2. SDG Metadata
3. 16-3-3
4. English

<ul>
<li><strong>URL:</strong>UNODC-UNECE. 2010. Manual on Victimization Surveys. Available at : <a href="https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Manual-on-victim-surveys.html">https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Manual-on-victim-surveys.html</a></li>
<li>UNODC-UNDP-OHCHR. 2022. SDG 16 Survey Questionnaire and Implementation Manual. Available at:</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire">https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual">https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual</a> </p>
<ul>
<li>Legal Needs Survey and Access to Justice. Available at: </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm">https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm</a></p>

<pul>
<li><strong>URL:</strong></p>
<p>UNODC-UNECE. 2010. Manual on Victimization Surveys. Available at : <a href="https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/index.html?ref=menusideManual-on-victim-surveys.html">https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/index.html?ref=menusideManual-on-victim-surveys.html</a></li>
<li>UNODC-UNDP-OHCHR. 2022. SDG 16 Survey Questionnaire and Implementation Manual. Available at:</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire">https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual">https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual</a> </p>
<ul>
<li>Legal Needs Survey and Access to Justice. Available at: </li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm">https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm</a></p>

<p><strong>Data availability:</strong></p>
<p>A growing number of countries are implementing surveys using similar methodologies in order to assess legal needs, improve justice services, and strengthen linkages across sectors. However, the scale and methods of administration have varied. More than 60 national legal needs surveys have been conducted in more than 30 countries over the course of the last 25 years. </p>
<p>Many of those surveys contain the questions needed to compute this indicator (experience of dispute, use of resolution mechanism - either formal or informal &#x2013; and reasons for not taking action to resolve the dispute).</p>
<p><strong>Time series:</strong></p>
<p>Not applicable</p>
<p><strong>Disaggregation:</strong></p>
<p>Recommended disaggregation for this indicator are:</p>
<p>- type of dispute resolution mechanism</p>
<p>- sex</p>
<p>- disability status</p>
<p>- ethnicity</p>
<p>- migration background</p>
<p>- citizenship</p>
<p>The disaggregation by type of dispute resolution mechanism is of fundamental importance to assess the type of justice institutions and mechanisms available for citizens and for this reason it is part of the indicator itself.</p>

<p><strong>Data availability:</strong></p>
<p>A growing number of countries are implementing surveys using similar methodologies in order to assess legal needs, improve justice services, and strengthen linkages across sectors. However, the scale and methods of administration have varied. More than 60 national legal needs surveys have been conducted in more than 30 countries over the course of the last 25 years (4 by government statistical agencies, 18 by other government bodies, 3 by universities, and 37 by other organizations). National legal needs surveys have been conducted in Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil (module), Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, England and Wales, Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mali, Mexico (module), Moldova, Mongolia, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Poland, Scotland, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. In addition, extensive sub-national surveys have also been carried out, for example, in China, Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia and Yemen, along with smaller surveys in countries including Azerbaijan, Rwanda and Egypt.^{<a href="#footnote-7" id="footnote-ref-7">[6]</a>} </p>
<p>In Nigeria, the national statistical offices (NBS) recently conducted two successive large-scale surveys (2016 and 2019) &#x2013; with UNODC technical support &#x2013; that included a module on access to justice. Statistics South Africa has conducted in 2019 a large-scale survey on Governance, Public Safety and Justice, which collected the information needed to compute the indicator. </p>
<p>Many of those surveys contain the questions needed to compute this indicator (experience of dispute, use of resolution mechanism - either formal or informal &#x2013; and reasons for not taking action to resolve the dispute).</p>
<p><strong>Time series:</strong></p>
<p>N/Aot applicable</p>
<p><strong>Disaggregation:</strong></p>
<p>Recommended disaggregations for this indicator are:</p>
<p>- type of dispute resolution mechanism</p>
<p>- sex</p>
<p>- disability status</p>
<p>- ethnicity</p>
<p>- migration background</p>
<p>- citizenship</p>
<p>The disaggregation by type of dispute resolution mechanism is of fundamental importance to assess the type of justice institutions and mechanisms available for citizens and for this reason it is part of the indicator itself.</p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-7">6</sup><p> Elaboration based on <em>Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice </em>(2018) and web searches. <a href="#footnote-ref-7">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>

<p>See Section 4.d Validation</p>

<p>The custodians will make available a quality assessment protocol for national statistics office to be used at national level and intended to assess the alignment of data produced with users needs, the compliance with guidelines in terms of computations, the timeliness of data production, the accessibility of statistics produced, the consistent use of methodology both in terms of geographic representation and through time, the coherence in terms of data production, and the architecture of data production. See Section 4.d Validation</p>

<p>The three custodian agencies have statistical units with dedicated staff to support the data collection through technical assistance, collating and verifying the received data and continuously improve data collection mechanisms including guidelines.</p>

<p>The three custodian agencies have statistical units with dedicated staff to support the data collection through technical assistance, collating and verifying the received data and continueously improve data collection mechanisms including guidelines.</p>

<p>Methodological documentation from surveys conducted at national level is available (e.g. household survey in Nigeria conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and UNODC; Governance, Public Safety and Justice Survey conducted by Statistics South Africa in 2019, Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey 2015-2016 conducted by KNBS; Argentina - Unmet Legal Needs and Access to Justice conducted by the Subsecretar&#xED;a de Acceso a la Justicia Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos; or Colombia &#x2013; Survey of Citizen Security and Coexistence conducted by DANE). </p>
<p>Furthermore, the Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice methodological guidance published by OECD in 2019 provides methodological guidance for developing the questionnaires and conducting such surveys. This guide brings together the experience gained through more than 60 national surveys conducted by governments and civil society organizations in more than 30 jurisdictions in the last 25 years.</p>
<p>In 2022, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) together with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) published the SDG 16 Survey Questionnaire^{<a href="#footnote-7" id="footnote-ref-7">[6]</a>} and Implementation Manual^{<a href="#footnote-8" id="footnote-ref-8">[7]</a>}, which contain internationally standardised survey question wording (in the five official UN languages) as well as implementation guidance related to this indicator. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-7">6</sup><p> See <a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire">SDG 16 Initiative Questionnaire</a> <a href="#footnote-ref-7">&#x2191;</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-8">7</sup><p> See <a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual">SDG 16 Initiative Implementation Manual</a> <a href="#footnote-ref-8">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>

<p>Methodological documentation from surveys conducted at national level is available (e.g. household survey in Nigeria conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and UNODC; Governance, Public Safety and Justice Survey conducted by Statistics South Africa in 2019, Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey 2015-2016 conducted by KNBS; Argentina - Unmet Legal Needs and Access to Justice conducted by the Subsecretar&#xED;a de Acceso a la Justicia Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos; or Colombia - National Quality of Life Survey&#x2013; Survey of Citizen Security and Coexistence conducted by DANE). </p>
<p>Furthermore, the Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice methodological guidance published by OECD in 2019 provides methodological guidance for developing the questionnaires and conducting such surveys. This guide brings together the experience gained through more than 60 national surveys conducted by governments and civil society organizations in more than 30 jurisdictions in the last 25 years.</p>
<p>In 2022, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) together with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) published the SDG 16 Survey Questionnaire^{<a href="#footnote-7" id="footnote-ref-7">[6]</a>} and Implementation Manual^{<a href="#footnote-8" id="footnote-ref-8">[7]</a>}, which contain internationally standardised survey question wording (in the five official UN languages) as well as implementation guidance related to this indicator. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-7">6</sup><p> See <a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire">SDG 16 Initiative Questionnaire</a> <a href="#footnote-ref-7">&#x2191;</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-8">7</sup><p> See <a href="https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual">SDG 16 Initiative Implementation Manual</a> <a href="#footnote-ref-8">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>

<p>&#x2022; <strong>At country level</strong></p>
<p>National data are not imputed if data derived from surveys conducted at country level are not available</p>
<p>&#x2022; <strong>At regional and global levels</strong></p>
<p>There is no imputation of missing values.</p>

<p>&#x2022; <strong>At country level</strong></p>
<p>National data are not estimaimputed if data derived from surveys conducted at country level are not available</p>
<p>&#x2022; <strong>At regional and global levels</strong></p>
<p>There is no imputation of missing values.</p>

<p>Not applicable</p>

<p>Not applicable.</p>

<p>The data for the indicator is collected through Household Surveys conducted by National Statistics Offices (NSOs) or other institutions following tight survey protocols and complying with the metadata. Data producers are encouraged to strictly follow the data quality practices, protocols and frameworks in relation of data quality. In addition to the data, countries are requested to report on the metadata which serves as one additional layer of validation and verification of the data by confronting with the metadata used and the recommended for global reporting. For survey-based indicators, metadata are assessed in relation to the representativeness and coverage of the survey as well as alignment of question wording and answer options with international standards. Before publication by custodian agencies, a standardised &#x201C;pre-publication process&#x201D; is implemented, where national stakeholders can verify and review the data before publication. </p>
<p> </p>

<p>The data for the indicator is collected through Household Surveys conducted by National Statistics Offices (NSOs) or other institutions following tight survey protocols and complying with the metadata. Data producers are encouraged to strictly follow the data quality practices, protocols and frameworks in relation of data quality. In addition to the data, countries are requested to report on the metadata which serves as one additional layer of validation and verification of the data by confronting with the metadata used and the recommended for global reporting. For survey-based indicators, metadata are assessed in relation to the representativeness and coverage of the survey as well as alignment of question wording and answer options with international standards. Before publication by custodian agencies, a standardised &#x201C;pre-publication process&#x201D; is implemented, where national stakeholders can verify and review the data before publication. </p>
<p> </p>

<p>A major challenge is that the concept of dispute (justiciable problem) is subject to different interpretations and the propensity to consider a disagreement or conflict in terms of a justiciable problem can vary greatly across individuals and between societies. A way to address this issue is to focus on a number of possible disputes that can be considered of justiciable nature across most countries, as for example the one listed in the section above^{<a href="#footnote-5" id="footnote-ref-5">[4]</a>}. Standardised descriptions of the most common types of disputes are also to be used in surveys in order to maximise comparability across different legal systems and countries. </p>
<p>In order to identify the group of people in demand of dispute resolution mechanism it is necessary to identify the group of people voluntarily self-excluded. A way to identify this group is by including an additional question about the reasons why people did not use a dispute resolution mechanism. This question would allow to differentiate cases of voluntary and involuntary exclusion and define the denominator as the population who experienced a problem minus the voluntarily self-excluded.</p>
<p>Another challenge refers to identifying possible dispute resolution mechanisms as they vary considerably in different countries around the world. The formulation of the questions in the survey has to take into account these different possibilities and make sure to include all relevant institutions generally recognized in the community. This proposed list of dispute resolution mechanisms identifies those that are common in most countries in the world but it can be adapted to the country context.</p>
<p>The share of population experiencing the disputes under investigation can be of relatively small size and this can influence the statistical significance of results. A way to address this is to increase the question&#x2019;s reference period, recognizing that respondents&#x2019; ability to recall specific issues becomes increasingly unreliable the further back in time it extends. For these reasons, this proposal follows the recommendation from the Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice methodological guidance and suggests a reference interval of two years. With such reference period resulting data would be suitable for monitoring recent changes in contexts/policies while being based on a sufficient number of cases to ensure statistical significance of analyses.^{<a href="#footnote-6" id="footnote-ref-6">[5]</a>} Possible telescoping effects (the effect of misplacement in time of events taking place in the past) need to be addressed properly by bounding in clear terms the time interval of reference in relevant questions. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-5">4</sup><p> These types of disputes have broad applicability across countries as reflected in <a href="https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm"><em>Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice</em></a><em> </em>, OECD (2019), which builds upon a review of more than 60 large-scale legal need surveys conducted over the past 25 years. <a href="#footnote-ref-5">&#x2191;</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-6">5</sup><p> Experimental evidence indicates that increasing a legal needs survey&#x2019;s reference period from one to three years has only &#x201C;a fairly modest&#x201D; impact on problem reporting [Pleasence et al. (2016)] <a href="#footnote-ref-6">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>

<p>A major challenge is that the concept of dispute (justiciable problem) is subject to different interpretations and the propensity to consider a disagreement or conflict in terms of a justiciable problem can vary greatly across individuals and between societies. A way to address this issue is to focus on a number of possible disputes that can be considered of justiciable nature across most countries, as for example the one listed in the section above^{<a href="#footnote-5" id="footnote-ref-5">[4]</a>}. Standardised descriptions of the most common types of disputes are also to be used in surveys in order to maximise comparability across different legal systems and countries. </p>
<p>In order to identify the group of people in demand of dispute resolution mechanism it is necessary to identify the group of people voluntarily self-excluded. A way to identify this group is by including an additional question about the reasons why people did not use a dispute resolution mechanism. This question would allow to differentiate cases of voluntary and involuntary exclusion and define the denominator as the population who experienced a problem minus the voluntarily self-excluded.</p>
<p>Another challenge refers to identifying possible dispute resolution mechanisms as they vary considerably in different countries around the world. The formulation of the questions in the survey has to take into account these different possibilities and make sure to include all relevant institutions generally recognized in the community. This proposed list of dispute resolution mechanisms identifies those that are common in most countries in the world but it can be adapted to the country context.</p>
<p>The share of population experiencing the disputes under investigation can be of relatively small size and this can influence the statistical significance of results. A way to address this is to increase the surveyquestion&#x2019;s reference period, recognizing that respondents&#x2019; ability to recall specific issues becomes increasingly unreliable the further back in time it extends. For these reasons, this proposal follows the recommendation from the Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice methodological guidance and suggests a reference interval of two years. With such reference period resulting data would be suitable for monitoring recent changes in contexts/policies while being based on a sufficient number of cases to ensure statistical significance of analyses .^{<a href="#footnote-6" id="footnote-ref-6">[5]</a>} Possible telescoping effects (the effect of misplacement in time of events taking place in the past) need to be addressed properly by bounding in clear terms the time interval of reference in relevant questions. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-5">4</sup><p> These types of disputes have broad applicability across countries as reflected in <a href="https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm"><em>Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice</em></a><em> </em>, OECD (2019), which builds upon a review of more than 60 large-scale legal need surveys conducted over the past 25 years. <a href="#footnote-ref-5">&#x2191;</a></p></div><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-6">5</sup><p> Experimental evidence indicates that increasing a legal needs survey&#x2019;s reference period from one to three years has only &#x201C;a fairly modest&#x201D; impact on problem reporting [Pleasence et al. (2016)] <a href="#footnote-ref-6">&#x2191;</a></p></div></div>