1: Key Respondents Strengths Weaknesses Assumptions Summary 1. Key Stakeholder Focus Groups Discussions Annual, structured discussions with representatives of particular groups, including: Local customary leaders; Local judges; Women representatives; Youth representatives; Ethnic or cultural minorities; People with disabilities. Extensive direct experience; Capable of articulating range of views on access to justice issues (positive & negative); Accessible – most located in capital; Will highlight trends; May have access to empirical data; Builds partners for reform/better service delivery. Information provided is frequently second hand and not objective. Risk of selection bias – only certain views represented; Not empirical; Unlikely to be directly representative of most marginalized; Respondents are frequently those ‘in positions of power’ – vested interest in maintaining status quo. Sufficient representation of stakeholders buy-in to research and provide access and feedback openly; Focus only on this approach will not provide sufficient diversity of views or will lead to bias. Strong tool as a starting point for identifying issues and measuring progress. But need to double check information by directly questioning population more broadly. Use as one of variety of tools. 2. Court User Surveys Randomly selected court users or people attending court building. Ensure respondents have had actual experience; Cheap and easy to implement as can be conducted at court buildings; Data directly relevant to court work; Data comparable across countries. Only people who use courts respond. May exclude particular groups (poor, living in remote locations); Only focuses on court-related issues; Respondents may be less open – may fear it affects case. That courts collect this type of information on a routine basis; Capacity and time of court staff to implement survey. Useful tool where surveys already exist or are being considered. Allows comparison between court users & non-users. 3. Representative Quantitative Survey Tools Households Results representative of broader population; Provides detailed, statistical responses; Enables comparison across countries and time periods. Expensive; Time and human resource capacity to design, test & implement survey; Access to suitable local survey firm. Either budget exists to design and implement standalone survey or other survey tools exist to which modules could be added. Costs and capacity constraints outweigh benefits in most countries – may be possible in some larger PICs. 4. Targeted Quantitative Survey Tools Randomly selected households but from purposefully selected Approach provides for flexibility; Target specific areas (eg: remote or Results can’t be generalized across broader area; Still requires time and Capacity exists in court to conduct interviews and analysis May be more appropriate and cost effective
3: Piloted Access to Justice Questionnaire for the High Court of the Republic of the Marshall Islands This survey was tested as part of an assessment of customary mechanisms in the Republic of the Marshall Islands in late 2011. This survey, attached below is also available as an annex to the Republic of the Marshall Islands Country Report located in the “Customary Dispute Resolution Research: Final Report” document located on the PJDP website: