To take forward a framework that also appropriately prioritizes the use of finite resources, the costs and benefits of policy options must be properly weighed within the context of the “dynamic interaction of actors, institutions, and structural factors over time” (United Nations and World Bank, 2018). Tools necessary to achieve this outcome must drive optimal justice sector decisions in a systematic, data-informed, and resource-efficient way, including drawing on World Bank analytical products. These products include legal needs surveys, Functional Reviews, Institutional and Expenditure Reviews, Justice for the Poor dispute resolution analytics, the Doing Business survey (which includes a Quality of Judicial Process Index), The Women, Business and the Law index, and the Data and Evidence for Justice Reform platform. By drawing together data from all analytical processes, scope for comparison of various justice-related datasets is enabled.<sup>4</sup> Most importantly, the analytical approaches assist in identifying the various elements of justice processes whose costs and benefits may then be traced.

Early CBA tools, such as the Washington State Institute of Public Policy's (WSIPP) Benefit-Cost Tool (Aos and Drake, 2010) and the Manning Cost Benefit Tool (MCBT) (College of Policing, 2022), were developed to support an evidence-based policing approach. More recent developments have been undertaken by Manning and Wong, which represents an extension of the above-mentioned MCBT (now adopted by the College of Policing UK), are beginning to incopporate machine learning and artificial intelligence, including the development of CBT APP (Manning, 2018) and ‘Smart’ CBTs (Manning et al., 2018), take important steps towards robust and time-sensitive analytical methods. These tools (currently in various stages of development), which have been validated using a range of crime data,<sup>5</sup> provide a framework with systematic data management capacity that enables user input decisions as sufficiently fair, credible, and acceptable. A second is ‘social inclusion’ which is the extent to which access to basic services and markets as well as political, social, and cultural spaces are enabled in order for participation in society with agency and dignity (Cuesta Leiva 2022). To measure the four (social inclusion, social resilience, social cohesion, and process legitimacy) components of ‘Social Sustainability’ they cite, (1) for ‘social inclusion’, labor participation, financial inclusion, public service accessibility, and political participation; (2) for ‘social resilience’, the ability to save, income diversity, shock-responsive assets, food security and migratory mobility; (3) for ‘social cohesion’, interpersonal and institutional trust, violence levels, and democratic and civic participation, and; (4) for ‘process legitimacy’, rule of law measurements, corruption levels, separation of power, objectivity and equality (including accessibility) of law/regulation application, and physical security.

4 See analytical approaches employed by the World Bank: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance/brief/justice-rights-and-public-safety.

> 5 The current version of MCBT, with crime-related data as examples, can be found at:

> <u>https://dmm.anu.edu.au/CD-AV/. New examples are regulalry uploaded to demonstrate the capability of the tool</u> to be adopted in different contexts. For access, please contact <u>matthew.manning@anu.edu.au.</u>

4