data commons. Agencies benefit from collecting data within their organization by utilizing the data to ensure that their operations and services are responsive to constantly changing client needs. This benefit could be extended and improved by creating a province-wide justice data commons. A justice data commons could be a hub for important legal data which could improve the efficiency of operations and services of Saskatchewan legal organizations as a whole. Additionally, an accessible province-wide justice data commons could facilitate informed and coordinated decisions among A2J stakeholders.
Further, the A2J Measurement Framework used in this report could be adopted to facilitate consistent and efficient A2J data collection and assessment. The Framework could be a starting point to develop a shared understanding of the types of data that should be collected and discussed to further A2J initiatives.
Lastly, the identified potential barriers to agency participation in a justice data commons can be used to inform the development of such an initiative. Addressing these potential challenges can increase agency involvement and ensure stakeholder engagement in the initiative.
Closing
CREATE Justice invites everyone to attend a virtual presentation on the Legal Data Scan Report on Thursday, June 6th from 10:20-11:20 am. To receive a link for the virtual presentation, please register:
Note: This event may be eligible for 1 hour of continuing professional development (1 of which may qualify as ethics hours) under the Law Society of Saskatchewan Continuing Professional Development Policy.
CREATE Justice encourages an open dialogue on establishing a province-wide justice data commons, A2J evaluation, and ideas on future application of the report findings. Please email us at createjustice@usask.ca with any questions, comments, or ideas related to the reports, and how you or your firm/organization would like to be a part of the next big step towards greater A2J in Saskatchewan.
Trisha Esmeralda, Student Research Assistant, Brea Lowenberger, & Heather Heavin, CREATE Justice, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, in collaboration with Dr. Lisa Jewell & Dr. Bryce Stoliker, Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies.