Data-driven Insights on Accessing Justice

A few months ago I finally got around to watching the Chinese artist and political activist, Ai Wei Wei’s documentary, Never Sorry. In it, the brief remarks by one of his colleagues stuck with me: “In China, people may not care about freedoms, but they do care about injustice.”

The post-2015 Millennium Development Goal (MDG) discussion is well underway (Guardian podcast).  In my universe, this means a lot of energy behind advocating for “better governance” to be front and center on this agenda. While I support this work, I also share concerns of many who do not think governance should be a standalone MDG because for one, it is tremendously difficult to measure as an inherently cross-cutting issue.

One goal that I feel is concrete and worth committing to, where there is also great room for improvement and it feeds into the broader goal of better governance, is the aim to enhance access to justice.

Take a look at George Soros, Amartya Sen and others speaking on this issue (above), from which I have derived much inspiration for my thoughts below.

To inform my understanding about problems of accessing justice, I took a moment to dissect the 2014 World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index.  In it I found that access to, timeliness in and effectiveness of civil justice are all in the poorest ranking indicators when averaged across countries measured.  All three indicators came to less than .5 out of 1, accompanying another 10 indicators (out of 47) that rank at this level.  

I was very excited to look through this data because there are so many insights to be had from it. The following are my first couple of takeaways that I am presenting to help push the conversation and action around issues of justice and law enforcement forward.

1.  Of the 3 civil justice indicators that ranked poorly, the slowness of the system stood out as the most approachable. For example, one could start with an assessment of where delays arise in this justice process. Questions including the following should be asked: Are records difficult to manage and keep in order?  Are resources scarce including judges, lawyers, courts? Existing methods to grappling with these issues would then need to be considered: for instance, a digitized records management system, capacity building programs for legal experts, and greater incentives for legal experts to work in under-resourced courts.
2. While WJP separated “Open Government” indicators from those mapped to Civil Justice, the pillars of transparency, accountability and participation cut across categories.  In this way, one can filter the data by country and understand open government priorities as related to issues of justice.  I was most curious to see where the newest and upcoming members of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) were weak in their rule of law.  The data proved useful in determining for example that in Australia, an upcoming OGP member country, access to and affording civil justice is nearly dead last.  In Serbia, effectively enforced civil justice is also in the lowest batch of indicators.

Over the past few years the open government community has rallied behind making public service delivery more accountable, budgets more transparent and parliaments more open. Perhaps it is time for us to join forces to battle poor judicial accountability, an area of governance that remains overlooked.

Digging into Approaches to Using Data

These days, in the world of international development and governance, “citizen engagement” is like the southwest print of fashion:  it is “all the rage”. 

 Everyone who I have chatted with in the past few months, no matter if they work in philanthropies, multilaterals, academia or nonprofits, has invoked this term in some way or another.  Some take citizen engagement to broadly mean “political participation” while others specifically point to “feedback”.

 Any way that you slice it, the central concern is the same.  In ’digital civil society’, as Stanford University’s Lucy Bernholz calls the universe of actors using technologies for social good, the key concern is with data usage.  We have data, now what? How is data being used for reform? If it isn’t, how do we get there?

Today, governments are releasing datasets more than ever, nonprofits are generating data samples at rapid rates, and advocacy around open access to information is rising. One side of the equation seems to be well under way. The other - the analysis and strategic communication of this information to create change - remains underemphasized, under pursued, or at best poorly understood.

Given this scenario, it makes sense that “closing the citizen engagement loop” is where our attention lies today.  However, my fear is that we will reinvent the wheel instead of iterating upon what we know works and what we know does not. 

 In an attempt to help push us in a new and improved direction, I will start by stressing one point: we need to scale approaches, not entire models.

 (I am not a fan of the word ‘scale’ because it suggests that a development project  can be successfully replicated when surely there are a million and one contextual reasons why it probably won’t work.  In any case, there seems to be an obsession with the term, so perhaps it is best to redefine it to better associate it with replication that can be useful.)

 Let’s take the example of a single data collection and usage model to better understand the approach versus model distinction.  The State Government of Bihar, India requires village level development officers to send daily mobile reports according to specified metrics on 10 public services.  This data is fed into a dashboard for state level government officers to analyze and act upon.

 We would consider this a successful intervention model with evidence of state officers using the data to spot poor services in a specific locality, studying why the quality of service delivery is low, and taking action to mitigate the problem. Even so, it would be unwise to duplicate this model in a different Indian state like Madhya Pradesh (MP), where the same commitment from top leadership to enforce data collection may be lacking. 

 Instead, there is a higher likelihood of boosting outcomes in Madhya Pradesh by introducing for example, the training methods that Bihar state officials used to encourage local data collection to existing dysfunctional information gathering efforts in MP.

As digital civil society discusses and implements ways to address our shared concern of data usage for reform, I hope that past efforts are shared and learned from, and most importantly, examined for tried techniques that work. 

Law Enforcement: Judiciary to Police

My grandfather was the only attorney in his village in Pakistan and after the Partition, the only one in his village in India.  My uncle practiced law throughout various cities in India. Today, my brother runs his own law firm in our hometown of Los Angeles, California.  I am not an attorney, but perhaps due to familial ties, the justice system seems to speak to me and my work.

Currently, I am helping with a publication at the World Bank on information and communication technologies (ICTs) – mobile, radio, online platforms – for closing the “accountability gap” between suppliers of services, namely government, and demanders of them, namely citizens.  In an assessment of current cases targeting greater transparency and accountability in governance, we conclude that efforts with the goal of enhancing the judicial system are minimal as compared to others.

A sneak peek at the chapter regarding this topic is below:

“A quick glance at existing cases of transparency and accountability initiatives reveals that judicial openness is the most under-addressed goal of all. This is alarming given the evidence highlighting the pivotal need to close an “implementation gap” between laws and the practical enforcement of them (Nadgrodkiewicz, Nakagaki, Tomicic 2012).”

Last weekend, I spent a day at a café with a lawyer friend of mine discussing this very subject.  Her thoughts led me to believe that I might be approaching this from entirely the wrong angle.

It all tracks back to who we perceive to be the “enforcers of the law”. My thoughts are that courts – judges, clerks, lawyers – are the upholders of the law. My friend reminded me of law as enforced by the police.  Police accountability, in my mind, was always somehow an element of public service delivery; similar to water, health and education, policemen doing their job meant “safety” as a public service.

I stand by my classification, but also understand how increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of police work can directly relate to a better judicial system.  Greater trust by citizens in police will strengthen their adherence to laws, resulting in fewer trials and less overwhelmed courts.  Of course, there are a number of assumptions I am making here, including: one, a more effective police force leads to a more honest one from which trust can grow; two, trust in government will generate model citizens who break less laws and do little harm; and three, a high volume of trials is reason for low performing courts and poor enforcement of the law.  Despite assumptions, the train of logic seems reasonable.

Flashback to the inspiration for my interest in this topic: for years, I have been perplexed as to how legislation in India can be quite progressive, yet the enforcement continues to fail?  The answer is no doubt complex, but my instinct was to point my finger at a weak judicial system.  Perhaps this is the answer in part, but this thought experiment has me searching for a new angle that looks at law enforcement through a more holistic lens.

A Gaping Hole: Civil Society, Not Government Transparency

This post is meant to be more of a personal self-reflection than anything else, but I was inspired by my work and will speak to questions that confront many of my colleagues.

It recently dawned on me that the primary reasons for why civil society exists are not self-explanatory.

Yesterday, Perla Ni, the founder of Stanford Social Innovation Review visited the World Bank to exchange thoughts on citizen feedback using her latest venture of the past six years, GreatNonProfits.org, as a starting point. The presentation was stimulating and the introduction to non-profit transparency much needed.

Concluding the session were questions from the participants, which seemed to carry a shared sentiment that if a similar platform were to work in developing countries, it would have to first address the issue of mistrusted civil society.  In a crude juxtaposition of civil society (citizens organized into CSOs/NGOs) in the developed world versus the developing, the sentiment was that NGOs are assumed to benefit citizens in the former, and be “charitable” at best and “exploiters of the poor” at worst in the latter.

This got me thinking about how I explain the benefits of civil society (and my last handful of years working at NGOs) to my family and friends who work outside of it. For me, the answer is this: government exists to serve citizens, however service is not without inefficiencies and some degree of ineffectiveness; civil society exists to generate benefits for citizens where government cannot and may not be able to do as well as others.

So how and why do we care about civil society transparency if the assumed purpose of NGOs in other parts of the world is largely that of “self-interested, exploitative, advocates”?  I have come up with a few of reasons:

First, civil society may be weak in many countries, but it is gaining ground across the globe.  More and more NGOs are appearing and regardless of their “true mission” or “impact”, they are utilizing public resources to affect an increasing amount of citizens.  This trend is not going anywhere.

Second, resources from governments of developed countries and international organizations, including multilateral and philanthropic donor agencies, employ models that rely on local trusted organizations to implement programs.  As long as this continues, the knowledge of which are the trusted local entities is critical.

Third, the more transparency around NGOs, the greater avenues for detecting foul play and pushing for a civil society that strengthens and does not weaken governance as a whole.

This all may seem relatively straightforward to some.  However, it is alarming to me how often I eavesdrop on a conversation inside the World Bank that refers to all NGOs as “advocates with their own agenda”, or in lay society that all NGOs are “charities”. It is alarming not because I am blindly defending civil society, but rather that I am concerned that we are ignoring holding them to account while they grow in number and impact.

GreatNonProfits.org, Charity Navigator, GuideStar, Philanthropedia are all helpful platforms nudging the civil society transparency agenda forward.  There are even donor programs such as within the Gates Foundation that focus entirely on this subject.  Still, there is a lot to be done and I hope we can make a convincing argument for acting on this issue sooner than later. 

Taking “What is Civic Tech?” One Step Further

At the start of this month, the Knight Foundation released an exciting, first-of-its-kind, report mapping the civic tech field in the US. The report sparked a debate on how we define “civic tech” with TechPresident’s WeGov channel highlighting the main points of contention. The most controversial of which focuses on the whether or not the sharing economy is a legitimate part of the civic tech space.

In my mind, there is one clear difference between sharing economy businesses (Lyft, Airbnb) and the remaining lot of civic tech organizations (Sunlight Foundation, OKFN): the mission of the latter is civic reform, and the side effects of the former are civic-oriented.

When Hurricane Sandy hit New York, Airbnb set up free and discounted housing for victims.  In this crisis situation, Airbnb recognized its key position in the housing industry and its ability to offer much-needed assistance.

Is temporary disaster housing relief Airbnb’s mission?  No.  Did they rise to the occasion when people were in need? Yes.

Most importantly, however, did this effort amount to sustainable civic reform?  Probably not.

On the other hand, what evidence do we have that other civic tech organizations - those who state their mission to be improving the transparency and accountability of government and service providers through technologies – have achieved their goals?  We certainly have some, but for the most part, I think we are still getting there.

Does this juxtaposition even matter?  Maybe not.

There are a lot of brilliant folks working on defining and mapping to incentivize developing new models and directing funds towards what creates the greatest change.   Lucy Bernholz and her latest adventure in “Inventing Digital Civil Society” is a leader in this discussion.

For me, I can understand the concerns of civic tech leaders working on the hard issues of parliamentary accountability, judicial transparency and anti-corruption, and personally worry that the sharing economy’s side effects will overshadow and even “steal” the limited funding that exists for them.  On the other hand, I do agree that the potentially valuable side effects of the sharing economy are results that we do not want to dismiss.

The onus, I believe, is on the funders.  Choose your mission, philosophy and values, and lead with them.  Regardless of definitions, if the organizational theory of change aligns with your understanding of how impact will be achieved, then it will be the fit you are looking for.

Unmeasurable Effects of Aid

For years I have been convinced that big “A” Aid is more detrimental to recipient countries than it is beneficial.  This isn’t a wild or crazy belief but for some it may be.  For many who actually work in the international development industry and who may have even studied development or international relations, it is a crazy notion.  They must think it is - as far as I see it.

It has been a little over a year since I moved to Washington DC.  The development “industry” here is alive and well and as a development person myself, it tends to infiltrate my conversations quite often.  The majority of development folks that work in DC are employed by our bilateral agency USAID or contractors for it - those that churn out proposals to win USAID projects: Chemonics, DAI, IRD to name a few big ones. The other, highly visible but less populous, contingent of the development sector in DC are folks working in multilaterals including the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), who have their own separate piles of Aid money.

I have plenty of friends who work within these agencies who are well-intentioned, hardworking individuals who want to make a difference and I respect them for that. However, I have always suspected that their good intentions are being wasted on harmful projects.  Until now, I could never quite articulate my argument.

“Wins” with Aid money are tangible.  For example, a specific microfinance project in Kenya set up by a local USAID-funded NGO, or a basket weaving rejuvenation activity in Peru to “empower local women” facilitated through donor money.

“Loses” are much harder to measure. So how can I explain the social and political effects of reprioritizing needs according to what American dollars are willing to fund? Many scholars and practitioners have noted the lack of substantial positive economic “upliftment” through this money, but few have been able to concretely offer examples of negative effects.

Conscious of my views and the industry I work in, I chose to avoid working in big “A” Aid affiliated organizations.  At Global Integrity, we operate through funding from philanthropies that work with smaller sums of money that either trust us to do with it what we choose to, or offer it out for targeted, micro, locally-manageable projects.

As of six months ago, we joined the funding game through our Innovation Fund: Testing 123.  As the manager of the Fund, I have spent the last two months reading through applications from innovators across the globe.  Our hope is to invest up to 10,000 dollars in those that propose half-crazy, brand new, high-risk/high-reward ideas addressing challenges of transparency and accountability. 

The majority of submissions were not new nor high risk.  Some ideas proposed to take a solution working in one geography to another, others offered to use existing approaches for ongoing projects.

To some extent I anticipated this outcome because it is hard to come up with something shockingly different than has been tried before. A less predictable result was what led me to my "a-ha!" moment.

Applicants from top Aid recipient countries used “Aid” industry rhetoric and almost without fail, proposed classic Aid-driven projects.  For example, “Capacity Building”, “Empowerment”, “Livelihoods” were terms  invoked consistently across these submissions. 

This is a clear result of decades of “Aid conditioning” that has narrowed the focus of these recipients to a few streams of potential project areas. It is a sign that development practitioners need to think long and hard about working in ways to support an “unconditioning”.

Without this, I suspect that our cravings for innovative, out-of-the-box, game-changing ideas that exist locally in these countries, will not be satiated.